Commentary by Jack Hipple

The IBM Study on Innovation (Part 2)

In the last column, we reviewed and analyzed the benchmarking IBM study of corporate innovation. The aspects we discussed were the strategic look at innovation, the barriers, and the CEO’s role in overcoming these and leading this ongoing effort. In addition, this study discussed the organizational aspects of innovation. Let’s review and discuss these.

This study showed a positive impact at the bottom line of BOTH utilizing teams and recognizing individual contributions. This is really hard to do in practice, which is why so few organizations do it well. Google was specifically mentioned as an example of both communities of practice as well as the respect for individual input and contribution. There are few other companies that can match the growth in Google, its sales, its profits, and its stock price, so maybe there is something to this. The other closing observation was the frustration CEO’s face in integrating technology and business. Those who had managed to do this successfully cited improved benefits in cost reduction, greater customer satisfaction, increased sales, and faster time to market. But how do you do these things?

I haven’t talked to anyone at Google, but my own experiences at Dow, Cabot, Ansell Edmont, and the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences have taught me a few things. In 2001, I was responsible for leading a study for the Association of Managers of Innovation regarding failed corporate innovation programs. This study began without any pre-conceived notions of the results. The #1 key finding on the personnel side was that there was a huge gap between people styles of corporate management and innovation leaders, ultimately resulting in the loss of many talented innovators most of whom left and joined startups or became consultants and seemed to do just fine. I have continued this study informally and continued to make presentations on the updated information and find no exceptions to its findings. Everyone has their own favorite measurement tool and I don’t want to get into a debate about this (use the ones you think are appropriate). We used the Myers Briggs and the Kirton KAI. There was a 90% correlation between Myers Briggs “N’s” and a KAI profile above 125 with the innovation disconnect. This really shouldn’t surprise us if we think about it for a minute. 80% of corporate managers are STJ’s. An “N” is a disruptive person, asking all kings of “intuitive”, open ended questions and willing to think and operate in a fuzzy zone. But they do ask questions (sometimes to a fault!) and see things not seen by others. A high KAI profile indicates someone who generates a lot of unfiltered ideas, is comfortable with lack of structure, and is not possessed by deadlines and schedules. Another major conflict with a typical CEO who is looking for closure, facts, and data. It is unlikely that either style is going to want to do the job of the other, so both extremes in styles need to understand each other and use each others’ strengths. One of the scary things about the phrase that I despise the most in corporate America right now (“team player”) is the implication that difference in ideas are not appreciated. We also like to clone ourselves in the hiring process. My days as a college recruiter also taught me how easy it is to hire someone just like yourself instead of hiring someone who might question, push back a little, and lead you in new directions

On the integration question, it is critical for CEO’s to clearly define and understand what business they are in so the innovators have some kind of structure within which to innovate. Are you in the phone business or the communication business? Are you in the copy machine business or in the business of providing information storage? Are you in the car business or the transportation business? Are you in the food business or the nutrition business? Are you in the fabric business or the clothing business? No right or wrong about any of this, but if the business objectives are not matched with the technology work going on, a lot of time and money will be wasted, not to mentions peoples’ frustrations. Innovators need to push this envelope they have a least a little to present to their CEO’s possibilities. And they need to do this with facts and data since they are talking to STJ’s. I don’t have much sympathy for a high KAI, “N” Myers Briggs person who simply suggests to their management that they look at this “new thing” without having spent some time doing their homework and knowing something about markets, sales, competition, etc. This area of innovation/business management is the single biggest difference between innovation today and that of 15-20 years ago, and the innovators need to understand that. And CEO’s need to listen and think a bit more about possibilities the way that Google, Skype, and Amazon have.

RSS