Who's Responsible for Innovation?

If a company wants to be innovative, it must create an atmosphere that encourages innovation. A healthy atmosphere of innovation will exhibit three conditions:

1. Innovation - The company must give employees - ALL employees, not just those in the R&D department - the freedom to innovate. Supervisors at all levels should welcome their subordinates to discover creative solutions and to constantly look for ways to do things better. Employees should be allowed to generate new ideas, and should feel that their supervisors will be receptive to their ideas. Employees should be empowered to innovate.


2. Submission - Once an employee develops an innovative idea, she must share it with her supervisor. The supervisor should listen eagerly, ready to assess how this idea could benefit the company and customers. The supervisor should ask questions and coach the employee on how to improve and adapt the idea to best fit the company and the situation. The employee should trust that her supervisor will be an advocate of great ideas; because of that trust, the employee submits to her supervisor's final decision about whether or not - and how - to move the idea forward.


3. Protection - Once the supervisor gives his employee the authority to implement the idea, then the supervisor becomes a protective covering for the employee. As long as the employee follows the supervisor's instructions, she doesn't need to fear the consequences of failure - the supervisor takes those consequences upon his own head. If the employee makes a mistake or makes someone angry, or if the idea doesn't work, then the supervisor bears the responsibility. He protects his employee, because the employee was acting under his authority. This gives the employee the freedom to fail - and the freedom to succeed.

These three measures - innovation, submission, and protection - are essential if a company wishes to be innovative. Employees throughout the company must be inspired to think creatively and to generate ideas, no matter how raw or ridiculous the ideas seem at first. Employees must vet those ideas through their supervisors, trusting that their supervisors will want to bring great ideas to life, and ultimately submitting to the final decision of the supervisor. And supervisors must protect the employees as they start implementing their ideas under the supervisors' authority, empowering the employee to succeed by bearing the responsibility if they fail.

If one of these conditions is missing, innovation within the organization will be stifled. Companies stagnate if employees don't generate ideas. Ideas go awry if employees act without the authority of their supervisors. And employees stop innovating if they can't trust their supervisors to protect their efforts.

If your organization wishes to be innovative, does it have these processes in place?

Whose Team Are You On?

This is the story of two marketers.

Suzy Marketer was the co-founder and marketing consultant of Suzy Marketing Services, L.L.P. A hard worker, go-getter, and experienced marketer, Suzy managed the accounts of several prestigious clients, and earned a respectable income for herself in the process.

Sally Marketer was the co-founder and marketing consultant of Sally Marketing Services, L.L.P. An equally hard worker, go-getter, and experienced marketer, Sally also managed the accounts of several prestigious clients, and earned a respectable income for herself in the process.

But Suzy's and Sally's marketing services were as different as different could be.

Suzy approached her work as an outside consultant. She saw herself as a service provider hired by clients who were utterly unable to market themselves on their own. Her clients hired her to analyze their company, their business model, their products, and their market niche, to tell them how to market themselves, and to execute their marketing for them. The prestige of the clients who hired her was proof that Suzy did her job expertly.

When Suzy landed a new client, she would spend days researching them: poring over their website, their search results on Google, their Facebook presence, and the chatter about them on Twitter; examining their products, testing their services, and analyzing their annual reports. Then she would spend a day interviewing their marketing team and execs to conduct analyses of the brand, their market position, and their goals.

Back at her office, Suzy would develop key messages and a marketing strategy, then hold a brief meeting with the client to present her plan and to convince the client that her plan was best. Once everyone was in agreement with the plan, Suzy would return to her office, and put her team to work at executing the marketing plan. She would call, email, and occasionally visit her client's employees when she needed information, payment, or approval for the next marketing tactic.

Sally, on the other hand, approached her work as a teammate of her client. She knew that her clients were experts on their brand, their industry, and their market, but hired an outside marketing consultant so that they could focus their resources on making great products and serving customers well. She knew that her clients trusted her to learn from them, to adopt their culture, and to partner with them in serving their customers.

When Sally landed a new client, she would spend a day researching the brand online, among customers, and in stores. Then she would spend several days with the client, visiting headquarters, touring the plant, observing their work processes, meeting with each department, building relationships, browsing their corporate history, and absorbing all that the execs, marketing team, and other employees said about their mission, values, goals, culture, brand, products, customers, and previous marketing strategy.

Back at her office, Sally would do more research to see if customers' views of the brand matched the client's view of their brand. Where they didn't, Sally brainstormed ways that her client could serve customers better and communicate with them better. After drafting key messages and marketing strategy based on what she had learned from her client and their customers, she met with the client to adjust her plan. When Sally and the client agreed on a plan that best fit the client and their customers, she and the client planned how to work together to achieve those marketing goals. When she returned to her office, Sally worked in constant communication with her new teammates at the client's headquarters to ensure that her efforts were coordinated with theirs.

Both Suzy and Sally were experts at marketing. Both could analyze, strategize, and actualize marketing communications flawlessly. And both had prestigious clients and generous paychecks to show it.

But somehow Sally's clients always ended up with deeper customer loyalty and a more favorable brand image; Suzy's didn't. Somehow Sally's clients always felt like Sally understood them, like she was part of the gang; Suzy's didn't. Somehow Sally always enjoyed her time with her clients; Suzy, didn't. Somehow Sally managed to maintain long-lasting relationships with a handful of valued clients; Suzy's list of clients was constantly changing.

Sally was part of her clients' team; her view was, "we're all working together."

Suzy was part of her own team; her view was, "I'm working with them."

Whose team are you on? Your customers'? Your clients'? Your company's? Or your own?

Social Context, part 3

In the last two posts, I illustrated two extremes of a person's social context within a work situation:

1. Complete dependence, as shown in the twelve disciples of Jesus, who preached in pairs throughout the land of Judea without any money or food, relying entirely on the people they met for survival.


2. Complete independence, as shown in Jesus' cousin John the baptist, who preached alone, in the wilderness, relying on nobody but himself, God, and nature for his survival.

In reality, neither of these parties operated within these extreme social contexts indefinitely. The disciples later regrouped and continued to follow Jesus; later, a few disciples used other employment (fishing, tent-making, sale of property) to provide income while they continued their Christian ministry. John the baptizer attracted disciples who lived and worked and served with him.

And in general, healthy individuals live and work in an equilibrium between these two extremes - in a state of interdependence. One might consider this to be a state of healthy teamwork.

For people to function in a team, two fundamental things must happen.

First, each team member must accept responsibility for his own actions. There are certain tasks which each individual can do better than anyone else on the team. The individual must complete those tasks with all of his heart, applying the full measure of his strength to successfully do his particular job within the team.

Second, each team member must rely on his teammates to complement his weaknesses and to fulfill the tasks that he himself cannot fulfill. He must trust his teammates to do their jobs to the best of their own strengths, just as he trusts his teammates to allow him to do his own job to the best of his own strengths. He must communicate with and collaborate with his teammates, and dedicate his efforts to the success of the team as a whole.

The way in which a healthy team works is the same way in which a healthy organization and a healthy society work - in a state of interdependence. Each of us accepts responsibility to fulfill her own role and vocation according to her own strengths on behalf of those around her. And in return, she trusts and relies on those around her to use their own strengths to fulfill those things which she herself cannot.

Interdependence, like most good things in life, is a balance. Beware of becoming too dependent or too independent. And when you sense yourself sliding toward one extreme or another, you might try a little mental experiment: imagine how you would act if you operated under the extreme opposite social context instead.

We're on the Same Team

Sometimes an organization can become fragmented. Not by a corporate restructuring or a division into geographic territories or the divestment of some strategic business units. Sometimes an organization becomes fragmented by the mindsets of its employees.

Perhaps you've seen it happen. Perhaps you've been a part of it. Members of different departments (or even of different functions within the same department) begin to see themselves as being on opposing teams. Life within the organization becomes a clash of "the marketing team" versus "the finance team" versus "the technology team" versus "the R&D team" versus "the legal team."

Naturally, these departmental "teams" must have completely opposite goals and completely opposite points of view. Working with anybody from another "team" will inevitably be a hassle and a struggle. A necessary evil.

Members of the "marketing team" enter a meeting with members of the "legal team," dreading the roadblocks that these legal guys will put in the way of the marketers' terrific ideas. Members of the "finance team" walk into a meeting with the "R&D team," ready for a fight over how many budget dollars are reasonable to spend on mere "research." The meeting room is no longer a meeting room, but a battleground. A boxing match.

We forget that everyone within the organization is on the same team.

Hard as it may be to accept, or even to comprehend, our jobs were not created for the success of the marketing team, or the success of the finance team, or the success of the technology team, or the success of the R&D team, or the success of the legal team. Our jobs were created for the success of the organization. We happen to be placed within these departments according to our strengths and to the needs of the entire organization.

We are all working together for the success of the organization. (And, by the way, the organization is successful when it sustainably serves its customers best.)

If we enter a meeting with the realization that everyone in that meeting is on the same team - the "team" of the organization - how does that change the way we approach the meeting? The meeting no longer becomes a contest to see whose opinion can win out, or who can convince "the other side" to give her what she needs, or who can persuade whom to cooperate with his idea. It becomes a discovery of how WE can work together to best serve the organization and our customers.

In that process, we consider what "that department" needs from "this department" in order to do "that department's" job best, and what "this department" needs from "that department" in order to do "this department's" job best. How can each of us do his job best and serve the others in order to achieve the goals of the organization together?

And when we set our sights on achieving the goals of the organization together, the goals of our own respective departments should fall naturally into place.

Perspectives from Inside the Organization

To read today's post, see my guest blog post on the Abilene Startup Blog, hosted by my friend @chadhutchins.

- Haley