International Conference on Leadership, Technology and ... · Innovation thought leaders like Clayton Christensen, Tom Kelley, Edward de Bono and Vijay Govindarajan are adding to

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 ( 2012 ) 209 – 226

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of The First International Conference on Leadership, Technology and Innovation Management doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.025

International Conference on Leadership, Technology and Innovation Management

A leadership competency profile for innovation leaders in a science-based research and innovation organization in South Africa

Awie Vloka aDepartment of Business Management, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa

Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa

Abstract

Innovation has become critical for nations, organizations and individuals in an increasingly complex and challenging

world. Leaders responsible for innovation need to be competent in making innovation happen, yet many acknowledge

that they are not sure that their practices would yield success. The competencies for innovation leadership may differ

from those used before to craft and achieve business goals. Research on innovation leadership competencies appears

to be limited and fragmented with little evidence of a cumulative and coherent body of knowledge emerging on the

topic. While contributions to the body of knowledge are increasing, the emphasis appears to be discipline- or

element-specific rather than a comprehensive or systemic review of the underpinning competencies required for

success. This article proposes a competency profile for innovation leaders derived from research in a South African

science-based research and innovation organization. This profile includes competencies identified in a core sample of

leaders whose leadership resulted in the creation of new knowledge or inventions, and the adoption of these by

intended recipients in commercial and non-commercial or public good applications. The research started with a list of

leadership competencies from multiple sources, including best-selling authors, commercially available leadership

development programs, researcher observations and respondent inputs. Respondents completed a questionnaire to

indicate their perceived significance of the competencies in the performance of successful innovation leaders. The

resulting profile proposes a framework which may become a validated model through further research. Stakeholders

who may benefit from these insights, include innovation leaders themselves, those who appoint such leaders to drive

innovation, and those who provide learning and development to such leaders.

Keywords: Innovation Leadership, Research and Innovation Leadership competencies, Science-based organization

© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Leadership, Technology and Innovation Management *Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of The First International Conference on Leadership, Technology and Innovation Management Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

210 Awie Vlok / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41 ( 2012 ) 209 – 226

1. Introduction

“Innovate or Die” is the title of a Tom Peters video released in 1997 to signal the growing significance of innovation in business [1]. Innovation has become a critical competency for leaders operating in a world surrounded by challenges that require new thinking and solutions. Innovation is increasingly being acknowledged as a strategic imperative for sustainability and differentiation [2],[3],[4],[5].

Those with leadership responsibilities face an evolving range of challenges and opportunities that require unprecedented creativity and successful implementation of innovative solutions. An apparently endless stream of political, social, economic, technological, environmental and competitive pressures affect the globe, regions, nations, industries and nearly every other manifestation of human endeavor. Only urgent, transformative action can avoid worst-case scenarios [6].

Most of these challenges are highly complex by nature, interrelated and they require more than quick

fixes at the level of single elements. They are real and relevant, rather than imaginary and abstract. “Business as usual” practices are unlikely to produce the needed solutions [7].

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon challenged the 2011 World Economic Forum at Davos to apply revolutionary thinking and innovation to the challenges of our time. “How do we lift people out of poverty while protecting the planet and ecosystems that support economic growth? How do we regain the balance? These issues require rethinking, revolutionary thinking and revolutionary action. Leaders who spark innovation and lead by action” [8].

In a recent survey amongst 300 Fortune 1000 executives, 95% acknowledged the critical contribution of innovation for the future, yet over 50% reported that they had insufficient systems, tools or processes for fostering innovation [9].

In another study published by McKinsey Quarterly, over 70% of senior executives had identified innovation as one of their top three business drivers into the future [10]. Over 65% of these executives were less than confident about their innovation decisions. This contrast between aspirations and execution was found to have been caused by management not being prepared or skilled for getting the best out of innovation.

Innovation thought leaders like Clayton Christensen, Tom Kelley, Edward de Bono and Vijay Govindarajan are adding to the body of knowledge, consultancies entering the field and corporations adding innovation to their slogans. Innovation results, however, are still disappointing [11].

At national policy level, innovation in science and technology is seen as crucial to developing a more

competitive foothold in the global economy, and to addressing pressing developmental needs. However, South Africa has yet to mobilize innovation effectively in support of economic growth to overcome the "innovation chasm" which is still a major weakness in our economy [12].

The emerging economies of the world are also challenged to innovate. Increasingly there is evidence

of countries like India and China integrating innovation at national strategic levels. Their innovation performance is improving as a result of a blend of innovation approaches and practices that are crafted to address broader socio-economic challenges and to introduce new competitive challenges into well-established markets [13].

Most organizations have to re-examine and adjust their capabilities to compete in the changing and

complex market place [14]. New professional and decision-making practices need to replace conventional


hierarchies typically associated with size, control, minimizing risk and equal treatment of all. Deliberate allowance for deviant behavior has allowed Apple and Facebook to thrive because of leadership. For innovation success, leaders need to identify, support, encourage and reward traits like deviance, creativity, passion and commitment. There is a need for transformation and review of business practices of leadership [15].

New competencies are thus required for leading in the context of increasing demands for innovation in many facets of organizations and society. Research findings suggest that the success behaviors of innovation leaders are indeed different from the leadership behaviors that are deemed to be sufficient in conventional leadership development initiatives [16],[17],[18],[19].Current literature suggests that there is a knowledge gap on which competencies might be required for successful innovation leadership.

This paper puts forward a set of leadership competencies that could be integrated into a profile. Such a profile is intended to benefit current and aspiring leaders, their organizations, service providers [20] and the emerging innovation profession by putting forward some research findings based on the practices of 28 successful innovation leaders in a science-based research and innovation organization in South Africa.

2. Literature Review

The multidisciplinary nature of the research on which this paper reports, made the choice of particular disciplines and their underpinning theories challenging because of the potentially biased research predispositions. As a consequence, the literature review covered conceptual areas deemed necessary for planning and execution of the study conducted.

The broad field of management has been accommodating the increasing emphasis on innovation to

some extent. The body of knowledge on management has increasingly been influenced by the modern knowledge-intensive organization and the need for change in management styles and practices to meet new demands. In 1968, management sciences pioneer, Peter Drucker, introduced the concept of discontinuity in organizations and challenged management to learn how to build and manage future organizations as groups of humans capable of anticipating the future, converting vision into technology, products and processes and willing and able to think for themselves [21]. In 2002, MIT Professor Clayton Christensen referred to innovation as “the new science of success” and predicted that innovation would become a new management discipline and profession [22].

Despite the pioneering contributions of authors like Drucker and Christensen to make managers aware

of the need for innovation in management practices, some managers have not yet been introduced to better ways of managing innovation and they are feeling ill equipped to lead innovation [23].

Leaders in all organizations where new solutions need to be found and implemented, are affected.

Science-based organizations are also affected and leadership in such organizations have become a new area of focus for some involved in providing business and executive education. At least one well-established educational institution acknowledged the need for new competencies and admits that they still have to define what constitutes best practices, and to identify which kinds of leaders, governance and organizational structures would be most appropriate for leaders in science-driven enterprises [24].

It may thus be argued that at conceptual level, the review of management practices has begun, while at

management practices level, the enhanced or improved practices have not yet been adequately studied, tested and adopted. The literature review was thus used to reflect on current understanding of the concepts


of innovation, leadership, innovation leadership, competency and profile to serve as basis for developing the innovation leadership competency profile, as further outlined below.

2.1. Innovation

Innovation is not new but its importance in the modern society and organizations has increased significantly and its scope broadened. From a new product development bias of the nineties [25], a broader understanding of innovation has evolved. Today, innovation also includes new technologies, processes, services, business models and practices and even organizational reinvention [26]. It is generally accepted that even successful business models are vulnerable and need to be re-evaluated from time to time to allow for innovation [27]. In similar vein, even the core practices of what innovation used to be about, namely new product development, have been re-innovated to make a shift from a linear process towards principle-based new product development [28].

While it may be argued that research on management of innovation should drive informed decision-

making on the topic, such research has been highly fragmented and non-cumulative with most contributions coming from narrow focus on three disciplines with hardly any overlap. These are research and development or technology management, new product development and marketing, and organization development with emphasis on change management, which leaves some gaps in terms of how organizations should innovate in their complex external relationships and learn from it [29].

A key requirement for innovation is coming up with new ideas. In the nineties, the emphasis was on

creative genius. By applying specific techniques, creativity could be improved [30]. Many new techniques have become available for stimulating new ideas [31] that are relevant and new [32]. At the turn of the century, over 400 definitions of creativity existed [33].The concept of simplicity was introduced to simplify some of the complex challenges being posed to the creativity experts [34] and creative input from other stakeholders became accepted practice for co-creation of value.

Another key requirement for innovation is implementation or uptake of ideas, commercially [35] and

non-commercially. Early involvement of employees and other stakeholders, such as customers, lead-users, research units and open innovation agents [36] became accepted practice. Leaders could engage people in new ways to bridge the gaps between people and possibilities [37]. Imitation as a form of innovation has also been acknowledged and some have benefitted from following this approach by copying leading innovations rather than pioneering their own which often allowed them to innovate faster, cheaper and at lower risk for themselves and their recipients [38].

Recent literature refers to innovation as a process with dynamic, social, complex or other

characteristics where combinations or connections between variables are created for new insights to emerge and to manifest as new technologies, applications, markets and organizational practices aimed at value creation [39].

In light of the input considerations outlined above, innovation was interpreted in its broader sense to not only focus on new knowledge generation or ideas, but also on the implementation thereof. This interpretation has also informed the selection of the sample group of innovation leaders, as further explained in the sampling section and illustrated in Figure 1. With the current significance, scope and sources of innovation addressed, the rest of the literature review focuses on the leadership of innovation and the requirements for developing a competency profile.


2.2. Leadership

Fayol, Drucker, Sloan and other pioneers of management have provided the foundations for our understanding that management entails planning, organizing, activating/leading and control activities within strategic, policy and regulatory parameters to achieve clearly formulated goals and objectives[40].

Renowned strategy expert Gary Hamel [41] challenges traditional management practices and

assumptions that have changed very little while so much has changed in the management landscape. He claims that companies would soon be forced to change in ways for which there are no precedents. He warns that decades of orthodox management decision-making practices, organizational designs and approaches to employee relations could not prevent companies from faltering or escaping restructurings. He claims that the capacity to change and improve the world is bound by the capacity to manage and such management practices should lead in this endeavor [42].He points out that modern management comes from 19th century thinking where the goal was to maximize efficiency by minimizing deviations from standard practices.

In recent years, the emphasis has shifted to include more leader-specific attributes and ensuring that these are acknowledged and integrated at institutional levels. The new emphasis includes systems views of the organization [43], change management [44], ability to manage conflict [45], leadership pipelines [46], gender-specific leadership styles [47], purpose, emotional intelligence, engagement, alignment, shared accountability and commitment [48].

From the above arguments, some justification may be found for the observation that authors in the innovation field tend to refer to innovation leadership instead of innovation management. The style of writing about management and leadership appears to be shifting. From a machine-type linear process-driven language, the style and even contents today appear to reflect a more dynamic, people-centered, context-specific [49] and results-orientated style. The exception appears to be the kind of crisis brought about by global catastrophes that call for tough measures aimed at survival, such as checklist-driven approaches [50] but softened by the inclusion of essential leadership traits for hard times, in which people-centeredness is reiterated. These leadership traits include honesty, credibility, ability to inspire, connection with reality tempered with optimism, managing with intensity and boldness in building the future. The conclusion from literature reviewed, is that the concepts of management and leadership have different origins but are intertwined and essentially synonymous [51].

In terms of leadership theory, the transformational leadership school reflects some of the key changes

in leadership practices to accommodate innovation, namely vision creation and ownership while , while building commitment to and soliciting creative contributions towards vision achievement [52]. Except for ego, the transformational leader and the level 5 leader described by Jim Collins of “Good to Great” fame appear to be similar because both emphasize the importance of a clear, compelling, shared vision and leaders who catalyze the creative contributions of people other than themselves towards achievement of the vision [53],[54].

Many others have since published in support of the work of earlier pioneers without substantially altering the existing knowledge base [55].Two of the most popular authors on the concept of leadership, Stephen Covey and John Maxwell, claim that leadership is essentially about influence [56],[57]. This approach influenced the departure point in the study being reported here, namely to focus on articulating what leaders do that seem to influence innovation performance in ways that result in innovation success.


2.3. Innovation leadership

While innovation and leadership have both been featuring extensively in scholarly and general

management literature for decades, the combination appears to be relatively new and growing fast. A Google search for “innovation leadership” revealed 74.9 million captions in 0.17 seconds (accessed 14 April 2011) and 94.3 million captions in 0.21 seconds (accessed 17 August 2011), an increase of 25.9% in four months.

Innovation leadership appears to be a new branch of study dealing with new complexities in value realization and the role of innovation in dealing with these. The first scholarly use of the term is uncertain but one such reference originates from a study by Carmeli who examined the importance of innovation leadership in cultivating the strategic fit of the organization with its environment, and enhancing various economic, relationship and product performance outcomes. The results suggest that innovation leadership significantly enhanced firm performance [58]. The study however failed to indicate to which extent the individual leader or a collective leadership had been studied, which limits the value of these insights in studying innovation leadership [59].

Silicon Valley is often described as a benchmark of innovation excellence. It has become a major high-tech center with networks of funders, engineers, professionals, innovator-entrepreneurs, technicians and software developers. This remarkable aggregation of talent, vision and capital is unmatched elsewhere in the world [60]. Innovation leaders made this happen.

The creation of an innovation-friendly culture requires that leaders acquire new leadership skills to engage and lead staff [61]. These skills include coaching (as opposed to instructing) subordinates and facilitating collaboration across boundaries. Stimulating corporate imagination is becoming important and not many in leadership can do this or would even like to do so. It requires challenging the status quo, including beliefs about performance, technologies and markets. This allows for new inputs, envisioning the future and generating profound insights that are not constrained by current policies and procedures [62].

Despite contributions and increasing volumes of research data, the research base on innovation

leadership remains fragmented, discipline-specific [63] and seldom brought to the levels of integration needed for practical design and implementation of leadership development interventions [64]. At least one critical question remains unanswered, namely what it is that innovation leaders do that brings about success in innovation [65]? This question needs to be addressed because there are no indications yet that the pressure on leaders to drive innovation will decline. It is more likely to increase [66],[67].

Based on the insights conveyed, it should be clear that the concept of innovation leadership is still

relatively new, yet acknowledged for its importance. Scholarly contributions to the knowledge base have been few and fragmented and lack integration, which serves as further support for what the current study aimed to contribute, namely a competency profile for innovation leaders.

2.4. Competency

In order to develop a competency profile, the concept of competency should be clarified. “Competency” refers to the complete blend of requirements to perform in a given context. It includes


being competent in uncertain and unpredictable situations that require more than the skills mastered in a professional area. Competencies can thus be seen as inclusion of skills, knowledge and attitudes, including the patterns of personal competencies and the way they work together for achievement [68].

The literature on how leadership competencies should be derived appears to be inconclusive. Job

analysis used to be the primary mechanism for identifying the knowledge, skills and attitudes for a specific position. While not describing the concept of leadership competencies, Voskuijl and Evers [69] describe job analysis as one of the oldest human resource management tools which is being complemented by competency modeling to meet the requirements of the changing world. Following an extensive literature study, they conclude that “competency” definitions range from abstract psychological constructs to direct observable behavior, to something innovative and may even include something highly desirable.

In light of the non-prescriptive range of approaches being used in competency formulation, the current

study approached innovation leadership from first principles by identifying the competencies observed in leaders who achieved innovation success.

2.5. Profile

“Profile” refers to a structure or outline that is distinctive and recognizable. “Competency profile” as used in this study refers to the structured representation of distinctive features [70], in this case, competencies of successful innovation leaders.

While acknowledging that behavior is a key element in competency, this study was not limited to

behaviors. Commercially available behavior profile instruments, such as the DISC® Behaviour Profile and the Language and Behaviour Profile (LAB Profile) work of the Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) fraternity, were excluded from the current study because of limited access and proprietary conditions. Both these profiles may have linkages to the outcomes of this study and further research may be conducted in future to investigate interfacing areas.

3. Research Methodology

“First I shall do some experiments before I proceed farther, because my intention is to cite experience

first and then with reasoning show why such experience is bound to operate in such a way” [71]. These words from Leonardo da Vinci, the great genius from the Renaissance, underpin much of the approach adopted in the current study.

Despite breakthroughs in thinking, knowledge and technologies over decades, the formalized

management of innovation represents a relatively new and complex area for management scholars [72]. As emerging management discipline, innovation leadership appears to be lagging in theoretical

foundations because of the general lack of tried and tested frameworks or validated models for innovation leadership. In light of the arguments presented, the current study was approached from a more pragmatic perspective with the intention to propose a competency profile for innovation leaders based on practices of successful innovation leaders. Such a framework may be subjected to further testing, validation and integrated with existing theory.


While the importance of competencies is emphasized by those involved in leadership development, no single agreed approach to the identification and formulation of competencies could be identified in literature [73]. Given the absence of such an agreed single approach, the current study adopted a pragmatic approach, starting with a broad approach and then narrowing the options down to a most appropriate set of competencies, as determined by observers involved in innovation projects with close exposure to innovation leaders being observed.

The research design is graphically illustrated in Figure 1. The wide end of the funnel represents a long

list of leadership competencies identified through the various sources. These sources include popular authors who published competencies for leadership success, commercially available programs of service providers active in 360-degree assessments and executive development, observations recorded by the researcher over decades of involvement in facilitation of innovation and related capacity-building programs as well as provision for inputs from respondents who felt that their observations had not been adequately reflected in the master list.

The leadership competencies listed during this phase were incorporated in a questionnaire designed to

determine the perceived significance of each in the success achieved by the innovation leader being assessed. This took place in the context of a science-based research and innovation organization (SBRIO) in South Africa.

The innovation leadership competencies rated as most significant were then subjected to content

analysis, and grouped based on similarity of meaning and placed into four descriptive quadrants to indicate the elements of a coherent profile.

Figure 1: Innovation Leadership Competencies Formulation Funnel

3.1. Research Goal

The essential research goal of the study reported on here was to develop a competency profile of successful innovation leaders in a science-based research and innovation organization in South Africa. The resulting profile may serve as basis for developing and reviewing a program of development for innovation leaders.


The achievement of the research goal would bring greater clarity on the competencies associated with successful innovation leadership as derived from a criteria-based sample of successful practitioners as well as newly published literature in the fast emerging field of innovation.

3.2. Sample and Data Collection

The potential target group for this research consisted of leaders with formal responsibility for innovation in science-based research and innovation organizations, including science councils, universities and research and development entities based in knowledge-intensive organizations in South Africa. This collection of people is also referred to as the national system of innovation or NSI [74].

This sector is strategically significant for strengthening the position of South Africa in knowledge

economy in general, and specifically to achieve a range of societal transformation as well as research and technology innovation targets by 2018. Goals include strengthening of the science base in pursuit of new knowledge generation as basis for knowledge-based economic growth and development [75]. This national level plan expresses concern about the inability of the NSI to effectively mobilize innovation in support of economic growth and refers to an “innovation chasm” being a major weakness in the national economy. In light of the national strategic context as outlined, the current study focused on people appointed in managerial positions with innovation responsibility in the NSI.

The NSI has approximately 31 000 members. Those appointed in managerial positions with

responsibility for innovation leadership, are estimated to be in the order of 8%. This equates to a maximum of approximately 2 500 eligible leaders [76].

The top performing successful innovation leaders in the eligible group are estimated to be below 2%,

or 50 individuals. Therefore, a criteria-based sample of 30 candidates would represent 60% of the actual estimated total target population. For purposes of the current study, successful innovation leaders included individuals who, in the SBRIO strategic operating context, have taken the results of research and development through to the innovation success zone as illustrated in Figure 2.

Outputs Out-comesProcessInputs Impact

PeopleFundsEquipment

ResearchDesignCollaborate

ProductsPatentsReportsTechniques

Problem solvedUptakePoliciesImplemented

Difference:-Economy-Society-Environment-Quality of life

Innovationsuccess zone

Situation

NeedsProblemsOpportunitiesResourcesLocal dynamicsSET trends

Review

Figure 2: Innovation Success Zone


“Innovation success zone” is a term used here as a collective term derived from the Rand

Corporation’s logic model approach to evaluating research outputs, outcomes and impacts that have been successfully introduced, with evidence, to address issues in a specific situation [77].

The culmination of research and development work to yield more than the generation of new

knowledge is increasingly being viewed as what research and development stakeholders really require in exchange for funding and supporting research and development programs [78].

While the innovation success zone emphasis in Figure 2 is relatively new in scholarly literature, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa has this written into their mandate, which is governed by national legislation. The mandate of the CSIR could be summarized as that of conducting directed and particularly multi-disciplinary research and technological innovation in support of national and other priorities for and with principals from the private or public sectors. Both competitiveness and socio-economic development related innovation are included [79].

For the purpose of the current study, selection criteria for successful innovation leaders further included the following:

Creative and research work under their leadership had proceeded further than basic or applied research in the research and innovation value chain.

Their research had manifested in one or more of the following: o patent(s) were granted; o license(s) were granted for commercial application; and/or o research work has culminated in innovation strategies and/or government policy derived from

research.

Data collection took place through a portfolio of methods. Literature studies formed the basis of the rationale for the study as well as the initial list of generic leadership behaviors to serve as initial input for considering innovation competencies. A semi-structured questionnaire was used by respondents to identify the success-related leadership behaviors of selected leaders. Subsequent processing of the data took place under scrutiny of senior leadership and institutional governance structures within the sample organization.

For the identification of successful leaders in the selected organization, references solicited from colleagues and networks as well as internal organizational reports on performance excellence, were used. The results of the above rounds of research were used to construct an innovation leadership competency profile which may be seen as the crux of the contribution of this study towards the existing body of knowledge.

3.3. Measures

The integrated or hybrid research design implies use of both qualitative and quantitative research at different stages of the research, and includes the following elements:

Literature studies for determining what had been done in the field. Leadership magazines, newsletters and social media platforms of other scholars in the field. Interest groups and communities of practice active in the innovation leadership field.


Semi-structured electronic questionnaires for identification of leadership behaviors that are seen by respondents as having high impact on innovation results with open questions allowing for inputs beyond what has already been captured.

Corporate reports, regulatory documents, performance parameters and excellence awards documentation to inform the formulation of success criteria and identification of successful innovation leaders.

The processing of impact ratings on a 4-point semantic differential Likert sliding scale in the questionnaires was done by standard statistical means to determine averages and patterns for further processing and research.

Respondents rated their perceived significance of each competency in the innovation leader’s success

by selecting one of four descriptors, namely critical, useful but not critical, interesting but not useful and not relevant. All the competencies for which the majority of the 28 respondents indicated “critical” for innovation success were included in the shortened list before these were clustered.

4. Results and Analysis

Respondent ratings of the significance of each of the 573 listed generic leadership competencies revealed 48 competencies being rated as “critical” in the innovation leader’s success. Competencies being rated on averages of 3.48 and above on a 4-point scale with 0.27 standard deviation across all 28 respondents, were included.

A further qualitative content analysis of these 48 competencies revealed similarity and proximity in

meaning that allowed for fewer and more substantive clusters to be formed without losing the essential descriptive character of the original 48 competencies. The resulting 20 competencies were further regrouped under four descriptive competency profile quadrants that may appear more generic but which still retained the distinctively different descriptive character of each. The end result is reflected in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Innovation Leadership Competencies Competency profile

quadrants Critical leadership competency clusters

Strategist 1. Develop and communicate a compelling vision

2. Provide thought leadership (expressing thinking that is original

and different)

3. Ability to shape collective thinking

4. Ability to facilitate high-impact decision-making

5. Ability to lead by example

6. Demonstrates exceptional leadership skills/abilities

Capability builder 7. Ability to assess and manage across the innovation value chain


8. Facilitate an innovation-enhancing environment

9. Facilitate improvement, learning/development

10. Facilitate knowledge management

11. Develop and maintain high-performance teams

12. Build and maintain high-impact networks

Matchmaker 13. Understand the contextual environment

14. Apply entrepreneurial thinking

15. Clear and compelling communicator

16. Recognized influencer in the external environment

Achiever 17. Ability to motivate others to superior performance

18. Build a high-performance culture

19. Manage individual and group performance

20. Ability to achieve results


From the elements depicted in Table 1, the synthesis captured in Figure 3 below, represents the comprehensive innovation leadership profile of competencies believed to impact highly on innovation success. Each of the quadrants in the profile forms a critical and integral part of the profile and a narrative on each is captured in Table 2.

Figure 3: Innovation Leadership Competency Profile

Table 2: Narratives on Quadrants of the Innovation Leadership Competency Profile Quadrant Narrative Strategist The strategist or direction setter is a recognized thought leader, who encourages thinking

that is original, different yet relevant and who defines and prioritizes strategic issues, building pictures of the future and using it to inspire others and lead them towards it. This is a mature and confident leader, who addresses real-world issues, thinks through problems logically and systemically, is a good problem solver and decision-maker, who is able to assess the impacts of decisions taken, set demanding/stretching yet achievable targets and who motivates rather than manipulates co-workers to achieve these targets.

Capacity builder

The capacity builder builds teams and high-impact networks to facilitate the development of knowledge and solutions, helping co-workers to see the broader perspective, creating an environment where creativity and innovation skills flourish, facilitating the process of transforming new ideas and concepts into new intellectual assets and solutions. This leader is committed to learning by committing to and promoting personal growth, development and continuous learning, and by facilitating learning through the sharing of knowledge and experiences. The capability builder develops and maintains teams consisting of an excellent mix of talent, innovativeness and creativity and facilitates the creation and management of a shared knowledge/experience pool.

Matchmaker The matchmaker is attuned to the needs and requirements of the various internal and external stakeholders and shares insights with co-workers/the team. This leader identifies and builds relationships with key people whose influence is critical in solving problems, sponsors and promotes emerging/new ideas and project initiatives, is able to network effectively and to present/communicate professional data and results effectively to different audiences. The matchmaker understands both the detail and context of the operating environment and the external and internal interfacing dynamics, grasps new


opportunities to accomplish goals or major assignments and is effective in building the image and optimizing the impact of the work being done.

Achiever The achiever/performer is renowned for delivery capability, typically focusing on either the process to achieve results, or on the results themselves, but frequently on both. Her/she starts by clarifying who does what in setting performance goals and translates results into specific achievable outputs to conceptualize and reach outcomes and to anticipate and manage project impacts. This leader is results-focused, treats all people with dignity and respect and does not tolerate discriminatory practices, builds confidence in followers to perform effectively, creates an environment and associated processes that build team spirit and a sense of community and commands respect for creating the environment to deliver. The achiever promotes open and constructive communication, sets high standards for self and others, deals honestly with employees, colleagues and customers and is able to overcome resistance to change.

The proposed innovation leadership competency profile has been endorsed by senior leadership and

peer groups and innovation leaders in the sample organization over a three-year period and was converted into a 360-degree web-based assessment used for a leadership development program.

Since the first presentations of the study results to senior leadership and appropriate decision-makers in

the sample organization, eight leadership development programs have been presented where the proposed innovation leadership competency profile was used to assess performance of attending delegates and setting their development and learning priorities. A total of 157 attendees have been rated by over 1 400 reviewers in 360-degree assessments. Pre- and post-assessments done to date show promising early improvements in leadership competencies and innovation results since. Further research is needed to report conclusively on this trend.

4.1. Discussion

A key observation from the findings presented, is that the knowledge gap expressed in the literature and the aim of the study to provide a competency profile for innovation leadership, have both been addressed through the creation of the proposed profile.

The four-quadrant competency profile with its underpinning elements was proposed as framework for

indicating the interdependence and coherent workings of these elements. From this framework, further validation may be conducted to establish a model.

While different respondents place different values on the significance of individual competencies, the

four quadrants were all derived from competencies rated as critically significant. The significance of the four quadrants suggests that none of them should be neglected in the application of the profile in a given innovation context.

The profile breaks away from the mould of a linear mode by proposing a dynamic framework where

different competencies contribute individually and collectively in a systemic manner for innovation leadership success.

Bold leadership is needed to take innovation in the form of new solutions forward. The proposed

profile provides a range of competencies that have been described by followers as highly significant in the successful pursuit of innovation leadership. Novice and experienced leaders may benefit from comparing their own practices with the competencies in the profile to influence personal development choices.


5. Conclusion

The gap in knowledge about leadership competencies for innovation success was a primary reason for undertaking the current study. Literature reviews revealed the gap as well as the needs of innovation leaders and practitioners for the identification of leadership competencies for leaders in the innovation field. It was clear that the management discipline would have to innovate its management approaches and practices for managers to acquire the competencies to address the innovation leadership imperative confidently. From these considerations flows the purpose of this study, which was to propose a leadership competencies profile for use by innovation leaders themselves and other parties, such as their organizations, service providers in the leadership development field and practitioners in the innovation field.

Available literature further revealed an increasing scholarly emphasis on innovation and the need for a

more substantial body of knowledge on the topic, underpinned by theory to bring the innovation discipline to the same level of scientific rigor and critical thinking as other management disciplines. It was also observed that many contributions to the knowledge base appear to be discipline-specific and fragmented by nature. A consequence of myopic contributions is the lack of integrated responses to real-world issues. Such contributions leave an important beneficiary of management studies, the manager, with the task of integrating elements into a more systemic, coherent actionable framework. The current study solicited observations from contributors from different disciplines and units across an organization to create a competency profile that is not owned by a particular field of study nor disguised in statistical posturing, but which aims to be usable in ways that improve leadership competencies and results in a short space of time.

It is concluded that, despite its limited scale, the significance of the current study relates to the

following contributions: It provided a coherent profile of innovation leadership competencies rather than being just another

contribution at individual element or specific discipline level. The competencies were derived from observing successful innovation leaders in practice. The profile is descriptive enough to serve as assessment framework for leadership development. The profile leaves space for further refinement and validation to contribute further to

professionalization of the innovation discipline.

Recommendations are made within the context of a limited sample size and relatively weak base of research-backed theory in the field of innovation leadership. Further scholarly conversation and dedicated research into innovation leadership is encouraged and more specifically it is recommended that: The proposed innovation leadership competency profile be subjected to further validation by testing it

in other similar organizations. The profile be applied in organizations that are less science- and technology-intensive than the sample

organization to determine its relevance to innovation leaders across a broader spectrum of organizations and leadership landscapes.

The profile be further applied in the leadership development domain to determine the extent to which learning and development interventions lead to mastery of the innovation leadership competencies incorporated in the profile. Limitations of the study relate to the relatively small sample of innovation leaders studied and the

organization-specific parameters used. These limit the extent to which the findings may be extrapolated to


innovation leaders beyond the organization and individuals studied. It should also be stated, however, that none of the research findings to date suggest that the findings would only apply to the research sample. Ongoing analysis since the release of these research findings and feedback from leadership development programs indicates that the identified competencies may be applicable to innovation leaders beyond the research sample.

The controversial “innovate or die” message in the introduction to this paper [80] was intended by

Tom Peters to unnerve or inspire leaders. If these words were notes to be taken up in a new piece of music being composed for innovation leaders, the notes are still there but the volume levels have increased. World-class musicians have since added their notes and parts of the emerging masterpiece are becoming recognizable amidst the noisy challenges that surround the modern-day leader. The notes in this article are intended to help turn notes into a symphony for those leaders who want to improve their innovation. Some may even become maestros, world-renowned conductors and composers in the process.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to pay tribute to every person and institution that contributed to the study and its influence to date. As mentor, coach and equally passionate innovation leadership scholar, the contributions of Dr Harry Swart along the journey are much appreciated.

References [1] Peters, T. (1997), Innovate or Die with Tom Peters: Cambridge MA: Enterprise Media. [2] Skarzynski, P. and Gibson, R. (2008), Innovation to the core: a blueprint for transforming the way your company innovates,

Boston Massachusetts, Harvard Business Press. [3] Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F. and Covin, J.G. (2011), Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation, Mason USA: South-Western

Cencage Learning. [4] Lowe, R. and Marriott, S. (2007), Enterprise: Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Burlington USA: Elsevier. [5] Snyder, N.T. and D.L. Duarte. (2003), Strategic innovation: embedding innovation as a core competency in your organization,

San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. [6] Speth, J. (2008), The Bridge at the Edge of the World; capitalism, the environment, and crossing from crisis to sustainability.

Yale University Press. [7] Binedell, N. (2011, March 30), World hunger comes knocking. GIBS Review Issue 3 , p.1. [8] Ban ki-moon. (2011, January 28), Davos World Economic Form Session on Sustainable Development. Retrieved April 20, 2011,

from UN Secretary-General's Statements: http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=5056 [9] Harris Interactive. (2010), Fortune 1000 Executives’ perspectives on enterprise; innovation survey results 10/14/2010,New

York,Harris Poll. [10] Barsh, J. C., Capozzi, M.M. and Davidson, J. (2008), Leadership and innovation.The McKinsey Quarterly,2008 Number 1.New

York. [11] Wittenberg, D. (2011, February 3), What are the most significant ideas in management? Harvard Business School Working

Knowledge. [12] Department of Science and Technology. (2007), Innovation towards the knowledge-based economy; Ten-Year Plan for South

Africa 2008-2018. Pretoria: SA Government. [13] Mashelkar, R. (2010), Irreverence and Indian Science. SCIENCE ,pp.328, 547. [14] Nel, C. and Beudekker,N. (2011), The Leadeship (R)evolution; creating a high performance organisation. Randburg: Knowres

Publishing. [15] Birkinshaw, J. H. (2001, March 1), Unleash innovation in foreign subsidiaries. Harvard Business Review , pp.131-137. [16] Elkins,T. and Keller, R.T. (2003), Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual

framework. Leadership Quarterly, 14 (4), pp.587. [17] Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2005), 10 Rules for Strategic Innovators; from idea to execution. Harvard Business School

Press.


[18] Hamel, G. and Labarre, P. (2011, April 6), Improving our capacity to manage. The Wall Street Journal Digital Networks.U.S.Edition.

[19] Teece, D. (2009), Managing Intellectual Capital; organizational, strategic and policy dimensions. New York, United States: Oxford Press.

[20] Mintzberg, H. (2004), Managers not MBAs: a hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

[21] Edersheim, E. (2006), The Definitive Drucker; challenges for tomorrow's executives-final advice from the father of modern management. McGraw-Hill.

[22] Christensen, C.M. (2002), The rules of innovation. MIT Technology Review, (June 2002) [23] Harris Interactive. (2010), Fortune 1000 Executives’ perspectives on enterprise; innovation survey results 10/14/2010,New

York,Harris Poll. [24] Hanna, J. (2009, June 1), The challenges of investing in science-based innovation. HBS Working Knowledge, Harvard

Business School. [25] Zangwill, W. (1993, 1st edn), Lighting strategies for innovation: how the world's best firms create new products. New York:

Lexington Books Macmillan. [26] Birkinshaw, J. H. (2001, March 1), Unleash innovation in foreign subsidiaries. Harvard Business Review , pp. 131-137. [27] Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur,P. (2010), Business Model Generation; a handbook for visionaries, game rangers, and challengers.

John Wiley & Sons. [28] Nepal, B. Y. (2011), Improving the NPD process by applying lean principles: a case study. Engineering Managemen Journal ,

23 (1),pp.51-55. [29] Tidd, J. (1997), Complexity, networks & learning: integrative themes for research on innovation management. International

Journal of Innovation Management (IJIM) , 1 (1), 1-21. [30] Wenger, W. and Poe, R. (1996), The Einstein Factor: a proven new method for improving your intelligence. Roseville

California, USA: Prima Publishing. [31] Harrington, H. H. (1998), The Creativity Toolkit; provoking creativity in individuals and organisations. McGraw-Hill. [32] Davidson, J. (2009), The 60 Second Innovator; sixty solid techniques for creative and profitable ideas at work. Adams Media. [33] Neethling, K. and Rutherford, R. (2001), Creative people can perform miracles. Vanderbijlpark, South Africa: Carpe Diem

Books. [34] De Bono, E. (1999), Simplicity. Middlesex: Penguin Books. [35] Harvard Business Essentials. (2003), Managing creativity and innovation. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. [36] Scoble, R. and Israel,S. (2006), Naked conversations; how blogs are changing the way businesses talk with customers. John

Wiley & Sons. [37] Haudan, J. (2008), The Art of Engagement; bridging the gap between people and possibilities. McGraw-Hill. [38] Shenkar, O. (2010), Copycats; how smart companies use imitation to gain a strategic edge. Harvard Business Press. [39] Ungerer, M. P. (2011), Viable business strategies; a field book for leaders. Randburg, South Africa: Knowres publishing. [40] Edersheim, E. (2006), The Definitive Drucker; challenges for tomorrow's executives-final advice from the father of modern

management. McGraw-Hill. [41] Hamel, G. and Breen, B. (2007), The Future of Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [42] Hamel, G. and Labarre, P. (2011, April 6), Improving our capacity to manage. The Wall Street Journal . [43] Scholtes, P. (1998), The leader's handbook; making things happen, getting things done. McGraw-Hill. [44] Fullan, M. (2001), Leading in a culture of change. Canada.Jossey-Bass. [45] Gerzon, M. (2006), Leading through conflict; how successful leaders transform differences into opportunities. Harvard

Business School Press. [46] Charan, R. (2008), Leaders at all levels; deepening your talent pool to solve the succesion crisis. John Wiley & Sons. [47] Gurian, M. and Annis,B. (2008), Leadership and the sexes; using gender science to create success in business. Jossey-Bass. [48] Gobillot, E. (2009), Leadershift;reinventing leadership for the age of mass collaboration. Kogan Page. [49] Heifetz, R. (1998), Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press. [50] Charan, R. (2008), Leaders at all levels; deepening your talent pool to solve the succesion crisis. John Wiley & Sons. [51] Nienaber, H. (2010), Conceptualisation of management and leadership,Management Decision,Vol.48 No. 5, 2010, pp.661-675,

Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [52] Bass, B.M., and Avolio,B.J. (1994), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership.Sage

Publications.London. p2. [53] Collins, J. (2005),The High-Performance Organization.Harvard Business Review.July-August 2005. [54] Pagan, N. (2008), Transformational leadership, review of the leadership challenge – a call for the transformational leader.

Managing organizational behavior, Spring 2008. [55] Stahl, J. (2007), Lessons on leadership; the 7 fundamental management skills for leaders at all levels. Kaplan. [56] Covey,S.R. (2006), Servant leadership; use your voice to serve others, Leadership Excellence, December 2006, Vol.23 Issue

12, pp.5-6. [57] Maxwell,J. (2005),The 360-degree leader: developing your influence from anywhere in the organization, Nashville Tenessee

USA, Thomas Nelson Inc.


[58] Carmeli, A. (2010), The importance of innovation leadership in cultivating strategic fit and enhancing firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly; Science Direct,pp.339-349.

[59] Innovaro. (2007), Innovation Leaders; 2006/7 analysis summary. London: Innovaro. [60] Lecuyer, C. (2007), Making silicon valley; innovation and the growth of high tech, 1930-1970. MIT Press. [61] Barsh, J. C., Capozzi, M.M. and Davidson, J. (2008), Leadership and innovation.The McKinsey Quarterly,2008 Number 1.New

York. [62] Mohr, J. S. (2010), Marketing of high-technology products and innovations (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United

States: Pearson. [63] Tidd, J. (1997), Complexity, networks & learning: integrative themes for research on innovation management. International

Journal of Innovation Management (IJIM) , 1 (1),pp.1-21. [64] Mintzberg, H. (2004), Managers not MBAs: a hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. [65] Mumford, M. D. (2007), Developing leaders for creative efforts: A domain-based approach to leadership development. Human

Resource Management Review , 17 (4),pp.402-417. [66] Shapiro, S. (2002), 24/7 Innovation; a blueprint for surviving and thriving in an age of change. USA, McGraw-Hill. [67] Ott, A. (2010), The 24-Hour Customer; new rules for winning in a time-starved, always-connected economy. Harper Collins

Publishers. [68] Illeris, K. (2009), Learning, work and competence development. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from SAQA:

http://www.saqa.org.za/docs/events/illeris_paper08.pdf. [69] Cartwright, S. C. (2008), The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [70] Oxford. (n.d.). Oxford dictionary. Retrieved April 9, 2011, from Oxford dictionaries online:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/behaviour [71] Capra, F. (2007), The science of Leonardo da Vinci: inside the mind of the great genius of the renaissance 1st edn. New York:

Doubleday. [72] Lord, M. D. (2005), Innovation that fits: moving beyond the fads to choose the right innovation strategy for your business (1st

ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. [73] Illeris, K. (2009), Learning, work and competence development. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from SAQA:

http://www.saqa.org.za/docs/events/illeris_paper08.pdf [74] NACI. (2008), News Archive 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from National Advisory Council on Innovation:

http://www.nacinnovation.biz/category/news-archive-2008/ [75] Department of Science and Technology. (2007), Innovation towards the knowledge-based economy; Ten-Year Plan for South

Africa 2008-2018. Pretoria: SA Government. [76] CSIR., (2006) CSIR Strategic SET Human Capital Development Strategy. CSIR Internal Report. [77] Greenfield, V. W. (2006), Using logic models for strategic planning and evaluation. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. [78] Wadhwa, V. L. (2009, September 20), Turning research into inventions and jobs . Businessweek.com Viewpoint . [79] CSIR. (2006), CSIR Strategic SET Human Capital Development Strategy. CSIR Internal Report. [80] Peters, T. (1997), Innovate or Die with Tom Peters: Cambridge MA: Enterprise Media.

Documents

International Conference on Leadership, Technology and ... · Innovation thought leaders like Clayton Christensen, Tom Kelley, Edward de Bono and Vijay Govindarajan are adding to