Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/271756
106 The PCB Magazine • March 2014 through-holes and created for Shipley a huge market share shift in their favor. By the way, the reasons they did what they did had nothing to do with hole-wall reliability; it was something they just discovered after the fact. Yes, they were lucky, but this is what happens sometimes (not always) with innovative efforts. Some innova- tions were spectacular failures, such as PCK's multiwire process. In conversations I have had, this is often cited as the reason why creative types and their new ideas need to stay out of our industry. And usually when I hear about failures like this, there always seems to be some sort of derisive laugh- ter. It's as if the failures from the innovative efforts are the bricks and the laughter coming from reminiscing about the foolish effort is the concrete, which taken together form a strong wall meant to keep all innova- tion out. This behavior of shaming those that have failed with their innovations reinforces the status quo, so we as an entire block of companies become a stubborn, unmovable object. With no means of providing products that are leading edge, is it any wonder why so many of us struggle with our sales? We are a very easy one-dimensional target to hit. Just drive the price down until we quit. The problem isn't China. The problem is us! The problem exists within our four walls. By casting innovation as an anathema we have become our own worst enemy. I remember in the early '90s, when a good friend and mentor of mine gave a presentation to a large audience at a conference, providing an update and technical review of Shipley's Eagle line. Sitting near the back, I could hear people a decade or older than me, snickering and telling Charlie Shipley jokes and saying, more or less, "I know it will fail, ha, ha, ha. What a fool that man is talking up there." When the Eagle technology eventually failed in the U.S. market, I will nev - er forget the emotional pain and dejection this team went through. They were treated like lepers within the company. Nobody wanted to be a part of them and nobody wanted to do something that innovative and that risky again. Why? At the time Shipley was being taken over by a professional and conservative management team. Their mission wasn't new products as much as it was to generate as much cash each quarter as possible to be fed back to what was emerging to be the new corporate owner. They saw the risk-taking that founder Charlie Shipley had instilled as a threat that needed to be con- tained. And to my utter disbelief I was amazed at how the new management began talking badly behind Shipley's back and encouraging others to laugh at him and his past in- ventions. Unfortunately, I see this kind of behavior all of the time in too many board shops. And it doesn't have to be about any- thing particularly innovative, but it is all about having pow- er over people in an environ- ment that isn't about growth, but about scarcity. When peo- ple are afraid, bad behaviors are spawned all over the place. The good news about all of this unpleasantness is that there re- ally is no greater way to improve your business, innovation level, and long-term sales prospects, than by completely eliminating bad behavior, even if it means fir- ing top performers. If you want to know more about this, then I would encourage you to read Robert Sutton's The No Asshole Rule, which he summarizes in this video. No, we are not done yet. There is an ex- tremely important point to be made about in- novation. Innovation is probably the single riskiest activity that any human can do. Pixar and Next nearly wiped out Steve Jobs' $100 mil- lion-plus fortune. At one point, it looked like a virtual certainty that both companies were go- ing to fail. Instead, just weeks after the release of Toy Story, Jobs' net worth was $1.1 billion after Pixar went public. How many of us are willing to bet our homes, our kids' future, our profes- sional reputation and credibility on ideas and DO WE NEED TO BE MORE INNOVATIVE? continues This behavior of shaming those that have failed with their innovations reinforces the status quo, so we as an entire block of companies become a stubborn, unmovable object. " "