The companies are continually discussing with external forces. The companies’ leaders have to understand the environment where they are operating, to define how to be precise, fast, and agile.

The effectivity of this precision, agility, and speed depends on the comprehension of environmental changed. About how this environment favors the innovation and changes that improve results. The leader is needed on companies with high-value assets, where how the strategy is applied to reach de aims is permanently evaluated.
Researchers are establishing that due to the changing environment, the most adequated decision would be not to innovate. In the same way, to have permanent pressures would push us to evaluate the strategy regularly, for close to reach the success.

The leader has to recognize a changing environment and identify how to develop the innovation. He will transform the information in a compass that helps him on his decisions.

Innovate isn’t exclusive of a step forward. to would make you go back

Usually, we speak about innovation how the set of projects which through new tools or altering business process will produce better results. El optimism does us to think that innovation will help us to improve our performance, improve the quality of information, give more services and be effective on the resource use. By the way, have we thought in some moment that innovation could hurt our performance?

At 2009, Ross Brawn, an experienced F1’s Team Manager, was leading the new F1’s team called Brawn GP. In a season were significant and expensive innovation was expected, Brawn determines that the most adequated was not to follow the big factories’ road, but he recovered and implemented the work developed in the 1980’s. Brawn evaluated that looking to the past’s benefits exceeded the prejudices of not include the expensive innovations. What was the final result? Jenson Button won the 2009 F1 Championship, driving a Brawn GP’s car. Brawn GP was acquired by Mercedes GP Petronas, the team that has won the last four F1’s Championships.

How can the innovation damage our performance?

The innovation can damage our performance through failures. In an example, when the solution implemented isn’t the adequated, an innovation emerged before finishing the innovation designed by you, or failing on which is the innovation pattern and being unable to provide changes.

By all these reasons, a way of classifying the risk factors give origin to determine how turbulent could be an industry, and to define how favorable is innovation could be obtained after answer the following questions:

– How much does the industry change?
Regulation, Technology Standards, New competitors, Demand changes, Price variations

– How frequently does the industry change?
How change the industry before implementing an innovation, what if the competitors are continually innovating, Are the innovation faster than your implementation projects?

– How predictable is the change? Can preview what’s going on in the industry, can they realize that there is a pattern, or are they the responsible for influencing industry changes?

As well, while less important are magnitude and frequency, it’s possible that the effect of innovation would be favorable for your operation; nevertheless, this depends besides of how can you foresee in the future. On the opposite, if you are unable to predict, and both magnitude and frequency of change in the industry are high. Further, when the environment is turbulent, my recommendation is focusing on efficiency, for strengthening the business model and maximize profits. This recommendation last until a new advance would be accepted by the industry and you can foresee it as with a relevant value.

Then, how does avoid to fail in an industry with a lot of stress, where speed, pressure, and precision belong to the day a day?

Some studies have demonstrated that the companies working with stress and deal those situations on the best way, have similarities, independent on its culture or organizational chart. The featured organizations mainly by the team selection and the existence of a leader who creates and supports confidence (even when there isn’t a leader officially named, informally always emerge one).

By the way, a suitable team and a leader who supports will be the pillars of a company that faces stress. The path followed by Ross Brawn in 2009.
The stress on teamwork produces performance peaks on short time, for this reason giving support to the teams is essential. About the leader, when the strategies are copied (i.e., all the F1’s teams implemented the expensive innovations) there is an alternative to leave the plan for creating new opportunities. Just a leader who develops trust will be able to understand the prizes you can get when you change the strategies, looking to reach the aims and push down the mistake probability.

In resume, an empowered leader who understands the industry, able to follow his environment, creating confidence between teamwork, could lead in a better way the company’s strategy. Answering the three questions, we would appreciate the context. Recognizing that the objective is to avoid to fail, he could define what is the company needs to innovate or modifies the strategy for reaching targets.

From this point, we can always evaluate how much the industry changes, how many the differences are, and how predictable the change is. With this information, a leader can identify the best way. Working with stress, requiring a either a fast, precise and under pressure answer, will differentiate leaders from bosses. They who will fall trying to demonstrate that they are who says the orders versus those who are looking alternatives for reaching targets, trying to apply innovations, will differentiate them from others.

if you haven’t asked you by the environment, or if you have to assimilate innovation due it’s the new thing that has appeared, or failing is part of the day a day, here you have an opportunity to improve your leader’s skills.