The Case for Product over Process

"With the lava lamps and scooters, everybody thought we were idiots, the last vestiges of the dotcoms," Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in a recent interview with Time magazine about the growth of the $100 billion company. "It worked until it leaked out how well we were doing.”

Google’s example should probably get us all thinking about what we essentially lose when we dismiss an idea because of its packaging -- or lack thereof. Where we don’t see suits, we don’t see dollars. And then we can’t understand how something brilliant can pass right under our radar.

With all the time we commit to dressing for the job we want, figuring out how to embrace office politics, scheduling meetings to formalize a project, and finding ways to protect ourselves, our personalities and our interests from those we work with, it’s no wonder we wrongly brand those who might actually have the moxie and insight to reveal their raw ideas as amateurs.

We spend our time in the land of process. We envelope and censor our thoughts with layers of red tape. It’s professional pathos, a la Office Space. Do we really lack the imagination to consider that the guy who plays Monopoly over lunch or the daisy-bearing, lighthearted woman might produce the next billion-dollar brainchild? With the risk of sounding cliche, Einstein wasn’t exactly the poster child for perfect grooming or professionalism.

Does one need to brood to be brilliant? That mentality might cost us a lot -- like $100 billion. It’s time we start thinking about how much product can get lost in the process -- and what we can do to change that.

Share this post: Digg, StumbleUpon, del.icio.us, Facebook, Twitter, etc.