Innovation Dilemma: Should You Quit or Stay and Fight?
You are working in a big, global company. You are in charge of a fairly new venture-like unit that has been given the mandate to identify and develop new business opportunities that within three years should contribute with 25% of the corporate growth.
It is a great challenge and you have assembled a strong team that has built an interesting portfolio of seven projects of which three have begun generating revenues and one is profitable. The other projects require significant investments over the coming years.
The problem is that you do not feel you have enough top-down support. Your executives do not really understand what you are doing and they are not patient enough. More importantly, cash flow is tight and you do not get the promised funds forcing you to make serious cuts on your portfolio and perhaps even let go of some your team members.
The company has tried to develop similar innovation engines a couple of times. They all failed due to the above reasons. No need to say that the spirit is low around your team and your stakeholders…
What would you do?
Quit your job. You got a great resume and you feel the company just don’t get it and thus they don’t deserve your skills and efforts. Times are tough, but integrity is important to you and you decide to leave the company.
Stay and fight. Enough is enough. The executives need to develop a better understanding on ventures and innovation. You stay and work hard to change the mindset of your executives. This is risky as they do not like being told what they do not know and what they should do. You can lose your job by doing this.
Keep the status quo. You get a fat paycheck and your executives do not pressure you too hard to get success. They might not know how to make this work, but they know it is difficult and they do not blame you. You just sit in tight and do the best you can under the given circumstances.
What would you do? If you choose to stay and fight, what actions can you recommend?
Hi Stefan: Your hypothetical is intriguing.
Quitting means leaving. For what purpose.? To go somewhere else where the pasture is presumably greener (which may or may not be true in fact)? Unless you know for a fact that the situation you're leaving for is better than the one that you're in, there is little point to jumping ship.
If the company has been through this type of situation at least a couple of times before, should I have expected this to reoccur? What was lacking in the due diligence that I did on the company before I signed on, so that I didn't anticipate this?
Despite my exemplary resume, do I have a history of bailing when situations become difficult and I don't get my way?
There is another option available besides the 3 you've cited. I think that given the environment, I should start examining my options outside of the company, but still fight to make as much of a difference as I can while I'm still on board…and for as long as I'm in my role. It is my job to do what I was hired to do, until I leave, or am replaced. In evaluating external opportunities, I will be careful to seek to do a better job of researching them so as to avoid the situation that I currently find myself in.
Well, "keep the status quo" just isn't an option. You've been given a mandate to contribute 25% of corporate growth in three years and your funding was cut. The status quo just changed drastically. The first thing you need to do is go back and talk to the execs about that mandate. You need to explain what you are realistically able to do with the reduced budget.
If they accept your new plan it might be worth while to stay and fight. If they don't, and try to hold you to the original mandate, then it might be a good time to start looking for other opportunities. Even if the execs don't pressure you too hard for success, are you really going to be happy to be in a position where you can't deliver promised results?
My ways of dealing with the dilemma would be:
1) Let's try to create a burning platform for the organization to be aware that your job is not a "nice-to-have", it's a survival need.
2) Control your own destiny: time is priceless, do something valuable and exciting to yourself, don't get hung up even if you are getting a fat check.
Think it is time for a open dialog with the CEO or Director who set up this venture like unit so that you can get both an opportunity to fight for what you are doing as well as verify that your shared goals are still the same. this would also give you the opportunity to discuss the company's funding and commitment for this unit.
If it does not go well that it would be a good indication to verify that your resume is impressive and start the ball rolling elsewhere.
Been there – when I was at AT&T doing a carve-out – the only thing was they hadn't done it that much so we didn't have a history of failure to the same degree (yet) – I stayed and fought and fought and fought with my team because we sincerely believed it was critical to the future of the company and so many people's jobs & families were dependent upon its success as was the viability of AT&T overall – and it was incredibly fun, intellectually and professionally stimulating and we had a strong close team. In the end, it failed – it failed because the sr. team didn't have the patience to let it incubate long enough and brought it back into the parent org too early and killed it, and with that, accelerated the demise of AT&T which is well known now.
Shortly before it was absorbed back, most of us left – couldn't stomach it anymore. So, the answer is that given my previous experience with this, I'd quit – I'd fight the belief that this time could be different and adhere to Einstein's definition of insanity (The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results) and go somewhere I could really make a difference.
Another option: leave, but take the portfolio with you; i.e., propose to the company that they give you the rights to the ideas, possibly becoming an investor in the new company that you will form to develop those ideas. Spinning off under-funded ventures is a good investment for them and gives you the chance to get additional funding from other sources so you can do what needs to be done. This one is a big risk, but it lets you keep a good team, develop the idea, and keep the goodwill of the original company (sometimes if you have enough success, they'll buy your venture back.)
Flee or flight? Easy one fight! 25% of the future is at stake, the support comes from your engagement with the top team on this as it is their futures as well.
25% is not a small number, it DEMANDS attention. You seek it out. If the organization does not have the appetite, the will, the commitment to you or the funds to propel this forward in twelve months then the others options come into play. If you have done the job of galvinising not just your team but the organization and can show SUBSTANTIAL progress the fun begins.
Taking flight, tail between the legs irrespective of all the variables you have mentioned here is going to haunt you for the rest of your career. Careers and organizations are made by seizing the moment not fleeing the scene. Accepting challenges, big ones don't come often and in asking you, means they need results to change and improve.
You seek the mandate and lay out the conditions
Stay and fight
I've seen this happen a number of times, when times are difficult the innovation team can face significant cuts, as it's not operational spend, and doesn’t contribute to the bottom line today.
Innovation teams do need to show that they have value to the business and need to build some headroom to do what they know is necessary to make breakthroughs and find the sorts of projects that will make a 25% difference.
The most successful 'headroom' building activities I've seen use part of the innovation engine to support existing parts of the business become more efficient and more effective.
Innovation principles (which may include collaborative events, crowd sourcing, innovating with the supply chain for example) can make a BIG difference to the efficiency of the business, I've seen organisations save tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars by applying their unique skills and insights to other parts of the organisation.
Look at how that changes the perception of the team, your activities and the value you can bring. The execs understand what you do better as you've applied it parts of the business they understand and your support is increased immeasurably, you could even ask for a portion of any savings you make to reinvest in your team.
Observations
i) corporate culture – are you realistically in a position to influence the corporate culture of your organisation. If not, then dont fight that battle. Choose something that you can influence.
ii) it seems like you have low hanging fruit – in term of the 3 projects, one of which is generating revenue; thats great. So my suggestion would be an internal marketing plan. Get you team selling their projects, promote them from within and build pride that you are doing something different.
iii) time to demo your leadership skills; you need to engage your senior managers. Perhaps some sort of gated funding proposal. ie show that you are already making waves and have 3 projects moving forwards, that you are pushing new frontiers and it takes courage and support to do this; that you understand the fiscal constraints the organisation is encountering and the proposal is to provide gated funding on a rolling basis. Regular reviews with the Snr mgmt team and with agreed dates on release of capital. They just need to know what they are likely to get and when they are likely to see cash flow.
all the best
David
Leave (I don't call it quitting). Big companies for the most part are not where the action is and they tend not to pay attention to internal people no matter what they say.
If you want to have impact, leave and do consulting.
Can it work to stay and fight? Sure. Every now and then. But why on earth would you want to work with people you have to fight with?
Create a and do a Great presentation with an analyze of the current situation and what you want to achieve and how to do it. If you don't receive positive feedback and feel that no one of the executives understand you and is behind is it best to quit.
This will give you a well prepared reason why you decided to stay or leave the big company and you don't have to regret anything. I believe in work with 100% motivation and a passion which can move mountains but only after using both the brain and heart.
Choose your battles wisely and go with the flow!
1. Stay and fight. Passive acceptance of defeat does nothing for your self-esteem. If you don't have passion and fight here you won't have it in relatively easy situations.
2. In parallel, explore the job market and network with headhunters to make sure you have other options.
3. Enjoy the experience.
Deb's comment above shows that you can benefit personally and professionally from such a challenge, even if the eventual outcome is negative. The experience and "battle scars" you gain will benefit you in future assignments. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger…..
You should also consider whether the senior execs have a point. If they don't understand, is it because you haven't made enough efforts to sell it to them?
Stefan,
How well your scenario demonstrates one of the fundamental challenges facing corporate innovators :-
1) "Does the organisation have faith in the future and is it prepared to invest in that future?'
2)Or, is the company's main focus on the short term and maximising the story of the next quarter's earnings for stock market analysts?
In the case of the company you mention it sounds like it has been flirting with building a future – but as is so often the case it has lost its nerve.
The innovation manager should only stay if he or she is an inspirational leader who can create and communicate a compelling vision of what is needed for the company to succeed in innovation.
They need to be the type of person that can infuence the behaviour of their higher-ups and persuade them more to take risks. They also need to be able to engender among them a sense of belief in the value and business opportunities that creativity and innovation present.
I suggest that it is unlikely that an innovation manager would be quite so accomplished as this – otherwise they would already be a CEO or on the board!
So, if this is the case, and they want to continue to innovate, then I suggest they find an environment where there IS long term commitment to the company's innovation strategy.
Your corporate innovator will be forever frustrated unless they are in a company where the leadership team can 'hold their nerve'
I am going through a similar situation now. They have hired me to do a job, but those with power don't want to listen to my strategies as it is too hard to implement or goes against how they have always done things. The worse part is that since I sit in one department I have no authority to press my processes onto other departments.
The company wants to compete in the market, but they want the quick and easy. I thought it was best to stay and fight, try to convert more people (which I have) but it is also too draining. I feel my personal health and happiness is more important than my pride. So I am choosing to look elsewhere while trying to do my best in the current situation.
I noticed most people suggest stay and fight. Every situation is different and therefore, you must weigh each one individually. Never forfeit your health for sure. I would suggest a great presentation to the powers that be can go a long way to get buy in. But if cuts arecoming, maybe you can come up with ways to do this, perhaps even divesting or postponing some of the proects . And finally, don't take it personally. Everyone is replaceable and in the end, they may just let you go.
Hit the road, jack.
The energy you waste trying to convince people senior to you to change is better spent investing in your own professional development — and sanity.
Interesting dliemma that is being played out far too often these days. From the information given and IMO, once executive support has been lost status quo is out the window. Peter Drucker once said that new initiatives need to be put in the nursery. The meaning behind this was that they need a different standard of measure as they grow and mature. Without this protection they are doomed. This is probably the reason that the past initiatives have failed. The root problem seems to be at the leadership level not with the technology. Technology may be a factor, but it is probably not the main one.
So if you are going to achieve a different result something has to change. The uphill battle will require the team to be fully behind it. I'd stay and fight if the project can be positioned for success and has the dispensation to mature properly. With this level of change you can stem the sliding moral and get the team committed. Like a true venture (aka startup) everyone needs to believe in it and give 110%. No lip service allowed.
If not, I'd look at quitting. I'd hate to do it, but at the end of the day my integrity is the only thing I can take with me. The company is indicating the bottom line is more important than the people already so what makes me so special to change that policy? Today's business has become more Darwinian than ever.