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, the experiences we possess only represent the needs of a specific era or time period. Therefore, while we may achieve many accomplishments during that time, we cannot attain brilliance again in a changed era.

As the ancients said, one leaf knows autumn. This means that by analyzing a single point, one can understand the overall causality.

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 for 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 platform where the professional manager, during meetings while we were drafting development plans, 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; tomorrow is an unknown, and tomorrow's matters should be planned tomorrow. However, this habit, which had indeed achieved many accomplishments in the past, has become outdated in the current moment.

At the same time, we also had disagreements in marketing. He believed that marketing could only have one reward point; having two reward points would disperse user actions and confuse them. 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 appears 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 matters. 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 what the higher-ups said was right or wrong, as long as they instructed us to do so, we had to completely and 100% obey and execute, even if it was completely wrong. If it was later proven to be wrong, although it caused a loss of company assets, it provided an opportunity to take the blame, which could lead to becoming 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. Therefore, your work becomes a very simple causal relationship: you work to earn money, and to earn money, you must set aside the so-called notions of right and wrong and take corresponding submissive measures to earn more money.

So, while my former leader was doing quite well, I resigned early. This shows that when a person's mindset 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 skinny camel is bigger than a horse. A strong platform, even if it cannot achieve significant development, still has ways to develop slowly.

Secondly, innovation may increase costs because innovation represents a declaration of war against the unknown, adopting a strategy that has not yet been validated. 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 in 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 take liberties, 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 might earn you at most 100 yuan, but it conveys the message that you lack confidence in your product and need him to validate 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 price of a product 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 this 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.