Slashdot Mirror


Should the Power of Corporate Innovation Shift Away From Executives?

Lucas123 writes "At the Consumerization of IT conference in San Francisco this week, several speakers agreed the next big shift in the corporate establishment will not be technological but social, away from top-down responsibility for innovation and change. Businesses are on the cusp of a leadership revolution because millennials moving into the workforce are 'the most authority-phobic' generation in history, according to Gary Hamel, a management educator at the London School of Business. Not only should low-level workers be incentivized for being creative, they should be given the power to spend corporate money on research and development, Hamel said. By doing that, companies will diversity their experimental capital. 'If you don't do that, you'll never change that innovation curve,' he said. Hamel was not alone. Kevin Jones, a consulting social & organizational strategist for NASA's Marshall and Goddard Space Flight Centers, agreed that traditional corporate culture needs a radical shakeup. 'The values of management today are different from the values of the social enterprise and different from the values of the consumerization of IT — and they're not mixing very well,' Jones said. 'That's where we're having the battle.'"

34 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. douchebags, the lot of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lord knows the upper management at all but one company I've worked at is a bunch of parasitic douchebags. Good riddance.

    1. Re:douchebags, the lot of them by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, I'm astonished that anyone would think upper management drives innovation. Usually they're obsessed with insuring conformity and making sure no one shows any initiative - especially if it involves risks.

      However, I'm delighted to learn that it is now possible to post articles from alternative universes...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:douchebags, the lot of them by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly why is it that startups have greater R&D and innovation? because they lack stodgy upper management that slows down most innovation.

      Why do most startups fail? because they lack experience to properly capitalize on those innovations.

      If businesses were honest with themselves they would look at the total dollars spent on just management and trim the excess fat from the upper layers.

      I Have always found it amusing that a business would fire thousands of people to save a couple of million, instead of firing one or two upper managers to save the same amount. All Upper Management really does is deal with the personal issues of the lower employees(Herding cats is easier than herding programmers).

      Having been in a middle management position I spent most of my time dealing with people who got degrees but failed kindergarten. They never learned how to talk to others to deal with their issues, they never learned to not say anything when they don't have anything nice to say, and They never really learned that blaming the wrong person just because you don't like them doesn't solve anything.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:douchebags, the lot of them by t4ng* · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Corporate-speak bullshit keywords...

      • * incentivized
      • * diversity[sic] their experimental capital
      • * change that innovation curve
      • * social enterprise
      • * consumerization of IT

      I could hardly get through the summary without puking.

    4. Re:douchebags, the lot of them by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm currently half way through my graduate business degree program and even I roll my eyes at the buzz word bullshit. It isn't as prevalent as you'd guess.

      I'm currently in my second decade of working directly with business people, and yes, yes it is. There might even be a direct correlation between incompetence of the businessperson and the frequency of buzzword use.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:douchebags, the lot of them by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      Yes, but can you use all five words and phrases in a new sentence? For example, how about this:

      "When people are properly incentivized to diversify their experimental capital it can change the innovation curve towards a more social enterprise in synergy with the consumerization of IT."

      Bingo!

    6. Re:douchebags, the lot of them by robot5x · · Score: 2

      This site was the only thing that makes my dealings with repulsive MBA fucks bearable.

      I try them out in meetings and actually heard them repeated after. Seriously.

      --
      Hej! Nasi tu byli!
    7. Re:douchebags, the lot of them by Altrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I Have always found it amusing that a business would fire thousands of people to save a couple of million, instead of firing one or two upper managers to save the same amount.

      Biggest problem is that the people who make 7-figure salaries to to also be the same people that decide who gets punted. Very few of them choose themselves (they will however happily vote themselves a pay raise to offset the newly freed up funds.)

    8. Re:douchebags, the lot of them by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      THANK YOU! Another way of putting it, too many cooks in the kitchen.

  2. Who's in charge? by whizbang77045 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Who's in charge? Nobody!

    Who kills bad ideas, based on prior experience? Nobody!

    Who insures that everyone is working on something productive? You guessed it.

    1. Re:Who's in charge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hewlett-Packard invented the concept of Management By Walking Around which meant spending part of their day listening to the people involved in product development whereas now they have MBAs to tell them how the company is performing.

    2. Re:Who's in charge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's nice to have someone who can kill a bad idea. Even Steve Jobs got it wrong sometimes, though, and most "executives" I've dealt with barely know what their companys' products are. Who do you pick?

  3. The 60s? by captaindomon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most authority phobic generation in history? Really? Anyone forget the 60's? Come on, folks. People have not fundamentally changed. Every generation thinks the younger generation is the most authority phobic generation in history.

    --
    Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    1. Re:The 60s? by The+Plebe · · Score: 2

      I think you got the 60's part right, but I'm not sure the last statement is true. I'm a GenX-er and my Boomer college professors in the early 90s were always blown away by how NOT authority phobic we all were. I think they made the same assumptions you do and were surprised. Of course that might have been an outlier since I went to a big Ivy league school full of people who assumed that one day they would BE the authority. I took a medical ethics course that was obviously designed from the perspective of the consumer/patient and the prof failed to take into account the fact that 80% of the students would be pre-med.

    2. Re:The 60s? by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

      Oh please. That generation was going to legalize pot. It took till millennials starting voting in force for that to actually start to happen. The boomers rolled over and took the corporate dick up their ass immediately, and often.

    3. Re:The 60s? by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. People forget the boomers went from hippie to yuppie, trading in their hand-painted VW camper buses and beads for BMWs and rolex watches.

    4. Re:The 60s? by dcollins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the younger generation is shockingly conformist. They've been raised in an environment of constant phone contact, tracking, and surveillance. Head of security at the school where I teach proudly says, "We've instituted a policy of thousands of bag inspections, and only had 3 people dispute it, usually faculty." I have students come to me freaked out because I don't track their attendance daily every day in our college class. Etc., etc.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    5. Re:The 60s? by robot5x · · Score: 2

      I agree about disrespect and disdain but I don't believe that (what I would call) the current 'youth' generation of 18-24 year olds, about to enter the workforce really have any conception of the possible reasons put forward by parent.

      I'm generalising wildly but my experience has been almost without exception that they are:

      • uninformed about current affairs
      • mostly uninterested in current affairs
      • have no reference point to judge whether or not their freedom has been 'stolen' and thus be angst-ridden about it
      • self-centred and with a huge sense of entitlement gained probably by their parents constantly telling them they're THE BEST and they can 'do anything'
      • Most of all, with little humility

      Rightly or wrongly, I grew up with an acute sense that I probably wasn't the best at anything - and that's fine. I was pretty good at a few things. But most of all, I think that being aware of this has allowed me to just get on with people even when we're different. I see a lot of workplace conflict being mainly about extremely poor social skills. And innovation - at some point - always has to be about working with other people.

      --
      Hej! Nasi tu byli!
    6. Re:The 60s? by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Lack of privacy (whether taken or given up) can definitely lead to conformity, I'll give you that.

      I don't see how that leads into accepting authority. If the going trend is to buck the man, then all the conformists out there are going to be having a problem with authority.

      In fact all of this communication I would say does more to promote lack of authority. Authority figures generally exist to organize and control things -- a self-organizing network of peers would therefore remove 50% of the purpose of having an authority figure, never mind having a tower of authority figures so high that the top dogs forget what the support structure they're standing on looks like.

      The control side of things is another issue all together though. Somebody has to have final say on decisions (which might include the decision to fire slackers) or nothing will ever get completed.

      The Linux kernel is a great example. Thousands of contributors around the world who (mostly) don't even know each other with only one or two (relatively small) layers of vetters and Linus having the final say when things get contentious. A very very flat model compared to most large companies and yet its worked very well over the past two-ish decades.

      An absolute pancake won't really work out for anybody but there's no reason that we need towers stretching to the moon either. The old guard prefer the latter, the new crowd prefers the former. If they can agree on a middle ground then everybody wins (except 6 layers of middle managers!)

      The downside of course is that by the time these ideas percolate far enough through the public consciousness, the new guard will have aged and become the old guard and we'll rinse and repeat in another half century. That shouldn't stop us from trying though as even small improvements over the long run are worthwhile.

    7. Re:The 60s? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Depending on the type of authority, I'd say we're going backwards. If management tried half the crap they pull now back in the '40s they would be told exactly where to put it and where to go. Then they'd get beaten up in the parking lot after work.

      If anyone got fired, they would be beaten again.

    8. Re:The 60s? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "I agree about disrespect and disdain but..."

      You make some good points but I don't agree with all of them.

      For one thing, several studies have shown young people today are more politically-aware, on average, than any past generation that was similarly studied.

      As for reference points, all they have to do is pick up a history book or look at the laws. They might not have experienced those days, but that's what books are for: communicating information and ideas that you did not experience yourself.

      And I agree about social skills, but not necessarily about humility. An awful lot of accusations in recent years about "lack of humility" has in actuality been due to that same lack of respect for authority mentioned earlier. Being subservient to authority is not "humility". The two are unrelated.

  4. kids love authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These are the kids raised with "zero tolerance," were not allowed to walk to school or play outside alone, and received a trophy just for showing up. They think nothing of having their every move tracked by Facebook. They love authority!

    1. Re:kids love authority by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      They also do not understand responsibility.

  5. *pfft* guffah! by jeff13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    rotfl! I mean really? Really? Sure, smaller companies thrive on this sort of socialized creative commons. It's how ANY creative enterprise is actually innovative. Steve Jobs and Woz didn't do it all themselves, the collective hobby culture they were plugged into stimulated everything that they created. But, once anyone creates something that sells, the corporate 'buy out' crowd shows up (I'm looking at you Bill Gates!) and the CEOs take control. Of course everyone here is aware just how corporations swallow everything, so they can own it. That's their reason for existing.

    The driving force of our consumer culture isn't innovation, it's markets. Corporations sometimes, in desperation, might spend some cash to fund innovative creation but why the fuck would creators just work-for-hire and give up their creations to their bosses? In the market place many are well aware that the creative, innovative business model functions for only as long till a corporation comes and buys it. That's the model! That's how most start-ups see their end game.

    Besides, corporations often just wait for the government funded research to innovate so they can get that for a song, if not free, and then create that market. That's how computers and the Internet came to us in the first place.

    imho, of course.

  6. in defense of management by anthony_greer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We all have had bad experience with managers but in my experience, good managers are needed. for every one terrific idea there are 5-10 terrible ideas...You cant just have new grads tossing money around without thinking thru how it will work, how much it will cost and how much money it will make and/or time it will save...

    If you can prove that your idea is a good one, any competent managment team will go for it, but too many young people just want to put things in because they are new and shiny, that doesn't work so well in business...

    I recall a few of my stupid ideas as a 22 year old, I had many outlandishly stupid ideas but I had a great manager who listened to all my goofy ideas and told me why they would not work, then one day I hit pay dirt and came up with an idea that would be able to automate so much of the IT operation that we would not need to hire some temps or interns for mundane tasks. That resulted in a nice bonus but more importantly a great lesson in how to think like a business when considering IT gear/platforms/initiatives.

    Good managers are not disposable

    1. Re:in defense of management by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      You got a piddling bonus for reducing costs worth several salaries per year

      That's more or less what all programmers do......even Stallman.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:in defense of management by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Most of these ideas won't sell anyway. Sure you can automate a process in your own company but it's impossible to sell that automation to others. As soon as you say "we can automate your XYZ process" the other company will just think it's a good idea and make one of their own employees do the same thing. Not every idea is intended to be a marketable product, except that the current culture is so infatuated with the idea of the entrepreneur.

      There's no alternative here. You either do you damn job that you were hired to do (ie, make or save the company money) or you throw a tantrum that you deserve more money and get fired instead. What company is going to be so stupid as to waste the money they save by giving it to the guy who thought of the idea of how to save the money? Instead they give a bonus to the person who did the job and move on from there.

  7. Two track career paths by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    Some companies have two track career paths. One, you move up as a techie into the management path, right up to executive. Two, you move up a techie path, where you go to Senior Engineer, right up to Distinguished Engineer, a position that has the same rank as an executive. Those Distinguished Engineers are the ones who advise the senior executives on innovation.

    Does really it work? I have no idea. Feel free to post your experience.

    Distinguished Engineer? I'd label myself as an Extinguished Can-of-Beer.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  8. Really? That is a great idea! by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2

    Put a bunch of whiney, selfish, over-indulged, arrogant, ethically-challenged, over-grown children who never got over believing they are special and everyone is exactly equal because everyone gets a trophy and have a group history of disrespecting other people's work and money, "should be given the power to spend corporate money on research and development" which means no pre-spending oversight.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  9. Texas Instruments did this for years by john.r.strohm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I worked for Texas Instruments Defense Systems and Electronics Group from early 1988 through about mid-1999.

    TI DSEG had LOTS of R&D money available, and MANY different internal programs for handing it out. The most important one was called IDEA (I don't know if it was an acronym or not, or what it may have stood for). IDEA was designed to hand out small chunks of first-round funding, enough to keep one engineer with a crazy idea that just might work fed and working for a couple of months, while he threw together a detailed study proposal, saying how to do a pilot project to see if there might be something to the idea. IDEA money was EASY to get, and there were multiple paths to it. If you for whatever reason didn't want to go through your management, that was no problem at all: *ANY* IDEA coordinator ANYWHERE IN THE COMPANY could listen to an IDEA pitch from ANYONE, and, if it sounded AT ALL plausible, throw some funding at him.

    The whole idea behind IDEA was that most IDEA projects were EXPECTED to fail, but they'd generally fail quickly and cheaply. The ones that didn't fail got more funding, and more detailed investigation. Wash, rinse, and repeat, and every so often something REALLY good would pop up, that would make TI a huge chunk of money, enough to justify all those little failed efforts, and some not-so-little failures as well.

  10. Re:Strauss-Howe generational theory by Sperbels · · Score: 2

    Every notice how these generational archetype descriptions sound sort of like astrological archetype descriptions?

  11. Authority-Phobic? Really? by Maltheus · · Score: 2

    I've found it shocking how well younger folk fit into corporate life and have always felt like this is the least rebellious generation ever.

    Typically, whenever management makes some absurd proposal (like some kind of odd way to track metrics), people sigh, roll their eyes, and figure out some way to comply with the letter of the mandate, while saving as much time as possible to focus on actually getting the product out the door.

    My younger co-workers not only show no signs of resistance (even behind closed doors), they embrace the absurdity and offer up more of it. They end up complicating the process, even more than the middle manager wanted (since they were also just going for the checkmark). Hell, I've never even seen anyone under the age of 30 (these days) drink a beer at a social outing (even when their managers and everyone else is). Youngin's seem so domesticated these days.

    Judging by all these articles, I guess my experience isn't quite the norm.

    1. Re:Authority-Phobic? Really? by mevets · · Score: 2

      What if these yoof do not give a rats ass? Rebellious passion is for defending something you value. If your only interest in an organization is a cheque, why get ruffled about idiotic bureaucrats? Disconnected is not the same thing as domesticated. They are the product of corporate culture; undifferentiated tissue for 7.5 hours, 5 days a week.

      There is a subversive sensibility in embracing the idiocy of untrustworthy management. At least it makes for a great laugh over beers with people you do not work with.

  12. The Golden Rule applies by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2

    i.e. The guy with the gold makes the rules.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear