No Commitment to Innovation, Quit Your Job!
In my previous post, The Frustration of Open Innovation, Tim Kastelle added a comment that inspired me to a quick response.
Tim mentioned that he also see much frustration among people working with innovation. As I do, he also find it hard to help innovative – and frustrated – people who work in a non-innovative company.
Tim recommends that you should do as much as people can get away with – to just start experimenting within the scope of the budget and authority that they have. Tim says this often works for innovation in general, but he questions whether this would work for open innovation. He also asked a key question: Is it possible to have open innovation without top management buy-in?
In my response to Tim, I mentioned that at a recent workshop, we talked about what to do when you work in a company that is not committed to innovation. The best advice we came up with was to try to “influence back” towards your managers and executives. However, this is difficult and even if you are able to influence higher ranked people it takes a lot of time.
My other piece of advice is simple. Leave. Find another job. If you really want to make innovation happen your odds are better if you find a different company rather than staying and trying to turn things around in a place that is not committed to innovation. You can do the latter, but again: it is difficult and it takes time.
The funny thing here is that people in large corporations quickly get used to the way things work in such places. Thus they end up staying rather than pursuing better opportunities. It is amazing how fast many people get stuck for the wrong reasons.
My response to Tim’s other question is simple too. No, you can not have open innovation without top management support.
Interesting response Stefan – I often end up saying the same thing. Although really it’s a general issue – if there is something that is very important to you that you’re unable to express in your current job, then you need to seriously think about moving on. I think this is true whether it’s being innovative, or really anything else. I’ve never had a job that I thought I left too soon, but many that I left too late!
I will always try to avoid this option of suggesting moving on until I understand the more often than not complex issues surronding these lack of commitments seemingly laid at the door of top management. This advice of leaving is perhaps a little offhand and to easy to offer.
Getting at the blockage through different methods of discovery is more valuable. Working through a 'cause and effect' for example. Looking through the (different) lense of the manager that seemingly is blocking your initiative, clarifying where the company is in its present performance, market position and resource health is another. Offering increasing comparision with others who might be market leaders through OI bolsters the case, but nothing like understanding the constraints and conditions being faced in that company will offset these frustrations to get a balanced picture and structure a way forward thoughtfully.
That becomes the value of POST workshop advice if the participants in the workshop have blockages. It helps all to understand the true blockages and adds to your value and 'stock' for those facing this position of frustration.
Paul, good response and good insights. However, I still think many people stay at companies too long for the wrong reasons that most often are financially driven. Of course, it is hard to just quit a job when you have mortagages to pay and kids to feed. However, I still believe many people would be happier in different places and a key reason for not moving on is that they get staid and stuck where they are. This is meant as a general thing that goes beyond frustrated innovation leaders
Getting into advice on when to leave, why you should stay is very complex and personal. There is a whole industry tackling that and the 'knock on' effects.
We are talking about the 'opportunity for renewal' and adding to 'personal knowledge and experience'. Each person has to place their personal values on this for themselves. I always like the comment 'I've working 10 years for the company and 9 of these was a repeat of the one great one'. A sad fact for many that can perclude then from ever moving on. They shut down or deal with managing themselves in changed circumstances sometimes brought about by a series of 'events' that shape their lives
Innovation needs a certain freedom of the mind and many peope chose not to allow that to happen. Knowing this, recognising what it can liberate is often surprising to me that others don't see it as well but I have chosen often to move on for new challenges, others like the familiar surrondings. It is finding the right motivational handles that alter their perceptions and sense of security makes for part of our challenge as independent advisors, don't you agree? Also this love of the status quo is why organizations often have reorganizations to keep refreshing, the problem is the huge amount of redundancy that is resisting is one of innovations biggest challenges.
One of the problems that leads to this frustration is that in most cases managers are happy with the status quo. They are unwilling to nurture processes that give their teams the ability to communicate ideas and have them acted upon.
Recently we presented our idea management software solution to a small German automotive supplier to help them manage their employees continuous improvement suggestions (CI and employee feedback are ISO/TS 16949 requirements), and they liked it, but in order to make a cultural change to truly engage their team they felt that the status quo was better.
They average about 1 idea per employee per year because the management team which reviews ideas doesn't have the resources to manage that much paperwork, and thus they discourage high volumes by rejecting the simple ideas that save less than $5000.
Bottom line, in selling innovation or any system or process that is intended to make a company increase their revenue stream, the key is to identify the 'pain factors' of the management team. If they are happy with the status quo, and are unable to envision their competitive position 5 years in the future then the best plan is to wait 5 years and approach them again, when the pain will surely be felt by the fact that their competition recognized the advantage of embracing open innovation, lean, continuos improvement, or any other impovement methodology.
So it comes down to culture. A culture that stimulates playing it safe and keeping the status quo is what prevents companies from opening up in innovation but it is the same culture that makes people stay too long on their job. They will say that they like the atmosphere, the family-like relations with their colleagues, etc., but it is just too hard for them to leave their own comfort zone and the comfortable environment provided by the company culture. This way, they are contributing to the culture of playing it safe.
The funny thing is that if people manage to untie themselves from this environment and switch jobs anyway, they are doing their employer a favour as well, by forcing them to bring in fresh new people. These new employees usually influence the status quo much easier than the 'veterans'.
So should a program to spin out employees be part of the Open Innovation strategy? Or even better, an exchange program?
@Peter, I agree that it is too hard for people to leave their comfort zone and thus we should not always blame the company for creating a less dynamic culture. Jack Welch had success removing the "worst performing" 10% of GE employees annually during his tenure. I don't like such structured programs where you have to kick out people just to meet a number, but I think many companies can benefit by having some kind of assesment and/or exchange program for their innovation people.
Stefan:
Right on!!!
There is a fine line between perseverance and insanity. People ought to stay when it can be considered perseverance and leave when their efforts can only be described as insanity. I think it's perseverance when there is a reasonable chance of effecting change. It is insanity when your hope for change is beyond all reasonable doubt.
I think if a person truly wants to innovate s/he must go where innovation is happening (incl. their own proverbial garage). Organizations that aren't innovating, aren't innovating because of the choices they make and the behaviors they cherish.
Hi Stefan,
Our little group had this discussion recently. I believe the truth is somewere inbetween. As a company you need to challenge (certain) employees involved in strategic work so they are cutting edge. If they refuse to be challenged, help them find another job in- or outside the company. Innovation is renewal, so we need to be outside the comfort zone a lot of the time to optimize the business.
If you do not get challenged by the company you work for, challenge yourself. Leave the company as you say. Get a job in a new organisation. If you want to create a new situation for yourself, do something new. That is what we say about innovation.
As you know I am in the middle of this process myself after spending to many years in the comfort zone working for the same company.
B.r. Claus