Bill Fischer: The Leader is Always on Stage

Professor Bill Fischer is one of the most innovative thinkers in the field of innovation, organizational transformation, and leadership. As a co-founder of the Innovation Lab at IMD Business School in Lausanne and a long-time lecturer at IEDC – Bled School of Management, he combines a deep understanding of technology, business models, and human dynamics. We talked about why innovation is no longer just the domain of engineers, how every employee can become a co-creator of change, and why artists often understand the future better than executives.

Professor Fischer, you are one of the most prominent global thinkers in the field of innovation and have been emphasizing for decades that the real driving force of progress is not just technologies, but people and leadership culture. How do you define innovation today, in the era of artificial intelligence and exponential technological changes, that stems more from leadership and organizational design than from new tools?

In a world where artificial intelligence is already present or just around the corner, I still believe that human creativity remains the strongest resource we have – and will remain so for a long time in the future. I see AI as an extremely powerful tool, but still just a tool. The key is for people in organizations to understand: regardless of their role, everyone has the potential for creativity within them.

I emphasize the word potential because I believe that we are often held back by the very organizations and leadership structures we operate in. The people I meet in various companies are often better than their organization allows them to be. They have more energy, more ideas, they are ambitious, and it is a real pleasure to listen to them. When they genuinely discuss in seminars or over coffee, it's pure magic. But then we place them in a formal organizational environment, and the energy starts to fade.

Learning is more important than knowledge, Fischer believes, as knowledge quickly becomes outdated, while learning enables survival and growth. PHOTO: Boris Pretnar

That's why I want to convey the message: everyone should participate in innovation, regardless of their function. Innovation business models are just as important as technical innovations. For many years, innovation was the domain of engineers and scientists. As an engineer, this is close to me, but it is not good enough for everyone else.

When I ask in a lecture who in the room is an engineer or scientist, maybe 20 percent of people raise their hands. What about the remaining 80 percent? They too can significantly contribute with fresh thinking about customers, organizational improvements, and personal development. Therefore, I believe that innovation is not just a matter of technology.

In your works, you often emphasize that business model innovations today are transforming entire industries, from retail and hospitality to education and even sports. Why are business model innovations often stronger than technological breakthroughs?

Technological breakthroughs are rare and often surprise even those closest to them. Meanwhile, business model innovation can – and in my opinion should – be carried out continuously. Its greatest strength for me is that it comes from the outside in, stemming from the question of what our users or customers need. And here it is important to understand the difference – the customer and the user are not always the same person. The key question is, what needs in their lives are not adequately addressed today. And it is in this that the immense power of this innovation lies: it stems from a genuine understanding of those we want to serve.

The second extremely important thing is that everyone in the organization can contribute to this process. The business model is not only in the hands of the company's leadership; it is implemented by everyone. This means that every employee, regardless of their role, has the opportunity to contribute to improvement. This is about the true democratization of innovation. Innovation is no longer confined to laboratories and development departments. It can be anything, anywhere, by anyone, affecting the user experience or even improving working conditions for our own team.

In your book Reinventing Giants, you analyzed in detail the transformation of the Chinese company Haier, which grew from a rigid industrial giant into one of the most innovative global players. What can European companies learn from their story, especially about decentralization and the renewal of organizational models?

Haier is a fascinating example. Their transformation has been ongoing for four decades – 40 years! There are few companies in the world that would persist on such a long and bold path of constant change. It is important to understand that Haier did not originate in a Silicon Valley garage. It is a large, complex, mature company that was a leader in the traditional market. And it is precisely such people who sit in the classrooms of business schools – they come from large systems.

Therefore, I find it even harmful to tell these people: Look at how they do it in Silicon Valley. That is not realistic for them. Their worlds are full of politics, hierarchy, structure. And here Haier is a key example because it comes from the same world. If they can succeed, then we cannot say that transformation is only possible for startups.

Haier went to extremes. They changed almost everything. And not gradually, but in parallel, with constant experimentation. Most companies prefer to avoid such processes, but that is where the difference lies. Haier does not just offer inspiration but a realistic pattern for reflection: "We cannot do everything they did. But what of it could we do?"

Ideas do not wait for you in the library or in a PowerPoint, you have to seek them with open eyes and an open mind, says Professor Fischer. PHOTO: Boris Pretnar

When it comes to decentralization, things get interesting. Most companies, when they decentralize, just build more smaller pyramids with the same problems as before. Haier took it a step further; they "disorganized." I am not talking about chaos, but about the systemic dismantling of traditional hierarchies. Decision-making moved downwards, people gained more responsibility and are rewarded based on actual contribution. It is a completely different working environment.

This is not the absence of leadership; this is true, distributed leadership. You do not have to be at the top to be a leader. People in the organization learn leadership in practice, through mistakes, insights, and responsibility. Such systems are not only more responsive to the market but also shape a new generation of leaders. For me, this is a truly modern organization that is not only successful in the market but also an extremely attractive working environment.

Ultimately, both IEDC and IMD, in my opinion, are examples of business model innovation in education. They are not schools for everyone. Both have consciously decided who they want to address and how. And this gives them strength, flexibility, and purpose.

In your thinking, we often hear the phrase "innovation as a leader's lifestyle." What does this specifically mean, and how can leaders incorporate innovation into their daily work, not just as a strategy but as a way of being and leading?

Successful companies of the future will have to be significantly more innovative than they are today. What does this mean? Primarily that they will be more outwardly focused, towards the user, and not just declaratively. Being outwardly focused also means being able to respond quickly to changes. It is not enough to listen to the customer; you must also be able to act quickly.

Organizations will become increasingly experimental. If you want to follow the needs of the user, instead of forcing your own internal priorities, you constantly try something new. In this process, mistakes naturally happen, but organizations with a culture of experimentation know how to quickly recognize and correct them. And that is power.

You cannot achieve this if the leader is too reserved, afraid of risks, or values their own comfort more than generosity towards the team. In every company, people constantly observe the leader. The leader is always on stage. And if you want to create an innovation culture in the company, you must embody it as a leader.

You do not have to be the one bringing ideas, but you must be part of the process. You must know how to form diverse teams based on complementary skills. You must know how to involve people so that everyone feels they are co-creating the organization. And you must know how to be generous – in praise, in rewards, in opening opportunities.

If you do this as a leader, your team will do it too. People will understand that leadership attitudes are learned by observing and imitating. And if they want to lead themselves one day, they will do it in the same way.

Innovation often requires a balance between freedom and structure. But this is where many organizations fail – either with too much control or with too few clear guidelines. Where do they most often make mistakes?

Honestly, in both. This question reminded me of my friend Gianpiero Petriglieri from INSEAD, who likes to quote one of the greatest thinkers on organizations, James March. March once said: Leadership is a combination of plumbing and poetry. Plumbing is structure, rules, and processes, while poetry speaks to the heart. And without poetry, leadership has no real power.

Most organizations spend a tremendous amount of energy on "plumbing," on structures, accountability, and performance indicators. But they often completely neglect poetry – vision, meaning, that inner call that inspires employees and connects them to work on a deeper level.

True innovation stems from collaboration, experimentation, and involving everyone – from leadership to the user. PHOTO: Shutterstock

In a lecture at IEDC – Bled School of Management, I mentioned the concept of work – worker – workplace, developed by Abhijit Bhaduri. The key question for me is: How do we want work to be expressed in the organization? We know that in five or ten years, artificial intelligence will play a much larger role, but how do we want work to be conducted at heart. Only then can we build a structure that enables this.

This requires courage and a clear direction. Someone must say: We are going there. And yes, we may have to leave some people behind who do not believe in this direction. But at the same time, a good leader must admit that they do not have all the answers and that often the people around them know more. Therefore, their role is changing, becoming more fluid. Leaders listen more and control less.

But the essence is: without poetry – without meaning, without a human touch – even the most sophisticated system will never be a truly innovative environment.

Today, there is much talk about involving users in the development of products and services, but practice often lags behind theory. Why is early involvement of customers and users in the innovation process so crucial?

The goal should be for our customers not to remain just passive buyers but to become co-creators because they undoubtedly know best what they need.

For more than a decade, I have been involved in a European startup in the field of artificial intelligence based in Switzerland. When we presented to people what we were developing, they asked us questions: How does it work? What could I do with it? How would I use it? But the most valuable part of these conversations always started when we asked: What else would you do with it?

When you ask this, something extraordinary happens: you start thinking more broadly, you start taking more calculated risks. You know the user, you understand their hidden needs. And you can start testing things faster.

Learning is more important than knowledge. Knowledge quickly becomes outdated, while learning enables survival and growth.

A very useful concept is pretotyping. While a prototype tests whether something works, a pretotype tests whether anyone cares if it works. And that is crucial: why invest in developing a solution that no one really cares about?

Early involvement of the customer is therefore like a kind of outpouring of truth – the user reveals to you which tasks, needs, and problems in their life are unresolved. This enables quick learning, idea selection, and better use of time and resources. Instead of blindly following our own assumptions, we co-create based on real, living needs.

In the book The Idea Hunter, you described innovators as "hunters" who know how to find inspiration everywhere. Where do you look for new ideas?

The idea of the idea hunter partly arose because it is visually strong and people quickly remember it. But for me, this metaphor captures something very deep: ideas do not wait for you in the library or in a PowerPoint, you have to seek them with open eyes and an open mind.

The real advantage will be in how we learn, not so much in what we already know. The old logic of creating a stockpile of knowledge and then strategically using it is typical of the 20th century. In the 21st century, we must ask: How do I even hunt for new ideas? How do I incorporate them into my learning process?

I have never been in a classroom where different approaches to learning or acquiring ideas were compared. I remember an interesting example: I was on vacation with my wife and two other couples. One of the friends had just received a call from a corporation – he was to become the head of operations in China. Since I had worked in China for a long time, I asked him: "Show me how you will approach this. I want to observe how you learn."

I expected him to first read reports, studies, and analyses, but he did something completely different: he immediately called his network of people with experience in China. He was assembling knowledge through relationships. If today learning is more important than knowing, then we must seriously ask ourselves: How do I learn? How do I acquire ideas? How do I test and integrate them into my work?

This question is not only important for me as someone who teaches and writes but for all innovative environments that want to access new knowledge – often from completely unexpected sources.

You often mention that you are inspired by artists like Miles Davis and journalists like Edward R. Murrow, and in your book Virtuoso Teams, you explored the most creative teams in history – in the business world and beyond. What can leaders learn from art, journalism, and these unique teams?

Right now, as I sit in Arnold's [Arnold Walravens, professor at IEDC] office and look at the artworks on the walls, I cannot avoid the feeling of how strongly art can challenge – and stimulate us. IEDC has a special gift for creating an environment that encourages creativity. And this is not far from what we need in business. Artistic creativity is not so different from innovation in organizations. It is about seeking the new, breaking rules, and having courage.

A good leader creates opportunities for collaboration, experimentation, and personal growth for others. Leadership is a combination of structure and vision. PHOTO: Shutterstock

Miles Davis is an exceptional example for me. He was at the beginning of three musical S-curves: first, he co-shaped the transition from swing, big dance orchestras, to cool jazz, later he created modal jazz (Kind of Blue is still the best-selling jazz album of all time), and then he entered fusion – the merging of jazz and rock. Each time with a new group, for a new audience. If anyone understands innovation, it is Miles.

In our innovation course, we have his quote on the wall: "Every night I try to play one new note."

When my co-author and I wrote Virtuoso Teams, we wanted to explore what truly transformative teams look like. We found that there are many, but most did not want to talk about it. Why? Because these teams were often collections of strong individuals – "I's," not "we's," and human resources departments were afraid that such a truth would disrupt the narrative of collective harmony.

So, we turned to the world outside the business arena. We looked at comedian Sid Caesar and his team of writers, including Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Neil Simon, Carl Reiner …, geniuses who created live together every week. The risk was enormous, but the result was pure creative explosion.

We also looked at Edison and his brilliant inventors who created innovations for him, while Edison took most of the credit, today we would call this the Elon Musk effect. Or the example of Roald Amundsen, who with the right team beat Captain Scott on the way to the South Pole.

The common point of these teams? They hired based on skills and did not worry too much about character or fit. They did not believe in "soft synergies." They believed in excellence and that strong individuals can also learn to collaborate if united by a common goal.

For me, this book was groundbreaking. Until then, I was an engineer, in love with technology, but after this experience, I became interested in the social side of innovation: who are the people creating the future, and how do they collaborate. Since then, I believe that the true foundation of innovation – as James March would say – is poetry. Not just structure, not just plumbing, but also emotion, meaning, and a call to excellence.

____

This article has been translated from Slovenian into English with the help of AI-powered machine translation. We apologize for any possible inaccuracies.