Tag Archives: High potential

Iterate Instead of Analyze for Innovation Success

Intrapreneurship is needed in large companies.  Commonly, these companies tend to have plenty of data that has been collected to document market dynamics. Whether it is corporate strategy or corporate development, larger businesses have departments that constantly evaluate opportunities for growth–be they organic or inorganic.  Encouraging innovation and breakthroughs can be hard. The main reason big business becomes stagnant is that the mindset required for disruptive advances is very different than the risk management and mitigation approach of many market leaders.

Kevin McFarthing, who leads the Innovation Fixer consulting firm, suggests in a recent blog that “These companies also have a very rational approach to the assessment of investment opportunities. Of course, they find that the expenditure line has a much higher level of confidence than either the timeline or the scale of revenue. For that reason large companies want to increase the level of confidence in the income stream. Various techniques are used; for example, many consumer goods companies will undertake a fairly standard sequential program of qualitative and quantitative market research. This will relate to a database of similar products launched in the past. So, as long as you do the market research correctly, you can reduce your uncertainty and proceed.”

As is pointed out above, the traditional analytical tools used to evaluate comparable opportunities are somewhat like the comparables sought out when buying a new residence: intended to estimate what already exists instead of what has never been built. Relying on historical information rather than anticipating future demand is like driving down the road only looking in the rear view mirror!

On the opposite end of the spectrum, small businesses being run by visionary entrepreneurs tend to rely far less on the projection techniques of their larger counterparts. These start-ups rely on gut instinct, passion, and drive rather than systems. Instead of evaluating a market based on dozens of data points, the executive teams of thriving young businesses gather market information, develop a proof of concept, test it on a limited basis, revise the offering, and are nimble in their adjustments to feedback so that they can quickly bring something new to the marketplace. 

leap of faith

Large companies find what is done in the entrepreneurial space to be akin to a leap of faith. It’s very hard for a corporate type to operate from a place of judgment rather than logic. The willingness to produce something that is not perfect is much less in an organization with extensive quality initiatives.  The whole concept of try…try…try again that is the mantra of an entrepreneur is eschewed in favor of taking calculated risks. While it sounds stereotypical, it is not at all uncommon for the large company approach to be one that avoids undertaking projects without tons of documentation and extensive project and/or product planning down to minute details.  This predictable approach has severe shortcomings in an environment where responsiveness can make the difference between producing an offering that resonates versus one that is a “me too” alternative.

Instead of performing market and buyer research that resembles a canned, rote methodology, what is needed is flexibility, customization, and the ability to constantly iterate. Instead of sequence and a step-wise stage gate process, truly innovative organizations are far more willing to engage in trial and error.

McFarthing says that many large organizations lack the right mindset to explore potential. Changes he advocates that they make to become more innovative include: 

–   Rely much more on judgment to move projects ahead rapidly;

–   Don’t apply the same criteria to incremental and radical innovation;

–   Use a fast and iterative sequence of prototyping and market testing to learn and reduce uncertainty;

–   Go to market as soon as you can, don’t wait for all the facts.

Follow these suggestions and you will change your culture to become more intrapreneurial!

 

 

 

Innovating Words Make Healthy Corporate Hearts

 

Cheryl Heller, Board Chair of PopTech, a laboratory for disruptive innovation focused on technology and social change, says that,

The wealth of jargon used to describe intrapreneurship (itself a bit of jargon), innovation and corporate social responsibility is more exhausting than enriching, and as their importance becomes more evident, the labels and complexities grow. What’s the difference between corporate social responsibility, cause branding, cause marketing, and a triple (or sometimes lately double, as if we can just decide to leave the environment out of it) bottom line? Should companies now stop all their work on sustainability in order to focus on resilience? Has all independent thinking, or even perhaps all generative thinking inside big organizations become intrapreneurship?  What’s the difference between social innovation and innovation? What’s the relationship between design thinking and innovation? What’s the difference between disruptive innovation and incremental innovation? Is some innovation more innovative than others and is more innovation always better? And does anybody else see this as a silly and dangerously circuitous trap of our own devising?

The significance of the debate about the proper terminology is to find a means to communicate disruptive breakthrough ideas as a valuable corporate asset–without simultaneously creating anarchy! Words cited in Heller’s comment (above) evoke values and desired activities that can help an organization create–or sustain competitive advantage.  Yet, if innovation is perceived as an altogether separate category than “ordinary business,”  then it can be argued that no one will want to do what is methodical if they can be celebrated and rewarded for dreaming over practical execution of existing initiatives. Most organizations and their leaders would prefer that employees see the process of introducing initiatives as a normal part of their positions, rather than stand alone activities that become the topic du jour and are jettisoned when times get tough in favor of “that’s the way we’ve always done it here. (TTWWADIH)” 

TTWWADIH can be a pervasive attitude that implies that we can add to what exists, but should not be expected to improve what exists. In this scenario, positions and/or departments are launched rather than tackling sticky, often political issues. Star studded teams are put together many times to represent cutting edge thinking, only to exempt the teams from performance, which ultimately leads to demotivated executive management.

Yesterday, we looked at Scott Anthony’s HBR article about Medtronic, a company well known for innovation, and their efforts to become even more adept at broad scale innovation. The Healthy Heart For All product has been launched towards the rural Indian population target market. Medtronic is large, smart, connected, positioned and incentivized enough to out-hustle upstart competitors. Though they brought in a key intrapreneur, the company was effective in changing the corporate cultural stance on what it takes to be competitive.

No one wants an unmotivated workforce. Nor do we want idealists who are not well grounded. The concept to “innovate properly” is a core value of a former employer of mine who understood that creativity and innate personal responsibility for the benefit of others must work in concert. By including this core value in position descriptions, the leadership team recognized the need to challenge employees to see advanced initiatives as the responsibility of every employee–not an isolated activity. Furthermore, when innovation becomes the expectation, we don’t have to “stop the presses” to encourage innovative thinking and actions.

Find a way to articulate your expectations for intrapreneurship (or innovation if you prefer) (or corporate social responsibility if you are a part of a grandiose cause) inside your environment. Ask people to define what they mean when using these terms. Expect all employees to take initiative!

 

 

 

Intrepid Intrapreneurship, 2012 Style

Have you heard about the League of Intrapreneurs competition going on right now? Ashoka and Accenture are serious about helping companies “build better business from the inside out.”  Early applications were due by October 24; final nominations and entries by January 15, 2013. The top 15 entrants from the competition will form the inaugural class of the League of Intrapreneurs, becoming part of an elite global network of changemakers. These entrants will also receive media and press recognition and will be featured in the publication of a globally distributed intrapreneur toolkit. Of this league, the top four winners will be profiled on Fast Company’s blog, Co.EXIST, and will receive consulting support from Accenture Development Partnerships to further their work.

What is Intrapreneurship? The Wikipedia definition that is quoted on the home page of the Intrapreneurship Conference being held in Paris next month says it is “the act of behaving like an entrepreneur in a bigger organization.”  Their promotional pitch continues: 

Intrapreneurship is a rising concept that tries to gather the natural objective of any organisation in the 21st century to be more innovative with the often non-tapped energy dug into any would-be entrepreneurs. Intrapreneurship create(s) a framework where the latter is granted some freedom to try out a project of his/her own, the benefit being shared with the employer in the case of a successful experimentation.

The… conference, on December 13th, aims to cover this growing trend in corporations’ life, which addresses both the need of companies to produce more innovations and the will of talented people to find achievement opportunities. Experts and representatives of some of the most innovatives companies will share their view on why intrapreneurship is positively impacting their organisation and how they implement it. The conference is designed for human resources managers, chief strategy and chief operating officers, as well as everyone who is interested in the new growing management trends for change.

Ernst & Young has noticed the power of the intrapreneurship trend and, based on recent survey results, offers six guidelines for creating a culture ripe for innovation within larger organizations:

  1. Set up a formal structure for intrapreneurship. Give people enough time away from their “day jobs” to work on creative projects, but provide a formal process for new product development.
  2. Ask for ideas from your employees. They have their fingers on the pulse of the marketplace. Encourage them to contribute to the innovation dialogue.
  3. Assemble and unleash a diverse workforce. It’s no secret that diverse groups come up with more innovative ideas. Tap into this multifaceted source of power.
  4. Design a career path for your intrapreneurs. For the most part, intrapreneurs are mavericks who will quit — and take their best ideas with them — if they don’t see prospects for career advancement.
  5. Explore government incentives for innovation. Ask how these can support your intrapreneurial ventures. Governments all over the world are offering new tax breaks and other incentives for research and development (R&D) — and corporations in turn are urging governments to support innovation.
  6. Prepare for the pitfalls of intrapreneurship. Not all ideas will produce successful new products. Failure is an important part of the process.

Scott Anthony, of Innosight, writing for an HBR blog post earlier this Fall, cited a story of how Medtronic fostered intrapreneurship through a culture of innovation in introducing the Healthy Heart to hospitals. He felt Medtronic had a competitive advantage: 

Medtronic had an internal “corporate catalyst” — someone who marshaled resources both inside and outside the company and built organizational support for the disruptive growth strategy. Medtronic mixed the entrepreneurial approach of a VC-backed start-up with the unique capabilities once housed in corporate labs. Its story illustrates how big companies are powerfully and uniquely suited to tackling large-scale social problems such as hunger, health care, sustainability, and education. These aren’t stand-alone corporate social responsibility efforts — they are strategic initiatives to create profitable businesses that improve the world.

In many ways, Medtronic was applying the E&Y recommended best practices without even having read them. What is your company doing to foster a culture of innovation? Tomorrow, we will tackle the language of intrapreneurship!

 

Why Ignore the Obvious?

Margaret Heffernan wrote a book last year entitled Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril, a look at how leaders have intentional blind spots. She queries why many people prefer ignorance over being well informed. In examining the Catholic Church, political despots, unethical corporate leaders, financial mismanagement, and the foibles of top military brass, Heffernan makes the tie between a leader’s choices and the impact on the organizations served. using psychology, researched accounts, and some intuition, she has been compared to Malcolm Gladwell and Nicholas Taleb and has received kudos from Dan Pink.

In an article published in Inc, she analyzes the General Petraeus fiasco and makes comparisons between others she covered for her book and the characters in the saga splashed across many websites, newspapers, and journals presently. Heffernan tries to get inside his head as to what he may be thinking about his new dilemma: soon to be unemployed and suddenly having destroyed a very accomplished career that others coveted until the story broke. 

Yet, was it so sudden? Hasn’t this revelation been building since the point of the first indiscretion? Digging more deeply, what was the thought process that led up to the first bad decision? Heffernan says she heard a CNN interview in which a Petraeus friend said that the general “sees this as a failure, and this is a man who has never failed at anything.” She asks the counterintuitive question–did he go wrong by never going wrong? An excerpt from her article:

If you have never failed at anything, then you haven’t been trying hard enough, aren’t very imaginative, or have had such extraordinarily good luck that you have come to believe you are invincible. And that, of course, is the problem.

“Success confers its own blindness,” Emily Brown told me. She’s a marriage counselor who has worked extensively with couples who have had the experience of infidelity.

“Successful people believe they can get away with it,” she says. “I talked once to a group of men who’d all become millionaires before the age of 40, and they’d had affairs. They don’t even see the danger! It isn’t a love of risk. They think: The wives will never know, so where’s the harm? Everything else in their lives has worked out, so they think they have some kind of magic, that their success has meant that they can have everything they want and they’re invulnerable. And they were completely blind to the harm they had done.”

Most of us make mistakes, and we should take some comfort in the fact that these usually remind us that we are fallible. If we are very lucky, we make mistakes from which we can learn and recover. Most of us have the oddly good luck not to imagine that we are infallible.

I’m a big believer in mistakes. Not just because I make lots of them–like everyone, I try very hard not to–but because every mistake contains learning. The best mistakes are the ones from which you learn the most and that you never forget. I would bet Petraeus thought that never failing was a sign of his genius. The truth is probably that he made mistakes, but he didn’t take time to learn from them. Or, hauntingly, he got away with mistakes by benefiting from everyone else’s care and attention, like a man who drinks too much but drives home safely.

No one is infallible. And those who think they are are probably going to be the most disappointed.

As you read about the former general’s mistakes, hopefully you can look at your own and have some perspective. Have you grown from them? Do others cover over your missteps — or do you have a circle close to you who will level with you at the expense of saying something that you may not want to hear in the short run?

 

The House on the Sand Went Smash

As a youngster, I remember learning a Vacation Bible School ditty about the wise man and the foolish man. In the song, there was a great rainstorm. One builder had built his house upon a rock, and that house stood firm. The other had built his house upon sand and the house fell down (went smash!) The morale of the story is to make a sure foundation before beginning an endeavor whose outcome is important.

Most businesses know that they need to do some business or strategic or turnaround planning. Planning is vital to creating shared mission and eliciting commitment from stakeholders in the outcome(s). Most executive teams, however, underestimate the value of educating employees to prepare them to execute the plan and achieve the desired results.

We all want employees and managers who maintain a cool head and concentrated focus. What is our role, however, within executive teams, to help our people become prepared? We would assert that our role is to lead and influence through empowerment. Empowerment enhances employee engagement and reduces the likelihood that only executives will be expected to take responsibility for outcomes. 

Skilled employees are usually made, not born. Therefore, key employees deserve professional education and job training. Be constantly grooming your staff to take on more and more responsibility. Much like a second-string player on a sports team, a second generation of managers should be in waiting, ready to step in when called. This intentionality is also very useful in succession planning, because those who vacate their positions already have trained backups who would be ready to perform the role should their predecessor no longer be able or willing.

Grooming Effective Managers

Continuously analyze employees for management potential through an interactive process of interview, observation, and written response. Be on the lookout for employees in all areas who posses strong analytical and evaluation skills, combined with the emotional intelligence to handle changes effectively and appropriately. Give your people the opportunity to prove themselves worthy of consideration for grooming.

When evaluating management candidates, leaders will often try to determine, through an employee’s actions or words, the employee’s perceptions about the company’s mission. A demonstrated commitment to the mission shows promise. Using individual interviews and feedback sessions, leaders can determine whether employees understand chain of command and critical success factors for business success. Asking employees how to improve the productivity of their part of the business, their own execution, and corporate profitability can reveal (through their responses and actions) whether they understand the key levers of management.

Education and Training

Those who can consistently make recommendations for company improvement should be considered for management positions and be given an opportunity to refine their skills through education and training. The employee development need not be formal; the one-to-one mentoring of high potential employees can yield significant results. Formal workshops and continuing education offered within your industry or organizations serving people in key roles can sharpen skills, focus, and performance.

Personnel files should document employee attendance at educational programs as well as innovative solutions they have offered to real problems. These files serve as the basis for performance reviews as well as management development. Difficult work assignments containing known problems offer the high potential employees to contribute on  meaningful decisions. If unsatisfactory decisions are made in these situations, the employees can be coached and mentored through what should have been done differently and learning will occur.

Adapting to Change

Over time, employees will learn to adapt to changing events in the operating environment. The first few times a managerial candidate faces unforeseen circumstances, it may be difficult to revise the game plan to suit the conditions. With effective coaching and a sprinkling of successes, however, the new manager will learn to handle tough situations without the need to involve a higher up.

Every business has its share of unpredicatable events that can influence performance. While these events cannot be anticipated exactly, they can be expected and planned for in a hypothetical sense. As employees become more flexible in the way in which they carry out their responsibilities, they will be able to aid the business plan execution by adapting to change more quickly and accurately.