Before you consider attacking my position, I want to be clear – ideation and innovation are the lifeline for every successful, enduring company.  I have always (and always will) advocate constant movement and progression within a company, believing that perpetually stationary brands eventually experience a painful, withering existence.

Conversely, there are times when managerial impatience masquerading as ideation and innovation prevent brands from realizing their full potential.  For example, I’ve spoken with leaders who are mesmerized by sparkling new offerings of their competitors.  Many believe the most logical response to a new competitive offering is, well, a shiny competitive offering. Sounds good in theory; however companies with limited resources are often required to prioritize investments. That’s when the problems begin.

I’d be remiss if I ignored the validity of the “new for new” response.  However, reallocating resources from a young, well performing brand with enormous potential to a new concept may not be prudent, particularly when the current/existing, successful opportunity is early in its product life cycle.

Leaders must not be shortsighted. They should not ignore the future with a myopic view of the importance of today’s events. However, an inverse perspective is just as damaging to an organization’s success.

I am reminded of a saying, “What looks good from far may be far from good.”  That’s why they call it fool’s gold.