And yet, the majority of corporate innovation leaders do understand the need and value of creating a dedicated innovation team. To be sure, every employee in your organization should ideally take part in innovation projects, but it\u2019s the ultimate responsibility of the innovation team to take ownership of the process: to make it efficient, measurable and accountable. Anyone with a glimpse of corporate experience knows that when \u201ceveryone\u201d is responsible for something, no one is.<\/p>\n Innovative people for innovative teams<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The first approach emphasizes the personal skills of the team members. That\u2019s why you will often hear that the best way to staff your innovation team is to hire\u2026innovative people; great advice, but unfortunately with limited practical value. This is not to say, however, that more specific directions are completely unavailable. For example, a recent publication<\/a> lists five \u201cinnovative\u201d qualities each member of the innovation team is supposed to possess:<\/p>\n Although I agree in principle with all five suggestions, I nevertheless suspect that the majority of corporate HR departments, even equipped with advanced Myers-Briggs-style tests, will have troubles with finding enough candidates meeting such a high standard.<\/p>\n This approach is obviously much more practical than the first; in fact, many organizations have already adopted the \u201cspirit\u201d (if not the exact \u201cletter\u201d) of this approach by having created innovation \u201cjoint task forces\u201d composed of representatives from different corporate units and functions (or locations, if appropriate): R&D, sales and marketing, customer service, accounting, legal, HR, etc.<\/em><\/p>\n Implicit in the formation of an innovation team composed of members belonging to different parts of an organization is a belief that this team can only be successful if it includes people with diverse professional expertise and experience. In recent years, this concept of diversity<\/em> was augmented by a growing body of scientific evidence (summarized in a 2014 article in Scientific American<\/em><\/a>) showing that socially<\/em> diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than socially homogeneous groups. Research shows that socially diverse groups are better at solving complex problems not only because people with different backgrounds bring new information, but also because the mere presence of individuals with alternative viewpoints forces group members to work harder to get their own points across.<\/p>\n This is good news for HR managers in charge of innovation teams: in our rapidly globalizing workforce environment, finding people with diverse professional, personal and social attributes is much easier than chasing rare individuals with nebulous qualities such as the \u201cleapfrogging mindset\u201d.<\/p>\n Characteristically, it is the first factor, psychological safety, which was by far the most important of the five. The safer team members felt with one another, the more likely they were to admit mistakes, to work together and take on new roles. All this obviously positively affected pretty much every aspect of their work.<\/p>\n The power of this particular example obviously derives from the fact that it comes from Google, arguably one of the world\u2019s most innovative companies, for the very notion that innovation requires taking risks without fear of negative career repercussions is hardly new. We all used to hearing calls to \u201cfail fast and fail often\u201d (or even to \u201ccelebrate failure<\/a>\u201d) as a surrogate invitation to innovate. Unfortunately, while voiceful in cheering risk-taking, relentless experimentation and learning from mistakes (all being parts of the elusive \u201cculture of innovation<\/a>\u201d), companies fail to introduce specific corporate policies that would encourage and reward such a behavior of their employees.<\/p>\n Previously<\/a>, I proposed two such corporate policies. First, I proposed to make stock option grants, as opposed to cash bonuses and other monetary rewards, the principal incentive for engaging employees in innovation projects. <\/em>This proposal is taking cue from a 2015\u00a0finding<\/a>\u00a0that companies offering stock options to non-executive employees were more innovative and that the positive effect of stock options on innovation was more pronounced with longer-term grants. Second, I proposed to place employees involved in innovation projects on fixed-term employment contracts, as opposed to employment-at-will. <\/em>This proposal is based on a 2001\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0showing that labor laws making it more difficult to fire employees increase their participation in corporate innovation activities.<\/p>\n In other words, try first to provide all<\/em> of your employees with incentives to engage in innovation<\/a> activities along with immunity for failed innovation projects. After you implemented these or similar policies, you may well discover that the number of qualified people in your organization is larger than you expected.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/qmarkets.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/f1.png\")
Or maybe you don\u2019t. Many folks don\u2019t believe in structured innovation<\/em><\/a> arguing that any \u201cstructure\u201d kills creativity and stifles innovation. Even some innovation experts claim that \u201cinnovation is everyone\u2019s job<\/a>.\u201d Actually this notion that \u201cinnovation is everyone\u2019s job\u201d is quite popular in many companies. Why? Because it allows its leadership to adopt a hands-off approach to innovation process. It obviously takes time and effort to formulate the company\u2019s innovation strategy, align it with corporate strategic goals and identify key problems to solve. In contrast, it\u2019s so easy to just announce an open season for \u201cideas,\u201d launch an innovation hackathon<\/a> (or two) and then claim that the collective wisdom of the whole company has been harnessed. The popularization of this hands-off approach to innovation can be at least partially attributed to easy-to-use innovation management<\/a> platforms, such as Qmarkets\u2019\u00a0Q-open\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0Q-max<\/a> which support on-the-ground innovation initiatives.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/qmarkets.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/f2.png\")
And here we come to a crucial question: how this innovation team should be formed? Several approaches to addressing this question exist.<\/p>\n\n
Who is your partner?<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/qmarkets.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/f3.png\")
The second approach pays little attention to the individual skill sets of the team members, but it stresses the need of an optimal mix of individuals the team is composed of. In particular, this approach focuses on the functional roles<\/em> each member of the team plays in the project. For example. For example, it was suggested<\/a> that each innovation team should include nine innovation roles<\/a> of which the most important are the following:<\/p>\n\n
It\u2019s all about process<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/qmarkets.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/f4.png\")
There is the third approach to the formation of innovation teams. This approach emphasizes not the team composition or individual skills of its member, but the way the team operates<\/em>. The logic behind this approach was eloquently articulated in a 2015 article<\/a> on Google. The article argues that the composition of a team matters much less for its success than how the team members interact, structure their work and view their contributions. The article listed five key factors that set apart successful Google teams:<\/p>\n\n