Add a Comment

Comment by Alessandro Jacoby on April 5, 2012 at 20:16

Innovation is a theme seductive because it is intrinsically a utopia when it comes to implementation. The term "pockets of resistance" makes perfect sense but do not forget that they can be on top or on the basis of any organization. Human beings are averse to change and innovation means doing something that was not done. This brings a lot of insecurities that are chains of any process with the excuse of not being able to "reinvent the wheel." I like this view of businessthinking where two powers, now separated, can come together: the analyticaland creative ability. To me this is the new key to run away pockets of resistance.

Comment by Danielle Hoek on April 5, 2012 at 15:15

In this article http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2012/01/our-bias-against-creativity...(MindBlog) there is an interesting statement that people are less creative (innovative) when they are uncertain.

So, that means, that you first have to analyze who the "pockets of resistance" are and if they are incompetent or just uncertain. I think you can choose for different strategies on how to handle with these different types. In any case to empower the uncertain ones gave me as a manager greater satisfaction.

Comment by Danielle Hoek on April 4, 2012 at 14:10

@Arne: I like the description of "pockets of resistance". It is a serious problem in traditional organizations. 

@Guido: I certainly recognize the tricks of "innovating" college's not being innovative at all but hardly trying to have the most respect of the board. It's hard to pass these control freaks to have contact with a board member.

But how to handle with these guys and dolls (the pockets of resistance). I think it's important that there is at least one board member who really is interested in the different way's of innovation. If not i think it's a hard job.

Comment by Guido Stompff on April 4, 2012 at 10:43

Innovation is inevitably new to an organization. And thus a reason for resistance. In science, attempts are made to 'manage' innovation inside organizations by making a divide between exploration (discovery, play, creativity) and exploration (gradual improvement of existing products). I always thought it is a convenient distinction to discern those who tal about innovation in terms of radical change ( and defying marketing lingo) and those who like to plan innovation (and defy in controlled activities). But I discovered that this divide also has an unwanted side effect: effectively it is a trick of those who favor controlled innovation to fence off those who like disruptive change.

Network Guide Comment by Arne van Oosterom on April 4, 2012 at 8:46

@Danielle,

I agree.

I think that some organizations just have "boxes to tick in" and one of hem is happens to be called innovation. "Did we do innovation already?" (I noticed this take on innovation particularly in gov. organizations)

I've heard people talk about their companies innovations when they pointed at 'promotional marketing tools' with only a superficial relationship to their core business.

And then there are these "pockets of resistance" in organizations: a group of employees who have innovation in their job-description but have no clear mandate and more importantly no connection to higher management. They have a strategy of "tricking" management into implementing (what they consider) real innovations. Usually this strategy doesn't work, and these corporate change agents can feel powerless and very frustrated.

Comment by Danielle Hoek on April 3, 2012 at 22:51

My experience is that in organizations there often is no clarity about the purpose of their own innovation processes: is it to optimize the existing products or services or is it to create something completely new. There are different skills and methods needed.