Charged Up

7/30/2019 Charged Up

1/15

Research Report

Charged Up:Managing the Energy thatDrives Innovation

Rob Cross, Jane Linder and Andrew Parker

March 2006


2/15

Charged Up: Managing the Energy that Drives Innovation March 2006

2 | Accenture Institute for High Performance Business

Some organizations are able to generate successful product and process inno-

vations over and over again. They develop a distinctive capability in this area,

one of the building blocks of a high-performance business. An important part

of their success, of course, stems from the superior management processes

and organizational structures they use to bring new ideas to market. But an

equally critical, and often overlooked, success factor distinguishes innovative

organizations: energy. As the head of R&D at a consumer products organiza-

tion explained to us, Nothing innovative happens without someone getting

fired up about an idea and then getting others enthused about and supportive

of the plan. No matter how good or technically right the idea might be, if

you cant generate energy for it, nothing of substance is going to happen.

zations innovative potential quicklyand effectively.5 People are much morelikely to seek out information andto learn from energizers than from

de-energizersand all phases of aninnovation require new information,perspectives or expertise in order toproceed successfully.6

While these earlier findings showedexecutives how to identify energizersand de-energizers, they didnt providespecific insights into managing energyto stimulate learning and innovation.Based on network research conductedwith 15 organizations, as well asAccentures ongoing research into thecharacteristics of organizations thatachieve high performance, this articleseeks to fill that gap. (See About theResearch, page 9.) Following a visual tourof how information seeking and energy

Pick up any article or book aboutinnovation, and this statement willbe borne out. Experts in this arenadescribe the need for intense passion,

for executive commitment andengaged teams, for relentless effort toovercome obstacles, and even for thekind of nurturing normally associatedwith parenting.1Yet while executivesrecognize energy as intricately inter-twined with innovation, they alsostruggle with how best to drive passionand enthusiasm into their organizations.One solution is to focus a network lenson the daily interactions throughout anorganization that either energize ordrain employees.2

Managing energy involves shaping acomplex dynamic with its own internalfeedback loops. Most innovative projectsnot only consume employee energy,they also generate it.3 Attempts tocontrol energy can backfirewitness

the kickoff meeting that leaves employeesfeeling skeptical and deflated ratherthan committed. To make it even morechallenging, energy has to be kicked

up and drained off at differentpoints during a project. In other words,when the organization launches asearch for, say, new products, it has tocoalesce enough energy in that initia-tive to break the pull of other pressingdemands. Executives have days or weeksto ignite this spark, not months or years.Similarly, at the end of an initiative, theorganization must dampen or redirectthe head of steam that has been builtup so it can turn its attention elsewhere.

Put in these terms, managing energycan sound impossible. But thats notthe case. Earlier research has demon-strated that energy can be assessedthrough an organizational network lens.Network analyses reveal that peopleenergize and de-energize theircolleagues, teams and organizations bythe way they interact.4 Not surprisingly,de-energizing behavior saps an organi-


3/15



two prerequisites of innovationareconnected, we explain how executivesshould manage energy differently atdifferent phases of the innovation

process. We then offer more generalguidelines for companies that want toensure that their enthusiasm doesntflag when attempting to meet thechallenge of innovative change.

Visualizing energy flowand dissipation

Exhibit 1 below shows a patterntypical of all 15 organizations in thisresearch. Exhibit 1 shows the pattern of

connections within a group of technicalarchitects at one of the largest utilitiesin the United States. An arrow goingfrom one architect to another revealsthat the first architect is seeking infor-mation from the second in order to get

his or her work done. These employeesplayed key roles in strategic initiativessuch as merger integration and supplychain management, and their ability to

recognize and implement key technicalinnovations was critical to the successof those initiatives.

Exhibit 2 shows the extent to whichthe architects seek information fromthe networks de-energizers. The drop-off in connectivity graphically illus-trates the impact: people avoid suchindividuals. In fact, most of the tiesthat remain reflect formal reportingrelationships from which the information

seeker could not escape.

In all 15 organizations, energizingrelationships were the only consistentdeterminant of who learned andobtained information from whom, and

the energy network was always themost important predictor of information-seeking relationships (it was four to sixtimes more important than traditionalpredictors of information-seekingrelationships). Further, when onlyinformational relationships deemedvery effective were analyzed, the roleof energy was even more pronounced.

Energizing interactions stimulate insightsby enabling people with different per-

spectives to collaborate effectively.Enthusiasm and energy help overcomethe natural disconnects between peoplefrom different backgrounds and withdifferent areas of expertise. These

Exhibit 1: Network connections in a major utility


4/15



collaborations create the spacethemutual respect, confidence and opennessthat enables innovative possibilities toemerge and develop.

Managing energy in four keystages of innovation

Each part of the innovation processcalls for a different style of energymanagement. A manager who demandsaction steps and deadlines during abrainstorming meeting will stranglecreativity immediately. Further along inthe process, a pause for a blue-sky

session in the middle of an aggressiverollout will also kill momentum. Leadershave to understand how and when totap different energizing mechanisms.They also have to shape perceptions, asseemingly similar approaches to aninitiative can be either energizing orde-energizinglofty targets are inspiring,

but unrealistic expectations sapmotivation. It is up to leaders to helpemployees reach the right interpretationin order to unleash the energy effect.

Although innovative initiatives oftenmove in a non-linear path, most includefour very different types of activities:ideation, selection, development andcommercialization. (See Energy sourcesand sinks in the innovation process,page 11.)

Ideation: protect the hunters.

Innovations often emerge on thefringe of peoples jobs and roles, wherethey are invisible to the rest of theorganization. At this stage, innovationsare especially fragile; de-energizingbehaviors easily stamp them out. Peopleneed some latitude and encouragementfrom management in order to pursuebudding ideas in an easy, low-risk way.Consider the market researcher atHerman Miller who believed thatcustomers wanted more than high-endoffice furniture from the company;

he was convinced they wanted servicesthat would help them make theirworkplaces more effective. Since hisrole in the company was research on

workplace design, which had neverbeen a customer-facing activity, he hadto enlist the assistance of a well-placedcolleague in sales to get the opportunityto test his ideas on actual customers.When customers proved enthusiastic,the innovator came out from underthe radar to head up an official andprofitable service line for the company.The Herman Miller culture played apositive role in the story. Instead ofbeing asked to prepare a formal busi-

ness case, this innovator received thecompanys usual response to newideas: Lets give this a try.

Exhibit 2: Network connections of de-energizers


5/15



In the ideation stage, employees areframing possibilities; in most successfulcases, they are doing this with peoplewho have expertise different from their

own. The complexity and depth ofexpertise required for even the mostcommon innovations make it all butimpossible for the lone inventor toexist anymore. Energizing interactionsstimulate insights by enabling peoplewith different perspectives to collaborateeffectively. Enthusiasm and energyhelp bridge the natural disconnectsbetween people with different back-grounds and expertise.

Ideation isnt limited to internal white-board sessions. Companies oftenconduct intensive and time-consuminginvestigations of customers needs,technological possibilities and competitorsactivities to identify promising newproduct ideas. The search for goodopportunities to create value in otherinnovation arenasbranding, financialstructure, administrative processes,business models and so onis equallychallenging. Effective managers clearaway obstacles to exploration byerecting protective umbrellas over theiridea hunters. One chief technologyofficer directs his people to go hunt-ing in pairs. He sends an engineer anda marketer into the field to live withcustomers and customers customers forsix months. In his experience, it takesthis marriage of perspective and thislength of time to see what is missingrather than what is there.

The transition from generating ideas toselecting from them involves more thanjust chunking out investment proposalsor submitting them to the capital com-mittee. In many ways, its a matter oftiming. Innovators test the waters tounderstand whether their organizationand their customers are open to the

new idea. Ideas whose time has comewill garner enough energy and momentumto carry them through the challengesthey will face.

Selection: be positive. Innovationsaim is to drive profitable growth, notto maximize energy. Nevertheless, it ispossibleand necessaryto chooseideas to pursue in ways that do not killorganizational energy. While the energydynamic in the ideation process requiresopenness, diversity and creativity, theselection process rests on transparencyand fairness. Its aim is less to buildmomentum than to avoid destroying it.

Companies cant devote resources toevery idea, so most have a stage-gateor prioritization process to assess pro-posals and choose among them. In thetypical company, the few whose ideasare funded are tremendously energized,while the many whose projects aregiven no resources feel discouraged. Asthe executive of a telecommunicationscompany explained, We solicit hundredsof good ideas from our very bright peopleeach year. Then we select one to pursue.What happens to the people who sentin all those other ideas? They neversend us another one.

Three ways to save energy throughthe selection process are critical. First,choose projects based on objectivemerit, not political strength, and com-municate the decisions explicitly sothe rationale is clear. One research and

development executive asks his scientiststo log all of their ideas, not just thosethat have won the heart of a heavy-weight sponsor. This enables him tokeep an eye on the selection process tomake sure it remains fair and open. Italso lets him work with individualscientists to review their overall impactand improve the quality of their ideas.

Second, dont just take the negativepath of killing struggling projectsquickly and completely (standard bestpractice advice for managing R&D

portfolios). Energizing leaders havefound it is better to double the beton innovations that are paying off:employees who want to make a contri-bution will naturally be attracted tothe successful initiatives. A positivefocus creates an energizing marketfor attention and funding amonginnovators without undermining theirinitiative. At the same time, projectsthat are slower to show their merit canproceed at their own pace. For example,

until recently Microsoft put little priorityon the search function as an importantWeb-browser capability. However, whenleaders recognized its importance, theydiscovered several cutting-edge initia-tives that were quietly making theirway forward.

Third, treat the innovation process asiterative rather than linear. Todays badidea can become tomorrows breakthrough.Selection processes that publicly brandinitiatives as failures make it hard torevisit them when conditions change.A more energy-aware approach retainsideas for possible future use or grants afull license to a rejected idea to theindividual who contributed it. When BillGore, a chemist at DuPont, developed avariant of Teflon that could be used toinsulate electrical wires, the companydecided not to commercialize his product.Management did, however, grant him

an unencumbered license to the tech-nology. Some years later, Bills son Bobadapted the technology to open up awhole new market for WL Gore andAssociates: they introduced Goretex.


6/15



The transition from selection to devel-opment is like a drag race. You have tobuild up speed quickly from a standingstartovercoming the lull that comes

as a natural byproduct of waiting forapproval Initiatives that have earnedthe organizations imprimatur nowneed energizing leaders who can bothdescribe the vision and organize thecharge while keeping key supportersengaged and enthusiastic

Development: listen to the de-

energizers. An innovations develop-ment process, with its prototypes andexperiments, involves yet another set

of energy ebbs and flows. Gettingthings done and making things workenergize practical people, especially whendone in stimulating collaboration withavid clients, suppliers and colleagues.7

At this stage, unlike in ideation orselection, teams build momentum,organizations become invested andinitiatives become more difficultto stop.

Expending effort on an initiative andmaking progress, however, are twoentirely different things. De-energizingfactors like continually changing lead-ership, inattentive or overly attentivemanagement and unrealistic deadlinescan ensure that promising projectschurn away unproductively. One financialservices company executive admittedthe organization was on its third try ata developing a major new informationtechnology capabilitythis time under

the direct oversight of the companysmost senior leaders to provide the levelof focus a profound change requires.Both of its previous attempts hadstumbled when program managersrotated inand then out againas theyfound little interest in the initiativefrom the top.

Some parts of the innovation processare destroyed by de-energizing behaviorand others only succeed if leaders createroom for de-energizers to be heard.

Although de-energizers cost sunshine inthe words of one executive, de-energizingcan play a productive role in innovation.It can temper boundless enthusiasmwith realism, make sure a group hasexplored a new idea from all the anglesand ensure that all opinions are heardand considered. As one food companyexecutive counsels, Dont ever letde-energizers work on the early stagesof an innovative project. But when youmove it to engineering, thats when

you want people to ask all the hardquestions. Effective development leadershelp the team interpret these criticismsand challenges constructively, cultivatingan upbeat attitude to take the realistsviews into account, but also keep themin perspective.

One aggressive government executiveled a team hell-bent on implementingelectronic tax filing. He laid out a planthat allowed nine months from start tofinish. When a diligent staffer presentedhis task-by-task project plan, it showedthat aiming for anything short of twoyears would be foolhardy. The executivethanked him for his contribution, toreup the detailed plan, and reiterated thedue date. He recognized, however, thatordinary project management wouldnot carry the day. He took his wholeteam, including outside vendors, off toa new location for the duration of the

project and paid personal attention tothe human side, explaining, It takes alot of management and minding todevelop a real team and an ethos thatyou will do whatever it takes to meetyour promises. You wont find that inany textbook. His highly energizedteam delivered on time.

Commercialization: stay the course.

Finally, innovations oft-forgotten long,hard march through implementation to

capture value can be the most demandingprocess of all from an energy perspective.The organizations everyday processesmust shift to make room for the inno-

vation and get re-established againwithout losing too much productivity.For example, a credit card companywith a telemarketing group known forsuccessful cross-selling decided toexpand its offerings to include insur-ance. Regulations prohibit unlicensedagents from selling insurance, however.To begin selling insurance to its existingcustomers, the company had to bothestablish a new group of licensedsales agents and train existing sales

representatives to transfer the rightcustomers to them.

Leaders help teams get through thehard work of changing their practicesby keeping them focused on thepromise of results. But if the organiza-tional commitment, sense of purposeor focus wavers, energy quickly evapo-rates. One government executivedescribed the importance of stabilityamid change this way, Normally oursenior executives change roles every 18months to two years. Ive been in myjob for four years now because peopleneed leadership continuity to imple-ment radical new processes.

The transition from development tocommercialization can be particularlyrocky. Development engineers arerenowned for endlessly tweakingnew products to perfection while the

commercialization team tries to get agrip on features they can sell. Handoffsare dangerous; no one wants to workon someone elses risky idea. While itsimportant to keep the original teaminvolved, organizational roles andpriorities can make this difficult asproduct developers are asked to shareresponsibility for their baby with


7/15



marketers or are moved onto newprojects altogether. Teradyne doesthis well, keeping original innovatorsinvolved through the first customer

sale, and putting marketing and salespeople on the innovation team fromthe beginning. Effective leaders managethese transitions without a loss ofenergy by making the shift in rolesand responsibilities crisp and clear,but keeping the out of phaseparticipants engaged.

From an energy perspective, the mostchallenging transitions of all are thosethat involve shifting strategic focus.

For example, a dynamic financial ser-vices company built its reputation withfast-paced, innovative offers in thecredit card industry. In the midst of itsrapid growth, bureaucracy and tidyprocesses were distinctly de-energizing.As it has matured, however, the companyhas shifted toward becoming a full-service institution based on a solid,reliable processing infrastructure. Now,the company needs to rally its energyto create those tidy processes it onceeschewed. This is an energizing challengeof the first order that demands thatsenior leadership take personal respon-sibility for creating the organizationalwill to change.

Everyday energy

As important as it is to manage energydifferently in the four stages of innovation,

it is also critical to consider the problemmore holistically. It must be regularlymeasured and monitoredwho has it?Where is it lacking? What can be doneto bring in peripheral players? Finally, itcant be assumed that managers willunderstand how to create more energy:

they themselves must be coachedso that energy at the top doesntpeter out.

Taking the pulseThe first step toward managing energyis measuring it. Leaders in our researchconsistently used organizational networkanalysis to make energizing interactionsvisible. First and foremost, these viewsidentify those who are central in theenergy network. In some cases, a networkview helps leaders to re-create energyelsewhere by defining energizingbehaviors and employing evaluationand reward processes to stimulate

replication of the those behaviors. Inothers it helps to protect against thevoid a departure or promotion of anenergizer would have on their entiregroup. Second, these analyses helpleaders identify and engage peripheralplayers. New employees and oldtimers can find themselves at theedgesthe former because they dontknow people yet, the latter becausethey are disengaging as they approachretirement. A network analysis can findtrouble spots with old and new employeesand find ways to plug them in.

A network lens can also help identifywhere energy is flagging and revealhidden obstacles to innovation. Byhighlighting people in a network whoare engaged on key projects, leaders candetermine which efforts have energybehind them and which do not. Forexample, at any given time one large,

partnership-oriented pharmaceuticalcompany has 300 to 400 active part-nerships with biotech companies ofvarious sizes. Recognizing that poorrelationships undermine promisingscience, the companys alliance man-agement center uses a wide variety ofdiagnostics and trainingincluding anannual relationship physicalto helpits drug development teams workeffectively with outsiders. The company

is laying plans to analyze its develop-ment projects energy networks in orderto improve even further its ability tomanage cross-boundary teams.

Building the culture

Energizing interactions do not occurin a vacuum. Cultural values have apowerful and pervasive effect on energy.9

In interviews, we found that threevalues must be nurtured to build anenergy-friendly culture: playfulness,trust and realistic optimism.

Energizing managers create a light-hearted environment that encourages

others to bring offbeat ideas into|conversations productively. They areespecially adept at using humor tobypass tense or difficult situations asthey stimulate debate. They dont balkat stupid questions, and theyrewilling to offer creative solutions them-selves. For example, Drew Phelps, acustomer delivery manager with networkservices company Netivity Solutions,wanted to improve the companysdismal average response time66 minutesto customer network alerts. He createda game to light a fire under the companysengineers. If the engineer on dutyresponds to an alert in less than fiveminutes, he or she earns a six-pack ofbeer. If response time is between fiveand 15 minutesNetivitys internalgoalthe engineer receives one bottleof beer. For a response between 15 and30 minutes, the reward is youll getnothing and like it, and anything after

30 minutes means the engineer buysPhelps a six-pack. After instituting thegame in September 2005, averageresponse time dipped to less than fiveminutes and has stayed there.


8/15



The second cultural necessity, trust,forms the foundation upon which ener-gizing interactions can unfold. Whenwe mapped trust networks on a subset

of the organizations in this research, wefound that they corresponded almostperfectly with the energy networks.Energizing contexts are honest andtransparent in contrast to de-energizingones, in which hidden agendas or politicalposturing keep people from being ableto rely on others. Integrity betweenwords and action is also critical. Forexample, UPS executives only half-jokinglycall themselves a bunch of boy scouts.Honesty, loyalty and trustworthiness are

not on anyones performance metrics,but these values are reinforced daily inthousands of interactions. CEO MikeEskew says, When Im in the cafeteria,I make a point of asking people whatwe could do better. They tell me, and Ilisten. When an entire company inter-nalizes these cultural values, as UPS hasdone, they become energized by theircommitments. In contrast, when peoplelearn they cant count on others to dowhat they say they are going to do,energy drains out of the organization.

Playfulness and trust benefit from thethird cultural value that is important toenergy, optimism. Its often easier tosee the obstacles, risks and costs thanthe upside opportunity in a new idea.However, where de-energizers see road-blocks at every turn, energizers naturallysee realistic possibilities. Encouragingthis mindset gives innovation a fighting

chance. For example, the vice presidentof operations of a global consumerproducts companya recognized leaderin efficient manufacturingchallengedhis organization to boost manufacturingreliability from about 70 percent to 85percent, a level that conventional wisdomlabeled unachievable. For the nexteight years, two engineers in one busi-

ness led the organization to a whollynew approach to managing production.Among other areas, they broke newground in developing new equipment

reliability concepts, methods of com-municating to plant workers and externalpartnershipstracking down actualrocket scientists to develop the mathe-matical basis for their solution. Despitethe daunting nature of the challenge,the engineers persevered and ultimatelysaving the company millions of dollars.

Coaching the leaders

Sometimes executives and people atthe center of a network find themselves

on the wrong side of the energy equation.This is a problem because formal andinformal leaders are a high leveragepoint of energy: Their behaviors aremagnified and have a bigger impactthan those of others. They tend tobe either strong energizers or strongde-energizers. Whether youre thecoach or the coached, six steps canhelp an executive change from astrong de-energizer into a productive,satisfied and engaged leader of aninnovative initiative:

Bite your tongue. Try not to criticizeideas immediately. Let them developand then look for ways to build on andimprove them.

Disagree with things, not people.

Phrase your disagreement in a way thatkeeps attention on objectives and doesnot appear as an attack on the person

with the idea.

Offer genuine compliments freely.

Anyone can see through patronizing ordisingenuous praise. Look for deservingbehavior to complimentwhich meansyoull have to pay attention to peopleto spot the behavior.

Be part of the solution. Never identifya problem, especially in public, unlessyou can also suggest a solution or

at least a way to approach finding asolution. Be ready to lead the work todevelop the alternative.

Start with the answer is yes; whatsthe question? Maintain a challengingbut open stance to new ideas. Start byassuming the idea can be successful,then explore what it might require toactually make it so.

Shake hands. This is the easiest behaviorto change, but research shows that itmakes a big difference. People will feelmore connected with you after eventhis most formal of personal touches.

In addition to improving energy at keypoints in the network, executives musthelp individual energizers rechargewhen their own store of enthusiasmruns low. When an energizer stalls, hisown performance is not the only thingthat suffers; the momentum that natu-rally builds around the energizer alsoevaporates. Executives should knowwho these influential players are andtake deliberate measures to rechargetheir batteries when necessary.

Good ideas are abundant in organizations.But an individuals epiphany wontamount to anything unless others aremotivated to believe in it and act on it.Managers must learn to foster andharness the energy that is needed atevery stage of the innovation process.A network perspective can maketractable the myriad, seemingly invisible

interactions that build or drain energydeep within an organization. When thisimportant substrate becomes visible,executives can take specific actions tomove their organizations toward highperformance by driving innovationwhile at the same time contributing tothe well-being and growth of employees.


9/15

About the research

Research on networks in organizations

has tended to emphasize instrumental

ties, such as those that exist becausepeople engaged in a task need to

obtain information or resources.11

While some researchers have explored

expressive or emotional aspects of

relationshipssuch as friendship,

personal or career support, and trust

no research that we are aware of

has considered the impact of deeper

relational dimensions on outcomes

like profitable growth and the inno-

vation that fuels it.12

We became intrigued with energy

networks as a result of research

showing links between a persons

centrality in a network of energizing

interactions and his or her performance:

in this work, employees perceived as

energizing were consistently ranked

as higher performers in annual HR

evaluations.13As additional evidence

emerged showing that energy and

information seeking were closely

intertwined, we began to focus on

the role of energizing interactions in

innovation.14We devised a mixed

method approach to further under-

stand both the relationship between

energy and information flow in

networks and the actions executives

can take to support energy where it

has an impact on innovation.

First, we employed organizational

network analysis in 15 organizations

to assess both information and energynetworks. To visualize energy networks

we asked the survey question:

People can affect the energy and

enthusiasm we have at work in various

ways. Interactions with some people

can leave you feeling drained while

others can leave you feeling enthused

about possibilities. When you interact

with each person below, how does it

typically affect your energy level?

Respondents could indicate a value

from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated

strongly de-energizing and 5

strongly energizing.

The results of this analysis allowed us

to visualize and describe consistent

features of energizing and de-ener-

gizing interactions in organizations.

They also helped us to establish an

empirical link between information

flow and energy in networks. Using a

form of regression known as quadratic

assignment procedure (to account for

non-independence of network data),

we were able to statistically deter-

mine whether energy was a critical

determinant of key informational

relationships.15 This approach

confirmed a consistent link between

energy and information flow in a

large number of organizations.

Further, results from this phase of

the research helped us to understand

patterns of energizing interactionsand some key influencers of energy

in organizations.

In the second phase of the research,

we conducted 26 interviews primarily

with people considered high energizersby their peers (as revealed by the

network analyses). We then conducted

50 additional interviews with execu-

tives involved directly in innovation.

This phase provided us with rich

insights into the impact of energy on

innovation and on the levers that

leaders can pull to influence energy

in their organizations.




10/15



About the research (continued)

Energy networks in the 15 organizations we examined tendedto cluster along organizational lines. For example, people in

the same function and location were more likely to haveenergizing interactions than those who worked virtually.16

Clearly, when planned innovations or strategic executionrequires collaboration across organizational boundaries,leaders need to take deliberate steps to prevent a naturalenergy fault-line from invisibly undermining an initiative.An individuals level in the organizational hierarchy also hada fairly consistent (influence on energizing interactions. Theone disconcerting exception: the higher someones place inthe formal hierarchy, the less likely he or she was to beenergizing. Leaders as a group tended to be strong energizersor de-energizers; few were in the middle.

Number of

organizations in

which relationships

had a positive

impact on energy

Being in the same 12 out of 15 0 out of 15

department or

function

Being in the same 9 out of 15 0 out of 15

physical location

Being the same 2 out of 15 0 out of 15

gender

Being higher in 0 out of 15 7 out of 15

the hierarchy

Having longer tenure 0 out of 15 2 out of 15

The good news is that energizing relationships are muchmore prevalent than de-energizing connections. In the 15

organizations, people had an average of 12 energizing tiesbut only three de-energizing ones. The table below, arrangedfrom least to most energizing, shows that its not only positiveenergy that increases. In organizations where people investtheir passion, there is an increase in both energizing andde-energizing ties. When people really care about what theyare doing, small disagreements over process and approachcan de-energize people much more than they would in orga-nizations where employees are blas about their jobs.

Organization

Government Agency 96 4.8 0.7

Utility 58 6.1 1.7

Financial Services 153 6.7 1.8

Consumer Products 60 6.8 0.8

Financial Services 68 7.0 2.2

Petrochemical 31 7.4 1.3

Manufacturing 70 7.7 0.9

Global Bio-Tech 77 8.4 1.6

Petrochemical 102 12.5 1.6

Government Agency 59 13.2 4.0

Strategy Consultancy 80 14.1 1.9

Engineering Firm 152 18.4 3.3

Software Development 80 18.6 4.2

Strategy Consultancy 125 24.6 6.6

Professional Services 145 29.2 5.3

Number of

organizations in

which relationships

had a negative

impact on energy

Number of

people in

network

Average

number of

energizing

relationships

Average

number of

de-energizing

relationships


11/15



Energy sources and sinks in the innovation process

These management actions represent the most prominent responses

distilled from a content analysis of 76 interviews with executivesabout innovation.

Innovationprocess

Innovation

context:

Establishingan energizingenvironmentprovides fertile

ground formany types ofinnovationsfrom newproducts andservices tointernal break-throughs.

Ideation:

Creating newconcepts, ideasor solutions that,if implemented,can provide

value for thosewho use them.

What magnifies energy?

Set challenging targets. Striving to accomplishdifficult goals bonds people and motivates theirefforts.

Articulate a clear, simple vision. When the visionis clear and simple, it rallies people quickly

and easily.

Identify a threat or crisis. Naming a threatand the imminent consequences galvanizespeople to action.

Collaborate. People get energy from workingtogether face-to-face with other team-orientedindividuals.

Listen. Listening to others encourages andacknowledges them.

Cultivate optimism. Seeing the upside attractsothers to new possibilities.

Create opportunities to break new ground. Giveindividuals and teams latitude to propose ideasthat fall outside current organizational bounds.

Leverage diverse perspectives. In the early stagesof thinking, solicit participation from people with

many different skills and backgrounds.

Practice constructive dissatisfaction.

Continuously trawl for opportunities, big andsmall, to improve the way things work.

What drains energy?

Set unrealistic expectations. Establish goals thatthe team knows they cannot reach.

Focus only on the short-term. Forget long-termvisions and far-reaching goals. Substitute measuresfor a sense of purpose.

Tolerate distrust. Allow political posturing andpersonal agendas to determine decisions.

Cultivate pessimism. Make sure every new idea orproposal is scrutinized carefully for risk whenever itis discussed.

Maintain closed minds. Actively deny thepossibility that new ideas could be positive forthe organization.

Fail to follow-up. Ask employees for ideas but donot act on any that they submit.

Dismiss contributions. Label many improvementsincremental so people see them as almost worthless.

Rest on laurels. If performance seems good,eliminate investments in new ideas and proposals.


12/15



Innovationprocess

Selection:

Choosing theinnovative initia-tives to pursuefrom amongthe many possi-bilities.

Development:Turning apromisingconcept or ideainto a workingmodel to proveits merit.

Commercializ-

ation: Scalingup the organiza-

tional machineryto implement thenew idea andharvest thebenefits.

What magnifies energy?

Validate do-ability. Innovations are uncertain,but proofs of concept, experiments and experi-ences of others can convince people they are notwasting their time.

Put the decision close to the problem. Involvethose who are close to the situation in decisionsabout problems are most important to solve.

License out rejected ideas. Adopt the discipline ofoffering rejected ideas to others.

Focus on outcomes. Describe the end-state andlet team members figure out how to reach it.

Cultivate a problem-solving attitude. Most newthings dont work the first time. Instead of askingCan this work? ask the team How can thiswork?

Use the network. Reach broadly into the informalnetwork to find expertise, get early feedback, headoff problems and build support.

Revisit the vision. Reminding participants aboutthe original purpose helps make the hard workmeaningful.

Use games, deadlines and humor. Take the edgeoff long, hard hours with tactics that make workfun.

Respect the details. Recognize the value of makingthe machinery work and the ordinary heroes whodo so daily.

Count results. Ring a bell for every new purchaseorder; post a chart on the wall that showsprogress toward the goal.

What drains energy?

Station guard dogs in front of the selection

process. Ensure that the individual who collectsinnovation proposals sets up irrelevant administrativebarriers.

Select projects politically. Rank proposals by thepolitical clout of the individuals backing them.Enable any single member of the decision team toblock an idea for his or her own reasons.

Use downside-oriented evaluation tools. Rank

proposals using methodologies that focus inordi-nately on risks.

Micromanage developers. Tell scientists and engi-neers what to do in explicit detail, then follow upfrequently to make sure they accomplished theirdesignated tasks.

Make false promises. Commit resources andcooperation to the development team, but do notactually provide it.

Block access to critical resources. Prohibit orendlessly delay the development teams ability tosecure key resources such as outside expertise,senior management support, contact withcustomers or internal cooperation.

Make internal systems inflexible. Force innovationteams to work through unwieldy and bureaucraticinternal systems to launch new practices.

Demand instant profitability. Halt all innovativeefforts that fail to meet the corporate investmenthurdle rates in the first year.

Set diverging priorities. Set priorities for internaloperational groups that punish them for assistingin the change associated with an innovation.

Energy sources and sinks in the innovation process (continued)


13/15



About the authors

Rob Cross is an associate professorat the University of Virginias McIntire

School of Business in Charlottesville,Virginia. He can be reached [email protected].

Jane C. Linder is an executive researchfellow at the Accenture Institute forHigh Performance Business in Wellesley,Massachusetts. She can be reached [email protected].

Andrew Parker is a doctoral candidateat Stanford University in Stanford,

California. He can be reached [email protected].

About Accenture

Accenture is a global managementconsulting, technology services and

outsourcing company. Committed todelivering innovation, Accenture collab-orates with its clients to help thembecome high-performance businessesand governments. With deep industryand business process expertise, broadglobal resources and a proven trackrecord, Accenture can mobilize theright people, skills and technologies tohelp clients improve their performance.With more than 126,000 people in 48countries, the company generated net

revenues of US$15.55 billion for thefiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2005. Itshome page is www.accenture.com.

About the Accenture Institutefor High Performance Business

The Accenture Institute for High

Performance Business creates strategicinsights into key management issuesthrough original research and analysis.Its management researchers combineworld-class reputations withAccentures extensive consulting, tech-nology and outsourcing experience toconduct innovative research and analy-sis into how organizations become andremain high-performance businesses.


14/15



1 Among others see D. Goleman et. al., Primal

Leadership: The Hidden Driver of Great

Performance, Harvard Business Review(December 2001) 42-51; L. Belkhir et. al.,

One CEOs Product Development Motto:

Care for Innovations Like Newborns!

Strategy & Leadership 31 (2003) 4-11.

2 The exceptions to this statement are work on

charismatic leadership (which is limited in impact

to a leaders direct contacts) and flow (which is

focused on fleeting, individual engagement with

a task). A network view generates ways of

intervening that will have a more pervasive effect

on innovation in an organization.

3 N.P. Repenning, A Simulation-Based Approach to

Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation

Implementation, Organizational Science 13

(March-April 2002) 109-127; C.M. Fiol and

E.J. OConnor, When Hot and Cold Collide in

Radical Change Processes: Lessons from

Community Development, Organizational

Science 13 (September-October 2002) 532-546.

4 R. Cross, W. Baker and A. Parker, What Creates

Energy in Organizations? MIT Sloan

Management Review 44 (summer 2003) 51-57;

R. Cross and A. Parker, The Hidden Power of

Social Networks: Understanding How Work

Really Gets Done in Organizations (Harvard

Business School Press, 2004).

5 G. Tellis and P. Golder, Will and Vision: How

Latecomers Grow to Dominate Markets

(McGraw Hill, 2001); W. Eberhard, Power and

Innovation: A Two-Center Theory International

Studies of Management & Organization 7

(spring 1977) 47-70. This study of 233 innovations

and their results showed that de-energized

initiatives took longer and generated less value.

6 F. Johansson, The Medici Effect (HarvardBusiness School Press, 2004).

7 H. Chesbrough, Open Innovation (Harvard

Business School Press, 2003).

8 J. Linder, S. Jarvenpaa and T. Davenport,

Innovation Sourcing Strategy Matters,

MIT Sloan Management Review 44

(summer 2003) 4349.

9 J. Martin and P. Frost, The Organizational

Culture War Games: A Struggle for Intellectual

Dominance, in S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and

W. Nord, eds., Handbook of Organization

Studies (Sage, 1996) 599-621.

10 J. Linder, Visible Options, Strategy &

Leadership 33 (October 2005) 24-30.

11 T. Allen, Managing the Flow of Technology

(MIT Press, 1977); W. Baker, Achieving Success

through Social Capital (Jossey-Bass, 2000);

J.A.C. Baum, ed., Companion to Organizations

(Blackwell, 2000); R. Burt, Structural Holes

(Harvard University Press, 1992); M.T. Hansen,

The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak

Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization

Subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly 44

(March 1999) 82-111; B. Uzzi, Social Structure

and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The

Paradox of Embeddedness, Administrative

Science Quarterly 42 (March 1997) 35-67.

12 On friendship, see M. Kilduff, The Friendship

Network as a Decision-Making Resource:

Dispositional Moderators of Social Influences on

Organizational Choice, Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 62 (1992) 168-180; D.

Krackhardt, The Strength of Strong Ties: The

Importance of Philos in Organizations, in N.

Nohria and R. Eccles, eds., Networks and

Organizations: Structures, Form and Action

(Harvard Business School Press, 1992) 216-239;

J.R. Lincoln and J. Miller, Work and Friendship

Ties in Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of

Relational Networks, Administrative Science

Quarterly 24 (1979) 181-199. On personal or

career support, see M. Higgins and K. Kram,

Reconceptualizing Mentoring at Work: A

Developmental Network Perspective, Academy

of Management Review 26 (2001) 264-288; H.Ibarra, Homophilly and Differential Returns: Sex

Differences in Network Structure and Access in

an Advertising Firm, Administrative Science

Quarterly 37 (1992) 422-447. On trust, see D.

Levin and R. Cross, The Strength of Weak Ties

You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in

Effective Knowledge Transfer, Management

Science 50 (2004) 1477-1490; W. Tsai and S.

Ghoshal, Social Capital and Value Creation: The

Role of Intrafirm Networks, Academy of

Management Journal 41, (1998) 464-476.

13 W. Baker, R. Cross and M. Wooten, Positive

Organizational Network Analysis and Energizing

Relationships, in K. Cameron, J. Dutton and R.Quinn, Positive Organizational Scholarship:

Foundations of a New Discipline (Berrett-

Koehler, 2003).

14 R. Cross, W. Baker and A. Parker, What Creates

Energy in Organizations?; R. Cross and A. Parker,

The Hidden Power of Social Networks.

15 F. Baker and L. Hubert, The Analysis of Social

Interaction Data, Sociological Methods &

Research 9 (1981) 339-361; D. Krackhardt,

Predicting with Social Networks: Nonparametric

Multiple Regression Analysis of Dyadic Data,

Social Networks 10 (1988) 359-382.

16 We used QAP regression to determine social

and organizational predictors of energizing

relationships. The table reports the number

of organizations in which a given variable was

significantly associated, statistically, with an

energizing interaction in a network.

Notes

Charged Up

Documents

Transcript of Charged Up