doing innovation book 3

8/18/2019 Doing Innovation Book 3

1/30

By Gerard H. (Gus) GaynorRetired 3M Director of Engineering

President, IEEE Technology Management Council

IEEE-USA E-Books

BOOK 1Perspectives on Innovation

BOOK 2Developing a Workable Innovation Process

BOOK 3

Fostering anInnovation Culture

BOOK 4

What It Takes To Be an Innovator

Doing Innovation:

Creating Economic Value


2/30

Published by IEEE-USA

Copyright © 2009 by the IEEE. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

Edited by Georgia C. Stelluto, IEEE-USA Publishing Manager

Cover design and layout by Josie Thompson, Thompson Design

This IEEE-USA publication is made possible through funding provided by a special dues assessment of IEEE

members residing in the United States.

Copying this material in any form is not permitted without prior written approval from the IEEE.


3/30

Table Of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Organizational Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Research Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Optimizing People Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Encouraging Professional Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Developing Appropriate Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Parting Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Recommended Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

DOING INNOVATION: CREATING ECONOMIC VALUE — BOOK 3. FOSTERING AN INNOVATION CULTURE


4/30

4 Introduction

Book 1, Perspectives on Innovation, included a brief history of innovation, and a discussion

about the scope of innovation, focusing on the fact that innovation is not limited to the

technology-related functions, but is an enterprise-wide activity. Further, it discussed that

information from many organizational functions and disciplines drives the innovation process.

Innovation was defined as:

Innovation = Invention + Commercialization or Implementation

Very simply, no commercialization or implementation, no innovation.

Book 2, Developing a Workable Innovation Process , focused on the innovation process with

the emphasis on designing the innovation process from a systems perspective — based on

the organization’s purpose, resources, infrastructure, industry and access to the marketplace.

A successful innovation process requires both a mental and business discipline that includesconstantly seeking new information as to marketability and identifying and dealing with the

knockouts that too often fail to lead to a successful conclusion.

Book 3, Fostering an Innovative Culture , provides the fundamentals for developing a culture

that supports innovation. So, how does an organization develop a culture that fosters innova-

tion? The answer in one sense is very simple: find the right people; provide the freedom to act,

but with discipline; implement effective and supportive management practices; provide the

organizational resources and infrastructure; and promote an organizational attitude that focuses

on achieving results. Stating how something can be accomplished is quite different from doing

that something: the “doing process” uncovers the inconsistencies and the unknowns. And of

course there’s the innovation prevention department that can scuttle in seconds what it took

years to build. Book III of this series contains discussion on:

• Organization Culture

• Research Perspectives

• Optimizing People Involvement

• Encouraging Professional Attitudes

• Developing Appropriate Management Practices

• Some Parting Thoughts



5/30

BOOK 3 Fostering an Innovation CultureOrganizational Culture

What do we mean when we speak of Organizational Culture? Culture can be described in

many different ways, but for our purposes culture represents the shared values, beliefs,legends, heroes, rituals, and other artifacts that make up the non-quantifiable assets and liabili-

ties of an organization. It includes the past history, principles of operation, traditions, policies

and practices, the realities and the myths. Beware, though: Culture can be an organizational

crutch — it can serve a useful purpose, or inhibit progress.

Organizational culture is generally considered from a macro perspective. There are the IBM,

Motorola, HP, 3M and Ford cultures. Those mission statements identify the shared values,

beliefs, legends, heroes, rituals, and other artifacts. While the macro culture mission statement

may be visible at the entry of every facility, the more important culture is the sub-culture in

which the individual lives every working day. The implementation of those macro cultural mis-

sion statements depends not only on who is managing the activity but on the specific needs of

the activity. As an example, the macro cultural statement would be applied differently in pro-duction as contrasted to product development: the statement that every individual can reach

his or her expectations would have different meaning in production and product development.

To some degree, organizational cultures depend on the nation’s social culture. As social

cultures tend toward entitlement, organizational cultures follow: both influence each other.

The dot-com era introduced hiring bonuses about 1997 for meeting what was considered to

be a shortage of required competencies — only to find its demise some years later. There is

no doubt that the dot-com culture was one of high energy and opportunities for those who

wished to pursue their vision of the future: it also introduced an era where the career path

involved “making a quick buck” and retiring early. The dot-com era created cultures driven

by performance that went beyond the dot-com industry. After its downfall, many managers

and discipline specialists became self-satisfied with their work environment, and uppermanagement never recognized what began to occur in the early 1980s.



6/30

6 Amanda Bennett1, a writer for The Wall Street Journal , presented a classical description of

average middle managers in an article “Broken Bonds.” Realistically, the description fits manag-

ers and discipline specialists at all levels, and may even apply to many executives whether in

academia, government, or industry. She states that most middle managers thought they had

a contract with the corporations, and even though it was unwritten and unspoken, it was very

specific. It said:

“Take care of business and we’ll take care of you. You don’t have to be a star; just be

faithful, obedient and moderately competent, and this will be your home for as long

as you want to stay. We may have to lay off blue-collar workers now and then, and

even cut off some heads at the very top, but unless we are in the deepest kind of

trouble, you will remain on the payroll. You are family.”

This description is a stinging indictment of managers and their discipline specialists. It appears

that leadership that requires sticking your neck out, being proactive, taking initiative, accept-

ing risk, dealing with uncertainties, meeting commitments, basing decisions on fundamentally

sound premises, understanding the business environment, and having the courage to deliver

bad news was no longer a prerequisite for becoming a manager. Discipline specialists exhibited

similar behavior. At the same time, many organizations stopped filling the pipeline with futurepotential executive talent.



7/30


8/30

8Kotter, et al., also identified factors that undermine long-term economic performance by

presenting a sequence of events that leads an organization from success to failure:

1. Visionary leadership builds a successful organization by following sound management

fundamentals, a can-do spirit, dedication, and a bit of luck.

2. A committed group of people develop workable strategies that are successfully

implemented.

3. The organization dominates its market segments.

4. Strong patent positions and confidential processes provide business security.

5. Market dominance and known practices become a routine process.

6. Growth begins to create internal challenges.

7. Managers are selected without adequate preparation and lack the necessary

leadership qualities.

8. These managers become top-level executives.

9. Disciplined business leadership begins to lose its luster.

10. We’re successful — “it ain’t broke, so why fix it?”

In the final analysis, the lack of performance comes from a lack of management and leadership

competence. One point to remember in the continuing debate over the differences between a

leader and a manager: leadership and managing are two sides of the same coin; you can’t do

one without the other.

Judith M. Bardwick

Judith Bardwick3 classifies organizational cultures as entitlement, fear, and earning. All of these

classes include some anomalies. The areas between them include some crossover, but thatshould be expected. The issues related to organizational culture do not follow an algorithm.

They are approximations, but serve a purpose for examining different types of cultures.

Entitlement Culture: Entitlement cultures demonstrate high levels of apathy and complacency,

conformity to rules and procedures, rule checking, bureaucracy, dependence, lack of communi-

cation, and risk avoidance. These characteristics lead to low levels of innovation, if any; lack

of empowerment; a lackadaisical attitude toward meeting targets; and an overriding desire

to maintain the status quo. If innovation occurs, it is incremental at best, and is treated as a

major accomplishment. Precedent governs decisions, and generating constructive dissonance

is not an option. Time is not of the essence in the entitlement culture, and there’s just too much

agreement and graciousness.



9/30

Fear Culture: Fear cultures are dominated by lack of personal job security, and little, if any,

knowledge of where the organization is headed. It’s driven from the top-down, with little or

no encouragement for participation from the bottom-up. And the dictum is, “Just do what we

ask you to do.” A fire-fighting mentality dominates the work schedule, and a high percentage

of time is spent correcting mistakes. Do it right the first time is not the modus operandi. In

essence, a fear culture resembles a typical command and control culture.

Earning Culture: Earning cultures are dominated by high levels of trust, accountability, risk-

taking, teamwork, leadership, and a sense of excitement. If you walk into this culture you

quickly gain a sense of the enthusiasm and dedication of the people and their projects. It’s

a culture of ideas, where ideas are explored in-depth, and a vibrant camaraderie focuses on

common goals.

D. R. Denison

Denison4 proposed four hypotheses related to culture and effectiveness that include

involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission, and he describes them as follows:

• Involvement suggests engaging and participating to create a sense of ownership.

• Consistency argues that the shared system of beliefs have a positive impact on the

ability of an organization to reach consensus.

• Adaptability allows the organization to respond to the changing needs of the internal

and external environment, and to change behaviors and processes that allow the

organization to adapt to a new set of requirements.

• Mission provides purpose and meaning that defines the role of the organization to

society, the immediate community, and the individual.

Dennison’s measures of effectiveness included introduction of new products, sales growth,

market share, cash flow, return on assets, and overall performance. Questionnaires were

sent out to 3,425 organizations and 969 responded. As is the case with all responses to ques-

tionnaires, perceptions and desires may obscure reality. While Denison used an investigative

approach to reach his conclusions, even without the study, might we not conclude that an

organization where participants were involved in and owned their projects; were consistent in

fulfilling the shared system of beliefs; were adaptable to the needs of the internal and external

environment; and were focused on the organization’s mission/purpose would, under any cir-

cumstances, surpass the performance of an organization that lacked these four characteristics?

RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES


10/30

10 The No-Rules Culture

The No-Rules culture was born during the rise of the information technology era that required

high levels of creativity and innovation. Since there’s little, if any, research on the No-Rules

Culture, what appears in the press may be more myth than fact. Notwithstanding that preface,

this culture involved working around the clock for those who were passionate about pursuing

an idea toward some successful conclusion. The No-Rules Culture allows for much social inter-change, and the freedom to act with high levels of independence. The boss may not be looking

over your shoulder, but I’m positive a time comes when that date of completion can no longer

be extended, the pressure to perform builds. This culture led to the dot-com era that focused

engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and investors on thinking outside the box — but in the

process, forgot to think about what was in the box to temper their ambitions: the fundamentals.

H. Guy Bensusan

H. Guy Bensusan,5 a humanities professor at Northern Arizona University, presented a meta-

digm that included:

• Cultural sequences• Mutual influences

• Regional diversities

• Modernizing technologies

• Diversifying populations

• Accelerated databases

• Institutionalizing persuasions

• Broadening visions

• Confrontational decisions

Bensusan was not discussing industrial organizational culture, but history related to the role

of Spanish immigration in South America, and eventually North America. Between 1500 and

1800 A.D., cultural sequences, mutual influences and regional variations led to a modification

of all the cultures involved. Modernizing technologies came into being between 1800 and

1900 A.D. Between 1900 and 1950 A.D., modernizing technologies were augmented through

technologies such as electrification, communication and electronics. These technologies led

to diversifying the populations, accelerating use of databases, and the remainder of the other

elements of the metadigm.



11/30

1How does Bensusan’s metadigm relate to organizational culture?

• Cultural sequences: These sequences are events that begin within an organization

at its inception.

- Hewlett and Packard set the HP culture in motion by focusing on the freedom to

experiment.

- 3M’s McKnight set the 3M culture by allowing people to make mistakes, and also

providing 15 percent of on-the-job time for people to work on individual ideas off on

their own. That policy continues today.

• Mutual influences: As new individuals are brought on board, they bring different

perspectives that may or may not be accommodated totally, but over time will have an

impact on the culture.

• Regional diversities: As an organization expands geographically, those geographical

cultural differences will modify the organizational cultural standard. The organizational

functions and disciplines will also have an impact. As an example, a software engineer

will function quite differently from a typical mechanical or electrical engineer.

• Modernizing technologies: Engineers have moved from India ink on linen to computer-

aided design tools. They’ve gone from pencil and paper to slide rules to computers.

They’ve migrated from the bull pen to the cubicle. They’ve progressed from building

physical models to computer modeling.

• Diversifying populations: Globalization has had an impact on organizational culture,

which has been a two-way street. At one time, headquarters thought they had all

the knowledge and experience. Spending seven years on an overseas assignment

influenced not only how I had an impact on that culture in the new organization, but

also how that culture influenced me.

• Accelerated databases: These databases are a veritable explosion in our ability to

store data and retrieve data. We’re probably at the stage where we’re saving too muchfor posterity. Enhanced electronics and communication technologies have completely

changed the way we work, which in turn, requires a different cultural response.

• Institutionalizing persuasions: Certain cultural values need to be appraised as to their

adequacy in the current environment. How often have we heard: “That’s the way we do

it here,“ or you can’t do something, because some unnamed or mystery executive sup-

posedly issued some form of prohibition in the past.

• Reinterpreting fundamentals: Knowledge doesn’t stand still. It advances. And those

advances have an impact on how work is performed, and in turn, have an impact on

culture. Jobs that at one time provided a future now become commodities, and like a

commodity product, can be secured at minimum cost. Strategic planning at one time

consumed inordinate amounts of time and effort. Today, greater emphasis is placed on

determining strategic direction.

• Broadening visions: The concept of organizational vision often appears to be just

what it says: a vision endorsed by a visionary, without any possibility of implementation.

Three years after defining the vision, not a single program exists to implement the

vision. I prefer to translate the vision to where are we today, where we want to be

tomorrow, and the next day and the next …



12/30

12 • Confrontational decisions: Related to ideas, purposes, policies, and other issues,

these decisions are an essential part of organizational activities. It is a positive source

for organizational growth, whether dealing with quantitative or qualitative measures of

performance or deciding to live with the status quo. However, this type of confrontation

does not focus on personalities, but is based on differences in principles. In essence,

confrontation involves creating some dissonance; otherwise, the status quo will remain.

Summary of research perspectives

The organizational cultures as described by Kotter, McKnight and Heskett; Bardwick, Denison,

Bensusan; and the Open Culture provide some basic guidelines as to what it takes to develop

a culture that promotes innovation.

• Reaching the comfort zone will undermine performance; destroy the culture that built

the organization; and reduce the opportunities for innovation. The years it took to build

that innovative culture can be destroyed, while the organization rests on its past

successes.

• Individuals have a limited opportunity to determine the organization’s culture, but theycan significantly influence the group culture in which they participate. It’s their culture,

and through their work effort, they will determine the direction.

• Group cultures can be changed easily, as long there is an interest in improving the

culture. Keep in mind though, that cultures need to fit the group’s purpose. The culture

in a sales department may be quite different from that of the research laboratory. Group

cultures can be modified or accommodated, even when dealing across international

boundaries.

• Kotter’s, McKnight’s and Heskett’s Theory III Culture considers the current and future

needs of the organization. It brings attention to the need for disciplined leadership that’s

sensitive to business dynamics.

• While serving as a platform for discussion, Bardwick’s organizational cultures (described

as Entitlement, Fear and Earning) do not exist without all three components. Even Earn-

ing Cultures are inhabited with people who believe they’re working in a Fear Culture,

and of course, some who feel they’re entitled.

• Denison links involvement, a sense of ownership, shared values and beliefs, adapt-

ability, and understanding of the mission as requisites for developing an organizational

culture that not only concerns itself about the present but looks to the future.

• The No-Rules Culture describes a culture that allows freedom to act and celebrates the

victories. The overall effectiveness of the contributions of individual members is still

unclear. Apple is probably the best example of a No-Rules organization.

• I included Bensusan’s metadigm because it mirrors how organizational cultures develop.

Developing a culture with the desired attributes involves more than a dictum from the

CEO, or dependence on the policies and procedures that guide the organization. It is

interesting to note that most innovation comes from people who break the rules.



13/30

1Optimizing People Performance

People are an organization’s most important asset — and in the real world, some are more

important than others. A typical organization depends on about 10 percent of its personnelto move the organization forward. These are the people who, through initiative, go beyond the

call of duty. It does not, in any way, demean the performances, but many prefer the eight-to-five

routine. And a business cannot survive with only those who choose the eight-to-five schedule.

Building the people base to develop a culture that fosters innovation requires that the

organization:

• Stress the importance of people

• Identify the critical mass

• Work with lean staff

• Promote teamwork

• Build trust

• Insist on integrity

• Insist on accountability

• Promote lifelong learning

• Pursue excellence

Stress the importance of people: There should be no doubt that people are an organization’s

primary asset. But what happens after an employee joins an organization is what matters. Too

many instances arise where the best and the brightest somehow never meet the expectations.Assuming that qualifications were not misrepresented, and management did due diligence in

the interview process — what happened? The answer doesn’t need research. Some manager

failed to provide the necessary career guidance, or the individual may have gone through

some extenuating circumstances. The responsibility falls on the manager to make sure that

competency is maintained, either through additional education or new experiences. Accept-

ing performance below the required acceptable level does not provide an employee benefit or

opportunity. Managers cannot abdicate their responsibility for guarding organizational talent.

People decisions are often difficult and frustrating, but accepting performance below what’s

required eventually leads to the destruction of what should have been a successful career. I’m

not suggesting that the employee plays no role in the career development process, but after

attempts to improve the situation, it may be more judicious to recommend termination.



14/30

14Identify the critical mass: Every activity requires a critical mass of talent. Project success

comes from providing the required competencies and not the numbers of people. Too often,

managers fail to investigate the talent requirements in detail. In most situations, it’s not

sufficient to consider gross talent pools of electrical, mechanical, or chemical engineers. Criti-

cal mass requires looking for specific levels of expertise. Developing a critical mass requires

putting together the right mix of people, not only with the required competencies, but also with

the right level of competencies. Having senior level people work at junior level status eventuallydestroys competence. Any activity is bound for some level of failure, if the required and spe-

cific critical mass is not available.

Work with a lean staff: The expression “lean and mean” does not provide a workable strategy

for getting things done. Lean “yes,” mean “no.” Three issues need to be considered: 1) hiring

practices; 2) emphasis on staff services; and 3) the responsible-for approach. Hiring practices

often fail to uncover potential problems because of interviewers’ reticence for asking the dif-

ficult questions. What does this new candidate bring to the table: the specific, not the general?

Was this candidate presented to other members of the organization? Was their input valued?

What did you learn about this candidate from the interview? Why does this position need to be

filled? Were alternatives considered to hiring a new person?

Organizations generally divide personnel according to some manner that relates to line and

staff: line is responsible for the output, staff provides advice and counsel. Staff services

should be apportioned carefully — as in the final analysis, they have no responsibility for the

performance of those whom they serve. Use them judiciously, and insist that innovation is

also part of their charter.

Beware of using the responsible-for approach. The responsible-for approach makes

assignments for an activity without sufficient investigation, if that activity requires a full-time

assignment. Once an assignment is made, it is difficult to de-assign. The responsible-for

approach is just another way of building organizational fiefdoms.

Promote teamwork: Teamwork doesn’t come about by teaching, although some education

regarding the basic tenets of teamwork may be required. Effective teamwork has its rootsin organizational culture. The segmentation of people in cubicles, and those who prefer to

communicate using email, rather than meeting face-to-face (even though they may reside in

adjacent cubicles), has exacerbated the difficulties of building collegiality. While teamwork is

essential, we cannot disregard individual contributions. Teamwork involves “we,” but at times

it must be “me” to identify who contributed what. An individual employee can easily hide

behind a team’s success. Whenever I interviewed experienced candidates, I always heard

references to the team. When I asked about the personal contributions of the candidate to the

team effort, there was often a long pause followed by great difficulty discussing the candidate’s

contribution. Teamwork is essential, but the team is composed of individuals, and each one

must carry the appropriate load.



15/30

1Build trust: It’s not necessary to climb the highest mountain, or sit at some spa with your col-

leagues, to build a trusting relationship. Trust between employees (regardless of organizational

status) and their managers is a major element of organizational design. All actions require some

level of negotiation, and the organization can succeed only if those involved in the actions oper-

ate in good faith. Trust cannot be legislated by policy. Trust is built up over time, but must begin

with the condition that individuals involved in the transaction are trustworthy. Time will tell if the

assumption was correct. At the beginning of this 21st century, we seldom seal a contract witha simple handshake. Hopefully, within an organization, the culture demands building trustful

relationships. An organization cannot build a culture that fosters innovation without high levels

of trust.

Insist on integrity: Integrity involves more than telling the truth: it involves adhering to a set of

moral and business principles in all actions, whether inside the organization or dealing with the

outside world. Integrity determines how people function in an organizational setting. It involves

using candor, demonstrating character, being conscientious, being credible, showing decency

and sincerity, maintaining fidelity, being frank and open, practicing high ethical principles, being

loyal and reliable, respecting others, accepting responsibility and being accountable. It’s not pos-

sible to quantify what integrity does for an organization. But a single incident that involves lack

of integrity can destroy what took years to accomplish. Innovation cultures require the highestlevel of integrity.

Insist on accountability: Accountability implies an obligation to perform some action. Whether

accountability for performance was greater in the past than it is today is questionable. But ac-

countability begins at the executive levels of the organization, and then flows through all levels

and all employees. No one is excluded. Accountability involves a chain of events and any link

that somehow misses its expected performance level limits progress. Obviously, situations will

occur where that chain of events will be broken, and measures will be taken to correct the situ-

ation. Failure is part of the innovation process. William McKnight6, 3M’s chair of the board and

president, defined the company’s culture in 1948, when he challenged management with this

statement:

“As our business grows, it becomes increasingly necessary to delegate responsibility,

and to encourage men and women to exercise their initiative. This requires considerable

tolerance. These men and women, to whom we delegate authority and responsibility,

if they are good people, are going to want to do their jobs in their own way. These are

characteristics we want, and people should be encouraged, as long as their way con-

forms to our general pattern of operations. Mistakes will be made, but if a person is

essentially right, the mistakes he or she makes are not to tell those under its authority

exactly how they must do their job. Management that is destructively critical when

mistakes are made kills initiative, and it is essential that we have many people with

initiative, if we are to continue to grow.”

An innovation culture supports failure, as long as that failure was a result of a good faith effort.

OPTIMIZING PEOPLE PERFORMANCE


16/30

16Promote lifelong learning: There should be no question that lifelong learning is essential for

all, whether they work in an innovative culture, or tend to drift from job to job. The increasing

complexity of all societal interactions requires additional intellectual effort just to remain cur-

rent. Intellectual curiosity cannot die on the day of graduation — while fundamentals have not

changed, new knowledge is required to maintain the status quo. The consequences of not

participating in lifelong learning of some type can have serious consequences. Many different

ways exist to accomplish lifelong learning. It does not require sitting in a classroom. The easiestway to achieve lifelong learning is to participate in projects that force one to stretch — the

leading edge projects, where new knowledge will be required.

Pursue excellence: It’s difficult to find examples of excellence, whether we look at the

actions of academia, government, or industry. Academic institutions deliver something less

than expected; government programs seldom meet their commitments; and industry, at times,

abdicates its responsibility in providing quality products and follow-up customer service. I’m

not suggesting perfection; I am suggesting the need for doing the best with the available

knowledge and resources. Doing one’s best requires developing standards of excellence, and

every organization needs to establish those requirements based on its purpose, products and

services. Emphasizing the pursuit of excellence applies to daily work. Mediocre or just-get-by

performance cannot be accepted in a culture that expects to support innovation. Cultures thatsupport innovation find a better way to pursue their purposes. What was acceptable yesterday,

may not be acceptable today.

OPTIMIZING PEOPLE PERFORMANCE


17/30

1Encouraging Professional Attitudes

How activities are approached can make a significant difference in outcomes. Implementa-

tion primarily involves professionals in a specific discipline and their immediate managers.How these specialists respond to the needs of the organization depends on somewhat indefin-

able characteristic called attitude. This section deals with the required attitudes for developing a

culture that fosters innovation:

• Create a sense of excitement

• Foster creativity

• Take initiative

• Provide flexibility

• Motivate through example

• Give freedom to act

• Provide the incentives

• Define job security

Create a sense of excitement: As Robert Lutz7 cautioned in an interview in Today’s Engi-

neer, “What good is it to have a good idea, if you can’t get your colleagues excited about it?”

A sense of excitement can be identified easily just by walking into a work group: it becomes

immediately apparent. It’s that something that tells you these people are committed, and they

work with a sense of cooperation and collegiality. Walk into another group, and you sense apa-

thy among a group of disengaged people — living in the past, or just getting by, is preferable to

exploring and experiencing the future.

The excitement I speak of is not about fun and games, but a high level of camaraderie directed

toward intellectual and practical levels of discovery. A state of excitement is contagious, and

subsequent enthusiasm in pursuit of some goal leads to a constant intellectual challenge to

develop something useful to society. Groups that show this sense of excitement are willing to

put their jobs on the line in pursuit of their intellectual curiosities. An innovation culture can-

not exist without groups in all disciplines that demonstrate a sense of excitement. If a product

development group can’t convince a marketing group to get excited about a new product, and

if a marketing group cannot convince a product development to get excited about the potential

market for a new product, the results of either effort will be less than expected.



18/30

18Foster creativity: Have you ever attended one of those three-day creativity programs, or has

your organization brought in the latest creativity guru to present an in-house program? Either

way, most companies at one time or another will pursue a creativity enhancing program.

But what are the results? Yes, you’ve had an educational experience, but pursuit of creativity

requires more than a three-day program. Creativity comes from generating ideas, but ideas

have to be pursued to be of value. And here Theodore Levitt8 reminds us that:

“The trouble with much creativity today is that many people with the ideas have the

peculiar notion that their jobs are finished when they suggest them; that it is up to

somebody else to work out the dirty details and then implement the proposals.

Typically, the more creative the man, the less responsibility he takes for action.”

Even though Levitt noted this phenomenon in 1969, it still prevails today. It requires a lot of

effort to translate the idea into serving some useful purpose: it takes interest, energy, staying

power, and the proverbial blood, sweat, and tears.

Creativity also involves more than instituting a company-wide suggestion program hoping that

someone will reveal some new major breakthrough. I’m not saying that suggestion programs

should not be a potential source of new ideas. The failure comes from a lack of effort to do the

follow-up work. The follow-up requires pursuing some questions. What did the person whomade the suggestion have in mind? How does one suggestion build on another? Is the sugges-

tion timely? Ideas abound, but are only of value if someone with initiative pursues them.

Take Initiative: An innovation culture depends on individual initiative. Commands from the ex-

ecutive offices seldom result in innovation. So, how does an organization convince its many em-

ployees, in all functions and at all levels, to take individual initiative? It really begins with the first

level of supervision. If the supervisor takes initiative, the team will, too — if the supervisor has

the right team. If the supervisor is reticent to take the initiative, it is doubtful that any members

of the group would take the initiative. Those who take initiative demonstrate a level of courage

and security that other colleagues may not. There’s risk in taking initiative: it’s much easier to

accept assignments than to stick your neck out and propose something new. Not all people can

pursue an activity on their own initiative. But those who can are the foundation for a culture thatsupports innovation.

Provide flexibility: Conforming to patterns of behavior protects those who live in the comfort

zone, but hinders the innovators. We’re all familiar with the idea that an organization has its

own way of doing things, although often that myth is perpetuated for self-serving reasons. Over

the past decades, the comfort zone has increased its influence. Conformity of thought can dev-

astate an organization. Look at the current condition of the U.S. automobile industry. If flexibility

in thought and action provide a benefit, how much flexibility should be provided? The answer is

not definitive, but adequate flexibility must be given to those people willing to ask the difficult

questions. The people you bring to the table for discussion because they are controversial and

difficult are sometimes the ones that really matter. Flexibility must be balanced with conformity:

a sufficient amount to raise the critical issues, but not an inconsequential amount that onlydelays meeting objectives. Flexibility needs to be extended to those who can manage it.



19/30

1

ENCOURAGING PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES

Motivate through example: Self-motivation transcends any effort put forth to motivate

a group of people in pursuit of some objective. Unfortunately, not all employees are self-

motivated. But as with many management issues, motivation begins with the actions and

persona of the immediate supervisor, regardless of title. If the supervisor is self-motivated, the

collaborators will follow. If the supervisor has become a member of the comfort zone, then it

will be difficult to expect others to be self-motivated. Proactive colleagues will attempt to make

a transfer, or else leave the organization. My theory is that the self-motivated employees arethe ones whose vocation and avocation are compatible. Vocation, a strong impulse to follow a

particular career or activity, and avocation, an activity taken up in addition to one’s regular work

or profession, seem to be words seldom used in today’s behavioral lexicon.

Motivation begins in the executive suites with actions, not words. And if motivation to think

and do descends through the various management levels down to those responsible for meet-

ing objectives, then an organization may be on its way to developing employees willing to meet

expectations. Command and control doesn’t motivate; neither does the touchy-feely approach

to managing. Motivation is demonstrated through action. Motivational speakers have little

impact — 24 hours at the most, and then all is back to normal. It begins with developing that

sense of excitement, that sense that you’re participating in something challenging, something

your colleagues value.

Give freedom to act: Freedom to act is an essential element in an environment that fosters

innovation — without it, there is little, if any, opportunity for innovation. So, who has the free-

dom to act? Not all people can accept total freedom, as has been demonstrated by research on

organizations. Some can accept some level of freedom, and others need direction. That’s the

real world. However, over decades, companies like 3M have provided technical employees with

15 percent of their work time to pursue their own ideas. This initiative has had a high rate of re-

turn for 3M. But that effort involves a certain, unwritten discipline: there are expectations. Inno-

vators need freedom to act, and this provision also challenges their managers. Such employees

do think differently from the masses; they are passionate about pursuing their ideas; they are

dedicated to meeting those often undefined goals; and their pursuits of their ideas dominate

their lives. Not all members of an organization can fulfill such expectations, but history tells usthat those few innovators who are the organization’s life’s blood determine its future.

Provide the incentives: Compensation programs vary from one organization to another, and

over the years, most have degenerated to an almost automatic progression system. Merit pay

increases receive less and less attention. It appears that merit pay has lost favor with many

human resource professionals, shown by the small percentages in merit pay scales. An extra

one or two percent is not merit pay, at least in my estimation. Let’s face it, in spite of the grade

inflation in most organizations, the bulk are average, good employees. Merit pay for superior

or outstanding performance, as defined by the organization, requires a substantive increase or

bonus of some sort. Innovators don’t necessarily dedicate the extra time and effort solely for

financial remuneration, but if organizations expect the kind of dedication for innovation to flour-

ish, then some financial reward structure is essential. Commendation and recognition serve apurpose, but additional remuneration provides a concrete example for others.


20/30

20Define job security: Some sense of job security is essential, if an organization directs its

attention toward developing an innovation culture. Job security is not about longevity in the

organization, and it is not about whom you know in the organization. Job security is about

“you” and your knowledge base, the current value of your past experiences, the competencies

you’ve developed over the years (if they’re still applicable), and all the personal characteristics

that have guided you through the years. Nobody can take these away from you. Hopefully, they

are all of value in the situation in which you find yourself. But we also know that the half-life —

not only of knowledge but of past experiences — may be relatively short. While fundamentals

may not change, the application of those fundamentals may be different. Advancement usually

comes to those who have prepared for it. An organization’s managers set the stage to give

a sense of job security, with no guarantees but a good faith effort, when they prepare their

people by providing them with opportunities to meet the future needs of the organization.

ENCOURAGING PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES


21/30

2Developing Appropriate Management Practices

Management practices determine organizational culture. Developing an organizational

culture that fosters innovation begins at the top and bottom of the organization. Execu-tive dictums do not work. The top sets the principles, but the various organizational units, while

following those broad principles, develop very specific group cultures. So, we’ll examine a few

major management practices that must flow throughout the organization:

• Describe purposes, objectives and strategies

• Speak honestly

• Reappraise aggressiveness

• Communicate

• Provide leadership

• Establish operational discipline

• Focus on outcomes

• Seek breakthrough opportunities

• Take acceptable risks

• Introduce change

• Make timely decisions

• Think systems

• Anticipate the future

• Create cultural vitality

Describe purposes, objectives and strategies: If an organization plans to begin the process of

developing a culture that supports innovation, then purposes, objectives and strategic directions

must be identified. Communications processes somehow fail to communicate the message.

Where an organization is heading, and how it plans to get there, doesn’t stop in the executive

offices: it must be communicated throughout the entire organization, and that communication

must be embedded in the minds of the people asked to implement that organization’s objec-

tives. What may appear to be concise, clear and worthy of a response must be translated into

operational language for the marketers, technical professionals, technicians, and the people

responsible for selling the products or services.



22/30

22Straight Talk: Openness and straight talk with respect and sensitivity provide a foundation

for developing a culture that fosters innovation. Unfortunately, straight talk and openness are

difficult to achieve, and often lead us down the wrong path. Most people avoid any kind of con-

frontation often leading to unintended consequences that can have a significant impact at some

future date — especially where the work of one group affects the work of another group. I’m

not suggesting arguments should be encouraged, but when differences of opinion arise they

must be resolved. While peace and quiet cannot always rule the day, differences can and needto be negotiated. The answer is quite simple: argue the issues, not the personalities.

When quick fixes are proposed to that are against the organization’s purposes, objectives and

strategies, someone must speak up. When wishful thinking takes precedence over the facts

and dominates the discussion, someone must raise the red flag. When discipline specialists

become passionate about what they consider the correct approach to resolving an issue, and

managers disregard their requests, someone must act. The difficulty arises when no one has

the courage to act — when no one is willing to raise the issue, and lay the cards on the table

so to speak. If the people who have the courage to question are in any way prevented from

expressing their views, the organization creates a yes mentality that limits any opportunities for

innovation. Experienced managers know how to create some cognitive dissonance to open the

conversation.

T. A. Wise9 discusses the arguments and the repercussions as IBM invested in the develop-

ment of the IBM 360. The development caused significant changes in the organization. The

IBM 360 Project was jokingly described as the “You bet your company” project.” At the time,

IBM was the model of decision-making rationality, but Wise notes that project meetings were

more like inquisitions. Executives who didn’t do their homework were sent back to the drawing

board. This IBM example is not presented to justify encouraging arguments among team

members, but when differences begin to affect performance, they must be resolved. There

is nothing wrong with spirited discussion or argumentation — but keep it civil, focused and

impersonal.

Reappraise aggressiveness: Over the past two decades, organizations and their managershave become more tolerant of non-performance, often because on all levels people become

disengaged from the real work of the organization. Abraham Zaleznik10 in Real Work proposes

the need for more positively directed aggression.

“Aggressive energy channeled into real work is one sure route to a sense of mastery,

to the pleasure that comes from using one’s talents to accomplish things. When

managers avoid aggression to the extent that they have little desire to offer

constructive criticism, they suppress valuable emotion that is essential for being

a productive contributor.”

The word aggressive in this context is often used as a pejorative and that arises from the

related words: aggressive as related to violating the rights of others and aggressor referring

to initiating hostilities of some sort. Aggressive can mean being energetic, taking initiative,and being proactive. Where would the world be without people who are energetic, who take

initiative, and who are proactive, rather than reactive? As a manager or colleague of a group of

discipline specialists, would you wish to work with a group that wasn’t energetic, did not take

personal initiative, or reacted to events as they arose?



23/30

2Managing involves both task and social leadership, and requires a level of maturity not only to

tolerate other’s aggressive behavior, but direct it to substantive activities. According to Zaleznik,

managing by indirection develops subordinates who are less autonomous, more psychologically

dependent, and more concerned with avoiding identity-threatening episodes, than engaging in

real work. Real work involves thinking. When leaders substitute ritual or routine for thought,

they fail to fulfill their responsibilities as managers.

Communicate: Pursuit of activities to fulfill an organization’s strategic directions requires a

communication plan; yet, few projects clearly define that plan. In spite of the fact that more

tools are available for communicating, the process has deteriorated with the advent of the

extensive use of e-mail. Back to back e-mails that seem to go on without resolution in favor

of face-to-face communication exacerbate the situation. In addition, we have lost some of

our competence in communicating clearly, due to the different interpretations of what would

appear to be standard terminology. As an example, we continue to interchange words such as

research, invention and innovation — three terms with totally different meanings. Research is

not innovation; invention is not innovation; and innovation takes inventions and commercializes

them or implements them in some way to provide a useful benefit. It’s obvious that organiza-

tions need to communicate, but it takes time to draft messages that communicate with clarity:

did you ever read a computer instruction manual and ask: Who wrote this?! You can’t adlib thatthirty-second elevator speech — it requires a lot of effort.

Provide leadership: Leadership is the hallmark of the innovative organization. But leadership

involves more than minding the store. The discussions on the differences between managing

and leading are to some extent inane: leading and managing are two sides of the same coin.

One doesn’t lead without managing, and one doesn’t manage without leading. Leadership

takes place within all sectors of an organization, and much of it may not be recognized. Leader-

ship is about doing, about getting things done, and about making those many difficult decisions.

Leading is not about being an executive or manager, or winning a popularity contest — it

involves putting your reputation on the line. Leading involves risk-taking and the courage to go

beyond what is expected. While the requirements may come down from the executive suites,

fulfilling those requirements in creative and more effective ways to benefit the organizationrequires leadership competencies. Innovation requires organizational leadership that has built

the infrastructure to support it.

Establish operational discipline: A decision to pursue some activity, while important, is not

as important as the many thousands of decisions that will be made during the implementation

process. Completing any activity successfully requires discipline. In this context, discipline is

not about punishment, it’s about “acting in accordance with the rules of the game.” Discipline

does not involve asking for blind obedience or “tightening-the-screws,” so to speak, but it does

require establishing operational guidelines, setting appropriate rules of conduct, insisting on

meeting requirements, and adopting a “no excuses” policy.

Please note that excuses are different from reasons. However, since most major activities areloaded with unanswerable questions at the time of approval, instilling discipline involves using

a great deal of judgment. Rest assured mistakes will be made, that’s a given for developing

anything that has not been done before. Failures will cover a spectrum of sizes, but those

failures cannot be failures for lack of concern or lack of dedication in meeting commitments.

Do the up-front work diligently, avoid the hasty decisions that create both physical and mental

rework, and set realistic target dates.

DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES


24/30

24Focus on outcomes: In recent years, a great deal of attention has focused on process

in all aspects of organizational effort. Follow the process, and while success may not be

guaranteed, using a fixed methodology will provide a greater possibility for success. Many con-

sulting organizations use a process with relatively inexperienced people they call consultants

to collect information from the organizations they serve. Process is important, but it must allow

for flexibility. The original premises under which an activity was approved initially can change

quickly, once the real work begins. Focusing attention on outcomes — not the final outcomeof a particular effort, but the intermediate outcomes — brings the status of the activity clearly

into focus. Even if 75 percent of working groups are on schedule, it provides little knowledge as

to the final outcome. The fact that one group may be ahead of schedule provides no benefit, if

others are lagging behind. An identified process is essential, but is only of value if it focuses on

outcomes. Those process charts that can fill volumes are only of value, if they help produce the

desired outcomes.

Seek breakthrough opportunities: Whether related to new products or services, most

innovation falls in the incremental category. While incremental improvements are essential,

they provide limited growth opportunities, unless they add some very significant features. It

is difficult to identify significant breakthroughs in the past decade. Enhancements to our elec-

tronic toys are not breakthroughs. Breakthroughs provide significant growth opportunities, theychange the name of the game; and they not only provide a competitive advantage, but also

immobilize the competition. Nobody assigns a group of interdisciplinary and competent people,

sets a date, and announces a breakthrough, and then after some period of time announces

another breakthrough. Breakthroughs come after a continuous and persistent search for that

something that has not been done before. But it takes continuous thought about just what that

next something might be. That new something might be germinating in the mind of someone

for years, and eventually, it comes forth. But organizations can enhance their capability in de-

veloping breakthroughs by providing freedom of information exchange, and dedicated time for

groups to think about future possibilities. As an example, what is the next technology that may

totally decimate a current product line or a market?

Take acceptable risks: Innovation involves accepting levels of risk. There are no guaranteesthat an investment of resources in a particular effort will yield the desired results. But investing

in innovation is no different than investing in any programs that involves risk. Understand

the parameters, update as the work progresses, focus on the facts, and don’t lose sight of

the objectives. We know evaluating risk is not a science: those algorithms don’t reveal the

complete story. Your risk depends on what you know. People who have a sense of the indus-

try’s history, who know firsthand the market requirements, who understand the basics of the

technologies involved, who know the leaders in the industry, and can appraise the total system

requirements, have little difficulty in making a decision that involves risk. If such expertise is

not available, and decisions must be made by a report from a person who does not know the

industry, then determining the risk level becomes more complex. This should only occur, how-

ever, if an organization is entering businesses that involve new markets and technologies. Everydecision involves risk, and that risk must be evaluated within the context of the organization’s

business operations.



25/30

2Introduce change: Too often, we look for change in processes or methods of operation.

Change is much easier to discuss than to actually create. Change creates various levels of

discomfort. Making some relatively inane changes can not only consume hours of discussion,

but also create levels of frustration that take their toll in performance. The change from alpha-

betical phone dialing to numerical, a relatively minor change, can create significant amounts

of discontent. Developing a culture that promotes innovation also requires a primary change

in thinking processes, and the time allocated to thinking. Innovation is about the future, so dowe think one year ahead, three, five, or ten? Maybe the future is as close as tomorrow. Each

of these thoughts requires a vastly different approach. Thinking ten years into the future, but

basing that future on current needs and technologies, will not provide a benefit. It’s neces-

sary to make assumptions about the economy and society 10 years into the future. What will

the marketplace need? What new technologies will be available? Thinking three years into the

future presents a different situation: The marketplace will most likely not go through some kind

of metamorphosis, and the technologies to be used are most likely fully developed.

Make timely decisions: Decision processes continue to challenge mostly those who are in a

position to make decisions, but we need to keep in mind that executives and managers are not

the only ones who make decisions. On the contrary, many critical decisions are made in the

bowels of the organization. The person who suggests a part for a particular design or recom-mends the type of circuit to meet a specific requirement may be responsible for success or fail-

ure. You have probably heard such statements as ”the timing isn’t right,” “we need to expand

the study,” or “we need to restructure the proposal to include such and such,” and, “we need

to redefine the issues.” You not only heard them most likely from management, but also from

the professionals that you’re involved with. Lack of clear-cut decisions by the professional staff,

where one unit depends on performance from others, creates chaos that feeds on itself. It not

only generates additional performance problems, but also rework. Timely decisions are essen-

tial in an innovation culture.

Think systems: Few organizations or their organizational units have adopted the systems ap-

proach as a principle for managing. What do I mean by a system? Just think of the elements

that need to be considered to plan a dinner party for eight people. A successful dinner partyinvolves more than buying and preparing the food. The systems approach involves developing a

compatible guest list, agreeing on convenient date and time, selecting an appropriate food and

beverage menu, scheduling the cooking operations, planning the table settings and seating, and

considering topics for discussion. It also involves all the after-dinner issues, such as clearing

the table, washing the dishes, and doing the general clean-up. In this example, a great deal

of thought is not required on the hostess’ part. It’s mostly second nature. That same approach

needs to be applied when considering business activities. Even in the beginning of this

21st century, it’s not uncommon to find organizations that either directly or indirectly disregard

maintenance costs for the products they sell.

DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES


26/30


27/30

2Parting Thoughts

Book III has provided some general perspectives on issues related to organizational culture,

and reflected on the requirements for optimizing people performance, encouraging profes-sional attitudes, and developing appropriate management practices. There are no recipes or

algorithms that guarantee a quick-start for developing an innovation culture. We have no theory

about how innovation occurs: it’s not V=IR or F=MA. The process begins with the willingness

of executive management to set the stage to develop a culture that will continue to spawn a

continuous flow of innovators and innovations. We have no concrete evidence to demonstrate

the linkages between policy, economics and innovation. However, we do have historical evi-

dence as to how innovation occurs in innovative organizations. And that shows that any type of

breakthrough innovation may require years of investment and dedicated effort before the goals

are realized. Building a culture that supports innovation begins with following management

fundamentals.

While the general principles may come from the executive suites, the participants actuallydevelop the working culture throughout the various organizational units. The culture that’s

important is the one where individuals work in a collegial relationship, and support one another,

building on each other’s thoughts and actions. Keep in mind that cultures are developed over

time, and it will take time and effort to develop a culture that will support innovation. We also

need to remember that the culture that will foster innovation may be quite different from a

culture that exists when a group is given a project assignment with deadlines and specific

outcomes. If you have a desire to become an innovator, the basic background and principles

of the culture required to stimulate innovation have been provided. It’s up to you. Book IV will

cover what it takes to be an innovator.



28/30

28 References

1. A. Bennett, “Broken Bonds,” Special Early Retirement Supplement, Wall Street J.,

p. R23, Dec. 8, 1989.

2. John P. Kotter, William McKnight, and James L Heskett. Corporate Culture and

Performance. New York. The Free press. 1992.

3. Judith M. Burdick. Beyond the Quick Fix. American Management Association. New York.

1991.

4. D. R. Denison. Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Theory and

Some Empirical Evidence. Proceedings of the Academy of Management. 1989.

pp. 168-171, Best paper.

5. H. G. Bensusan, Lecture notes and handouts, North Arizona State University, 1989.

6. Ernest Gundling. The 3M Way of Innovation. Kodama International. Tokyo. 2000. p.58.

7. Peter M. Tobia. “Robert Lutz Gives Engineers the Nod.” IEEE-USA. Today’s Engineer.

Vol. No. 2-1. pp. 6-11.

8. Theodore Levitt. The Marketing Mode. McGraw-Hill. New York. 1969. pp. 155-170.

9. T. A. Wise. “IBM’s 5,000,000,000 Gamble”. Fortune. September 1996.Reprinted in

Readings in the Management of Innovation, Michael L. Tushman and William L. Moore.

Editors. HarperBusiness. New York. 1988. pp. 45-54.

10. Abraham Zaleznik. “Real Work”. Harvard Business Review. January-February 1989.

Reprint 97611.

11. Aaron Shenhar and Dov Dvir. Reinventing Project Management. Harvard Business School

Press. Boston. 2007. pp. 4-9.



29/30

2Recommended Reading

1. M. K. Badawy, Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists. New York: Von

Nostrand Reinhold, 1982.

2. R.H. Kilman, Beyond the Quick Fix. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

3. R. M. Kanter, The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.

4. T. J. Peters and W. H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence. New York: Warner Books/Harper

and Row, 1982.

5. W. Ouchi, Theory Z. Reading, MA; Addison-Wesley, 1981.

6. W. Ouchi, The M-Form Society. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1984.

7. Gerard H. Gaynor. Innovation by Design. American Management Association. New York.

2002.



30/30

2001 L St t NW S it 700 W hi t D C 20036 5104

doing innovation book 3

Documents