Посты с тэгом: process

Gender Role in Innovation

Published date: March 9, 2008 в 2:05 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,,

Optimal innovation occurs when there is an equal mix of men and women using a systematic process.  I have always believed this through my observation of many innovation exercises.  When a predominately male group tries to innovate, results are less impressive.  When a predominately female group tries to innovate, results are less impressive.  Put them together and the results are amazing.
Research in this area may have some suggestions why.  Lynne Millward and Helen Freeman tested several hypothesis and reported the results in their article, “Role Expectations as Constraints to Innovation:  The Case of Female Managers.”  The essence of the research is that, while men and women are equally innovative, their gender role within the context of an organization can affect how they are perceived and how they behave when innovating and sharing ideas.  Men are perceived as more innovative and risk-taking, and women are perceived as more adaptive and risk-adverse.  “Thus, gender roles may interact with the role of the manager to inhibit (in the case of women) or facilitate (in the case of men) the likelihood of innovative behavior.”
They tested several hypothesis.  People perceive innovative solutions to be more likely to come from a male manager, and they perceive adaptive solutions to be more likely to come from a female manager.  They also found that innovative solutions were perceived to be more likely to be implemented if they were suggested by a male manager.
Innovation carries with it different levels of risk for men than for women.  Men are expected to take more risks when innovating and sharing ideas.  Failure is less damaging to men because that’s what’s expected of them.  Women are expected to be less risky, and this appears to limit or constrain both their degree of innovation and their willingness to share it.  Failure is more damaging for women so they behave more adaptively in innovation exercises.
As a practitioner, I believe there is both a negative and a positive side to this.  On the one hand, innovation workshops need a process to assure that women feel they can innovate “bigger” and share those ideas with the group.  If, as the research suggests, women are more likely to hold back, then the facilitation approach has to break through it.  Otherwise, you lose the inherent value of the (equal) innovation talent they bring to the table.
On the positive side, these differences can be beneficial.  I believe this more adaptive behavior in women and more risk-taking behavior in men provides a certain balance or harmony during innovation.  What I observe is a complementary effect that seems to yield better results.  Why?  I’m not sure, but my sense is that each partner holds the other accountable for ideas that are, at the same time, novel but adoptable.  Working in pairs, men and women also do a better job of expressing jointly-developed new ideas that may help overcome risks that women may be feeling.  Workshop processes that pair men and women up to take advantage of this are going to be more fruitful.

Funding Innovation

Published date: January 10, 2008 в 10:02 pm

Written by:

Category: Uncategorized

Tags: ,,,,,

Mitch Ditkoff takes on the all important issue of how to fund innovation, and writes about innovation slush funds as a way improve innovation results:

What I like about this approach is that it sidesteps the bureaucratic hokey pokey, run-it-up-the-flagpole, command and control, funky chicken shuffle that all too often scuttles powerful new ideas in need of a timely infusion of capital to get them rolling.

From my experience, there are two choices in how to fund innovation:  invention or development.  Invention means the actual genesis of the idea, usually through a concentrated effort or workshop using a proven method.  Development is what you do with the ideas that have commercial merit.  Both take time and money.  The choice depends on whether you think spending the money to generate ideas will yield more than a pool of funds to invest the ideas that you already have.
Fortune 100 companies vary widely in how they approach it.  Some invest in idea generation to create large stocks of potential opportunities.  They invest in innovation teams and processes to keep innovation happening day in and day out.  The ideas generated must compete for resources against the rest of the portfolio of opportunities.  The other approach is to create a bounty like what Mitch has described…a slush fund to motivate and lure the creative people to come up with ideas.
My preference is to fund invention, systematically.  My sense is that employees need to feel there are sufficient resources and sufficient time for them to take the risk of ideating.  By investing in the ideation process, employees feel liberated to give it their all.  I think the idea of a slush fund makes sense if it is used for pure ideation.   Tell people there are dollars available to conduct formal ideation workshops…a slush fund…and they will beat a path to your door.  That’s what I do.   As Mitch puts it:

And remember, as one wise pundit put it, “It’s not the money that starts the idea, it’s the idea that starts the money.”

Fund ideation, and the result will yield more funds.

Get our innovation model that has worked for 1000+ companies.

    No thanks, not now.