Innovative Potential. Second Factor: Technological Profile
Thanks to new technologies it is possible to deploy new business models that would simply have no technical viability if technology were absent. Technology also occupies an essential place in the gestation of the most breakthrough kinds of innovations in the market. For this reason, the relationship between a company’s employees and these tools has become a high-impact element in competitive intelligence. This positions the technological profile as the second factor in this dimension, a phenomenon that can be monitored through self-efficacy.
The term self-efficacy was developed by Bandura (1977), in the context of Social Learning Theory where it continues to occupy an important position. It has now expanded to take up centre stage in areas such as health, sports, academia, vocational and organizational decision-making. Bandura defines self-efficacy as “the judgement of every individual concerning his/her abilities on the basis of which he/she will organize and perform his/her actions such that they allow him/her to achieve the desired outcome”. The concept makes no reference to the resources available, only to the opinion that the subject holds onto what can be done with them.
Self-efficacy must be differentiated from self-concept, a term that has frequently been misunderstood as a synonym.
Self-concept is our general perception of ourselves, while self-efficacy reflects our opinion about our ability to perform specific actions. An example of the self-concept could be, “I am a great sportsman,” while self-efficacy would be expressed as, “I can complete a half-marathon in under 90 minutes.”
A person with low expectations of their own performance has no reason to suffer from a poor self-concept. This can be clearly seen when applied to tasks that have a low value. For example, should the fact that we never learnt to programme a video or a camera lead us to think that we aren’t intelligent? I don’t know how to do it, and so far this has not represented any particular burden for me. Likewise, should the CEO of a successful business feel that his self-concept is under threat because he can’t handle Microsoft Excel as skilfully as his secretary? I don’t think so.
The opposite relationship, however, does exist. If our self-concept is low, we shall probably not have a high opinion of our ability to perform specific tasks. For example, if I don’t see myself as a good sportsperson, am I likely to believe that I could win a hundred metre sprint? I wouldn’t even enter the race.
Our self-efficacy assessments are a great predictor of our behaviour. In general, we avoid committing ourselves to undertaking actions that we don’t think are within our area of expertise. Our self-efficacy also influences our expectations of achieving goals, which has an effect on our motivation to achieve them, the amount of effort we expend and the time we are prepared to invest in tackling the obstacles that come our way. Indira Gandhi used to warn that, “people who don’t think they are capable of doing something will never do it, even though they actually could”.
Our self-efficacy also affects the thoughts and emotions associated with an action, before, during and afterwards. This means that it explains to a considerable extent our attitudes and behaviours in such matters as battling disease, making academic choices or facilitating professional careers, but it is also directly related to happiness and quality of life. In the world of sport, it has led to a situation in which physical training is no longer enough. When preparing winners, the trainers of the sporting elite must also train the mind. The rivals of Rafa Nadal, the legendary champion of the French Open, attribute his superiority on the court to his mental strength. After being badly beaten in Paris, David Ferrer admitted to the press that “he has the best mentality I’ve ever seen. He has everything.”
Can this be extrapolated to the field of work? Of course it can. The organizations that aspire to lead in the marketplace must ensure that their teams possess winning mentalities. A word of advice from Rafa Nadal could be of great value to them, “You can never overcome your doubts, you always have to live with them. What you can do is give your best every day and work to make things better.” This is the mentality that these companies must look for and encourage.
How is this done? The first step is to understand how our self-efficacy takes shape. According to Bandura’s research, there exist four elements upon which self-efficacy develops: experiences of domination, vicarious experiences, degrees of activation and social persuasion.
Experiences of domination are past experiences of success or failure in the execution of the same action and other similar ones. Success results in positive feedback, but so does failure. What this means is that the greater the number of successes we have under our belts, the greater our sense of self-efficacy and vice versa.
Suppose we are really good at a particular sport, so good that we almost always win. Consider the Real Madrid players, for example. What do they expect to happen in the next match? It’s a done deal! So how is their ability to deal with the opposition? They are bursting with confidence and in fact, if they don’t become overconfident, they may achieve another victory.
When we compare ourselves with others, their abilities and results, this also feeds our perception of ourselves. This gives rise to the second source of expectations, vicarious experiences, from comparisons or second hand. If we always beat the others, always run faster, always score more goals, we will surely end up thinking that we are particularly good in this field.
It’s interesting to see the relationship between domination experiences and vicarious experiences. They can complement and buttress each other, but they can also cancel each other out. Let’s take a look at that, based on an example. Suppose that although I am quite good at giving presentations in public, so is the rest of the team. Will I feel that I am especially good? And what if I’m the only one who is outstanding? In the second case my sense of self-efficacy will surely be greater.
The following exercise will help us to gain insight into this relationship. The first battery represent whether we are particularly good at a task with a +, and with a – if we are not so good. The second covers the skills of our team at this same task. We give them a + if they are good, and a – if not. What is our feeling of self-efficacy going to be in each case?
Figure 7.1 Self-Efficacy Exercise
In the first case the vicarious experience might reduce the feeling of self-efficacy gained by the domination experiences, while in the second, by contrast, it will strengthen it. In the third situation, our feeling of self-efficacy will be low because of past experiences, but our knowledge that it is the same for the others will probably mean that it is not excessively low. Let’s assume that the task is relatively difficult, and that this is normal. In the final case, this is a job that we find particularly tough, but the others don’t seem to find it so, and this is bound to generate a negative perception of self-efficacy which will lead us to avoid the task, and if we can’t, we’ll end up thinking we aren’t able to perform it.
The third source of self-efficacy expectations is our level of physiological and emotional activation (how excited or nervous we become). A high activation level could condition our judgements positively or negatively. It will depend on our mental and emotional states. We all have direct experiences of this. This occurs when, for example, you are well prepared for an exam, but your nerves let you down. Or maybe you prepare so well that you begin to doubt yourself, and in the end you’re unable to give your best. Something clouds your mind. I feel certain that it has happened to all of us at least once, when we find ourselves devastated by fear.
And yet, when we feel sure and confident, we are able to make use of our total potential. When the level of excitation is just right and positive, we have a catalyst that can help us give our all. We manage to draw on everything in the conscious and unconscious mind, both objective and subjective, without quite understanding how we succeed.
The final source is social persuasion, the element that reflects the push others can give us to achieve a goal or overcome an obstacle. A motivational speech is an obvious example. This is a much-used tool in the world of sport. How many films have we seen in which, after the trainer has made his pitch, the protagonist becomes convinced of his own superiority, and in the face of all the odds, wins. It’s a classic strategy.
Its application and effectiveness are found in all fields – law, politics, war, whatever. Here are some examples from the world of film to show you what I mean. Ed Harris in Apollo 13 declared, “Failure is not an option.” In Pirates of the Caribbean, Keira Knightley warned, “and they will know what we can do”. Brad Pitt in Troy harangued his army with the words, “Let no man forget how menacing we are! We are lions!” And coming back to our everyday lives, who can forget Barack Obama’s explosive “Yes we can!”?
How is self-efficacy to be managed? The first step is to clarify the objective. How far do we want to go? Should a good leader convince his team that he is outstanding at everything? Of course not. The objective of self-efficacy must be realistic. Nothing is gained by generating false hopes about what you are and what you can become. The management style you adopt should help each individual understand their abilities and strengths, and also their limitations and weaknesses. It should support their work and boost its potential. Self-efficacy from a false foundation will not only lead to negative experiences and frustration, but will become increasingly unsustainable over time.
On the matter of tools, the answer lies in the sources of the expectations. It might be advisable to fall back on generating positive experiences by allocating tasks that are easy to accomplish. The use of collective comparisons could be very useful. Additionally, support for achieving high activation plus a motivational talk can be a great help, especially when what is needed is a push with a short-term action. But first and foremost, it is essential to establish a sound internal dialogue that favours feelings of self-efficacy.
This, then, is the time to focus attention on technological self-efficacy. This factor includes the opinion we have about our own ability to handle these tools. It makes no reference to our actual resources, only to our opinion and the perception we have of what we can do with our resources.
Following Bandura’s research, this perception is formed as a result of a complex process during which a number of factors take effect. It depends on our prior knowledge and preparation, but also on the experiences we’ve undergone. Also important are the comparisons we make between ourselves and others and the emotions that generates within us.
Technological self-efficacy conditions our relationship with technology and what we do or fail to do with it. If our self-efficacy is low, it is unlikely that we will make efforts to innovate by using it. What for? Our time is better employed doing something else.
A great deal has been said about gender differences in this field. Do they really exist? Do we behave in the same way when it comes to using technology? Many researchers suggest that women have greater resistance to technology than men and there is no shortage of studies that have shown that if the background conditions are the same (knowledge, training and experience), women usually see themselves as less competent than men in this field. By way of example, we could quote the research work undertaken by the Michelle R. Clayman Institute (2008) at Stanford University. This showed that women tend to generate greater anxiety regarding the use of technology, and underestimate their own abilities compared with those of men. However, subsequent evidence revealed that their actual skills were at the same level, and that there was no real difference.
Are there any consequences that arise from such a false perception? There certainly are. If we go to one extreme, these women are more likely to suffer from technophobia (a fear or, or aversion to, technology), a syndrome that generates rejection and also hostility, impatience and fatigue. This is an irrational and disproportionate reaction. And at the other extreme, the everyday picture leads many women to feel less attracted to technical university courses, and hence, less likely to make a career in those fields. What would be the final consequence? I think we are all well aware of this: their absence from the technology professions.
Of special interest are studies that have analysed the development of this perception over time. Research has shown that in the initial stages of education, both sexes have similar technology self-efficacy expectations. But as education proceeds, the digital breach begins to make itself felt. (Wigfield, Eccles and Pintrich, 1996). Why? As a result of what?
Many people think this is an isolated fact, and that the differences grow in the area of technology alone, but they are wrong. It is a very common phenomenon with regard to almost all technical or scientific subjects. However, this is not the end of the problem; this is just the tip of the iceberg. A number of generalised self-efficacy studies have now shown that women generally feel less skilled than men (Scholz, Gutierrez-Doña, Sud and Schwarzer, 2002).
What lies behind these differences? Why do women feel less competent? Is it a stereotype? Indeed, stereotypes certainly exist and they do carry a large part of the responsibility. Even so, we should widen our view of the genesis of the problem. A number of studies show that high expectations are also involved in female assessment and self-judgements (Hackett, 1995).
This is not to suggest that such stereotypes should not be monitored or corrected. They exist and they are not doing anyone any good. What emerges is the need for a new focus, one capable of generating a change in external conditioning factors as well as within the women themselves, whereby in the new paradigm, they assume the roles that are appropriate for them in which their innovative potential is not wasted.
2. Innova 3DX for the Technological Profile
Technical self-efficacy is normally responsible for between 5 – 15 per cent of our innovative behaviour. In some companies it may be greater, in some less, due to factors such as age, training or work experience. Nevertheless, in all cases it is a crucial element when it comes to being a leader in digital innovation.
Gender-based analysis has yielded the most surprise. In my research, the first measurement undertaken on a 500-point scale showed that men and women achieved exactly the same score of 322. Nearly 300 subjects were used. Is this pure coincidence or a sign that both men and women are actually much closer in their self-efficacy perception as regards technology?
In the rest of the measurements women generally turned out to possess less self-efficacy than men, but the differences were relatively small, which suggests that we are witnessing a paradigm shift in which women will soon adopt the roles appropriate to them in the digital world.
During the period when this transformation is in progress, it will be essential to implement mechanisms that ensure women’s positive perception of the use of technologies in order not to waste their creative potential.
Figure 7.2 Technological Profile Test
Instructions: score your opinion on each statement from 0 – 10, with 0 being the lowest score and 10 the highest. You may use decimals if you wish.
|
1. |
The manual is usually all you need to learn a new ICT programme. |
— — , — |
|
2. |
I find it easy to use the internet. |
— — , — |
|
3. |
I have no problem handling new apps. |
— — , — |
|
4. |
I like incorporating new technologies into my work. |
— — , — |
|
5. |
I like trying out new apps. |
— — , — |
|
Average score |
— — , — |
|
Result: from 0 – 3.5 (inclusive) very low, from 3.5 – 5 (inclusive) low, from 5 – 6.5 (inclusive) adequate, from 6.5 – 10 (inclusive) very high.
Are you among the “technological adoption leaders”, the profile defining those who lead in incorporating new technologies? Or do you prefer to take them on as a “second wave user”? If you want to be a leader you will have to make sure that your self-efficacy is well aligned with the new paradigm.
3. Insight Management and Technological Profile
Creative people used to have moments of inspiration or equally frequently, would find their muses absent as they contemplated a blank page or canvas. Today the format is different; it transcends the traditional physical limits (the size of the canvas or the page, the material to be sculpted, etc.). Thanks to technological advances the physical ground on which work is done is now almost infinite. The materials, too, have changed, as has the way in which the relationship with the medium develops. One could use crayons, paintbrushes and chisels, and express their emotion against the canvas, with genius sometimes appearing in the mode of expression itself. We recognize Van Gogh’s brushstrokes or those in action painting as pure, energetic creative expression.
Today an infinity of possibilities opens up beyond our senses. You can paint in the air, without a brush, and technology will record it. You can speak or hum into a microphone and the sheet music will be written for you.
Images take on reality using material textures and different formats, executed thousands of miles away. We live in a world of unheard-of possibilities. Growing up in this culture and learning how to seize it and enjoy it, is a must.
Every company has its own trademark, culture, usages and customs – that either reach out and embrace you and provide security, or stifle you, and suffocate your creativity. It all depends. If fear of change and difference sets like concrete around your feet, you’ll never be able to fly towards your dreams. If the company and the people in it ally themselves with life and with the movement of the people who form part of it, they can be witnesses, and support or raise you up, give you wings.
Some people – most in fact – believe that they are not creative because they aren’t “naturally” so. They aren’t the children whose creative talent was discovered when they were very young or those who studied Humanities at university. But we should not be confused, because creativity travels within us all; it needs no artistic or technical training, although to be honest, if you want good results it’s advisable to seek training in both. Nonetheless, those who have natural talent must learn some forms of technological expression. Everybody – from fashion designers, sculptors, advertisers and painters to engineers, accountants, cooks or gardeners – sooner or later move through both zones: creativity and technology. When creativity and technology travel hand-in-hand, they visit new and exciting professional worlds, such as online and offline educational games, simulators, home amusement arcades, remote surgery, vertical gardens and creative culinary technology (using nitrogen, etc.). In all of the above, the focus seems to be on technology, but actually it is on the person and that person’s humanity, reproduced technologically.
If the creative agents change, then so do the recipients, as it is certain that they will interact in such a way as to become, in their turn, the communicators. An elite trained in new forms of expression is of little value if there is no witness capable of appreciating them, using them and enjoying them. Again, the receiver has changed at the speed of the radio wave. While many of my generation complained when we had to adapt to the change from Logo to Basic, or from the Spectrum 48K to the Amstrad 127K, it doesn’t happen now, and our children at the age of 18 months move images around on a touch screen in the most natural ways possible, puzzled that magazines don’t work the same way. Many of their grandparents, our own parents, have also adapted and opened up to new technology and the new horizons the internet provides, not just for news, banking or travel, but also for social networks, looking not only for entertainment, but also a way to find love again.
When it comes to the subject of creativity, everything is possible. When it looked as though artistic forms had been used to the limit, computers appeared and showed us that you could defy gravity and spatial preconceptions and build buildings upside-down, like the Casa de Kathmandu in Majorca. In the same way, a timeline can be reinterpreted so that creation is visualised in real time, with a stroke or step-by-step, or even backward and forward
It’s all very technological and also very humane. Staying with the network, with technology, this is fundamental and crucial for understanding media, tools and possibilities, but don’t take your eye off reality and forget what food tastes like, or what someone else’s skin feels like, or the actual scent of flowers. If you become completely submerged in technology, you might end up like in the film The Matrix, asleep, believing in a reality that only pretends to be true, disconnected from the real one … happy or deceived? Without awareness we live in ignorance.
When such a level of technological immersion is on offer, how can we cling to reality while living a virtual existence? Easy: by not breaking the connection with life and by disconnecting from technology from time to time. Don’t scorn your senses and don’t over-protect yourself from the cold, from aromas, from flavours or from love. Experiment with textures. Feel them and look at them and then imagine. Live and then invoke, but above all, live – it’s the only way to stay in the here and now, connected to reality.
The temptation to set aside reality in exchange for a virtual experience is always there. If you saw the film “The Big Blue”, you recall that moving scene of the diver who enjoys the withdrawn apnoea of the silent ocean more than contact with humans. At last, on one of his dives, drunk with the feeling of his other world, he decides to let go of the descent line and refuse to return to the world of the breathing. It is a beautiful image, certainly, although tragic, because he dies from lack of oxygen.
You should alternate between creativity and pragmatism, between intangible technology and the tangible. Move, dare to travel in one direction or another. Explore, live, dream and turn your dreams into reality. Create, enjoy, relate with technology, but never cease to care for your body, look after yourself, hone your physical presence, your affections, etc. If you don’t, sooner or later you will begin to pay for it and will end up like the diver.
Changing the subject, if what is tangible, real, or even seems to be real, is what reminds you that you’re here, then what lies within the vacuum is what really allows you to create and discover. If you study a stippled wall you will see many shapes that remind you of something, connections that the brain makes, evoking something. First, allow yourself to sink into the vacuum, then relax and allow the parts to come together within your vision, and suddenly there it appears, the famous three-dimensional image, the stereogram, that at first you can’t make out, and then, when you relax, you can. The same thing happens with creativity. Let yourself go, give your energy permission to move, don’t constrict yourself. Have a good time, laugh, move, scream if you feel like it, jump and contort your body, dance. Give free rein to your creative process, not just the mental side, but the physical side, too. When the sluice gate opens, water sweeps away all the obstacles and brings messages from afar, which are not only different but also enriching and illuminating.
If self-efficacy depends on a person’s self-concept, on whether he feels capable or not, as well as on the effectiveness with which they believe it, discarding prejudices means that you are freeing yourself from the shackles that stop you from travelling. A famous photographer once told me her rather nice version of the situation: she was a psychologist by qualification, but a photographer by profession, yet she had never managed to learn how to program a video recorder, despite how often her husband and son explained it to her, because according to her, “I shall never be able to understand technology.”
One day she overheard a work colleague explaining the range of opportunities that opened up if you changed the reflex camera for a digital camera. She set aside her prejudices, bought a digital camera and the very next day she was operating it – to the amazement of all, including her husband, an engineer who had always dealt with the technological stuff because she thought herself “incapable”. Motivation was, of course, crucial, but before that, it was essential for her to set aside her prejudice in thinking she wasn’t capable. This example, illustrates the most common gender issue but finally, you have to allow yourself to be what you want to for once, rather than what you’ve been taught to be. Everything’s OK as long as it’s decided freely, either on an individual basis or as a partnership.
In just the same way that she underwent this experience with technology, there are some people and companies associated with the world of photography in particular, or technology in general, who were, or still are, resistant, and have perished, or will perish. An excellent example is the at the time all-powerful and universal Kodak, now on the brink of disappearance despite their resistance, because they weren’t prepared to cease clinging to what they possessed; they were unwilling to close in time and start something new other than their self-identification with a product, a technique, etc. Transitions from the summit to collapse that used to take from 3 to 5 years now happen in 6 to 12 months. Nowadays, if you want to survive, you simply have to reinvent yourself every now and again.
As we shall explore in-depth in other sections, it is very important to work on yourself and develop an internal frame of reference, beyond self-esteem based on successes and being better than others. If you’re still one of those people who needs to compete in order to grow, seek out your enemies to observe them and motivate yourself to grow. As Sinatra said, in the end there is no better way than “my way”.
I am fascinated by the story of elite athletes, like Michael Jordan, the basketball player who in his time was so much better than the other players that he stopped competing against them and invented imaginary enemies to stretch himself. This was brought to the cinema in a film that blended animation with real people (“Space Jam”). A word of warning: it’s tough for a team to play with a star. And another tip, if in a competition I see that I’m no good at something that everybody else is good at, the best thing I can do is to delegate, subcontract and devote my energy to something I can do.
On the road to self-efficacy, emptying yourself means travelling light, with no heavy burdens in your backpack. If you’re completely full up, if you think that nothing can take you by surprise, you will find it very difficult to be receptive and pay attention so that you can see reality as it actually is – and you’ll simply be unable to take anything on board. People like this are weighed down, asleep, just like the people who thought they knew everything and had to experience bankruptcy so they could understand that even a large, successful business could crash. In other words, if you want to stay alive and keep learning, start from scratch, every day. Take a look at the sky to see what colour it is, sense how the water tastes, what the markets are doing and how your partner is. If you never stop looking, without judging, you’ll appreciate the changes around you that allow you to learn, develop, adapt and be successful.
“He who does not grow will die”, said Gladstone, the prime minister of Britain during the height of 19th century imperialism, following Darwin’s rationale. But now we are forced to add another turn of the screw and remember that, “he who fails to shrink, does not grow, and hence, dies”. You need humility to survive and grow professionally and personally. People who refuse to shrink in order to survive and instead grow, will not survive. As we learn from Lewis Carroll in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” if you want to get through the door, you must grow or shrink as needed. I encourage you to drink in some wit to do that.