What's Your Organizational IQ?

Now, if that isn't a great opener for a yet-to-be-written pop business book, I don't know what is.

By IQ, I mean "innovation quotient".  How much is innovation embedded in your corporate DNA?

And the answer to this will have a lot to do whether your organization takes this whole E2.0 thing seriously or not.

Are You Talking The Talk, Or Walking The Walk?

I would guess that most people would like to describe their organization as "innovative", because to do otherwise might reflect poorly on our choice of employer.

I think there's a broad range of "innovation culture" within different organizations.

I think that organizations that truly have a high "IQ" across different functional units will find that social productivity software is the best thing they've ever done.

And, conversely, organizations with relatively low "IQ" won't make the effort, or -- if they do -- they'll see limited success.

A Bit About EMC Culture

We're a technology company that's gone through massive DNA infusions through serial acquisition.  The technology gene pool here is very rich and very diverse.

On the product side, we've got a great innovation culture.  We hold Innovation Conferences, encourage and reward people who innovate, heap praise on people who apply for patents and so on.

But it's not just the engineers who are having fun innovating.

Our marketing team is pretty innovative.  As is our Finance team.  And Legal team.  Our HR team is breaking new ground all the time in the industry.  And, if you've ever met one of our sales or field technical people, well, they're pretty innovative as well.

As a matter of fact, there are few functions indeed at EMC that I wouldn't describe as "innovative" to a relatively high degree.  It's expected that -- wherever you are in the company -- you're trying new things, trying to figure out a better approach, continually learning. 

We're pretty hard on ourselves in that regard.  There is no "BAU" -- business as usual.   

Simply said, it permeates our DNA.

Why This Matters

If your company has a "high IQ", getting the benefit social productivity software is relatively easy.

People are naturally curious, and are willing to try something new.  A certain segment of the employee population is naturally curious and conversational, and is willing to take the plunge and reach out to others.

And, if you're like me, and you want the Big Conversation that spans multiple functions and silos, you want to make sure that there's enough IQ spread across the organization that -- wherever you go -- there are certain people who'll look at a social media platform, and say "hey, I want to play!"

Part of the reason we were able to form a core team and invest in our internal implementation so quickly is that our executive management sees themselves as innovative (they are), wants to foster innovation (they do), and saw this E2.0 thing as a potential big innovation (it is).

People I talk to in other companies are struggling to convince their management to do this stuff.  They're trying to construct ROIs, justifications, pacify naysayers, et. al.  I think I upset people a bit when I share that I really didn't have to do much of that to get this project going. 

It was an innovation, hence we just had to give it a try.

And, as part of the innovative culture, it's OK to fail, as long as you learn something.  So, even if the whole thing blew up in our face, we'd be able to shake it off, pick up the pieces, and try something else.  We've all got an implicit freedom to fail, as long as we're not completely stupid about it.

I'm starting to realize that EMC's corporate culture might be the exception, and not the rule.

If you look around your organization, and just see isolated pockets of high IQ, the prognosis is mixed.  Some might think that an internal platform might be a great way to foster innovation (and it is, in our experience), but it's amplifying and magnifying an implicit behavior that's already there.

Conversely, if everyone is just putting in their 9 to 5 and waiting for the weekend, the coolest social software platform in the world isn't going to help that -- unless people want to chat about their weekend plans, that is.

The Bottom Line

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you're probably interested in this topic for your organization, as well you should be.

Ask yourself -- does your company have enough of a "high IQ" to make this relatively painless?

Because, if it doesn't, I'd suggest you might find something else to go work on -- at least for now.

Sooner or later, the trend will sweep through different businesses, and all this will be a mainstream thing.

But, of course, by then, it won't be that much fun anymore, will it?

Comments

[John Prichard]

You said innovative and patents in the same sentence. This struck a thought since I think of inventive rather than innovative for patents.

Innovation happens many times when one sees similarities in one science, field of endeavor, another department that can be used in their own. When you see a process that can be easily adapted into another space you can be described an innovative. I always made sure to read in acoustics and electro-optics to see if they had anything that "readily" applied to my old field of Radar. When it happened it was considered quite innovative but we didn't invent anything.

So the effort of cross fertilization can be a rich generator of innovation. What better way to cross fertilize than to have the big conversation.

So here is your argument backwards: The big conversation helps make High IQ
as well as
High IQ helps the big conversation.

John Prichard
[email protected]
Texas Instruments