While I was editing innovation management, I got to see just about the whole range of opinions on what made for good innovation. The problem was, those opinions kept coming round and round. I mean the same ones with only small variation.
The techniques, the motivation workshops, the imploring of people to be more innovative. But there didn’t seem to be much consensus in these techniques, consensus on what really makes innovation work. I used to ask myself could we all, ever, agree – what are the essential ingredients of effective innovation – or were we just going to keep passing around opinions?
Scott Anthony at Innosight believes there is such an ingredient – more of that below.
In fact there seems to be a paradox at the heart of innovation because while a lot of companies ran up a flag saying “we are innovators”, those same companies often allocated pitiful resources to their innovation departments. I believe that is changing but it is still a big problem executives pay lip service to innovation.
I remember talking to one company with a huge public commitment to innovation whose innovation department was staffed by two people – whose innovation duties were in fact only part-time.
Innosight is the innovation advisory firm founded by Clayton Christensen, and Scott Anthony, managing partner, yesterday told me that he thought there really was one real essence of innovation, the factor that you can’t do without.
“We know enough about innovation to know how it should be done,” says Scott, over Skype. “So if it isn’t being done properly there’s only one explanation for that.”
And the explanation is leadership. Now on the face of it that might sound trite or banal. But the fact is, in many companies, leaders do not commit to innovation. They let a willing executive set up an innovation department and they OK a culture change program and they starve both of resources. So the very think many companies need tends to be the one they avoid.
And innovative companies need leadership that not only commits the resources.
“What allows companies to be great or mediocre is the leadership and the willingness to be misunderstood, for years if necessary. I haven’t seen a great innovation that doesn’t have leaders who are committed” says Scott and to underline his point he adds: “Any company that thinks it has an innovation problem in fact has a leadership problem.”
Proctor and Gamble under AG Laffley grew an open innovation department that P&G staffed with 30 people, based around the world, and committed to the various tools needed to seek out experts, innovators and networks wherever they might be.
So is there a way to summarize what leaders need to bring to innovation?
#1. Resources and commitment. The P&G example, in my experience, is unique in the extent to which they commit resources to open innovation, the process that changed their innovation culture. The CEO, Laffley embodied the spirit of innovation too, making it an imperative for his senior team. I guess what Scott is also saying is that any excuses around innovation should just not cut it. We know how to do innovation and if internal talent wont do it – hire in. There are no excuses.
#2. Being prepared to be misunderstood. As Scott says, good innovation leaders are prepared to be misunderstood while the market catches up with them. They take the long view and stand up for it.
#3. Humility and avoiding the favorite baby syndrome. I also hear from innovation folks how often a senior executive can screw up their world by having a favorite project, one that gets the resources and fattens up its staffers. Some humility from leaders, to let the internal crowd have its say is important. Time and again people inside organizations tell me thy know what is wrong but have no way to convince senior leaders how to fix a problem.
#4. Living with more chaos. This one I’ve heard from leaders themselves. the most difficult part of innovation for them is often knowing that their people are on a problematic course but knowing also they need to find this out for themselves. The new buzzword is “setting the guide rails”, so as long as their people are inside the rails there are times, even difficult times, when leaders need to stand back.
#5. Lean. In fact I also believe these qualities are perhaps becoming outdated. Lean innovation is a way round the challenge of getting leaders to take innovation seriously, so it’s not quite a quality of leadership but in time a commitment to lean processes might be.
Haydn Shaughnessy, Contributor
http://www.forbes.com/
The techniques, the motivation workshops, the imploring of people to be more innovative. But there didn’t seem to be much consensus in these techniques, consensus on what really makes innovation work. I used to ask myself could we all, ever, agree – what are the essential ingredients of effective innovation – or were we just going to keep passing around opinions?
Scott Anthony at Innosight believes there is such an ingredient – more of that below.
In fact there seems to be a paradox at the heart of innovation because while a lot of companies ran up a flag saying “we are innovators”, those same companies often allocated pitiful resources to their innovation departments. I believe that is changing but it is still a big problem executives pay lip service to innovation.
I remember talking to one company with a huge public commitment to innovation whose innovation department was staffed by two people – whose innovation duties were in fact only part-time.
Innosight is the innovation advisory firm founded by Clayton Christensen, and Scott Anthony, managing partner, yesterday told me that he thought there really was one real essence of innovation, the factor that you can’t do without.
“We know enough about innovation to know how it should be done,” says Scott, over Skype. “So if it isn’t being done properly there’s only one explanation for that.”
And the explanation is leadership. Now on the face of it that might sound trite or banal. But the fact is, in many companies, leaders do not commit to innovation. They let a willing executive set up an innovation department and they OK a culture change program and they starve both of resources. So the very think many companies need tends to be the one they avoid.
And innovative companies need leadership that not only commits the resources.
“What allows companies to be great or mediocre is the leadership and the willingness to be misunderstood, for years if necessary. I haven’t seen a great innovation that doesn’t have leaders who are committed” says Scott and to underline his point he adds: “Any company that thinks it has an innovation problem in fact has a leadership problem.”
Proctor and Gamble under AG Laffley grew an open innovation department that P&G staffed with 30 people, based around the world, and committed to the various tools needed to seek out experts, innovators and networks wherever they might be.
So is there a way to summarize what leaders need to bring to innovation?
#1. Resources and commitment. The P&G example, in my experience, is unique in the extent to which they commit resources to open innovation, the process that changed their innovation culture. The CEO, Laffley embodied the spirit of innovation too, making it an imperative for his senior team. I guess what Scott is also saying is that any excuses around innovation should just not cut it. We know how to do innovation and if internal talent wont do it – hire in. There are no excuses.
#2. Being prepared to be misunderstood. As Scott says, good innovation leaders are prepared to be misunderstood while the market catches up with them. They take the long view and stand up for it.
#3. Humility and avoiding the favorite baby syndrome. I also hear from innovation folks how often a senior executive can screw up their world by having a favorite project, one that gets the resources and fattens up its staffers. Some humility from leaders, to let the internal crowd have its say is important. Time and again people inside organizations tell me thy know what is wrong but have no way to convince senior leaders how to fix a problem.
#4. Living with more chaos. This one I’ve heard from leaders themselves. the most difficult part of innovation for them is often knowing that their people are on a problematic course but knowing also they need to find this out for themselves. The new buzzword is “setting the guide rails”, so as long as their people are inside the rails there are times, even difficult times, when leaders need to stand back.
#5. Lean. In fact I also believe these qualities are perhaps becoming outdated. Lean innovation is a way round the challenge of getting leaders to take innovation seriously, so it’s not quite a quality of leadership but in time a commitment to lean processes might be.
Haydn Shaughnessy, Contributor
http://www.forbes.com/
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου