People First, Then Ideas
The chief thing you as an innovation leader must realize is that when it comes to making innovation happen, people matter more than ideas.
Take a moment to think about that. Many innovation initiatives fail miserably because their leaders don’t understand this simple fact. In fact, it is actually more important to have A-grade people than it is to have a slew of A-grade ideas because A-grade people can take a B-grade idea – or perhaps even a C-grade idea – and turn it into a successful reality. B-grade people, on the other hand, will struggle with even truly great ideas.
So before you get all fired up about generating a ton of ideas, first figure out how you’re going to match those ideas to people who can make things happen.
As you start this work, here’s another key point to remember: the skills needed to lead and manage a project within the existing core business – where innovation is likely to be incremental and resources plentiful – are significantly different from the skills needed to overcome the challenges and obstacles that greet almost any new business project – where resources may be hard to come by and the innovation involved may be significant or even radical. You need to staff new business projects with people having a mindset and toolbox that match this different challenge.
I recently coached teams working to create new business ideas with a big potential. The managers more or less thought this was business development as usual – as they usually do with core projects – and they did not understand the dynamics of such new business development or innovation projects. Their biggest mistake was that they attached people without passion for the specific challenge to the idea – you need people who have their heart and skin in the game when it comes to developing innovation projects, especially if it has some kind of radical or breakthrough potential.
You also need different people for the different phases of the innovation process. Just as some entrepreneurs are better at running a company at its very early stage and others are better at helping the business scale once the product is launched, so too are there intrapreneurs who are better suited both in terms of mindset and skills to various phases of the innovation process.
Where to Look
Once you accept the importance of finding not only the right ideas but also the right people – your company’s potential intrapreneurs – how do you identify these folks? A few possibilities – from the simple to the more complex – include:
• Look around you
One simple way to find the people you need is to look for people who persistently follow up on ideas they have previously put forth. You have scores of employees who submit ideas and expect others to deliver on this. Nothing happens in such cases. But if you can find one person who keeps showing passion and persistence about their one idea, you’ll be farther ahead than if you have 600 people who each submitted an idea but who don’t really have an interest in doing the hard work required to make their idea real. With one persistent and qualified contributor – and a good idea – things can happen fast.
Look for people who are persistent about their ideas, people who work on their ideas on their own and who perhaps even gather other people to help work on it. If the idea is good and you have this kind of person to drive it, you have something to build on.
• Internal business plan competition
A much more formalized way to identify potential intrapreneurs is through internal business plan competitions similar to those held by leading universities. A well-designed competition accomplishes many things. It helps you identify intrapreneurs, moves ideas with real potential forward, helps participants upgrade their intrapreneurial skills and provides a method for matching these A-grade people with good ideas in the future.
• Intrapreneur-in-residence program
Why not adopt the entrepreneur-in-residence (EIR) practice that venture capital firms use and create your own intrapreneur-in-residence program? The role of an EIR varies, but typically it involves an individual who wants to start a company. Sometimes the entrepreneur has already spent a great deal of time on an idea that the venture company might invest in upon further development or the EIR acts as a “partner” and help the venture capitalist evaluate potential deals where the entrepreneur has a particular expertise.
An EIR might also spend some time with an existing portfolio company to provide his or her functional expertise. In this scenario, the EIR will sometimes enter the company as a full time executive (typically CEO or some “C” level role) if the company and the executive feel there is a good fit.
Why not use this model to establish an intrapreneur-in-residence program within your company? This could be an adjunct to a business plan competition. Having identified people with intrapreneurial potential in the competition, you can assign them to the role of intrapreneur-in-residence for a set period of time. The key here is to define what role this individual would have; this should be based on what outcomes you’d like to achieve with such a program.
The approach is especially useful when companies work to develop a new platform of business activities that in the early beginning still consists of many small, early stage projects. You wait to see how this specifically talented intrapreneur should be brought into action and until you decide on a full-time executive role in one of the projects the intrapreneur consults on the many projects.
I hope you share my belief that people matter more than ideas. As a follow-up post to this, I will soon look into idea harvesting and filtering strategies and other techniques to make sure the ideas you generate are on target.



Nice post! Many people get sucked in by the mantras: "you need tons of ideas" and "innovation is about failiure". Niether of this is true in fact. It only take one idea to get to success. Of course, it needs to be the right one. A strong team armed with good repeatable innovation best practices can quickly map the path from market opportunity to winning idea and drive innovation execution.
I truely believe, your comments here.
a. People matter most. This was very well articulated by WL Gore associates CEO, Terry Kelly in MIT Sloan on Creating culture for innovation. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/improvisations/2009/02…
b. The people who can innovate needs to have fire in their belly, else, it will suck. I have seen this in my work experience. Poeple, who does not have fire, will make it in such a way, organization top will stop beliving about innovation itself.
Hi Stefan
Are A-grade people really all that critical in successful innovation? Or is having average people using an A-grade process that really gets to the heart of customers' unmet needs and the innovation opportunities therein, what really matters?
Just think about Toyota, #3 in the recent BCG/Business Week Innovation Champions survey because of their excellence in process innovation. A Toyota executive described their secret thus:
“Brilliant process management is our strategy. We get brilliant results from average people managing brilliant processes. We observe that our competitors often get average (or worse) results from brilliant people managing broken processes.”
Innovation is a structured and teachable process. I know, because Toyota taught me their small-i innovation process, better known as Kaizen. Now it is a way of life for me. In everything that I do.
I agree that people are very important in driving successful innovation, but process is every bit as important. My experience consulting with and running a customer-facing part of Toyota taught me that EVERYONE can be effective in driving innovation; if they know that they have a real role to play in innovation, if they have a structured process to enable innovation and if they work collaboratively to make innovation happen. This is what makes for an innovative culture, not the mythical search for the innovation A-team.
Graham Hill
Customer-driven Innovator
Interesting comments, I tend to agree with Graham.
There's a cultural bias in the US towards "A" people being the ones that accomplish the most. We reward "A" students, lavish accolades on winning performances. The idea of having a competition to find the true innovators fits this perspective.
Unfortunately, you can have a team of the best and have innovation arrest.
The sports world (personally I've competed on championships teams and less than stellar teams) is filled with examples of teams filled with "A" players having poor seasons. Conversely, stories of teams made up of "B" and "C" players with passion and direction are more than just anecdotal.
Like Graham, I believe it's about process and chemistry, it's about valuing the individual and bringing out the best from people.
[...] everybody loves winners, we’d rather not be the underdog; we’d rather stack our deck with “A” performers because it increases our odds of not [...]
I propose a third point of view on this topic. When processes exist, they determine the criteria these grades are measured against. For example, an A-grade salesperson is often promoted only to become a C-grade sales manager. Thus is it the set of work circumstances that makes the grading possible. That said, you do want A-players determining strategy. Toyota is being modest when they say they have average people producing worldclass work. They recruit A-players for the particular situation. No hiring manager says "let's go out and get some average employees". In the same way, A-grade innovators may not be A-grade at other things and people who are A-grade in ops or finance or marketing may not be A-grade innovators. Sorry if this comes off as me trying to move the goal posts here but I think both Stefan AND Graham are correct, if incomplete.
You always want the best (Stefan's position) for the situation (Graham's position).
~Wrencis~
thank you for this article. it truly is a value add to read as are all the comments.
Great comments!
I will definitely think more about processes as this is an important part of innovation – and in this equation. Weak processes are also why A people can ruin the potential of a great innovation projects as Michael touched upon.
Stefan
Great article and comments.
I tend to agree with Graham more than the people the process and all the chemistry you put around it makes the difference.
I had team of a substantial number of A Grade people and the output was not better than teams where I had mor B grade people and really a few of A.
What I noticed is to make things happen you need a real team work and when you have too much of A grade then people starts to fight for their ego but at the end the ourput of the team is less because of a lot of waste to things not producing real value.
After some A grade left this team I have ben able to establish a real team work with good "workers" recognizing the "thinkers" and "thinkers" recogniszing the value of "workers". The output was then much better than before where too much A grade where present.
After more than 20 years spent in managing people for me the most important than having the best every where is to be able to get the best from the people you have and it is by far much more difficult.
It's usually impossible to defend absolute statements, and "when it comes to making innovation happen, people matter more than ideas" is pretty absolute. I've seen mediocre people take a mediocre idea and make it great, while I've seen a whole team of A-team members botch a launch of a sure-fire hit. In my Big-5 consulting days, we always talked of People, Process, AND Technology (there is almost always some technological element today); but as I get older and hopefully wiser, there are even more factors than those three. Environment might be one, timing another, politics another, etc. So Stefan, I'll have to politely disagree with you, but thanks for a thought-provoking post!
The answer, obviously is "both and…" but my experience leaves me to believe that executives forget more often about the people side than the process side because people are harder to deal with. But it's also true that "structure creates behavior" and that if your process is broken it won't matter if your people are A-team quality or not.
Also, we're talking about two kinds of innovation here and mixing them together. Kaizen, or incremental, systemic innovation, requires a system that works. Breakthrough innovation is more often achieved by a "monomaniac on a mission" as Peter Drucker reminded us.
All the Best!
Val
I agree with your thesis completely. I just think that there is an easier way to go about this.
About 25 years ago, I began doing a program that I called the "War on Waste" and later evolved to HVLC Innovation (high value/low cost) to allow large numbers of teams to attack problems in the company simultaneously. In a company of 500, we would have 100 projects going simultaneously because we let the people loose. We tried all combinations of teams and it doesn't matter, just let them loose and the people will deliver. The teams could look for inefficiencies but we encouraged new business opportunity innovations as well. And we gave them 3 weeks to come up with "their idea" (1 1/2 hour per day) and present it to management. Imagine being a CEO and having to sit thru that many presentations. Well, they have all done that and this really works. Their goal was a $100,000 of opportunity that could be fixed for $2,000 or less. We taught them the basics of Kaizen and all that stuff. And we even taught them some things that we learned along the way like: Yes/No Charts, World Record Reports, the 5/67 Rule and the 120/20 Rule of Profits.
So of the over 10,000 ideas that we have shepherded over the years, about 1 of 6 is a Big Idea, which is at least $1 Million of opportunity with a 100 to 1 Return.
Now, here is the thing that most people don't get. When you go about trying to do this, if you go about it one new idea at a time, there is a vicious person lurking in the background that we call the "Black Knight" (named for the character in the Monty Python movie "Search of the Holy Grail" that denies he has a problem while losing his arms and legs in an encounter with King Arthur). The Black Knight will sit back and subvert good ideas. So what we do is hit the scene with all the ideas at the same time and the Black Knight(s) don't have enough fingers to plug all the holes in the dyke (as it were), let the flood gates open and the ideas get implemented. (I have written a lot about this character – see my website – http://www.bertain.com).
Overall, I think you are on the right path but be careful that you don't create false hopes by not covering your back against Black Knights.
Best,
Len Bertain
510-520-8011
len@bertain.com