A practical way to gauge your innovation mindset
During my summer break from writing on the blog, I spent a lot of time reading articles on the innovation mindset. Although, it’s encouraging to see this topic gaining traction recently how to define what is a 'mindset' is anything but vague. The way I go about it is to consider that “It is an ensemble of patterns of thinking and assumptions about oneself and the world, observable in an organization’s behaviors and ways of working” (The Culture Framework).
The important part is that mindset shapes an organization and structures its key processes and biases, but it doesn’t originate solely within the organization. The personal culture of individuals—their education and past experiences—significantly shapes their mindset long before they encounter a company’s values. This opens the door to discussions about recruiting junior executives to drive cultural change, but here, I’ll focus on something more specific: how to gauge someone’s innovation mindset—perhaps even your own.
To get there, I want to introduce one key concept: the tetralemma.
(Stay with me, it's not painful.)
See, in the Western world, our problem-solving mindset has been shaped by dilemmas, from Aristotelian logic to computer science and the European Renaissance. This approach assumes that anything we can think of (lets' call it A), is always true or false. If A is true, then its negation (not-A) is false. Easy enough, right?This binary logic is incredibly effective and scalable, powering everything from satellite launches to financial projections. It works well in stable markets and business decisions, where assumptions eventually resolve into clear outcomes—ROI either materializes, or it doesn’t.
However, this mindset has limitations for innovators.
Innovation requires more than flexibility; it demands comfort with conflicting logic and outcomes. This is where the concept of the tetralemma becomes invaluable. Originating from the mathematical traditions of ancient India—the culture that invented zero while the West was still counting sticks and stones—the tetralemma introduces four possibilities for any proposition: it can be true, false, both true and false, or neither true nor false.
(Whaaat?)
I know, in practice, it looks like this: if A can be true or false (like above, it's then just a dilemma), but it can also both true and false or neither true nor false. These two other options create a tetralemma.
OK, let's get practical...
Imagine you’re launching a new product and your summation is that “This quarter, the new product will sell more and generate more revenues.” At first glance, this seems like it can only be true or false. Wrong. It can be both. Imagine for instance, you sell more units, but because the new product is of such better quality, you start to have less paying after-sales maintenance, reducing your revenue per customer.
What about neither? Imagine your product launch is halted by management in favor of fast-tracking an IPO to seize an unexpected market opportunity. The launch doesn’t happen as planned, but you secure a strategic win. In this case, A is neither true nor false—your business reality has fundamentally shifted.
People with a mindset geared to innovation always see more options on the table than just "this is true or false." As innovation projects often face complexity, their ROI is never clear-cut. The project’s deeper goals or indirect results—identifying new customer behaviors, shifting the company’s culture, or acquiring new technical expertise—create layers of possible positive or negative outcomes.
A failed product launch might still yield transformative insights, making it a success in other ways.
Thinking in tetralemma introduces a productive fuzziness, an intellectual flexibility in an otherwise rigid perspective. It builds systematic “what if” scenarios that may not yet be verbalized but allow faster action when they emerge. This adaptability enables innovators to thrive in volatile markets, feeding on change rather than fearing it.
Yes, as stated above, a dilemma mindset works well in stable markets. Organizations rooted in stability often promote dilemma thinkers—those from finance or engineering, for example—to leadership roles. Over time, this can sterilize a company’s culture, leaving it incapable of handling instability or radical change.
How ironic is it that a reliance on dilemma-thinking can lead directly to the innovator’s dilemma?
