Inspiring Innovation

Last week, I got an email from a reader asking me to share some thoughts on the topic of inspiring innovation.

Now that's an interesting question, one that really begs a question: can innovation actually be inspired? Or is innovation actually something that happens whether or not you do any inspiring, and the critical determinant of success is whether or not the organisation is correctly configured to respond positively to the newness it is presented?

My own perspective, running an innovation programme that deals with thousands of ideas a month, is that innovation is something that is inherent in organisations, and you don't really need inspiration to get it. We don't do all that much idea-generation to create those thousands of new ideas, they emerge themselves as people encounter new business situations that stimulate their creative thoughts. In fact, if you follow the E.M Rogers classification of people in organisations, you're going to get about 16% of all people in organisations who will be predisposed to innovation activities no matter what you do.

That 16% - the Innovator and Early Adopter - categories, like new things, actively seek them out, and will create valuable uniqueness, even when the conditions needed to progress things beyond the idea stage don't exist. All you need is a systematic way to collect all the ideas to know this to be true.

Unfortunately, large organisations are typically mis-configured for the introduction of change. Line managers, for example, like stability in their operations, since they have to hit specific milestones and objectives, and change makes the process of doing so much harder. Shareholders like stability because it gives them surety of dividends. Other stakeholders, especially staff, like stability because it makes it less likely they'll make errors which will get them fired.

Change is not something organisations like. Ergo, all that innovation (created without the benefit of specific inspiration), will likely go to waste. Most people simply don't have the wherewithal to convert their moments of brilliant creativity into actual doing.

But here, of course, we find the moment where inspiration counts. Not in the moment of creation, but in that of execution.

My experience is that most ideas die pretty quickly unless you can find someone who is sufficiently influential to force things forward. Failing that, what you need is someone who knows how to capture the minds and hearts of those that will eventually make the decision to introduce change. Inevitably, that implies being sufficiently inspirational you can cause action to happen.

Such individuals are a rare commodity, and this is why organisations lack innovation. They don't have enough people who can inspire action.

Now, all of this is not to say that inspiration can't be important for the creation of new ideas. You only have to look at Amplify09, the event run by AMP in Australia, to see the benefits of doing that.

But if you have a choice between inspiring new ideas and inspiring execution, choose the latter. Because it doesn't matter how many ideas you have, if none of them ever amount to anything.

 

 

Comments

[FredericBaud]

Actually, I think that one of the misconceptions surrounding innovation lies in the notion that an idea (at least for good ones) is something that pop-ups in someone's head and that next step will "only" to turn it into reality.

Producing a good idea is in fact the result of a process. It is the result of trimming (something hierarchies know how to do) and recombination (something hierarchies are very bad at).

So, I completely agree with your point that if you lack the capacity of executing new ideas, there's no point in having a program. But I believe that opening up to allow free exchange and recombination of basic bricks is a sure way to raise the quality of the ideas you'll decide to execute.

[Annalie Killian]

I TOTALLY agree with James assertion and EM Rogers around the natural innovators/ creators, but, as producer of http://www.amplify.amp.com.au, here's how I think the inspiration part really helps. The 16% creators need the help of the rest of the organisation, the 84%, to execute and/or adopt/ embrace/ integrate into existing processes/ business strategy. Now, assuming a normal population and a normal distribution curve, of the 84 % there will be about 16% completely passive and unmoved - don't even bother with them. Events like AMPLIFY is about inspiring the middle bunch of 68% to get inspired so that they will play their part in the execution- and, in my experience, it VASTLY accelerates the organisational tipping point for change and enthusiasm for what might be possible. We are already in advanced stages of implementing many ideas surfaced during AMPLIFY 23-26 June- and its less than 45 days out. This is very rare in large companies. That's the reason why you need inspiration- not for ideas....for ACTION!

[Jon Cifuentes]

Hi James - This is Jon Cifuentes from Progress Software. I had been in touch a few weeks ago and wanted to reach out again regarding some opportunities for bloggers in this space. If you have a moment, please reach back to me at [email protected]

Cheers!