Innovation is the fundamental driving force of economic development; without innovation, one can only fall behind.

Innovation has been proposed for many years, but when it comes to actual implementation, innovation is very difficult; we are better at adhering to past experiences.

However, the development of the times always favors innovators. Because the times exhibit different characteristics and demands at different periods, and the experiences we possess only represent the needs of a specific era or time period, so while we may achieve many accomplishments during that time, we cannot achieve brilliance again in a changed era.

As the ancients said, a leaf indicates autumn. This means that one can understand the overall causality through a comprehensive analysis of a single point.

I have found that in my long working career, many platforms not only lack an awareness of innovation but also stifle innovative consciousness and actions.

The main reason is that innovation cannot immediately bring visible and beautiful results in a short time; most innovations will stumble and make mistakes at the beginning. However, our platform rules do not allow mistakes; making mistakes will lead to punishment. This first curtails the possibility of innovation. Secondly, innovation requires a lot of costs; for example, when platform employees can achieve results simply by following orders, your innovation will seem complex and cannot compete with others in the short term, leading to doubt and denial.

I once worked at a certain platform, and during a meeting when the professional manager was drafting a development plan, he always disliked planning for tomorrow, insisting that we should just plan for today. This led to serious disagreements. Why did he have such a perception? Mainly because his past success came from focusing on the present, while tomorrow is an unknown; tomorrow's matters should be planned tomorrow. However, this habit did achieve considerable success in the past, but in the current moment, this habit has become outdated.

At the same time, we also had disagreements in marketing; he believed that marketing could only have one reward point, as having two reward points would disperse user actions and lead to confusion about what to do. Hearing his remarks, I felt quite helpless; since our understandings could not be reconciled, we decided to each do our own thing and see whose approach was effective.

Facts speak louder than words; after testing, it turned out that my approach was more effective, and thus it was adopted.

Innovation often does not manifest as a linear relationship but rather as a relatively complex system. Therefore, when innovation presents itself as a systematic or structured thing, it is not understood by many people. Many people's first reaction is to question whether this increases costs or complicates the matter. Can this be simplified to a 1+1=2 problem?

So when there is a problem with the direction, and the direction is decided incorrectly, we are pulled back from a systematic perspective to a linear perspective, which is a simple causal theory. Under the guidance of this simple causal theory, any plan we formulate is very simple, a 1+1=2 problem. However, when we put it into practice, we find that the problems we encounter are unsolvable or very difficult to solve well.

In my many years of working, I have found that this is a common problem in the workplace. There are many factors that stifle innovation in the workplace, and I will elaborate on them.

If the workplace leans towards a bureaucratic atmosphere, then those in power become the objects of flattery. In such an environment, right and wrong no longer seem important; what matters is whether you can successfully flatter and gain the favor of those in higher positions. Under such a climate, let alone innovation, even the possibility of improvement is nonexistent; you can only unconditionally and 100% fulfill a plan or a specific method of action.

My former leader once said something like this, and at that time, the platform was likely dominated by a bureaucratic atmosphere. The leader said that regardless of whether the higher-ups are right or wrong, as long as they give us orders to do so, we must completely and 100% obey and execute, even if it is completely wrong. If it is proven to be wrong, although it causes a loss of company assets, there is the opportunity to take the blame, which can make you a trusted confidant of the higher-ups. Once you become a trusted confidant, many opportunities for promotion and reuse will come your way.

Although I cannot agree with such a viewpoint, I also cannot refute it, because this is a reality in such a workplace atmosphere. As a worker, you may carry your great dreams, but the platform cannot accommodate your dreams, so your work becomes a very simple causal relationship: you work to earn money, and to earn money, you must set aside the so-called right and wrong concepts and take corresponding submissive measures to earn more money.

So, the initial leader did quite well, while I resigned early. This shows that when a person's perspective goes awry, they will inevitably act according to their own beliefs. Of course, a platform will not collapse just because one person leaves; after all, a dead camel is still bigger than a horse. A strong platform may not achieve significant development, but there are still ways to develop slowly.

Secondly, innovation may increase costs because innovation represents a declaration of war against the unknown, taking an unproven strategy towards the unknown. In this case, starting from scratch or doing things with empty hands has a low probability of success, and investment in this cost is necessary. From the boss's perspective, this cost lacks certainty of success and is likely to turn into a sunk cost, so he will not readily agree. He will hold many meetings to discuss, not only with you but also with the company's democratic meetings, where everyone votes to decide. Therefore, the conclusion formed in this process is neither the best nor the worst, but a relatively compromise solution.

If a company does not take rules seriously, then even if a corresponding plan is formed, the corresponding executors will not execute it well. In fact, during the execution process, they may act on their own, leading to distortion of the plan and failure to achieve its objectives. For example, when we visit a farmer, our purpose is to reach some consensus at the investment promotion meeting, but some people aim to sell him a bottle for experimentation. Think about it: selling him a bottle may earn you at most 100 yuan, but it conveys the message that you lack confidence in your product and need him to verify it. Why would he need to buy again at your investment promotion meeting? That is absolutely impossible!

Why does this phenomenon occur? The main reason is that this company has never regarded rules as important. Even the boss openly violates the rules he has set; for example, the boss set the product price at two yuan, but later, due to other factors, he raised it to three yuan. However, many events occurred during the time he set the price at two yuan, but for his own benefit, he does not acknowledge it and insists that employees make up the difference. Therefore, it is not surprising that all employees in the company violate the rules, as there is someone setting an example.