(unpublished paper as of 4 August 2010) © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

GROWING GLOBALLY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: INNOVATION,

COLLABORATION, LEADERSHIP, AND TECHNOLOGY

LAWRENCE E. HINER III, PSY.D.

Organizational Learning Executive Consultant
Sacramento, California 95833 USA
lawrence.hiner@jhu.edu

JANIS MORARIU, PH.D.

IBM Corporation
Richmond, Virginia USA
jmorariu@us.ibm.com
http://ibm.com

The contemporary challenge facing all organizations that are pursuing real growth is: “How do we
leverage our current success into growing globally?” This scholarly paper addresses the question
from four, related perspectives:
(1) Innovation – the appreciative adaptation to turbulence;
(2) Collaboration – incorporating diversity to promote accelerated innovation;
(3) Pervasive Leadership – an all-inclusive approach to sponsoring collaborative innovation;
(4) Converging Technologies – emerging digital faculties that enable collaborative innovation.

Keywords: global growth; innovation; collaboration; leadership; technology.

1. Introduction
Growing globally in the 21st Century will require immediate and positive responses to
emerging customer needs. This level of innovation will depend heavily on the
organization‟s ability to collaborate effectively, lead for change, and integrate converging
technologies to support these organizational processes.
This paper addresses the question, “How do we leverage our current corporate
success to grow globally?” by: (1) describing the process of innovation as a response to
changing customer requirements; (2) defining collaboration in support of innovation; (3)
offering leadership models that contribute to collaborative innovation; and (4) reviewing
converging technologies that support these processes.
(1) Innovation can be defined as “the appreciative adaptation to turbulence.” Innovation
is appreciative, because it is based on envisioning positive outcomes, rather than
“fixing problems.” Innovation is an adaptation, because it occurs in response to an
identified need in the environment. Innovation is in response to turbulence because
it keeps pace with the rate of change in the environment. Thus, a climate of
innovation will help an organization grow globally by responding positively to the
exponential number of changes that will be encountered.
(2) Collaboration incorporates diverse views and capabilities in support of the
innovation response. Diversity is an essential element in accelerating innovation –
there is only so much that a static group of thinkers can accomplish in response to

1
2 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

the various changes in the environment. Diversity of thought and skills will add to
the creativity as well as execution of innovations.
(3) Pervasive Leadership – recognizing and leveraging appropriate leader activity at all
levels of the organization – increases the quantity and quality of innovation.
Workers from various departments within an organization can more readily
recognize changes in the environment and contribute to collaborative innovation in
response. Distinct from – but often parallel with – management, leadership aligns
corporate activity with corporate vision, and elicits the highest quality productivity in
a supportive, trusting, progressive, and developmental atmosphere.
(4) Converging technologies are dramatically speeding up the pace and possibilities for
expanding the global reach of collaborative innovation. The entire “Web 2.0”
phenomenon is dedicated to the ability to network with others, tag information to be
shared with others, and provide platforms to generate solutions. Social networking
facilities such as LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook, along with more “traditional”
tools like email and instant messaging, are used effectively by creative teams to
bridge time and distance in pursuit of truly global collaboration. On the cutting
edge, Cloud Computing and immersive 3D Virtual Social Environments (VSEs) are
converging and morphing into unique avenues to deepen the level of communication
among and across groups who, in the recent past, would not be able to create
solutions together. These converging technologies provide not only in-world
meeting spaces, but teaming spaces where the co-creation and testing of virtual
prototypes of all aspects of business across all industries is a faster and far less costly
method of modeling and evaluating physical solutions.

2. Background
In 2005 (not all that long ago), Thomas Friedman told us that the world is flat [Friedman
(2005)]. It was not so much that he had a brand new idea that needed to be proposed,
proven, and adopted – Friedman really put a fine point on telling us what we already
knew: the rate of rampant consumerism in the industrialized nations was declining, and
the “developing world” was acquiring an appetite for new goods and services. At the
same time, the cost of manufacturing was becoming more attractive in some parts of the
world, rather than other, more traditional venues, helping to keep product costs moderate.
Exchanging products and services across international boundaries would be essential to
this new economy. Friedman gave us a common term to readily share that notion – the
world has indeed become “flat.”
To be sure, economic disparities and financial market crises have introduced some
hills in the landscape. Energy is needed to transport people and products around the
globe – yet carbon fuels are increasingly costly in terms of dollars and environmental
impact. Variances in currency value slow the stable exchange of funds between
countries. The rise and fall of consumer confidence and spending play havoc with
production estimates. Yet, the market appears to hurtle inexorably towards “global.”
A parallel development during the late 20th and early 21st Centuries is the ever-
increasing demand for innovation. With consumer variables ever-more quickly changing
the face of the market, companies need to respond ever-more quickly to those changes.
 Growing Globally in the 21st Century 3

Those responses are derived through innovation. Innovation demands collaboration

among various entities within a company. Efficient collaboration yielding innovation
requires a leadership structure that supports these business processes.

Figure 1: Collaboration, Leadership, and Technology support Innovation in a Flat World.

These processes, and converging technologies that support them, will be discussed in
this paper.

3. Research Hypothesis
The hypothetical construct by which this paper is organized is: “Innovation, as supported
by collaboration, leadership, and converging technologies, is necessary to the successful
global growth of 21st century organizations.

4. Methodology
The methodology used to research this hypothesis is scholarly; viz., the hypothetical
construct is supported through the examination of relevant literature and conclusions by
the authors.

5. Innovation

5.1. The Definition of Innovation

Many different definitions have been offered for the concept of “innovation.” As
discussed by one of the authors in his dissertation research [Hiner (2007)], the definition
of innovation varies according to the perspective of the one doing the defining. The
4 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

Research & Development department might view innovation as the creation of a new
product or service to complement the company‟s line. Service Desk operators might
define innovation as the development of a new process to better serve customers using
their products or services. The executive suite might define innovation as new ways to
increase shareholder value in their corporate holdings. Some view innovation as the
“creative act” that leads to new products or services, while others see it as the entire
process leading to the general, extensive adoption by the intended audience.
In the glossary of his definitive work on innovation, Diffusion of Innovations [Rogers
(2003)], sociologist Everett Rogers defined innovation as, “An idea, practice, or object
that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” [p. 475]. Now, this of
course frames the innovation from the perspective of its adoption – it is whatever is
perceived as new by the adopter; but this definition contributes the universal innovation
concepts of “idea, practice, or object,” novelty, and someone to adopt it.
We commonly acknowledge the terms, “practice” and “object” with the services and
products generated by innovative companies; the concept that an “idea” may be an
innovation is somewhat alien to our current use of the term. However, Rogers began his
investigations into innovation adoption in the 1960‟s as a sociological study; that is, he
wanted to ascertain how new ideas transmitted themselves across novice populations.
The pervasive concept that an innovation is actually a technological breakthrough is a
more recent development.
Robert Burgelman and Leonard Sayles [1986] define innovation as, “a company‟s
efforts in instituting new methods of production and/or bringing new products or services
to market” (p. 10), affirming the prevailing notion that an idea must be realized in some
fashion to be considered an innovation.
Some authors have further defined innovation as being either incremental (also called
sustaining) or disruptive [Christensen (2003); Christensen and Raynor (2003); Moore
(2005)]. An incremental innovation advances the development of an existing product or
service by extending its functionality without changing its basic structure, function, or
purpose. As Christensen observes, “What all sustaining technologies have in common is
that they improve the performance of established products, along the dimensions of
performance that mainstream customers in major markets have historically valued” [p.
xviii]. The new version upgrades to software (e.g., from 1.0 to 2.0) might be considered
an example of incremental innovation. While the basic function of the software is not
changed, there are new features and functions, and perhaps some inadequacies or outright
defects have been “fixed” in the new release.
A disruptive innovation, on the other hand, actually displaces the technology that is
currently in place – or discovers an entirely new niche in the marketplace to either
address existing market needs or establish new ones. Moore [2005] states that, “This
type of innovation creates new market categories based on a discontinuous technology
change or a disruptive business model.” An example is the cellular telephone; it may be
seen as disruptive to pay phones (when was the last time you used one of those?) and
possibly to mobile radio (citizens band, amateur, and professional) as a way to provide
voice communications between individuals across long distances. Initially, the disruptive
technology will typically not perform well in the market, but will eventually out-perform
the existing technology it replaces, leading to Christensen‟s Innovator’s Dilemma
 Growing Globally in the 21st Century 5

[Christensen (2003)] – whether to survive on sustaining innovation or risk attempts to be

disruptive.
An operating definition of innovation that we might use in this current discussion is,
“the appreciative adaptation to turbulence.” This is a purposefully inclusive perspective
that attempts to qualify innovation (the adaptation) by its cause (turbulence) and the
intent of its outcome (appreciative). From this viewpoint, innovation occurs in response
to a change in the environment; viz., innovation does not occur fortuitously in an ideal
state disassociated from the real world – innovation arises in response to real issues that
are noticed and are subsequently, intentionally resolved.

5.2. The Continuum of Innovation

In order to migrate from an observation of market needs to an actual product or service,
an innovation travels through various stages. Innovation may be seen as:
(1) a ideation activity, where new product or service ideas are generated; or
(2) the unique invention that results from that creativity; or
(3) the instantiation process of actually constructing and prototyping the innovation; or
even
(4) the adoption of an innovation by the targeted users.
So, one way to define innovation is to examine the stages along what we call the
Continuum of Innovation:

Ideation Invention Instantiation Adoption

Figure 2: Continuum of Innovation

As the various stages of this continuum are engaged, the notion of innovation applies.
During Ideation, the aspects of novelty and uniqueness are evident. When actual
Invention occurs, the creative ideas are realized in their earliest prototypical forms. As
Instantiation transpires, the innovation moves along towards its commercial realization,
and is modified by the prevailing needs of the target market. The final stage in the
Continuum of Innovation is Adoption. The adoption of an innovation instantiates what
some see as the necessary final stage in making it a commercial success [Davila, Epstein
et al. (2006)] – without which “good ideas” never really mature to true “innovations.”
However, as Machiavelli observed nearly 500 years ago (The Prince, 1513), the
attempt to diffuse the innovation across a new population can be a frustrating experience,
as it is a decision-making process on the part of the adopters and is completely under
their control – regardless of the benefits or technical quality of the innovation. Rudolf
Diesel (1858-1913) seemed to agree with Machiavelli, as he was paraphrased and quoted
by Boru Douthwaite in a recent article on Enabling Innovation [2006]:
6 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

“Diesel… distinguished between two phases in technological progress: the

conception and carrying out of the idea, which is a happy period of creative mental work
in which technical challenges are overcome and the introduction of the innovation, which
is a 'struggle against stupidity and envy, apathy and evil, secret opposition and open
conflict of interests, a horrible period of struggle with man, a martyrdom even if success
ensues.'" [p. 93]
Rogers speculated that there were five identifiable phases of adoption:
(1) Knowledge of existing conditions into which the innovation would be introduced.
(2) Persuasion, or the perceived characteristics and benefits of the innovation.
(3) Decision of the adopter to try the innovation.
(4) Implementation or the innovation to the adopter‟s environment.
(5) Confirmation that the innovation performed as expected and met the adopter‟s
perceived need.
Rogers perhaps coined the term “early adopter,” referring to the individuals to whom
the innovation first appealed, and who were willing to try the technology despite the fact
that it was untested by the masses. It is interesting to note, when referring to early
adopters, that those who eagerly try out one technology are not necessarily those who
will be first adopters for a different technology, dispelling a common myth that there is a
set of characteristics that typify an early adopter [von Hippel (2006)].
Geoffrey Moore has further refined the stages of adoption and the characteristics
common to each. In addition, he encountered what he termed a “chasm” between the
early and mainstream adopters – a place on the curve where the rate of adoption paused
and sometimes even stopped [Moore (2002); Wiefels (2002); Moore (2005)]. The
thought is that all of the potential early adopters have accommodated the new technology,
and yet the appeal to the mainstream users has not been clearly identified. The “bridge”
across this chasm is to generate interest – not based on the novelty that appeals to early
adopters – but on the practicality of how the innovation will result in actual gains in
productivity, interest, entertainment, or whatever value the adopter might perceive.
As the industry interest in innovation continues to escalate, so does the emphasis on
adoption. As Rogers graphically demonstrated through nearly 50 years of research, the
faster the adoption, the more rapidly the return on investment is realized. This emphasis
on adoption has thus spawned an entire library of books and articles that cite innovation
as the main topic, with some even alluding to the work of Rogers, Moore, Christensen,
and others in an effort to focus on the rate of adoption as a measure of innovation
success, or on creativity as the single point of innovation germination [Drucker (1985);
von Oech (1998); Tuomi (2002); Tushman and O'Reilly (2002); Amabile, Hadley et al.
(2003); Brown (2003); Chesbrough (2003); Craumer (2003); Drucker (2003); Levitt
(2003); Peebles (2003); Wolpert (2003); Christensen, Anthony et al. (2004); Lester and
Piore (2004); Coburn (2006); Davila, Epstein et al. (2006)]. However, one of the most
important lessons learned from studying innovation is that the rate of creativity or the rate
of adoption is merely a symptom of the entire continuum of innovation. Trying to
manage creativity or adoption is like treating symptoms instead of the disease; as in the
case of infection, treating a fever with an ice bath instead of antibiotics.
“Going global” means innovating productively on a scale that demands the
incorporation of both cooperative collaboration and effective leadership.
 Growing Globally in the 21st Century 7

6. Collaboration
IBM periodically takes on the task of surveying hundreds of CEO‟s (and, separately,
CIO‟s) to help determine and report on the trends across industries, across the globe. The
2006 CEO study concentrated almost exclusively on innovation as a major emerging
theme among the leaders of some of the most influential and successful companies in the
world. Among the primary findings was the migration of considering innovation as
purely an exercise in invention to the infusion of an innovative approach across the
organization. In this regard, a synopsis of the CEO‟s suggestions yielded the following
recommendations [IBM (2006)]:
 “Think broadly act personally and manage the innovation mix - Create and manage a
broad mix of innovation that emphasizes business model change.
 Make your business model deeply different - Find ways to substantially change how
you add value in your current industry or in another.
 Ignite innovation through business and technology integration - Use technology as an
innovation catalyst by combining it with business and market insights.
 Defy collaboration limits - Collaborate on a massive, geography-defying scale to
open a world of possibilities.
 Force an outside look… every time - Push the organization to work with outsiders
more, making it first systematic and, then, part of your culture.” [p. 3]
This is obviously not an agenda for simply generating ideation, improving invention,
increasing instantiation, or accelerating adoption – it is a mandate for integrating
innovation into every aspect of the business. As Thomas Kuczmarski puts it [1995],
“Innovation is a mindset. Though you can‟t touch it, smell it, hear it, see it, or taste it,
you can sense, think, and feel innovation. Innovation is best described as a pervasive
attitude that allows businesses to see beyond the present and create a future vision” [p. 3].
How does one, then, attempt to establish and manage a pervasive innovation mission
and climate that fosters the fulfillment of the business‟ future vision? Bettina von Stamm
and her colleagues at the London Business School have spent the last several years
attempting to answer just that question. In The Innovation Wave [von Stamm (2003)],
she states, “There is no one right way of infusing innovation into an organisation, it will
depend on the company‟s specific context, including company size, what kind of
innovation is sought, and which stage in the innovation journey the organisation is at” [p.
123]. However, there are guidelines – with specific objectives – that can be followed,
based on the experiences of successfully innovative companies:
“Addressing the challenges associated with innovation necessitates a holistic
approach that realises the importance of considering context and the need for aligning all
aspects of an organisation to the innovation goal. The five key areas where innovative
organisations do something differently from their less innovative counterparts are:
 strategy and vision
 leadership
 culture [viz., “climate”]
 processes
 (physical) work environment” [p. 3]
As with most approaches that are declared to be “holistic,” it is an intentional
blending of all of the elements that produce the desired result – in this case, innovation.
8 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

Without aligning “strategy and vision” with ideation and invention, for instance,
innovators may generate a whole host of novel product and services concepts, but have
no ability to execute and bring them to market – especially if they don‟t correspond to the
core competencies of the company. In this light, aligning innovators‟ thinking with the
organization‟s strategy and vision will likely result in more efficient expenditure of
innovator ideation and invention cycles. This drive towards alignment with corporate
strategy and vision must be balanced with a penchant for “out of the box” thinking, so
that ideas don‟t always result in “me too,” incremental innovations while ignoring
disruptive possibilities. As Tony Davila, Marc Epstein, and Robert Shelton suggest in
Making Innovation Work [2006], “Manage the natural tension between creativity and
value capture… Creativity without the ability to translate it into profits… can be fun but
it is unsustainable; profits without creativity is rewarding but only works in the short
term” [p. 11].
“Going global” means collaborating – not only to experience success in innovation,
but to align innovative efforts with the corporate vision. This is where effective
leadership plays a key role.

7. Leadership

7.1. Definition of Leadership

Continuing with von Stamm‟s recommendations, leadership – as it relates to innovation –
is the one of the key factors in innovation. Leadership can be framed in terms of the
named management of the company, from the C-level to the line management. In this
light, Davila et al. recommend the following responsibilities for a “Chief Innovation
Officer,” who is sometimes also the CEO:
 “Provide a long-term view for innovation via the innovation strategy and portfolio.
 Sensitize key leaders and managers to the dynamics of innovation.
 Nurture key creation projects.
 Manage relationships with external partners.
 Assess innovation implications of corporate, strategic initiatives.
 Provide expert opinion and crucial judgment.
 Manage the balance between business and technology innovation, such as
organizational dynamics, portfolio, resources and processes.” [p. 114]
Leadership can also, as described more fully later in this document, be discovered and
developed pervasively throughout the organization [Raelin (2003); Weisbord (2004)].
While some of the responsibilities suggested by Davila et al., above, require the
perspective of the C-suite (e.g., balancing resources in support of pervasive innovation),
most of them can be accomplished by line-level employees working on specific
innovation initiatives. This dynamic will be explored later.
The third guideline enumerated by von Stamm has to do with the management of the
innovation culture (we will call it, “climate” in keeping with prevalent organizational
vocabulary). As part of the Innovation Management process, the innovation climate
regulates the organizational tolerance to ideation, invention, and instantiation efforts.
Since all of these require significant investment of worker time and other resources, it is
 Growing Globally in the 21st Century 9

important to foster a positive innovation climate, so that the expenditure is well-received

(from a process standpoint) and well-rewarded (from a personal perspective). Assessing
and enhancing the innovation climate is the subject of the next section, and will be further
explored there.
The fourth area suggested by von Stamm as relevant to managing innovation is
process. In order for innovations to proceed from ideation to invention and instantiation,
the processes must be in place to support those transitions. As a case in point, in the
timeframe of 2004-2005, a process and a tool to manage the continuum of innovation was
invented at IBM to solicit, capture and assess good ideas from throughout the 320,000+
global employees. The concept was elegant in its directness: a database would be created
to store ideas for product, process, and services innovations (both internal and customer-
oriented), so that IBMers would have a single repository for these ideas. An intranet
front-end was also implemented for the peer and executive review of the innovations for
selection and potential implementation. The program was called, “ThinkPlace,” in
reference to IBM founder Thomas Watson‟s one-word admonition to all employees:
“Thinka.” As described on the IBM intranet,
“ThinkPlace is an innovation ecosystem that enables IBM‟s value related to
innovation. It is comprised of a world-class idea generation and refinements application,
and a network of the most innovative minds in our company – and in the world. This
program is designed to gain competitive advantage by leveraging IBMers‟ creativity and
collective expertise into tangible actions which can improve every aspect of our products,
services, workplace, and company.
ThinkPlace enables every IBMer around the world to be an innovator by providing a
common forum for sharing, refining and recognizing ideas. Through ThinkPlace,
IBMers can collaborate to:
 Surface opportunities to grow our business.
 Identify solutions for critical client and business needs.
 Offer improvements for existing problems or internal inhibitors.
 Suggest changes to improve our culture and succeed in our jobs.” [IBM (2007)]
Lastly, von Stamm cites the work environment, especially physical work spaces that
support collaboration and information flow, as a key differentiator for organizations
recognized for being innovative. While we can certainly understand that the work
environment is a contributor to innovation, we see it as less of an independent factor than
perhaps a reflection of a positive innovative climate. That is, people who are in a positive
climate for innovation find ways to both overcome barriers and create work spaces that
support the processes and activities that contribute to innovation. Establishing an

a
When, in 1914, Thomas J. Watson joins the Computer-Tabulating Recording Company - the forerunner of
today's IBM – he brought with him the "Think" motto he coined when he managed the sales and advertising
departments at the National Cash Register Company. "Thought," he says, "has been the father of every advance
since time began. ‟I didn't think' has cost the world millions of dollars." Soon, the one-word slogan "THINK"
appears in large block-letter signs in offices and plants throughout the company. In 1915, Watson was quoted
in an audio broadcast to IBM employees as saying, “And we must study through reading, listening, discussing,
observing and thinking. We must not neglect any one of those ways of study. The trouble with most of us is that
we fall down on the latter - thinking - because it's hard work for people to think, And, as Dr. Nicholas Murray
Butler said recently, 'all of the problems of the world could be settled easily if men were only willing to think.'”
Hence, the IBM laptop was called the ThinkPad in reference to its manual predecessor – an ubiquitous 3”x5”
paper notepad with the word “THINK” inscribed into its leather cover.
10 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

innovation-oriented physical environment does not, by itself, contribute to enhanced

innovation. There are many heavily matrixed, globally mobile companies relying on
networks of leading innovators in their respective industries, which further diminishes the
idea that physical work environments impact innovation. As Ronald S. Jonash and Tom
Sommerlatte state,
“Innovation networks are the arms, legs, eyes and ears of the next-generation
organization. They involve people from different hierarchical levels in your company,
each of whom is accountable to contribute a critical capability so that the network as a
whole reflects the organization‟s insight and experience.” [Jonash and Sommerlatte
(1999)]
In short, we propose that an innovation-adjusted physical work place is more a by-
product than a cause of a positive climate of innovation.

7.2. Leadership in an Innovative Climate

In this document, it is the climate of innovation that will be explored, as opposed to the
culture within which innovation may occur. In this context climate is positioned as a
tangible that can be intentionally influenced, whereas culture is indicative of core values
and closely held beliefs that are more difficult to modify.
A 2006 IBM world-wide study of 750 CEOs indicated that the most significant
inhibitor to innovation is “unsupportive culture and climate” (IBM 2006). In a
subsequent customer presentation (IBM 2007), a “Climate for Innovationb” is defined as,
“A working environment where inspiration thrives and creativity flourishes.” Further
specifying that work environment, the authors go on to enumerate the characteristics of
the people who comprise that working environment:
 Intellectual curiosity
 Scan for trends & risks
 Accept accountability for results
 Responsible risk taking
 Decisive (Acts/reacts with speed)
 Complex thinking to predict & act
 Comfortable with ambiguity
 Creativity skills
 Innovation in action
 Critical Thinking
 Global/broad perspective, short & long term thinking
 Ability to follow through to completion
 Conflict resolution & mediation
 Conviction to challenge boundaries
 Collaboration skills - developing productive relationships
 Seeks best solution
 Act local, think global
 Intelligent risk taking

b
The actual IBM presentation uses “culture,” “climate,” and “culture/climate” interchangeably. For
consistency, and in keeping with the discussion elsewhere this document regarding climate vs. culture, we will
only use the term, climate.
 Growing Globally in the 21st Century 11

 Proactive decision making

 Open mindedness
 Curiosity & inventiveness
 Mistake tolerance
 Willingness to learn and grow rapidly
 Co-operative, collegiate and inclusive
 Flexible in practices
 Manages/seeks diverse perspectives
 Emotional maturity to deal with and manage change
In an effort to define an approach to modifying the innovation climate, the IBM team
synthesized the list of characteristics to define six areas of focus for designing an
intervention that emanates from a culture of innovation and collaboration::
 Vision, Strategy & Alignment - defining a clear ambition and organisational agenda
for innovation. Ensuring that the innovation strategy aligns individual - team -
organisational and market across a set of innovation values with clear ownership for
innovation
 Leadership (for innovation) - establishing the right blend of leadership styles and
mindset that ensures the organisation is capable of dealing with the inherent tensions
associated with innovation and creativity as defined in „managing the and‟ –
opportunity for innovation and the discipline to deliver on that opportunity were
posited as necessary for successful innovation.
 Collaboration - employing mechanisms that promote collaboration within the
organisation and with external participants. Establishing a collaborative mindset and
practices that embrace and thrive on diverse perspectives. Use technology to connect
formal and informal groups and provide opportunities for individuals to contribute in
a creative manner.
 Diverse constituents - ensuring a richness of team members to encourage diverse
perspectives that can drive creativity through tension.
 Freedom (and opportunity) - Ensure that individuals have the „freedom‟ to
innovative within a defined framework that provides accessible innovation expertise.
Ensure that policies, processes and systems do not inhibit innovation.
 Engagement - ensure that leaders and employees are engaged through a common
vision and values. Provide appropriate incentives, reward and recognition for the
contributions that individuals make to the organisation‟s innovation effort.
 Skills and Mindset - Establish an innovation mindset that encourages risk taking,
entrepreneurial approach, trust and permission to fail. Ensure people have the skills
and capabilities to manage the „AND‟.” [pp. 49-50]
“Vision” is integral to the innovative climate in that the ideation process needs to be
aligned with the core competencies and strategic execution of the company in order to be
invented and instantiated successfully. While innovation may lead to new market areas
for the company to pursue, incremental – and even disruptive – innovative ideas will
usually be more readily accomplished within the general boundaries drawn by the
strategic vision.
“Leadership.” In this context, the authors are looking at management efforts to help
maintain the tension that is inherent in trying to be creative, yet focussed on outcomes.
12 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

As with the vision discussion, keeping ideation aligned with corporate goals while
encouraging novel responses to turbulence is a matter for leadership at all levels of the
organization. The tenor for how this will be accomplished is usually set by the identified
leaders – the occupants of the C-suite and their managerial reports.
“Collaboration” is often overlooked in the literature on innovation, which retains the
fantastical notion of the independent inventor from the legends of folk heroes like
Thomas Edison and James Watt. The post-modern observation is that innovation occurs
in an intensely collaborative environment, where teams are working on their responses to
changes in the market – not just individuals. While this dynamic certainly makes room
for individual contributions, it relies on the multiple talents of the entire team to ideate,
invent, and instantiate meaningful innovations. This leads to the next point, “Diversity.”
“Diversity” is a key component for innovation. This tenet has been known and
implemented for ages. Innovation during the Renaissance in Europe was, in part, due to
the diversity of ideas that erupted from the network of nation-states that developed during
the Dark Ages; during this same period in China, the ubiquity of Confucianism may have
contributed to a “oneness of mind” that suppressed the diversity aspect of innovation.
While Dr. Hiner was at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore as a student and
instructor during the 1980‟s, it was standing policy to never hire its own graduates into
tenure track faculty positions, opting for the diversity of “new blood” from other schools
to fill those key positions. These examples acknowledge the role of diversity in
innovation. In a proactive way, organizations are encouraged to seek members with a
variety of backgrounds, approaches, and opinions to work collaboratively on innovation
projects, pulling in the energy of diversity from what Gryskiewicz calls, “the fringe”
[1999].
“Freedom” to innovate is expressed in both negative and positive ways. From the
negative standpoint, when potential innovators are encumbered by organizational
constraints – say, an overly risk-averse administration that actively punishes failure –
they will likely not venture attempts to ideate or invent “outside the box.” This will
result in incremental improvements to in-flight products and services, but will not
generate disruptive ideas that are inherently unproven and take time to mature into
revenue producers. Freedom, in this context, would be the suspension or removal of
those constraints. From a positive perspective, freedom is the encouragement to
experiment, and even to fail as a necessary part of discovering success. In addition,
positive freedom engenders a spirit of innovation throughout the organization, provides
access to human and technological resources to pursue invention and instantiation, and
rewards innovative efforts (whether or not the product or service is a commercial
success). “Thomas Watson, Jr., of IBM had the right approach to risk. He once said,
while discussing IBM‟s competitive challenges, „We don‟t have enough people out there
making mistakes.‟” [Hesselbein, Goldsmith et al. (1996)].
“Engagement,” as used here, entwines vision and leadership. It is the process of
aligning innovative thinking with corporate goals, and sets up the processes to reward
those whose innovations support those objectives. “Skills and mindset” represents the
iteration of engagement at the individual level – as the individual starts to “own” the
capability to innovate and is accountable to corporate goals, with the risk of failure
minimized – viz., not the level of risk, but potentially negative results of “failure.” Both
 Growing Globally in the 21st Century 13

of these concepts – “engagement” and “skills and mindset” – are not necessarily
exclusive characteristics of an innovative climate, but do contribute to its overall
definition.
Having now framed the organizational aspects of innovation, collaboration, and
leadership, we turn to a discussion on the use of the technologies that are converging to
support the globalization of innovation.

8. Converging Technologies
Gen Y collaborators (born between 1977 and 2000) expect technology to be an integral
part of their collaborative efforts – from now on (and especially globally), it will not be
considered a “nice to have” faculty. A 2007 NASPAc study cited by Greenberg [2009]
indicated the following use of various social network technologies by Gen Y students in
the United States:
 97% own a computer
 94% own a cell phone
 76% use Instant Messaging.
 15% of IM users are logged on 24 hours a day/7 days a week
 34% use websites as their primary source of news
 28% author a blog and 44% read blogs
 49% download music using peer-to-peer file sharing
 75% of college students have a Facebook account
 60% own some type of portable music and/or video device such as an iPod
In August 2006 an educator at the Arapahoe High School, Karl Fisch, created a
compelling PowerPoint presentation – “Did You Know?” – for a faculty meeting on
getting teachers focused on how to better prepare students to be successful in the
globalized, flatter world of the 21 st century. With the additional creative input from Dr.
Scott McLeod, Director, Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in
Education, Karl Fisch notes on his “shifthappens” wiki d:
“The presentation „went viral‟ on the Web in February 2007 and, as of June 2007, had
been seen by at least 5 million online viewers. Today the old and new versions of the
online presentation have been seen by at least 20 million people, not including the
countless others who have seen it at conferences, workshops, training institutes, and other
venues.”
The latest updated version of “Did You Know? 3.0” (see YouTube videoe) was
presented at a conference in Rome in November 2008 with even more dramatic evidence
of the powerful impact of converging technologies on Gen Y and Millennial (born after
2000) innovators.
After contemplating the powerful message of the “Did You Know? 3.0” video, one
can‟t help but question whether the world of the 21 st century is indeed getting flatter as

c
Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, http://www.naspa.org: How Generation Y uses the Web
(Source: Connecting to the Net.Generation: What higher education professionals need to know about today's
students, by Reynol Junco and Jeanna Mastrodicasa NASPA; 2007)
d
http://www.shifthappens.wikispaces.com
e
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiqdx8
14 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

Thomas Friedman postulated, or if there is more at play. In Richard Florida‟s response in

his 2005 Atlantic Monthly article, “The World is Spiky,” he observes that:
“Concentrations of creative and talented people are particularly important for
innovation, according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Lucas. Ideas flow
more freely, are honed more sharply, and can be put into practice more quickly when
large numbers of innovators, implementers, and financial backers are in constant contact
with one another, both in and out of the office.” [p. 50]
If we need spaces where creative and diversely talented people are concentrated, do
they have to be physically concentrated to generate innovation “spikes?” The answer
from corporations, government, educational institutions and communities of special
interest groups worldwide is a resounding, “No!” As researchers John Sealy Brown and
Richard P. Adler note in their article, “Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail,
and Learning 2.0,” in the January/February 2008 issue of Educause Review:
“A key part of any such ecosystem is a well-educated workforce with the requisite
competitive skills. And in a rapidly changing world, these ecosystems must not only
supply this workforce but also provide support for continuous learning and for the
ongoing creation of new ideas and skills.” [p.17]
On a global scale, we can also observe the convergence of technologies to enable
Collaborative InnovationTM from corporate-sponsored Jam eventsf, like IBM‟s 2006
InnovationJamTM. This was the largest IBM online “open source” brainstorming session
ever held in pursuit of innovation – where IBM brought together more than 150,000
diverse people from 104 countries and 67 companies, including clients, consultants, and
IBM employees, as well as their friends and family members to consider smart uses for
several inventions from IBM Research in pursuit of new ideas to address some of the
world‟s greatest challenges, like healthcare, clean water and reducing our carbon
footprint. As a result, from 2007 to 2008 10 new strategic businesses were launched with
seed investment totaling $100 million. As noted on IBM‟s Jam Events site g:
”Jams are not restricted to business. Their methods, tools and technology can also be
applied to social issues. In 2005, over three days, the Government of Canada, UN-
HABITAT and IBM hosted Habitat Jam. Tens of thousands of participants - from urban
specialists, to government leaders, to residents from cities around the world - discussed
issues of urban sustainability. Their ideas shaped the agenda for the UN World Urban
Forum, held in June 2006. People from 158 countries registered for the jam and shared
their ideas for action to improve the environment, health, safety and quality of life in the
world's burgeoning cities.”
On a smaller scale, how can converging technologies further support Chris
Anderson‟s Long Tail of innovation breakthroughs that can and do occur on a smaller
scale multiple times a day as people connect and chat with their networks online? In
September 2008 IBM Research announced a new project, dubbed "Sametime 3D,"
demonstrating the integration of instant messaging chat tools with 3D virtual
environmentsh. Specifically, users can instant message a colleague and instead of only
chatting with one another, launch into an immersive 3D environment directly from within

f
https://www.collaborationjam.com/
g
ibid
h
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmMl17jgGw&feature=related
 Growing Globally in the 21st Century 15

the chat session (see link to IBM Research‟s Karen Keeter‟s presentation at the March
2009 3D Technology Learning Collaboration conference in Washington, D.C. i). The
"Sametime 3D" product was launched on June 25, 2009, and enables groups based in
different locations around the world to meet on a regular, periodic or impromptu basis in
these virtual worlds. With this converging technology, chat participants are able to freely
move via their personalized Avatars to an appropriate reusable meeting space, including a
theater-style amphitheatre, a boardroom and a collaboration space which can each be
used for impromptu or scheduled brainstorming sessions, status updates, town hall-style
meetings, rehearsals, and training classes to start. These spaces allow participants to,
literally, throw ideas on the wall during a meeting to "see what sticks," and to vote on,
organize, and save the most promising proposals. Avatars can make presentations to one
another, socialize, debate, or, literally, examine ideas and 3D objects from all angles.
What‟s next? In the continuum of innovation and converging technologies, how about
a wearable device with projected images to any surface – and, with ALL the data and
software applications you could ever imagine available to you at your fingertips? “Sixth
Sense” from Pattie Maes‟ laboratory at MITj definitely emerged as an “Idea Worth
Spreading” at the February 2009 TED‟s Conference.
“Going global” requires proactive leadership in leveraging technology to
collaboratively innovate.

9. Conclusions
What implications are suggested by these ideas and technology developments, especially
for companies who are looking to grow globally and yet retain their innovative edge?
Certainly, the management structure will need to be intentionally designed for
flexibility, creating leaders at all levels who will – within the confines of their job scope –
be empowered to innovate immediate solutions to the changing requirements of their
customers. As Stephen Covey explains in The Speed of Trust [Covey and Merrill 2006],
post-modern organizations that aspire to the level of flexibility and responsiveness to
their customers that is required in the 21st century will need to actively develop high
levels of trust. Global companies, even more so, base human resource relationships on
trust, if for no other reason than it is simply too difficult to closely supervise and
micromanage the individual efforts of a global workforce. Establishing trust is not only
an appealing, progressive goal – it is cost efficient as well.
As each of us may relate from our own personal experiences, trust is generated as a
product of continual communication with others and working together to meet common
objectives. (Of course, reliability – following through on commitments – also plays a
role in developing interpersonal as well as corporate trust. For the purpose of this paper,
we will focus on the communications aspect.) Technologies that are used to enhance
communication – with the goal of forming and maintaining relationships – will therefore
enhance levels of trust, especially when employees need to interact over long distances
and/or asynchronously. This results in greater collaborative innovation and productivity,
as well as in greater job satisfaction and sense of belonging.

i
ibid
j
http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
16 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

“Trust” might be thought of as the “glue” that holds relationships – even and
especially global relationships – together. But how do those relationships actually factor
into organizational productivity? A clue to that is found in Clay Shirky‟s “Here Comes
Everybody” [Shirky 2008]. Shirky posits that there are four levels of participation in on-
line (and in-person) communities that comprise increasing degrees of sophistication – and
productivity:
(1) Sharing – is a one-way publishing activity, such as posting photographs on a
Facebook page;
(2) Cooperation – requires at least two people, and is a communication activity towards
a common goal of understanding, such as an instant-messaging or email
conversation;
(3) Collaboration – suggests cooperative activity among two or more people, to reach a
mutually-beneficial objective, such as designing an innovative solution; and
(4) Collective action – requires alignment among several individuals to work together,
on an on-going basis, to promote a particular agenda that has been reached by
consensus, such as participation in an on-line environmental campaign.
As the level of participation progresses, so do the levels of risk, interpersonal tension,
and the chance of failure. Hence, the requirement for trust accelerates as well.
It is the role of leadership to generate an atmosphere of trust, in which collaborative
(and even collective) innovation can and does occur. Meeting this organizational
mandate, when accompanied by providing the technical tools to support ever-more
sophisticated modes of interpersonal communication, bodes well for enterprises seeking
to take their innovative success to a global level.

References
Amabile, T. M., C. N. Hadley, et al. (2003). Creativity Under the Gun. Boston, MA,
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Brown, J. S. (2003). Research That Reinvents the Corporation. Boston, MA, Harvard
Business School Publishing.
Burgelman, R. A. and L. R. Sayles (1986). Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy,
Structure, and Managerial Skills. New York, NY, The Free Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and
profiting from technology. Boston, MA, Havard Business School Publishing.
Christensen, C. M. (2003). The Innovator's Dilemma. New York, NY, HarperCollins.
Christensen, C. M., S. D. Anthony, et al. (2004). Seeing What's Next? : Using the
theories of innovation to predict industry change. Boston, MA, Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Christensen, C. M. and M. E. Raynor (2003). The Innovator's Solution: Creating and
sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Publishing.
Coburn, P. (2006). The Change Function: Why some technologies take off and others
crash and burn. New York, NY, Portfolio.
Covey, S. M. R. and R. R. Merrill (2006). The Speed of Trust : The one thing that
changes everything. New York, Free Press.
Craumer, M. (2003). The Sputtering R&D Machine. Boston, MA, Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Davila, T., M. J. Epstein, et al. (2006). Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It,
Measure It, and Profit from It. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Wharton School Publishing.
 Growing Globally in the 21st Century 17

Douthwaite, B. (2006). "Enabling Innovation: Technology- and system-level approaches

that capitalize on complexity." Innovations 1(4): 93-110.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, HarperCollins.
Drucker, P. (2003). The Discipline of Innovation. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New
York, NY, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Greenberg, P. (2009). Social CRM Comes of Age, Oracle.
Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1999). Positive Turbulence. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Inc.
Hesselbein, F., M. Goldsmith, et al., Eds. (1996). The Leader of the Future. San
Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Hiner, L. (2007). Innovation Leadership: A hybrid concept. Organizational Psychology.
Sacramento, CA, Professional School of Psychology. PsyD: 144.
IBM (2006). Expanding the Innovation Horizon: Executive summary. Armonk, NY, IBM
Institute for Business Value.
IBM (2007). Driving a Culture of Innovation. Hursley, UK, IBM.
IBM (2007). "What is IBM's ThinkPlace program?". from
https://w3.ibm.com/jct03008ws/thinkplace/catalystcorner/en/html/innovation_corner.
htm#third.
Jonash, R. S. and T. Sommerlatte (1999). The Innovation Premium: Achieving peak
performance and profitability. Cambridge, MA, Perseus Books Group.
Kuczmarski, T. (1995). Innovation: Leadership strategies for the competitive edge.
Lincolnwood, IL, NTC Business Books.
Lester, R. K. and M. J. Piore (2004). Innovation: The missing dimension. Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press.
Levitt, T. (2003). Creativity Is Not Enough. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Moore, G. A. (2002). Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to
mainstream customers. New York, NY, HarperCollins.
Moore, G. A. (2005). Dealing with Darwin: How great companies innovate at every
phase of their evolution. New York, NY, Penguin Group.
Peebles, E. (2003). Inspiring Innovation. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Raelin, J. A. (2003). Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to bring out leadership in
everyone. San Francisco, CA, Berret-Koehler Publishers.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY, Free Press.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The power of organizing without
organizations. New York, Penguin Books.
Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation: Change and meaning in the age of the internet.
New York, NY, Oxford University Press.
Tushman, M. and C. A. O'Reilly (2002). Winning through Innovation: A practical guide
to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA, Havard Business School
Publishing.
von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
von Oech, R. (1998). A Whack on the Side of the Head: How you can be more creative.
New York, NY, Warner Books.
von Stamm, B. (2003). The Innovation Wave: Meeting the corporate challenge.
Chichester, West Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons.
Weisbord, M. R. (2004). Productive Workplaces Revisited: Dignity, Meaning, and
Community in the 21st Century. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
18 © 2010 Lawrence Hiner & Janis Morariu

Wiefels, P. (2002). The Chasm Companion A fieldbook to Crossing the Chasm and
Inside the Tornado. New York, NY, HarperCollins.
Wolpert, J. D. (2003). Breaking Out of the Innovation Box. Boston, MA, Harvard
Business School Publishing.