Doing Innovation:
Creating Economic Value
Book 3Fostering an
Innovation Culture
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Organizational Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Research Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Optimizing People Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Parting Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Recommended Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Book 3, Fostering an Innovative Culture, provides the fundamentals for developing a culture
that supports innovation. So, how does an organization develop a culture that fosters innova-
tion? The answer in one sense is very simple: find the right people; provide the freedom to act,
but with discipline; implement effective and supportive management practices; provide the
organizational resources and infrastructure; and promote an organizational attitude that focuses
on achieving results. Stating how something can be accomplished is quite different from doing
that something: the “doing process” uncovers the inconsistencies and the unknowns. And of
course there’s the innovation prevention department that can scuttle in seconds what it took
years to build. Book III of this series contains discussion on:
• Organization Culture
• Research Perspectives
Organizational Culture
Judith M. Bardwick
Judith Bardwick3 classifies organizational cultures as entitlement, fear, and earning. All of these
classes include some anomalies. The areas between them include some crossover, but that
should be expected. The issues related to organizational culture do not follow an algorithm.
They are approximations, but serve a purpose for examining different types of cultures.
Entitlement Culture: Entitlement cultures demonstrate high levels of apathy and complacency,
conformity to rules and procedures, rule checking, bureaucracy, dependence, lack of communi-
cation, and risk avoidance. These characteristics lead to low levels of innovation, if any; lack
of empowerment; a lackadaisical attitude toward meeting targets; and an overriding desire
to maintain the status quo. If innovation occurs, it is incremental at best, and is treated as a
major accomplishment. Precedent governs decisions, and generating constructive dissonance
is not an option. Time is not of the essence in the entitlement culture, and there’s just too much
agreement and graciousness.
D. R. Denison
Denison4 proposed four hypotheses related to culture and effectiveness that include
involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission, and he describes them as follows:
• Involvement suggests engaging and participating to create a sense of ownership.
• Consistency argues that the shared system of beliefs have a positive impact on the
ability of an organization to reach consensus.
• Adaptability allows the organization to respond to the changing needs of the internal
and external environment, and to change behaviors and processes that allow the
organization to adapt to a new set of requirements.
• Mission provides purpose and meaning that defines the role of the organization to
society, the immediate community, and the individual.
Dennison’s measures of effectiveness included introduction of new products, sales growth,
market share, cash flow, return on assets, and overall performance. Questionnaires were
sent out to 3,425 organizations and 969 responded. As is the case with all responses to ques-
tionnaires, perceptions and desires may obscure reality. While Denison used an investigative
approach to reach his conclusions, even without the study, might we not conclude that an
organization where participants were involved in and owned their projects; were consistent in
fulfilling the shared system of beliefs; were adaptable to the needs of the internal and external
environment; and were focused on the organization’s mission/purpose would, under any cir-
cumstances, surpass the performance of an organization that lacked these four characteristics?
Research perspectives
10 The No-Rules Culture
The No-Rules culture was born during the rise of the information technology era that required
high levels of creativity and innovation. Since there’s little, if any, research on the No-Rules
Culture, what appears in the press may be more myth than fact. Notwithstanding that preface,
this culture involved working around the clock for those who were passionate about pursuing
an idea toward some successful conclusion. The No-Rules Culture allows for much social inter-
change, and the freedom to act with high levels of independence. The boss may not be looking
over your shoulder, but I’m positive a time comes when that date of completion can no longer
be extended, the pressure to perform builds. This culture led to the dot-com era that focused
engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and investors on thinking outside the box — but in the
process, forgot to think about what was in the box to temper their ambitions: the fundamentals.
H. Guy Bensusan
H. Guy Bensusan,5 a humanities professor at Northern Arizona University, presented a meta-
digm that included:
• Cultural sequences
• Mutual influences
• Regional diversities
• Modernizing technologies
• Diversifying populations
• Accelerated databases
• Institutionalizing persuasions
• Broadening visions
• Confrontational decisions
Bensusan was not discussing industrial organizational culture, but history related to the role
of Spanish immigration in South America, and eventually North America. Between 1500 and
1800 A.D., cultural sequences, mutual influences and regional variations led to a modification
of all the cultures involved. Modernizing technologies came into being between 1800 and
1900 A.D. Between 1900 and 1950 A.D., modernizing technologies were augmented through
technologies such as electrification, communication and electronics. These technologies led
to diversifying the populations, accelerating use of databases, and the remainder of the other
elements of the metadigm.
Research perspectives
12 • C
onfrontational decisions: Related to ideas, purposes, policies, and other issues,
these decisions are an essential part of organizational activities. It is a positive source
for organizational growth, whether dealing with quantitative or qualitative measures of
performance or deciding to live with the status quo. However, this type of confrontation
does not focus on personalities, but is based on differences in principles. In essence,
confrontation involves creating some dissonance; otherwise, the status quo will remain.
Research perspectives
Optimizing People Performance 13
P eople are an organization’s most important asset — and in the real world, some are more
important than others. A typical organization depends on about 10 percent of its personnel
to move the organization forward. These are the people who, through initiative, go beyond the
call of duty. It does not, in any way, demean the performances, but many prefer the eight-to-five
routine. And a business cannot survive with only those who choose the eight-to-five schedule.
Building the people base to develop a culture that fosters innovation requires that the
organization:
• Stress the importance of people
• Identify the critical mass
• Work with lean staff
• Promote teamwork
• Build trust
• Insist on integrity
• Insist on accountability
• Promote lifelong learning
• Pursue excellence
Stress the importance of people: There should be no doubt that people are an organization’s
primary asset. But what happens after an employee joins an organization is what matters. Too
many instances arise where the best and the brightest somehow never meet the expectations.
Assuming that qualifications were not misrepresented, and management did due diligence in
the interview process — what happened? The answer doesn’t need research. Some manager
failed to provide the necessary career guidance, or the individual may have gone through
some extenuating circumstances. The responsibility falls on the manager to make sure that
competency is maintained, either through additional education or new experiences. Accept-
ing performance below the required acceptable level does not provide an employee benefit or
opportunity. Managers cannot abdicate their responsibility for guarding organizational talent.
People decisions are often difficult and frustrating, but accepting performance below what’s
required eventually leads to the destruction of what should have been a successful career. I’m
not suggesting that the employee plays no role in the career development process, but after
attempts to improve the situation, it may be more judicious to recommend termination.
B ook III has provided some general perspectives on issues related to organizational culture,
and reflected on the requirements for optimizing people performance, encouraging profes-
sional attitudes, and developing appropriate management practices. There are no recipes or
algorithms that guarantee a quick-start for developing an innovation culture. We have no theory
about how innovation occurs: it’s not V=IR or F=MA. The process begins with the willingness
of executive management to set the stage to develop a culture that will continue to spawn a
continuous flow of innovators and innovations. We have no concrete evidence to demonstrate
the linkages between policy, economics and innovation. However, we do have historical evi-
dence as to how innovation occurs in innovative organizations. And that shows that any type of
breakthrough innovation may require years of investment and dedicated effort before the goals
are realized. Building a culture that supports innovation begins with following management
fundamentals.
While the general principles may come from the executive suites, the participants actually
develop the working culture throughout the various organizational units. The culture that’s
important is the one where individuals work in a collegial relationship, and support one another,
building on each other’s thoughts and actions. Keep in mind that cultures are developed over
time, and it will take time and effort to develop a culture that will support innovation. We also
need to remember that the culture that will foster innovation may be quite different from a
culture that exists when a group is given a project assignment with deadlines and specific
outcomes. If you have a desire to become an innovator, the basic background and principles
of the culture required to stimulate innovation have been provided. It’s up to you. Book IV will
cover what it takes to be an innovator.
1. A. Bennett, “Broken Bonds,” Special Early Retirement Supplement, Wall Street J.,
p. R23, Dec. 8, 1989.
2. John P. Kotter, William McKnight, and James L Heskett. Corporate Culture and
Performance. New York. The Free press. 1992.
3. Judith M. Burdick. Beyond the Quick Fix. American Management Association. New York.
1991.
4. D. R. Denison. Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Theory and
Some Empirical Evidence. Proceedings of the Academy of Management. 1989.
pp. 168-171, Best paper.
5. H. G. Bensusan, Lecture notes and handouts, North Arizona State University, 1989.
6. Ernest Gundling. The 3M Way of Innovation. Kodama International. Tokyo. 2000. p.58.
7. Peter M. Tobia. “Robert Lutz Gives Engineers the Nod.” IEEE-USA. Today’s Engineer.
Vol. No. 2-1. pp. 6-11.
8. Theodore Levitt. The Marketing Mode. McGraw-Hill. New York. 1969. pp. 155-170.
9. T. A. Wise. “IBM’s 5,000,000,000 Gamble”. Fortune. September 1996.Reprinted in
Readings in the Management of Innovation, Michael L. Tushman and William L. Moore.
Editors. HarperBusiness. New York. 1988. pp. 45-54.
10. Abraham Zaleznik. “Real Work”. Harvard Business Review. January-February 1989.
Reprint 97611.
11. Aaron Shenhar and Dov Dvir. Reinventing Project Management. Harvard Business School
Press. Boston. 2007. pp. 4-9.
1. M. K. Badawy, Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists. New York: Von
Nostrand Reinhold, 1982.
2. R.H. Kilman, Beyond the Quick Fix. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.
3. R. M. Kanter, The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.
4. T. J. Peters and W. H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence. New York: Warner Books/Harper
and Row, 1982.
5. W. Ouchi, Theory Z. Reading, MA; Addison-Wesley, 1981.
6. W. Ouchi, The M-Form Society. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1984.
7. Gerard H. Gaynor. Innovation by Design. American Management Association. New York.
2002.