Innovation is a hot topic – a fad – and as such, it is becoming subjected to the usual abuse. To begin with, the word itself is invoked incessantly as though its very repetition will call innovation into existence from the ether. It is becoming yet another vehicle for the misguided harassment of the workforce, and cynical manipulation of the consumer.
There is some recognition of this issue, but it too is mostly unaware of the true nature either of the problem or, really, of innovation itself. A key element of this misapprehension stems from the usual suspect: the stubborn inclination to see innovation as coming from “leaders” in the organization, or even just as a sort of process the elements of which can be teased out, enumerated, and repeated to produce innovation at will.
But innovation, like so many other organizational characteristics (including, of course, leadership itself) neither emanates nor can be willed into existence from the top – and it most certainly does not stir to life as a result of the ritual alignment of talismanic procedures.
It comes from within the organization, as a series of serendipitous results of the collaborative interactions of people engaged together in a joint endeavor. The manager’s job is to facilitate these interactions – helping to establish and cultivate this environment of serendipity – remembering that the scope of the range of results they produce will be self-disciplined by the goal of the collaboration.
Innovation is a result of an organizational structure that permits dynamic interactions among its constituents. It identifies and exploits those that work out, but does not unduly punish those that don’t. That’s how a capitalist economy works – and your own company should look more like that if you want it to be enduringly innovative.
Sphere: Related Content
Post a Comment