Innovation from a Yap's Perspective

In a recent post, Lindy gives an incredible piece of insight – “we all need to foster innovation in our own ways...but for those of us who are not CEOs or top executives, that means working within the cultural boundaries the leaders of our organizations have set.” This is an excellent point and really helps define the level of innovation to be expected by different levels within the organization.

As a non-executive, the only way for me to encourage innovation is through incremental steps. Hypothetically, if I were to go into the executive office or into a board meeting speaking of a revolution and declaring that the way we’ve operated for the past 40 years is wrong in today’s environment – odds are I’d be fired. Because at my level, disruptive innovation, regardless of how well based it is, can be seen as insubordination.

At my level in the organization, my job is to continue pushing the organization forward in the direction that was set before it by the board and the execs. However, that doesn’t mean that I can’t help us get their more efficiently – it just means working on small improvements on the train as opposed to completely shifting the track.

And I’ve done this - I introduced my execs to the concept of social networks and the added value they can add to the association and they’ve started to come around to the idea. I began to use wikis as a tool for collaboration so the execs and volunteers can see how they work – and now it’s been our web2.0 success story for the time being.

And I will continue to introduce new ideas and technologies, but the way I introduce them is by building off of our plan, because for me as a YAP and non-exec, I have to make it fit into our current strategy. I don’t have the ability to totally redefine the organization’s operations and goals; I can only help us achieve them more efficiently while adding some new value. It will take time, but it’s coming.

Innovation has to come from somewhere though, whether it’s an innovative exec or a board member, a third party to the organization, or a mid-level staffer or lower, someone has to serve as the agent of change, and depending where on the org chart they sit determines the level and intensity of the change inital change and the level of buy-in needed.

Be patient though, it will be worth it.

Thanks for reading,
bob

What I am reading

Jamie tagged me with what I'm reading so here goes.

I tend to alternate between leisure and professional development books - I'm current reading for leisure.

The book is American Gods written by Neil Gaiman.

It's interesting though, and with a bit of stretching, the book relates to associations (bear with me). This is because the book primarily revolves around the battle that is about to errupt between tradition (in this case old gods such as Odin) and innovation (in this case represented by the technologies that are worshipped by people today.)

Before I dive into this in more detail, the tag states I am suppose to type sentences 6 -8 of page 123. Well here it is (sorry Jamie, not sure if this is what you were looking for.)

"Then the church door opened, a priest came out, and the ghosts, haunts, and corpses vanished, and only the priest and drunk were left alone in the graveyard. The priest looked down at the drunk distainfully, and backed through the open door, which closed behind him, leaving the drunk on his own. The clockwork story was deeply unsettling."

Like my book, it appears there could be a war coming - or more appropriatley a revolution - in the association sphere.

I've been thinking of what to post about this, but I'll save us both time - check out Maddie's killer post.

The only thing I'd add is that we assume all associations are equal (and maybe they are), but I would think the membership base would determine whether you roll with fire or cocktails. Some members may demand a trail of fire, others may totally be alienated by it. And the last thing I would imagine you'd want to do is alienate key/founding members who have given days of their time just to be told "...[they're] history. [they're] forgotten. [they're] old. Tell [them] that we are the future and we don't..." care about them.

This was the closing statement from one of the new American Gods (which I assume is some sort of technology - the book hasn't revealed which one yet). We can't abadon tradition, we need to reshape and build off of it. A revolution is coming, I think we all agree with that, but how much ill-will must be spilled?

Thanks for reading,
Bob

P.S. I have to say I'm pretty happy with the way I brought this post full circle.