Innovation pantheon of panta rheyn

The Innovation Pantheon

Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 1

The Innovation Pantheon. How the orchestration of the Gods of Innovation can lead the way to innovation. Herman Hoving Abstract On the occasion of the 12th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation the Innovation Pantheon was designed starting with a journey through the innovation landscape. On this journey the gods of management came on handy to transform them into gods of innovation. Also empowerment as intermediary between inspirational leadership and innovation came to the foreground. Influence and Meaning as basic cognitions of empowerment are used as design factors of the Innovation Pantheon. However they are not sufficient to realize collaboration between Athena, Zeus, Apollo and Dionysus as innovation gods because they have the nasty habit of fighting each other. With the help of Janus as their leader the innovation gods are orchestrated to contribute to innovation and to bring ideas into good currency within an organizational context. The role of Janus as a leader of innovation is described by Inspirational Influence tactics. The most important implications for the management and organization of innovation are the accentuation of the role of the Politician and a multi-level approach to innovation. Theoretical implications are summarized in a model to research new relationships between inspirational leadership and innovative behaviour. Finally the innovation paradoxes of Time, Control and Knowledge are solved by the Innovation Pantheon.

Content

1. Introduction 2. Backgrounds. A bird’s eye view on the innovation landscape.

3. Intermediary mechanisms in leadership and innovation. Introduction of the Innovation Pantheon. 3.1. Coherence and cognitions of empowerment. 3.2. Influence and Meaning.

4. The orchestration of the Innovation Pantheon. 4.1. Janus revisited. 4.2. Inspirational influence of Janus

5. Implications for practice and research. The innovation paradoxes resolved. 5.1. Implications for research. 5.2. Practical implications for innovation management. 5.3. Innovation paradoxes resolved.



1. Introduction

The 12th European Conference on Creativity & Innovation (ECCI) was organized from 14-17 September 2011 in Faro (Portugal) to ‘bring together methods and tools from collaborative arts, science, business, education, technology and social development, which can be adapted to innovation in organizations’ (convocation of the conference). Speakers and participants were requested to keep following question in mind: “How is it possible to devise ways of directing people with entirely different occupations, backgrounds and experiences to agree on a common purpose to achieve unique solutions?” This inspired me as an invited speaker to reflect on the forces in the management of innovation. During the preparation of my presentation these reflections evolved into the full model that I will present here and that will answer the question put forward. It will also provide solutions to the basic innovation paradoxes of Knowledge, Time and Control. Let me introduce them first . Often, especially in The Netherlands and this may be generalized to other European countries, it is maintained that business doesn’t profit enough from academic knowledge. It is believed that vast amounts of knowledge are available at universities. However there is supposedly not enough transfer of knowledge from academia to business. This is the paradox of Knowledge that not only is a concern to academia but also inflicts innovation management. The paradox of Control is related to dominance of old control mechanisms in management . When the management of innovation is confronted by a ‘control and command’ style approach little success may be expected. Should we then totally absolve from control in the management of innovation? The answer has to be a clear ‘no!’ Management of innovation can be characterized as ‘controlled chaos’ which implies a form of control will always be needed to bring ideas into good currency, but this is not control as we generally know it. This constitutes the innovation paradox of Control. We might be inclined to say farewell to control but (some form of) control will always be necessary. Finally the paradox of Time refers to an important bottleneck in innovation management that is known as the lack of time for innovation. There never seems to be time available for innovation. When everything is all right with the business and profits are high all time of managers is consumed by ‘ business as usual’. Production and sales have priority and time should not be ‘wasted’ on innovation. However, when the business is not doing well there neither is time for innovation because all efforts are put on cost cutting and downsizing. In this article solutions to these paradoxes will be presented. Innovation management is defined as ‘to bring ideas into good currency within an institutional context’ (Van de Ven, 1986). This puts the human side of innovation on the foreground. Mythology can be inspiring in the study of human affairs. Therefore Greek gods come on handy in explaining how people can agree on a common purpose to achieve unique solutions.



I was inspired by the gods of management presented by Charles Handy (1985) for a better understanding of an organization’s character or culture. He distinguished four role orientations in organizations that correspond to four Greek gods. Athena, the goddess of wisdom but also a warrior goddess, stands for the task orientation that can be recognized in project structures. As a real problem solver Athena is focussed on results. The power orientation in organizations is symbolized by Zeus who is the spider in the web who controls everything and everybody by his omnipotent power. Organizations can also be characterized as role oriented and then Apollo is their god who stands for functional roles organized in ’silos’ such as research, planning, production, marketing and sales. The bureaucracy is an example of a formal Apollo culture. The organization that focusses on personal interests is symbolized by Dionysus. While the task oriented organization is exclusively organized around tasks the person oriented organized is structured around persons and the values they espouse as for example in a partnership of lawyers. In this article I will demonstrate how these gods of management can become gods of innovation and describe the type of leadership that can make them agree upon a common purpose to achieve unique solutions as required in the management of innovation. Unlike humans organizations can be characterized as polytheistic. Therefore all gods can be found in one organization but they don’t go so well together and their collaboration is problematic. The Innovation Pantheon will solve this problem. In the next paragraph major theoretical and practical insights from more than two decades of practical and academic experience with innovation will be presented by a bird’s eye view on the innovation landscape. This also allows me to couple the gods of management to success factors in the management of innovation and to introduce them as gods of innovation. Furthermore intermediary mechanisms between leadership behaviour of innovation managers and their followers that can account for innovative results will be introduced throughout this journey. In paragraph three I will work out these mechanism as design factors of the Innovation Pantheon that will be introduced in paragraph four. The final paragraph is devoted to theoretical and practical implications. Innovation paradoxes will be resolved.



2. Backgrounds. A bird’s eye view over the innovation landscape. By a bird’s eye view on the innovation landscape I will use mainly but not exclusively a social psychological approach to innovation management. Basic question then is what kind of influence will be required to bring ideas into good currency within an institutional context. This approach stands closer to the work of Van de Ven et al. (2008) than to the approach of Trott (2008). Both authors however, agree upon the conceptualization of innovation as a process that can be managed or influenced. Taking a bird’s eye view we now will make a journey through the innovation landscape that starts in 1987. In that year the first ECCI was organized in The Netherlands and two more deliveries of the ECCI, the conference in 1999 and the one held in 2011, will be milestones throughout this journey. 1987 ECCI I. Vision and innovation. Enter Athena. 1997 The knowledge creating company. 1999 ECCI VI . Metaphors an powerful innovation tools. Enter Zeus. 2000 Coherence and cognitions of empowerment 2006 The7 laws of innovation. Innovation values. Enter Dionysus 2008 Strategy safari and Strategic Roles. Enter Apollo 2011 ECCI XII. Innovation Pantheon. Table 1: A journey through the innovation landscape In 1987 I served as an innovation consultant at the Innovation Consultancy Group (ICG) of the Dutch organization of Applied Scientific Research (TNO). At the first ECCI I presented a paper on vision building applied to personal development. The founder of the ICG of TNO and one of the major organizers of the first ECCI then recently was assigned as professor in the Policy and Organization of Product Development (‘ innovation management’ ) at the Faculty of Design at Delft University. His inaugural address was titled Vision and Innovation (Buijs, 1987) and stressed the role of vision in the innovation process that was preferably managed in a step wise innovation project. The innovation project intended to be a learning process that also had to result in new products and services and - not to forget- in additional turnover for the innovating company. In this focus on results we now recognize Athena who can serve as an innovation god by organizing the innovation process in a project. Therefore the first milestone of the journey is the presentation of Athena as a god of innovation who organizes the innovation process to deliver an innovation need, a vision and finally concrete results such as new products and services.



Before we reach the 6th ECCI, our next milestone, we arrive in the year in which the book The Knowledge Creating Company was published by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). An important publication for at least two reasons. First, an entirely new concept of knowledge was clearly distinguished in the context of innovation. Tacit knowledge was distinguished from explicit knowledge and this was crucial for the creation, sharing and valuation of knowledge that was conceptualized as a justified belief that is created in social interaction. Knowledge as a justified belief will later help us to understand especially the role of Zeus in the Innovation Pantheon. Second, Nonaka and Takeuchi made a distinction between temporary innovation and continuous innovation. An innovation project is a form of temporary innovation while the development of an innovative climate refers to continuous innovation. This distinction will be of significance when the orchestration of the Innovation Pantheon will be discussed in paragraph four. The 6th ECCI was held in 1999 and also in The Netherlands. My contribution was the presentation of an experiment with metaphors. This experiment also served to test a theory about the effectiveness of inspirational leadership (Hoving, 2001). Metaphors are powerful innovation tools that can give way to new business models. For example the Beertender for delivery of beer opens new markets for breweries. An airport is quite another way to organize air traffic and related economic activity than an airstrip. Metaphors can also serve to direct new business activities. Flow for example is a metaphor of Aalberts Industries, a company that produces equipment to control various flow processes. All acquisitions and innovations of Aalberts industries have to contribute to flow to create synergy between the various industries. This milestone in our journey brings us to the role of idea generation techniques such as metaphors as powerful innovation tools. De Bono (1982) qualified these techniques as belonging to the operative method of lateral thinking in contrast to the inductive and the deductive method. In the operative method the solution is contained in the tools. It is by this operative method that Zeus organizes idea generation in the innovation process in an omnipotent way. Mnemonics such as PMI (Plusses, Minuses and Intriguing points) help to analyse a business situation in the fuzzy front end of the innovation process. CAF (Considering All Factors) is helpful in testing the potential value of a vision. By using these tools or operations in an interactive way Zeus also contributes to the proper use of knowledge in the innovation process. Enter Zeus as an innovation god! The next stop on our journey we make in the year 2000 when I published a dissertation on leadership and innovation (Hoving, 2000). It was demonstrated that feelings of coherence and self-regulation played key role as intermediary mechanisms in the explanation of the effects of inspirational leadership on followers in an innovation process. In this way Inspirational leaders obtained more innovation and a higher innovation pace, i.e. more turnover from new products or services. Lissack and Roos (2001) exclaimed a year later in the journal Long Range Planning to “Be coherent, not visionary” thereby accentuating the role of coherence, which is not to say that vision is unimportant. According to Hoving (2000) coherence and vision can be theoretically related to the cognitions of empowerment as they have been distinguished by Thomas and Velthouse (1990). Cognitions of empowerment play a key role in recent research on leadership and innovation. Therefore they will also be used to build the Innovation Pantheon.



So far Athena was introduced as god of innovation who organizes the innovation process

and Zeus as the innovation god who provides powerful innovation tools. Innovation

management as the ‘bringing of ideas into good currency’ could be related to inspirational

leadership and this on its turn is expected to exercise its influence through cognitions of

empowerment.

To elaborate the concept of inspirational leadership further I published together with

historian and journalist Rik Plantinga The 7 laws of innovation (Hoving & Plantinga, 2006).

The 7 laws of innovation stress the human side of innovation and correspond to seven basic

steps in the innovation process. In this way they provide Athena with a road map to organize

innovation as a project. They also express innovation values that can inspire those involved

in the innovation process: intuition, creativity, force, fantasy, emotion, empathy and

courage. In this use of values we now may recognize Dionysus who can inspire participants

in the innovation process. Enter Dionysus as a god of innovation.

By the way, the treatise of the laws of innovation also provided additional operations as KEK,

CREATIVITY and OTMF that complete PMI and CAF as operative methods in Zeus’ toolkit.

They will later reappear in the Pantheon but I will not elaborate them here because of space

limitations. For a full description I refer to Hoving & Plantinga (2006).

Let us now take the opportunity to make a short strategy safari (Mintzberg et al., 2008) on

our journey through the innovation landscape. Mintzberg et al. used the metaphor of a

safari to describe ten schools in the study of strategy development. To be able to develop an

active approach to innovation management as a form of strategy development I derived

eight strategic roles from these schools. In these roles we now recognize the hand of Apollo

as a god of management who stands for the role orientation in organizations. Apollo

becomes a god of innovation when we locate these roles in the innovation process in a

similar way Mintzberg et al. have suggested to organize the strategic schools in the strategy

process (Mintzberg et al., 2008, final chapter). The result of this exercise is presented in

paragraph 4 where the full Innovation Pantheon will be introduced.

Finally we come to the end of our journey. So far the gods of management have been

introduced as innovation gods but they are not yet organized. At the 12th edition of the ECCI

in Faro I have presented their organization in a preliminary version. The term Pantheon

refers to the ways the gods of innovation can be organized. This preliminary version of the

Innovation Pantheon now will be further elaborated using basic concepts that were

distinguished in the journey through the innovation landscape. These concepts also figure in

recent research as intermediary mechanisms between leadership behaviour and innovation

by followers. In the next paragraph they will be used to constitute basic organizing principles

for the gods of innovation.



3. Intermediary mechanisms in leadership and innovation as organizing principles for the gods of innovation. On our journey we have met the concept of coherence that emerged as an intermediary mechanism in the relation between inspirational leadership and innovation. Coherence was related to cognitions of empowerment. In recent research the relation between transformational leadership and intermediary mechanisms is emphasized (Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2010; Gumusleoglu & Ilsev, 2007). Intermediary mechanisms as coherence and cognitions of empowerment that play a key role in the explanation of the effects of leadership on innovation now will be compared and integrated into two new factors.

3.1. Coherence and cognitions of empowerment. In an empirical study the role of inspiring behaviour of managers was investigated (Hoving, 2000). Inspirational leadership can be described as the presentation of a vision, which in turn can lead to enhancement of coherence in the form of manageability of the innovation process by followers and reinforcement of their self-regulation. These effects were moderated by self-esteem and could eventually lead to stronger innovative behaviour. Effects of meaningfulness and comprehensibility, the other theoretical components of coherence, could not be demonstrated in this study. Factor analysis of results demonstrated that coherence consisted of one factor that could best be described as manageability. Recent studies found empirical evidence for cognitions of empowerment as intermediary mechanisms in the relation between transformational leadership and innovation (Nederveen Pieterse, 2010; Gumusluogu and Ilsev, 2009). Psychological empowerment was composed of following elements or cognitions: competence, self-determination, impact and meaning, usually measured by one scale.

Now we may expect coherence and cognitions of empowerment to play an important role as intermediary mechanisms in relation between inspirational/ transformational leadership and innovation. They are compared in table 1 to suggest new cognitions of empowerment. Cognitions of empowerment Components of coherence New cognitions of Empowerment Self determination Impact Manageability Influence Competence Meaning Meaningfulness Meaning

Comprehensibility Table 1: New cognitions of empowerment



Here I suggest to distil two basic cognitions of empowerment from table 1. First it seems plausible that Meaningfulness as a coherence factor and Meaning as a cognition of empowerment correspond to each other. Earlier we noticed that meaningfulness and comprehensibility could not empirically be validated as coherence factors while meaning figured in recent research as a cognition of empowerment. Therefore I suggest here to nominate Meaning as a basic cognition of empowerment. Meaning as a cognition of empowerment then also is supposed to have a connotation with comprehensibility. Making meaning also has been stressed as key success factor of entrepreneurship (innovation) by Guy Kawasaki in his inspiring pitch about this topic. According to Kawasaki this can be done by improving the quality of life. With a background at the Macintosh Division of Apple he declares that Apple employees were not motivated by making money, but “we were motivated changing the world to make people more creative”. Other ways to make meaning are the prevention of something good to disappear and ‘to right a wrong’. Second, Manageability as a coherence factor is equalled in table 1 to impact, autonomy and influence as cognitions of empowerment. Research demonstrated that empowerment, measured one-dimensionally, and Manageability - as component of coherence- play significant roles as intermediary mechanisms between leadership and innovation. Now I suggest to summarize them all under the common denominator of Influence as cognition of empowerment keeping in mind that this cognition has connotations with manageability, impact, competence and self-determination.

3.2. Influence and Meaning. The innovation process (Athena) and the innovation tools (Zeus) now can be classified under Influence as cognition of empowerment. Empowering Influence is exercised by Athena and Zeus by making the innovation process manageable through competence of those who are involved, through the impact of operations and through the self- determination that results from the alternation of divergent and convergent thinking that will be explained in the next paragraph. Strategic roles in the innovation process (Apollo) and Inspirational values (Dionysus) will be classified under the cognition of Meaning. It is evident that Dionysus makes Meaning by his inspiring values but for Apollo this doesn’t seem as obvious at first sight. Meaning however, is also provided by Apollo through the expectations that are related to the roles. In the Pantheon the Analyst for example is expected not only to rationally analyse the situation of the organization but also to do this in an intuitive way. Intuition then is an innovation value. This dualistic character is inherent in all gods of innovation and will be explained in the next paragraph when we introduce the leader of the Innovation Pantheon. Foregoing results in the introduction of an Innovation Pantheon that is designed by Influence and Meaning as cognitions of empowerment (figure1).



Fig. 1: Innovation gods organized around empowerment

A nice company one would like to think, but how can collaboration between these gods be

achieved besides their organization for the sake of empowerment? Enter Janus!



4. The orchestration of the Innovation Pantheon. The innovation gods have been presented in the Innovation Pantheon designed by Influence and Meaning as cognitions of empowerment. Now we have to remember that these Greek gods have the nasty habit of fighting each other! Therefore the initial question that was raised for the 12th ECCI (see introduction) now can be reformulated. How can we realize the collaboration of Athena, Zeus, Apollo and Dionysus as gods of innovation? Meaning and Influence have been suggested as organizing principles but how can these be activated? Janus comes to the rescue. 4.1. Janus revisited. Janus figured already in the work of Arthur Koestler (1985) in which he was introduced in a holographic approach of life sciences in general and creativity in particular. Koestler titled his book ‘Janus. A summing up’ and in the Innovation Pantheon Janus is revisited. Janus stands basically for the human division that can be compared to the distinction that has been made between planning on the left side and management (or leadership) on the right hemisphere of the brain (Mintzberg, 1976). More recently this aspect of dualistic functioning also is demonstrated in The innovation Journey of Van de Ven et al. (2008) as the alternated use of divergent and convergent thinking that forms an essential part of each innovation process. This alternation of thinking modes also is a key element of the innovation process outlined in the 7 laws of innovation (Hoving & Plantinga, 2006). Each of the 7 steps is characterized by a divergent (first!) and subsequent a convergent phase to achieve original and unique results that finally materialize in new business activities. It is the role of Zeus to provide tools that organize this kind of alternation that can best be achieved by operative methods as PMI, KEK, CAF, CREATIVITY and OTMF. Actually the whole Pantheon, not only Athena and Zeus but also Apollo and Dionysus, is affected by this dualism. For Apollo this means that every strategic role reflects both planning by the left and managing by the right hemisphere, which corresponds to the alternation of divergent and convergent thinking in the innovation process. Let’s consider for example the role of the Analyst who helps to define the need for innovation in the first step of the process by composing a Profile of Demands and Desires (PDD) for a new business activity (Hoving & Plantinga, 2006). This PDD is based on a PMI of the business situation and identification of first ideas of the participants in the innovation process. It therefore contains elements of divergent – in the form of intuitive ideas- and convergent - in the form of the rational analysis of the situation- thinking. Intuition can also be interpreted as ‘forgotten rationality’ (Hoving & Plantinga, 2006, pp. 9-11). Therefore the Analyst is both analytic and intuitive.



The same holds for Dionysus. His dualistic character is determined by the essential nature of values. A value provides general direction to behaviour as well as a focus on a specific outcome by deriving a norm from it. This may be contaminated when values are presented as norms as often seems the case. In this context it is exemplary that the Dutch tend to say ‘norms and values’ while the Belgians speak about ‘values and norms’. The Belgians are right (this time …) because values do precede norms. So intuition as ‘forgotten reality’ is a value that welcomes immediate insight. Intuition as a norm is expressed by the requirement to express first insights in the form of first and often not yet so concrete ideas at the start of the innovation process. Janus is the god with the two faces. These faces represent his dualistic character. This is expressed by his empowerment of the innovation gods through his omnipresent Influence and by providing Meaning in the Innovation Pantheon. Janus is also known as a gate keeper and I would like to introduce him here in the role of a gate keeper to time. Following the distinction between continuous and temporary innovation that has been made earlier Janus is able to organize innovation management in time. To this purpose he may wear either the face of Kronos or of Kairos. Both are gods of time but represent different modalities of time. Kronos stands for chronological or linear time while Kairos stands for the right time or the right moment. In mythology he is described as a young man that can run by. You get lucky when you succeed to grasp him by his hair. If you fail you might have to wait a long time before Kairos comes by and luck might be yours! Kairos stands for a kind of preparedness to innovation while Kronos deals more directly with the innovation process. Now it will be obvious that activities of Athena and Zeus fall in the category of linear time. They are led by Janus when he shows his face of Kronos. On the other side Apollo and Dionysus represent a kind of preparedness to innovation by creating an innovative climate or culture. In the next table these roles are summarized referring to their original strategic schools (Mintzberg et al., 2008). Strategic school Apollo’s role

Positioning school Analyst

Cognitive school Knowledge Manager

Design school Designer

Planning school Planner

Entrepreneurial School Entrepreneur

Cultural school Culture manager

Learning school Teacher

Political school Politician

Table 2 : Strategic schools and Apollo’s roles



The first five roles figure in the primary innovation process supporting Athena in specific

steps on the innovation path. The last three roles are of a supportive character. These

supportive roles can be effectuated anywhere and anytime in the innovation process and

especially serve to make meaning.

Having assigned the role of leader of the Innovation Pantheon to Janus and by identifying

the strategic roles of Apollo the full Innovation Pantheon can now be presented (figure 2).

Various elements as expressed by Athena, Zeus and Dionysus during the innovation journey

reappear in this Pantheon. To sum up Athena stands basically for the definition of an

innovation need, the development of a vision and the transformation of vision into concrete

results such as new business activities. Zeus stands for powerful innovation tools (or

operations). Last but not least Dionysus’ values of intuition, force, emotion, chance,

empathy, fantasy and courage inspire the Analyst, Knowledge Manager, Designer, Planner,

Entrepreneur, Teacher, Culture Manager and Politician to fulfil their respective roles to the

best of their abilities.

Fig. 2: The full Innovation Pantheon*

* Supportive roles of Apollo have been deleted for the sake of simplicity but this does not mean they are

unimportant. On the contrary!

With Janus as their leader Athena, Zeus, Apollo and Dionysus now can make orchestrated

efforts to bring ideas into good currency within an institutional context. This orchestration

goes by the organization of pairs of gods. Janus organizes as Kronos the efforts of Athena

and Zeus in chronological time. As Kairos he organizes Apollo and Dionysus to seize the right

moment for innovation.



So far the metaphor of the Innovation Pantheon which brings us to the following questions.

Which tactics does the leader - Janus- have to his availability to get things done through the

innovation gods? Inspirational influence is the key to the answer of this question. The other

question – when will Janus show a specific face ? - will be addressed when implications for

management will be discussed.

Finally a comment has to be made about the metaphorical character of the Pantheon. The

innovation gods may serve for a better understanding of the organization of innovation.

They give us grip on innovation and help to measure variables that are in play. Referring to

the Sanskrit origin of measurement ‘maya’ which literally means ‘not that‘ we can say this is

an illusion. Nevertheless this illusion of control is helpful to make innovation management

comprehensible, manageable and meaningful.



4.2. Inspirational influence of Janus.

Theoretically it can be expected that the use of pro-active influence tactics by a leader will

be a better predictor of innovation than more general leadership styles. For that purpose the

Personal Influence Tactics (PIT) questionnaire was developed and used in research on

leadership and innovation (Hoving, 2000). The PIT measures two tactics: ‘Inspirational

Influence’ and ‘Exchange’. Another device to measure this type of leadership is the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Bass, 1985). The Transformational Leadership

scale of the MLQ originally was designed to measure vision, individual consideration,

building of trust, charisma , inspiration and intellectual stimulation as elements

transformational behaviour of a leader. However most studies do not distinguish between

these aspects and only use one scale to measure transformational leadership. The

Inspirational Influence Tactic is also measured by one scale consisting of eight items that

throw more light on specific inspirational influence behaviour by a leader (table 3).

Table 3: Influence behaviour of the inspirational leader (agent version, Hoving, 2000).

* The alpha as measurement of internal consistency of this scale was .77. The alpha of the target

version was .88. The agent is the person who exercises influence upon another person as shown in

table 3. The target is the person who is influenced by another person (usually a superior).

Results obtained by the use of the Inspiration Influence Tactic scale and the

Transformational Leadership Style scale are shown in table 4. These results demonstrate

relationships between leader behaviour, intermediary mechanisms such as Empowerment

and Manageability and outcomes such as innovation and creativity.

The inspirational leader*:

Provides examples (metaphors and analogies) in service of problem-solving

Presents an important plan enthusiastically

Has the other do he/she is good at

Has the other reformulate a problem

Takes care the other can choose a new angle on a problem

Has the other transform a problem into a challenge

Encourages the other to set goals to excel him/herself

Takes care the other has a clear understanding of a problem



Variables Transformational Leadership Inspirational Influence

Style (MLQ) Tactics (PIT)

Empowerment .33 *

Innovation .04 * (not significant) .28 ***

Creativity .17 ** .29 ***

Empowerment .27 **

Manageability .65 ***

* Nederveense Pieterse et al. (2010 ) ** Gumusluoglu and Ylsev (2009) **** Hoving (2000)

Table 4: Comparison of Transformational Leadership Style with Inspirational Influence

Tactics.

The right column contains correlations from the study by Hoving (2000) while the left

column contains correlations from studies by Nederveense Pieterse et al. (2010) and

Gumusluoglu and Ylsev (2009). All are significant except the correlation of .04 between

Transformational Leadership and innovation and they are not very high which usually is

found in social scientific research. Inspirational Influence Tactics correlate .28 with

Innovation, .29 with Creativity and .65 with Manageability. The Transformational Leadership

Style correlates .33 and .27 with Empowerment, .04 with Innovation (n.s.) and .17 with

Creativity.

Inspirational Influence Tactics show stronger relationships with creativity and innovation

compared to leadership styles. They also demonstrate stronger relationships with an

intermediary factor as Manageability (a component of coherence) whereas correlations

between the Transformational Leadership Style and empowerment were substantially lower.

These results seem to confirm that a preference for influence tactics to measure

inspirational leadership in relation to innovation is reasonable. Further research on

convergent and predictive validity of instruments measuring leadership as styles and as

influence tactics is required.

Foregoing gives insight into the inspirational influence exercised by Janus. In summary the

inspirational leader has to pay simultaneously attention to the primary innovation process,

operations, strategic roles and innovation values in a holistic approach of innovation

management. As a leader he/she exercises inspirational influence as described in table 3.

Using the metaphor of the Pantheon this is the way Janus leads the way to innovation by his

orchestration of the gods of innovation.



5. Theoretical and practical implications.

This Innovation Pantheon invites to reflect on theoretical and practical implications. Last but

not least it can also provide solutions to the innovation paradoxes.

5.1 Theoretical implications of the Innovation Pantheon.

Alternatives for cognitive factors.

Influence and Meaning are defined as cognitions of empowerment thereby stressing a

cognitive approach to the management of innovation. This predominantly cognitive

approach needs to be completed with social factors as for example innovative climate

(Nederveen Pieterse et al. , 2010).

In the Innovation Pantheon this role is fulfilled by Apollo through the exercise of five

strategic roles in the primary innovation process that are completed by three supportive

roles. These roles can establish an innovative climate in organizations. In this way they

complete the cognitive approach to produce a richer and more complex model of innovation

management.

Management of diversity

This immediately raises the problem of management of diversity that is even intensified by

the introduction of relatively new roles of the Culture Manager, the Teacher and the

Politician. This certainly causes greater diversity which makes effective management of

diversity more urgent. The solution to this problem of management of diversity lies also in

the hands of Janus being a transformational or inspirational leader. Recent research

demonstrated that transformational leaders are better capable of dealing with diversity

(Kearny and Gebert, 2009). Future research into the relationships between transformational

leadership and the configuration of strategic roles can provide more insight into the

management of this type of diversity.

Dominant roles

This research into diversity can also be focussed on presumed dominance of certain roles. It

can be expected that the roles of the Planner, Designer and Analyst will be dominant just as

their corresponding schools of Planning, Design and Positioning are the dominant Strategic

Schools of the past decades according to Mintzberg et al. (2009). Further research might

explain how and to what extent transformational leadership can improve especially the

saliency of the supportive strategic roles in the management of innovation and their specific

effects on innovation.



The Politician.

Ideas have to be brought into good currency within an institutional context. Therefore

special attention has to be paid to innovation as a political process. This role is fulfilled by

Apollo as a Politician. Then special political and negotiation skills are required that are

immanent in the dualistic role of Apollo as explained when Janus was revisited (paragraph

4.2) This dualism can also be found in theories on negotiation. Generally two styles of

negotiation can be distinguished: the distributive -zero sum game- style and the integrative –

nonzero sum game- style. The latter is also known as the win / win style. It can be expected

that Politicians as integrative negotiators are better able to align interests underlying the

meanings that are involved in the innovation process. This is what Peter Block (1989), had in

mind with ‘positive political skills at work’, which was also the subtitle of his book about the

empowered manager. As we have already noticed this empowerment can best be achieved

by transformational leadership. Therefore we might expect that transformational leaders are

especially effective inducing positive political skills in Politicians thereby empowering them

in the innovation process. In contrary the transactional leader - by exercising only Exchange

tactics – is expected to focus only on the distributive or exchange style of the Politician

thereby decreasing his empowerment. This can be a subject of future research.

Role breadth self-efficacy.

Another implication for theory of the Innovation Pantheon is concerned with theoretical

backgrounds of transformational leadership theory. Most researchers make use of the MLQ

to conceptualize and measure this type of leadership and to distinguish it from transactional

leadership. However, relations between the factors of transformational leadership and

cognitions of empowerment are not explicitly specified in these approaches. Relations

between inspirational leadership, coherence, self-regulation and innovation have been

specified and empirically investigated using social cognitive theory (Hoving, 2000).

In this study it could not be demonstrated that self-efficacy plays a role as an intermediary

mechanism between inspirational leadership and innovative behaviour of followers.

However self-efficacy is the cornerstone of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997). It has

also been demonstrated that self-efficacy can explain why people show more perseverance

in obtaining goals even when circumstances are difficult (Bandura and Wood, 1989), which

certainly is not unimportant for difficult tasks such as the management of innovation.

Therefore this concept should not be neglected. The fact that self-efficacy could not be

empirically validated in the study of Hoving (2000) might be attributed to the general

definition of self-efficacy in this study. Recent research demonstrated that role breadth self-

efficacy may be a better concept (Nauta, 2009; Den Hartog and Belschak, 2011, in press).

The concept of role breadth self-efficacy therefore should be used in further research.



Inspirational leadership, intermediary mechanisms and innovation.

So far inspirational leadership, role breadth self-efficacy, cognitions of empowerment and

diversity of strategic roles emerged as key elements that can entail a new model for

leadership and innovation and the management of innovation.

Role breadth self-efficacy in the innovation process is a promising concept for further

research. This type of research might also benefit from the operationalization of leadership

in the form of inspirational influence tactics. Then these tactics can also be compared to

transformational and transactional leadership styles as concurrent predictors of innovation.

The Innovation Pantheon demonstrates that better prediction of innovation may result from

taking also strategic roles into account. In this way social factors complete cognitions of

empowerment in the explanation of innovation. This can be summarized in figure 3.

Leader behaviour * Follower behaviour Results

* Role Breadth Self-Efficacy

Inspirational Influence behaviour * Meaning

Innovative behaviour

* Influence

* Diversity of Strategic Roles

Fig 3: Relations between leader behaviour, intermediary mechanisms in followers and

innovative behaviour.

Figure 3 summarizes basic concepts and relations between leaders and followers that have

been introduced so far. They are expected to play a key role in the management of

innovation and provide directions for future research .



Diversity of Strategic Roles and Role Breadth Self-Efficacy are new concepts in this model

that may account for better prediction and explanation of innovative behaviour. It is

remarkable that most, if not all, research in this field is correlational and cannot

demonstrate causal relationships while most models, also that depicted in fig. 3 do suppose

causal relationships. Therefore future research should not only investigate correlations

between variables but also focus on causal relationships as has also been noticed by

Nederveen Pieterse et al. (2010).

5.2. Implications for practice

As the most important implications for management I will focus here on the special role of

Apollo as Politician and the multilevel approach of innovation management. By a multilevel

or holistic approach the innovation paradoxes can also be solved.

Apollo’s role as Politician

By distinguishing Apollo’s role as Politician we come close to the concept of empowerment

as described by Peter Block (1989). This implies that positive political skills will be at work

when the Politician is involved in the innovation process. He/ she brings different parties

together to find win/win solutions. However, they will not succeed if they all work under a

bureaucratic contract. Basically then is that all parties realize the necessity to adhere to the

entrepreneurial contract. This requires that they all work according to the principles of

autonomous partnership, enlightened self-interest and authenticity (Block, 1989).

Multilevel approach to innovation management

With the help of the Innovation Pantheon a multilevel approach to the management of

innovation is within reach of managers who have to lead the way to innovation. Being as

Janus they can profit from the different contributions of Athena and Zeus. With the face of

Kronos they can manage innovation in (chronological) time as Athena by the organisation of

innovation projects that are supported by Zeus who provides the powerful innovation tools.

On the other hand they can evoke Kairos with the help of Apollo and Dionysus to create a

readiness to innovation. This implies the organization of Apollo’s strategic roles and the

establishment of an innovative culture that espouse the innovation values of Dionysus.

Basically managers of innovation have to deal with the dualism that is inherent in the

Innovation Pantheon. This confronts them with a new problem. When to show the face of

Kairos and when will Kronos be preferred? It will certainly not be easy to be like Janus!

In order to present an attractive management perspective I finally bring back to mind the

paradoxes of Time, Control and Knowledge. To resolve these paradoxes the Innovation

Pantheon also comes on handy ( ). This will eventually also be conducive to act like Janus as

a leader of innovation.



5.3. Innovation Paradoxes resolved.

In paragraph 2 (p. 5) a sneak preview was given of the way Zeus resolves the Innovation

Paradox of Knowledge by using De Bono’s operative method. This operative method can be

used individually and in interaction. It is especially the interactive use of the operative

method that creates knowledge of participants as a justified belief. By performing a PMI of

the business situation participants in the innovation process who each might often hold

different and at first sight incompatible views will come to a clear and collective

understanding of the innovation need. As such Zeus helps to generate a justified belief of the

innovation need and by little dispute. So far the solution of the Knowledge Paradox on a

micro level in the primary innovation process.

The same may hold for the solution of this paradox on the macro level of scientific/academic

institutions and companies. Remember the complaints about the lack of transfer of

knowledge that is supposed to be abundant available in academia to business. This

presupposes knowledge as an objective entity that is stored and available in some place, a

concept in which object and subject are separated. This is the dominant concept of

knowledge in Western societies. The innovation paradox of Knowledge is resolved when

knowledge is conceived of as a justified belief that emerges from social interaction. By

bringing participants from institutions and companies together skilled interventionists as

Zeus are helpful by the introduction of operative methods to create (new) knowledge as

justified beliefs.

The Innovation Pantheon also makes clear how the Paradox of Control can be resolved. This

paradox is caused by the dominant exercise of external control that is contra-productive in

the management of innovation. External control is in the Pantheon replaced by self-control

of the innovation gods. By providing them Influence and Meaning they are empowered to

innovate. It is the new leadership of exercising Inspirational Influence that empowers

participants in the innovation process. Self-control in the form of empowerment of followers

replaces external ‘control and command’ exercised by the leader. Inspirational leadership

makes us all gods of innovation!

Finally the Paradox of Time can be resolved by the Pantheon. When Janus shows his face as

Kronos innovation is organized along chronological time by Athena and Zeus. Innovation can

then be accomplished by the organization of innovation projects but these are time

consuming, complex and risky. The failure rate can be high. Moreover Athena and Zeus make

war of innovation. This cannot be a permanent state in an organization!

Therefore a readiness to innovation that can be organized by Apollo and Dionysus has to be

preferred and can be the epitome of innovation management. Unfortunately this

organizational readiness to innovation might be as difficult to obtain as an organizational

culture. Here Athena and Zeus may come to the rescue by the organization of innovation

projects as learning projects. Then the failure rate of these projects merely is ’collateral



damage’ in a continuous learning process to create a readiness to innovation. This is in line

with Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) who consider new product development as the most

important process of organizational knowledge creation. To them organizational knowledge

creation is a derivative of new product development and they suggest an hypertext structure

as a structural base for knowledge creation. The Innovation Pantheon shows characteristics

of such a hypertext organization. In this context it is symbolical that supportive roles are

hidden in in the Pantheon. They are not visible in fig. 2. The Teacher, the Culture Manager

and the Politician are the invisible hand of Janus. Then the Teacher will ensure that an

innovation project is a learning experience. Innovation values will be supported and

expressed by the Culture Manager. The Politician will build the plots that unite the parties

that are necessary to seize the right moment to bring an idea into good currency. For

example the Knowledge Manager, the Designer and the Planner can be urged by a Politician

to come together to transform a vision into a design for a new activity that is accompanied

by a proper business plan for its realization.

This does not deny that new product development or innovation projects should deliver

concrete results. However, the most important contribution of an innovation project as a

learning experience will be that it invites Apollo and Dionysus to manifest themselves.

Therefore the training of a critical mass of the work force in innovation project management

in the perspective of the Innovation Pantheon can be a good policy to organize innovation.

Considered this way Kairos beats Kronos but this is not a problem because both are the

faces of Janus, two sides of the same medal. We don’t have to bother about time and

considered this way concrete results of innovation projects are side catch. Not unimportant,

but side catch in a process that brings the organization in a state of readiness to innovation.

Van de Ven et al. (2008) to some extend come to the same conclusion as a result of their

study of innovation projects over a period of nearly two decades in the Minnesota

Innovation Management Program. In their advice for innovation managers and

entrepreneurs the authors conclude “to learn to go with the flow" keeping in mind that

while they can learn to manoeuvre through the innovation journey, they cannot control its

flow.

In terms of the Innovation Pantheon this comes down to learn not only to be as Athena and

Zeus and manage innovation in chronological time but also -and more important - to be like

Apollo and Dionysus to create an organizational readiness to innovation. This makes the

innovation paradox of time obsolete. Eventually the organization will always seize the right

moment for innovation.



References

Bandura (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A. & Wood, R.E. (1989). Effects of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,805-814.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: The Free Press. Block, Peter (1989). The empowered manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas. Buijs, A. (1987). Innovatie en interventie. Inaugural address. Delft University. De Bono (1982). De Bono’s Thinking Course. London: BBC. Den Hartog, D.N. & Belschak, F.D. (2011). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, in press.

Gumusluoglu, Lale, & Ilsev, Arzu (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 261 - 273.

Hoving, H. (2000). Leiden met PIT. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht: Lemma.

Hoving, H. (2001). Inspiring Effects of Metaphors. In: Fit for the future. Leo van Geffen, Han van der

Meer & Tudor Rickards (eds.). Enschede: Twente University Press. Hoving, H. &, Plantinga, R. (2006). The 7 Laws Of Innovation. Rotterdam: Panta Rheyn. Kawasaki, G. (2004). The art of the start. Stanford Technology Ventures Program. http://www.youtube.com/PantaRheyn#p/f/3/L3xaeVXTSBg Kearney, Eric & Gebert, Diether (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 94(1), 77-89. Koestler, A. (1978). Janus - A summing up. London : Hutchinson. Lissack, M.R. & Roos, J. (2001). Be coherent , not visionary. Long Range Planning, 34, 53-70. Mintzberg, H. (1976). Planning with the left side and managing with the right. Harvard Business Review , July- August , 54, 49-58. Mintzberg, Henry, Joseph Lampel, and Bruce Ahlstrand (2008). Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds of Strategic Management. New York: Free Press.

http://www.youtube.com/PantaRheyn#p/f/3/L3xaeVXTSBg



References continued Nauta, A., Van Vianen, A., Van der Heijden, B., Van Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. (2009). Understanding the factors that promote employability orientation: The impact of employability culture, career satisfaction, and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 233-251. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press.

Nederveen Pieterse, A. , Knippenberg, D.L. van, Schippers, M.C. , Stam, D.A. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behaviour: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behaviour , volume 31, issue 4 pp. 609-623. Thomas, K.W., Velthouse, B.A. (1990), "Cognitive elements of empowerment: an 'interpretative' model of intrinsic task motivation", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 pp. 666-681. Trott, P. (2008, 4th edition). Innovation management. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Van de Ven, A. H, Polley, D. , Garud, R. & Venkataraman, S. (2008). The innovation journey. Oxford University Press. Van de Ven , A.H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 332, 590-607.

http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/18073/




http://repub.eur.nl/res/jnl/08943796/

Innovation pantheon of panta rheyn

Documents

Transcript of Innovation pantheon of panta rheyn