Myths and Misconceptions About the Dynamics of Innovation

A.B. @anti) Sbani and CarolJ. Sexton

A.B.&mi) Shad, Ph.D., k a p m f m of wanagemcnt at the California Polytechnic State Univm'ty School of Bwinm in Sun Luis Obkpo. CmlJ . Scxton isamanzgmcntiffrbwtor anda doctoral candidate at the Univenity of Calijbnia-Iwinc GrPdwtcScbool$l#hnag~fManagmnt.

The concept of innovation and its dynamics have captured the imagination of scientists, managers, and organizational development practitioners. Innovation has become a buzz word across disciplines as business people, researchers, and technicians strive to compete effectively in a rapidly changing global technological environment. The meaning of innovation and the dynamics involved remain, however, a source of confusion and mystery, leading to the development of a large number of myths and misconceptions.

The phenomenon of innovation has been carefully studied from a variety of perspectives. Guiding conceptual maps abound and literally thousands of research papers on the topic have been published. Numerous attempts to dissect, define, typologize, characterize, and categorize inn* vation from diverse disciplines have contributed to a disjointed body of knowledge. The primary viewpoints proposed in the literature are rooted in the marketing, scientifidtechnological, and organizational and mana- gerial disciplines. Distinctions within and between the respective disciplines on the typology of innovation such as "high" and "low," "product" and "process," and "radical," "fundamental," and "incremental"-make the concept even more enigmatic.

A significant portion of our knowledge about innovation is grounded in the socially constructed reality created by humans in and around the workplace. From a sociological perspective, subjective experience gradually develops into a common stock of knowledge that is eventually perceived as everyday objective reality, or socially constructed reality. The development of a mythology is one of the mechanisms by which this perceived reality is maintained. Corporate cultures, stories, and rituals that evolved around great innovations helped foster the formation of a variety of myths, many of which are nicely documented in the literature. The semiconductor industry, for example, historically has had to deal with extreme business cycles that move from over-capacity to more than 50 percent under- capacity in less than six months. This unique characteristic is coupled with growing pressures for increased innovation and less-than-a-year time frames for the development of complex integrated circuits. The result is the formation of skunkworks subcultures that are rationalized by myths that spread rapidly throughout every organization in the industry.

Myths play a unique role in life and in organizational settings in general.

National Pdudvity RcvietP/Wirttcr 1990191 75

...rllvfhs taken out of their original context foster the formation of UllTealiSfic workplace expectations, which in turn fadlitate the creation of more myths-

A myth is a story of unknown origin that presents a nonscientific history of a people's beliefs, explaining in anthropomorphic, animistic form such things as the creation of the universe and the source and nature of human and natural phenomena. Myths are also viewed as expressing archetypal symbolism that occurs and recurs through humankind's collective unconscious. Sympathetic interpretations of myths do not regard them as true or false, but as possessing unique insights into a situational reality.

Not all myths, however, maintain the same degree of relevance. Furthermore, myths taken out of their original context foster the formation of unrealistic workplace expectations, which in turn facilitate the creation of more myths. The phenomenon of expectations and the interplay between myths and expectations play an important role in the formation of innovative culture and in the management of innovation dynamics. By exploring some of the more popular myths about innovation, we can uncover some of the misconceptions that they engender, and examine the dynamics and meanings of innovative culture.

Fifty-eight employees of a Silicon Valley semiconductor firm recently were interviewed as part of a larger organization development project that focused on fostering the innovating organization. Interviewees included managers at all levels and in all functional areas, and design, product, and test engineers. Participants' responses were analyzed according to ten variables: innovation definitions, innovation criteria, management actions that fosterhinder innovation, product development process (PDP) de- scription, PDP strengths, PDP weaknesses, management challenges in the PDP, innovation in the PDP, organizational strategy, and organizational design. Through content analysis, five myths and misconceptions were derived from these interviews. Many, if not all, of these myths can, no doubt, be found in other firms and industries.

M y T I I # l - ~ D E I ; I " A L M y T R It is widely believed that once we have a definition of innovation, we

can neatly categorize activities and processes within the scope of that definition and develop a strong theoretical base for the study and practice of innovation. But innovation is a socially constructed phenomenon, dependent on the working relationships that evolve in each work setting. Attempts to categorize types of innovation and show causality between specific characteristics of organizations and the innovation process will ultimately fail when theorists try to generalize across organizational boundaries, or will hold only as long as innovation is narrowly defined within a particular conceptual framework. Innovation is a dynamic phenomenon formulated as a result of the interactions between people. The quality and content of interactionsvarywithin or between organizations, regardless of similarity in goals, strategies, and structures. In the semi- conductor company, innovation takes on a meaning that is different from the definitions of innovation elsewhere. Here are some sample definitions given by survey respondents:

76 National I?du&dy RevimWikter 1990191

Innovation ts an interactiveprocess. It is the ability to manage the thmgmgas- m n , laput and CAD (computerdtdbd design). TecknolosyJncesyou into certain ways of doing things, a certain wayofwlatingtooneanother, anddictatesa certain wayofthinkiqj. (Product Division Manager)

It is really an ongoing process of making assumptions.. .At eachpoint of the &ision-makiqjpmess it seems we are foced to make some d i f l m t assumprrons. We are engaged in a synergssrrC interactive multi-inputpmess that has to be continuously examined and re- examined. (Product Marketing Manager)

Innovation can beseen as apetson’s otun tdea vmus the interactiue evolution of an Idea. I belhm true innovations are innteractWe evolutionary in nature, and as such varyjhm group to group. (Design Engineer)

Innovation is something that you build up in a group o f m k . (Product Engineer)

Pmdwt innovation is an emergent dimemion that results out of the interaction between customer, markting gmw, and disigners. (Marketing Manager)

To equate success with innovation would require the attachment of a great many quallfiters to the meaning of innovatiolL

MYTH*TH.EsuccEssMYTH One of the major reasons for the increased study of innovation is the

belief that innovation is the characteristic distinguishing the successful company from the marginal firm. However, there are numerous examples of companies with great innovative products that have failed for a variety of reasons, such as failure to understand the economic consequences, to market effectively, or to manage the production forces.

Atari, a leading developer of video games, failed to market strategically, and its product development was stymied by the inability to reduce production costs. When the price of video games radically declined, Atari had no place to go with its games. Yet Atari is a highly successhl company in spite of failed innovations. Certainly, to some extent, innovation is an element in a fm’s success, but it cannot be the sole criterion for success. To equate success with innovation would require the attachment of a great many qualifiers to the meaning of innovation.

In electronics fvms high performance-to-cost ratios, proficiency in marketing, and commitment of resources are at least as important as a technology edge to fm success. Yet the notion that innovation makes the difference between success and failure is strong in the exceediigly competitive semiconductor industry. For some survey respondents, in- novation is defined in terms of success:

A.B. (Ram9 Sbani a n d h l 3 . Sexton

Innovation can be &fined as the ability to develop a new product, a new method ora nauprocess which is on the kading edge within its group whik optimally utilizing company resouces. (Division Man- ager)

Ifyou build a m n g knos0-how OY knowkee system, match it with market demands and with your real&& assessment of technical capabilNes, p u can actually create a breakthmotrgh innouation. (Division Marketing Manager)

On the other hand, there are those who would suggest that innovation is secondary to success, or that the volatile markets undermine successful innovation.

l%marethingsthatweneedtodoinordertobeviubkinthemarket. frlotjty is tosatis- cwtommJnt, and only second develop new products and come up with tzew innovations. (Product Engineering Manager)

l%e time it takes us to develop a new product can be too long, and thmfon?, by the time we arrive with theproduct, the customer doesn't need it anymore. (Marketing Manager)

MYTHI+THELOCA"IONMYTH Innovation, for many, takes place in a specific physical or functional

setting, yet disagreement abounds as to what that location is. Is it the R&D lab? Does it happen in the marketing arena, where primary interaction with the custorner.ocmrs? 1s it in the.production process itself? Or is it in all or any of these, sequentially or simultaneously? The variety of locations can be matched in accordance with the various theoretical perspectives and functional orientations, and nicely matches the debate within the semi- conductor company.

Innovation, for

specific Physical or functional setting...

takes place in a

Innovation takes place in the deslgn and the buildup of testing hardwan? and in the desagn and development of test hardware. Oest Engineer)

In my specific product group, most of the innovation comes about within thecarcompanyandvetylittle &innovating h m .. Most ofthe time technology innovation W v e s f i m the big car manufmtum. (Automotive Products Division Manager)

l%eplace ofpure innovation Is at the research and development lab in our indumy, our end should be mom concerned with solution- otjented behavior. (Product Engineer)

78 National Proakivity Revim/?Vktcr 1990/91

Regardless of the spednc school of thought on culture, the common denomi- nator is that culture consists of five key elements...

The reality is that where innovation occurs depends on the organiza- tion. If we look at innovation as a socially constructed process, then location is far from being a critical dimension, since the goal is to facilitate interaction among the various individuals, settings, and departments. The issue then becomes not what innovation is, but what it means to the people actually engaged in the work.

Innovation can be euqthingjhnn new &hnology, new vision, new products, aa''t to change. OW, Marketing)

L&?s#gn innovation is the safest innovation. You can simulate the deslhqn on the computer and see the msults right away. Using manuJactuttjng technology and developing tools that giw you more accurecy is im k?ssjh?pent rype of innovation. Finally there is the processjbr the'tzbemistiy-related innovation ... .(Design Engineer)

'Ibe ma1 creativity is in the concept itse&f..and management recog- nition and support of a new concept i&a is innovation. It t a h innovation on the part of management to recognize it. (R&D Vice President)

M y T H # ~ T H E O R G A " A L c u L T u R E M y T H Some organizational experts believe that there is a strong relationship

between innovation and corporatdorganizational culture. Organizations with cultures that make innovation part of everyday life have been compared with organbitions that foster innovation in only one part of the organization. Because innovation is a socially constructed process, it is likely to occur within a certain organizational culture; however, it is too simplistic to point to an organization and say that it has a culture supporting innovation, or that it supports innovation only in one of its areas, without looking closely at five elements that make up culture and the myths surrounding them. Regardless of the specific school of thought on culture, the common denominator is that culture consists of five key elements: an integrative process of subsystems; an evolutionary process; a visi'on that is central to the organization; the leadership characteristics of the organization and the role of t e c h n o w and technological change within the organi- zation. Here are some of the myths associated with the cultural components and innovation that were found at the semiconductor company.

C d t u d Myth AtZnnovation is Revolutionary The culture ofan organization is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

From an anthropqlogiCirl view, culture is evolutionary in the sense that culture is actually hdw the' person studying the culture understands it. Thus the dimensions of culture are really only extensions of the person's understanding, and the concept of the culture evolves as understanding

grows. Using this concept of culture, we can perceive innovation as an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, process as well.

In an organizational context, just as innovation is not an individual- based activity in the sense of b e i i the product of one person, it is not an individual-based phenomenon because it is not in the mind of just one individual. Neither is it a one-event kind of thing. It is, rather, the process of formulating and understanding what innovation is and the dialogue around innovation that incorporates each individual's beliefs and formu- lates the synergy and energy for innovations.

C u h d Myth B : Innovation is Lonely Most people believe that innovation is an individual-based phenom-

enon. The media are quick to highlight these relatively rare occurrences, which are more acts of invention than innovation. But all of us are at fault. We like to have our celebrities, our eccentric geniuses, such as Thomas Edison, or our conquering heroes, typified by Harold Geneen or Lee Iaccoca. The reality, which more than one genius or hero would be the first to admit, is that innovation is more often an organizational-based phe- nomenon. The individual, by him- or herself is not likely to generate the quality of innovation that the dynamics between individuals is likely to generate. This myth also encourages us not to question the activities of the innovator, but to provide the scientist with the optimal lab conditions, all the tools that could possibly be needed and maximum autonomy. The reality is that innovation is a kind OF integrative process of human systems. It is through the interaction of characters within the organization that we can elevate the system to a higher level of existence. This new level of cohesiveness or interaction will result in a certain quality of innovation that cannot exist without interaction.

Cultural Myth C: The Brightest are the Best Thii myth claims that if you recruit the brightest individuals, you will

be able to generate the most innovation. Unfortunately, the consequences of such a belief are high turnover in the R & D and professional departments rather than organizational loyalty. It is possible to have groups that are not as "smart," but who share a vision of where they want to go and a belief in the power of the group to get there. Such a group is more likely to produce more and better quality innovations and create an identification between the individual and the organization.

The "brightest are the best" myth promotes the notion that innovation means p u s h q back the frontiers in a specific discipline, and only occurs individually or through the interaction of individuals within a specific discipline. Expertise is becoming more and more narrowly defined, and it seems that the narrower the definition, the higher level of expertise we are willing to assign to it. But the reverse is actually true. The more specialized the field, the less the degree of innovation. Bringing in people from other

The more spedallzed the field, the less the

of innsvation.

80 National P d d v i t y Rm~m~intcr 1990/91

disciplines with different perspeaives generates the synergy that is likely to push the frontier one step further.

cuhuralMythD:S~ngcuhureBreeds StrongLcadem Is it true that the stronger the culture of the organization, the more likely

are the leaders to display characteristics that encourage innovation? As has already been noted, a group with a strong shared vision is more likely to be innovative. However, if the cultwe in which the shared vision is extremely strong, leaders may feel that they have little or no influence on the culture, cast as it may seem to be in concrete. Thus, entrepreneurial and innovative leaders may be lost or even forced out due to the continuous attempt to maintain the culture, preventing the continuation of the natural evolutionary process.

cultural Myth E: The Leading Edge Time and again we hear about the necessity of maintaining the leading

edge in technology so that our great scientists can come up with innovations. In reality, the actual process of selecting the leading-edge technology to be adopted may be more critical to the innovation process than the technology itself. The process of studying existing technologies often fosters innovation. For example, in a recent and successful attempt to duplicate IBM's superconductive process, the Japanese came up with a different workable process that they quickly patented.

There is a second element to the myth of leading-edge technology- that is, that choice and implementation of new technology are the concerns of onlya small number of individuals in the organization. Many times these few individuals do not even use the technology. In limiting the process to so few, many organizations actually lose much of the potential for new, creative ideas. When people are given the chance to adopt and using new technology, it is more likely that they will get more out of the technology and use it better for innovation. But this is rarely the case, especially in an industry where technology changes at an incredible pace.

MyTR.#+rErERIsKMYTH In an era where economic uncertainty is the norm rather than the

exception, there is a growing belief that the company that takes the biggest innovation risks will realize the highest payoffs. From a managerial standpoint, the notion is strong that a fast-paced, high-stress, innovate- harvest-and-divest strategy is the best route to maximizing profits. For most companies, thii approach translates into a short-term hit-or-miss strategy with high stakes.

In managing innovation, the goal of the manager is the reduction, or at least management, of uncertainty. Thii requires creative and innovative thinking. Some experts suggest that long-term contingency planning for innovation is more likely to result in greater payoffs-that in planning, a model should be chosen that aims not at maximizing expected profit, but

...th e god of the manageristhe reduction, or at least managemen& of UnCertahltJG

A.B. (Ram4 Sbani andbvl3. Sexton

Innovation requires the building up of momentum which is even more critical to the organhation at times of stress...

rather at obtaining a satisfactory profit in as many areas as possible, and that it is possible to live with risk as long as there are opportunities for innovation and expansion.

Because of the mistaken belief that innovation is a luxury that can only be indulged in during periods of success or prosperity, the R & D budget is usually one of the first to be slashed when times get tough. Innovation draws a lot of organizational and individual resources away from produc- tion, and the best skills, best technological machines, and leading-edge knowledge should be put to work when the going gets tough.

It is tough to allocate resources for innovation when you are striving for survlval in an industry where sutwival is a key dominant hue. (Strategic Marketing Manager)

We &liter sole soutrepmducts, therefore we am limited injkedom to take risk, whkh thus hi& innovation. (Business Unit Man- aged

The mlutionaty rype (of innovation) is much more di@?cult. It requiresmuch more intensive work. It requires higherrisk taking and expensive work at the front end in order to induce a certain innovation. (Product Engineer Manager)

Innovation as an ongoing process, however, cannot be stopped and started at will without tremendous damage to the organization and the innovative process. Innovation requires the building up of momentum which is even more critical to the organization at times of stress-for example, when competition heats up, market demands change, or there are technological breakthroughs. And it is exactly when this pressure is on that the most significant innovation is likely to occur. When everything is going well, attempts to innovate as a result of R & D advances may be regarded by stockholders as rocking the boat.

MANAGING THE INNOVATION PARADOX In an editorial in the January 1988 issue of the Haward Btcszness Re-

v & ~ , Ted Levitt noted: "Organizations exist to enable ordinary people to do extraordinary things. Most of the worlds work gets done, and with remarkable dependability, through organizations that routinize the pro- cess of doing their work. Precisely because of that, the purposes for which organizations exist cause organizations to decline in their ability to achieve their purpose."

This paradox captures the essence of any organizational struggle to foster innovation dynamics. In striving to develop an innovative culture, organizations, managers, and innovators create myths that more often than not stand in the way of understanding and facilitating innovations. Myths and misconceptions play a critical role in organizational life. Furthermore

The manager’s role is to move beyond the tidy models...

they are created during all phases or life-cycle stages of industry and business development. Some research has begun to show that leadership styles, administrative systems, and systems designs tend to follow predict- able patterns during an organization’s life span. In addition, some argue that organizational disposition towards innovation and the type of inn& vation required at each phase of development seem to be different. Specific business strategies and control and reward mechanisms are advocated to foster innovation; however, the overriding challenge is the limited under- standing-as well as the limited knowledge-of the processes and patterns involved in the social construction of reality.

Innovation as a socially constructed phenomenon plays an active part in the formation of myths, the evolving innovative culture,and the misconstrued reality. The manager’s role is to move beyond the tidy models of innovation, to systematically and continually explore the innovation dynamics in the workplace. By fostering organizational dialogue through mechanisms such as appreciative inquiry, action research, and parallel learning structures, managers will discover new forms of innovation dynamics, as well as new myths and misconceptions. But only through such discoveries and ongoing revision of socially constructed reality can managers ensure continuing innovation that will move the organization toward increased competitiveness in the global marketplace. 0

Additional Resources

Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. IheSocial Consmction ofReality. New York: Anchor Books, 1967.

Burgelman, R.A. and Maidique, M. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation. Homewood, 111.: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1988.

Bushe, G.R. and Shani, A.B. Parallel Learning Smtum: Increasing In- novation in Bureaucracies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.

Cooperrider D.L. and Srivastava, S. “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life.” In W.A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman ads.). Research in Orlqaniza- tional Change andDeuelopment. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1987.

Eden, D. Pygmalion in Management: productivity as Serf-Fuljllling Ptvphecy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990.

Foster, R. Innovation: l%eAttacker’sAdvantage. London: MacMillan, 1986.

Gronhaug, K. and Kaufman, G. (Eds.). Innovation: A Cmss-Dlscfplinaty Pexpective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Jelinek, M. and Schoonhoven, C.B. Innovation Marathon. Cambridge, MA:

~

Natioml Productivity Rmim/Winter 1990/91 83

Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Kamm, J.B. A n Integratiw Approach to Managing Innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1987.

Kanter, RM. The Change Masim: InnovalJon fbr AroductMly in the Ametjcan Corporation. New York: Simon 6 Schuster, 1983.

Kdmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J. and Serpa, R. Gaining Conhol of thecotporate Czdmm. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Monger, R.F. Mastering Technology. New York: The Free Press, 1988.

Pasmore, W.A. W n i n g Eflwtiw Otganlzatlons: The Soclotechnical @stems Rx@ective. New York: Wdey, 1988.

Rogers, E.M. and Larsen, J.K. Silicon Valley F e w : Gnnutb of the High- Tecknology Cbltum. New York: Basic Books, 1985.

Rogers, E.M. Di@ksfon of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1983.

Schein, E.H. Organizational ~1tumandLeacAmhip. San Francisco: J m y - Bass, 1985.

Shani, A.B. and Elliott, 0. "Applying Sociotechnical System Design at the Strategic Apex: An Illustration." OrganizationDeuebpmentJounal, 6 (2): 53-66,1988.

Shrivastava, P. and Souder, W.A. "The Strategic Management of Tech- nological Innovations: A Review and a Model." Journal of Management S d W , 24 (1): 2341,1987.

Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M. 7%eProcess of Technologtcal Innooation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990.

Tushman, M.L. and Moore, W.L. Readings in the Management of Inno- vation. Boston: Ballinger, 1988.

Tushman, M.L. and Nadler, D. 'Organizing for Innovation." CalCfomia ManagementReuiew, a,@), 1986.

Van de Vent A.H. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation." Management Science, 32, 5: 590-607, 1986.

Walton, RE. Innovating To Compete. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988.

84 Natiawl Rt&&it~ R e v i m W i 1990/91