Dueling Innovation: HBR vs Forbes

I am an avid reader. By that I mean I read articles and books daily. When I am not in a position to read, like when running or biking, I listen to audiobooks. My interests range from classics like Shakespeare to sci-fi and fiction to technology, business, and innovation. I recently re-read the dueling innovation articles by HBR and Forbes. The debate started back in November 2019 with Harvard Business Review’s article What Kind of Chief Innovation Office Does Your Company Need? and ended with the February Forbes article Hiring A Chief Innovation Officer Is A Bad Idea.

Let me start by saying, I have a great deal of respect for the writers at HBR and Forbes. They are a staple in my article feed. Whenever I read something that aligns with or diverges from what I believe, I examine it closely.  I try to assess who is right and who is wrong. Sometimes that is me. I work hard to not let my own biases influence me to the point where my beliefs never evolve. When I read these two articles, I saw parts that aligned with and some that diverged from what I believe. For that reason, I thought others might appreciate a differing view from HBR and Forbes.

CINO or no CINO? That is the Question

HBR’s article was directed at the need for a Chief Innovation Officer (CINO). It focused on different types of people, where they excel as a CINO, and what types of industries often need that type of CINO. Forbes makes the case that having a CINO is bad because centralizing the responsibilities for innovation stifles it. They go on to argue that successful innovation requires a Culture of Innovation.  

In short, HBR is for CINOs and Forbes is against CINOs.

For those that have read some of my LinkedIn posts, you know that I am all about a Culture of Innovation and the impact it can have as a growth multiplier within organizations. So you naturally might think that I would side with Forbes on this topic.  

Actually…

I believe they both hit the mark in areas and missed the mark in others. Let’s explore.

Harvard Business Review

As I have said in my previous posts, successful innovation requires leadership. Innovation can only succeed when the C-Suite is behind it and sees it as a mandate for the growth and success of the organization. To some, having a role within the C-Suite that is focused on innovation sounds like a great idea.  

Personally, I believe it is.

That is the part that HBR got right and where we align. Having someone in the C-Suite that can provide the necessary innovation leadership is of vital importance. However, where the HBR article lost me is in their belief that the type of CINO is important. It isn’t.  

Don’t get me wrong…I think HBR is spot on about the types listed in the article. Each has a critical role within a Culture of Innovation and the synergies that touch on are quite appropriate. For innovation to succeed, though, an organization needs all these types of people, and their definition of innovation:

• The Researcher: The invention of entirely new things
• The Engineer: Always working to make something a little bit better
• The Investor: A means to an end, and that end is growth…big growth
• The Advocate: Delivering something new for the customer
• The Motivator: Unlocking the ideas of others
• The Organizer: A clear process for coming up with new ideas

The type of CINO is less important than the presence of each of these types within a well-grounded and supported Culture of Innovation.  Innovation needs the entire organization to be successful, but a Culture of Innovation cannot take root without the support and guidance of leadership. In theory, and I believe in practice, having someone in the C-Suite that is responsible for innovation is a very wise move.  

The role of the CINO, however, should be about the culture and empowerment regardless of what type of person they are. The CINO should be tasked with ensuring that all these types exist within the organization. Their focus should be unleashing people and helping them work together to drive innovation. It is their job to saturate a culture of innovation into every pore of the organization.

I would go so far as to say that the CINO needs to find the right formula of the above definitions that best fits their organization. The magic formula may be different from company to company. It is not a one size fits all formula. But why? To inspire everyone towards the type of innovation their company needs.

Forbes

What Forbes was right about is the need for a Culture of Innovation. It takes a village for innovation to generate the type of growth that companies need today. In the article, they painted the CINO role as the be-all-and-end-all of innovation. A veritable innovation dictator. If the person hired into that role takes a dictatorial approach, then what Forbes described is exactly what would happen; Innovation would be stifled and dry up. Everyone in the organization would look upon innovation in a negative light and consider it someone else’s problem.  

Innovation absolutely needs to be part of the fabric of an organization. It is certainly larger than a title or a seat in the C-Suite. Forbes was correct in that part of their assessment. Ultimately, they contradicted themselves, though. In one breath they talk about how innovation is leadership and how the buck should stop with the CEO, but at the same time argue against a specific role in the C-Suite having responsibility for innovation.

Let’s look at the C-Suite…

Every role in the C-Suite has a very specific purpose within the organization. Each of those roles define what is important for the parts of the business they lead and drive the strategy throughout their part of the organization. Ultimately all of them answer to the CEO, with whom the buck stops. Why, then, does it not make sense to have a similar role for innovation? Don’t each of the roles in the C-Suite, especially the CEO, already have enough on their plate? If so, why burden one of them with additional responsibility? Especially one that is so cross functional.

I believe that innovation is critical to the continued growth and success of every organization these days. Competition continues to get tighter; Technology is ever evolving. The pace of this evolution is increasing at a near exponential rate. Because of this, I believe it makes sense to have a seat at the table whose entire responsibility is the nurturing of a Culture of Innovation.  

It would be this role that would ensure that strategic objectives for innovation are the focus of the entire organization, not just one man or woman. At the same time, this seat should have a dual role of making sure the rest of the C-Suite is operating in alignment and fully committed to innovation. Whether the head of innovation is the CEO or CINO, if the rest of the C-Suite are not on board, innovation is fighting an uphill battle. In either scenario, the buck still stops with the CEO, just like if the CFO, COO, or CIO fail.

My Belief

I believe that the CINO has a very important role in a Culture of Innovation. It is their job to make sure the ground in which a Culture of Innovation is planted is fertile and well-tended. Their leadership both within the organization and the C-Suite is pivotal to the success of innovation in so many ways. Sure, the wrong person in such a role can absolutely stifle innovation. But that is a hiring problem. Without such a role, everyone will likely be too busy to make sure an innovation culture takes the shape the company needs.

In my current role I see many parallels. I try to model what I envision for an effective CINO. Part of my role is the technologic innovation within Premier. Does that mean I dictate innovation? That I alone come up with all the ideas? Absolutely not.  

I see my role as more of a facilitator, an educator. My job is to put all the pieces into place that allow for a Culture of Innovation to take root and flourish. I rely on each of the types of people in the HBR article at each stage of the innovation process to drive success and fully vet ideas. I take it upon myself to use thought leadership to inspire others, both inside Premier and out, to dedicate their time and energy to innovation. The end goal being so we can both help our customers and grow our business.

I am not in this alone, however. I have a counterpart on the consulting side of our business who is focused on helping ensure that side is committed to and deeply involved in our innovation efforts. We are also supported by an innovation board, made up of the CEO, the President, and one of our other leadership team members. Am I responsible for innovation? Yes. Am I judged by my successes and failures in that area? Yes. Does any of this cause me to shy away from cultivating a Culture of Innovation? No.  

Dictating and directing innovation is very different from leading a Culture of Innovation. I am here to lead our culture of innovation. Innovation at Premier is everyone’s responsibility. Each of us is encouraged to contribute and work hard to ensure our efforts lead to the attainment of our stated strategic goals.

I believe that without the right person(s) leading the Culture of Innovation, developing one is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Can such a culture be developed without proper leadership? Possibly, though the odds are certainly not in their favor.

If your company is struggling like this, can you imagine the power you’d have when you are finally set free? 

About the Author: 

Don Brown: Currently the Director of Software Engineering at Premier International. Passionate about technology, innovation, software development, and sci-fi, he believes that technology can be a force for change within any organization. He also advocates that partnerships between technology departments and leadership are a growth multiplier.