All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage a... Start Learning for Free
DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, it's about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.
What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.
Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.
Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. It's about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, you're still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they don't work, someone or something is to blame.
The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.
The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.
Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "We're all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."
We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.
Q. What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?
  • a)
    Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problem
  • b)
    The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies
  • c)
    It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies
  • d)
    The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CAT doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question ba...
We are looking at two things here. One is a mistake – another is an improvement that follows after the mistake. Pixar is a good case in point. 20 years to make one movie – means that the company must have made a lot of mistakes. 14 movies in the next 20 years – means a significant improvement.
The other options, though about innovation, do not exemplify the learning-from-mistakes approach.
View all questions of this test
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.According to the article, what role does vision play in innovation leadership?

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.While sabbaticals are still rare inside of corporate America, their presence is increasing rapidly. According to a survey from the Society for Human Resource Management, the percentage of companies offering sabbaticals (both paid and unpai d) rose to nearly 17% of employers in 2017. That's a significant gain from 1977, when McDonald's instituted what was arguably the first corporate sabbatical program in the United States.Since the concept of sabbaticals is most popular in the academic arena, the majority of research done on their effect on employees has been conducted by studying professors. One notable study compared 129 university professors who took a sabbatical in a given term with 129 equally qualified colleagues who didn't. Both groups were surveyed before, during, and after the term to assess stress levels, psychological resources, and even overall life satisfaction. It's not surprising that the researchers found that those who took sabbaticals experienced, upon return, a decline in stress and an increase in psychological resources and overall well-being. What is surprising, however, is that those positive changes often remained long after the sabbatical takers returned to work.The bigger benefit to organizations, however, comes in unexpected ways. Providing sabbaticals or extended leave time to leaders can actually be a means to stress test the organizational chart and give aspiring leaders a chance to grow. In one study, researchers surveyed 61 leaders at five different non-profit organizations with sabbatical programs. Each organization had slightly different requirements, but all required at least three months off and discouraged executives from visiting the office during the sabbatical period.The researchers found that the majority of leaders surveyed said the time away allowed them the space to generate new ideas for innovating in the organization and helped them gain greater confidence in themselves as leaders. They also reported a better ability to collaborate with their board of directors, most likely because the planning and execution of the sabbatical provided a learning experience for everyone involved.At the very least, having people rotate out for an extended period of time allows organizations to stress test their organizational chart. Ideally, no team should be so dependent on any one person that productivity grinds to a halt during an extended vacation. And while it may look good on paper, the only way to know for sure is to test it. For instance, there are many unique vacation/sabbatical policies out there: The Motley Fool's approach, called "The Fool's Errand." Each month leadership of The Motley Fool draws a random name from the company roster and awards that person two weeks of paid time off with a catch: It must be taken in the next month.Whether it's a long-term sabbatical or a surprise vacation, the success of extended time off - for the organization - is an encouragement and a warning. The warning is that most organizations are probably not giving employees enough time away.Q. Whether it's a long-term sabbatical or a surprise vacation, the success of extended time off - for the organization - is an encouragement and a warning. The warning is that most organizations are probably not giving employees enough time away.It can be inferred that the author could have extended the last paragraph to include how many of the following statements? The encouragement is that extended time pays off. How seriously companies take this warning, is yet to be seen. Rewarding sabbatical to employees increases the productivity of the company. The pros of rewarding sabbatical to employees far outweigh the cons.

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience.Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. Many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you would recognize Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar. It took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 movies. When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an Aha! moment. But innovation is not about solo genius, its about collective genius. To make a Pixar movie takes about 250 people four to five years.What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, they also learn how to advocate for their point of view.Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. Its about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. Its about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots. Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, youre still really learning. Pilots are often about being right. When they dont work, someone or something is to blame.The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They have developed a rather patient and inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions.The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. When Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasnt adequate. Bill Coughran and his leadership team had to figure out what to do about this situation. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives. Two groups coalesced. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." One of the engineers went to Bill and said, "Were all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies. At HCL technologies the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. Vineet inverted the pyramid so that he could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few.Q.What best exemplifies the learning-from-your-mistakes approach?a)Google where two different teams are formed, to find an alternative to the data storage problemb)The bottom-up innovation done by Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologiesc)It took Pixar nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, theyve produced 14 moviesd)The general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovateCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup