In a recent blog post that I was reading (by Kathy Harris from Gartner), it was suggested employees who are enthusiastic and committed to innovation, should start a “Grassroots Pilot”. It sounds like an interesting idea but I can’t help wondering if the challenges aligning personal motivations and corporate motivations would just be too much to make this a sustainable model. I’d be very interested in any examples that anyone can share about successful and sustainable intrepreneurship.
My observations and experience point to innovation being like the Middle East; what you see depends on your frame of reference. First there is Entrepreneurial innovation, driven by individuals or small teams where the underlying personal motivation is most often change (or "to make a difference”). Second there is (large or small) Corporate innovation which is most often driven by finding or protecting competitive advantage. Here, change is very often an anathema and regarded as a risk to production. Third is Economic innovation where governments and agencies are nobly seeking growth. Often breaking down competitive barriers to new entrants is applauded by economists and change is just an inevitable outcome.
The different frames of reference almost inevitably lead to problems, conflict and misalignment because of the differing motivations. Problems are inevitable where the enthusastic Entrepreneur attempts to lead innovation for the Corporation. Conflict is inevitable where the independant Corporation is left to effect Economic reform. Misalignment is inevitable where the (politically driven) Economy attempts to pick winning innovations.
So the Grassroots pilot sounds fraught. At a minimum (and from any frame of reference) innovation takes courage, and confidence (as Kathy highlights in her blog). Workers who take an independent grassroots initiative, without strategic backing from their employer for such intrepreneurship may be brave and self confident, but they also appear doomed. Sponsorship can be used to mitigate this risk of misalignment. However that necessary integration is still relying on the sometimes accidental advantages of heroic efforts and personal patronage.
While there are a few notable exceptions, today's management is founded on classic principles of a clear hierarchy, alignment to strategies and efficient division of roles and responsibilities. As discussed by Gary Hamel this classic management model may be showing signs that it not adapting to the newest demands for growth and innovation in the network world. Perhaps grass-roots pilot would be better replaced by participation in open innovation and the collaborative innovation models promoted by Roberto Verganti.
I hope this provides at least some small contribution to help the cause of better innovation.
I’m interested in feedback and views to help achieve better product development. Please contact me to share your views and thoughts.
