The TRIZ JournalCelebrating 10 Years On The Web
Part of the RealInnovation Network
Home  >  Real Innovation Commentary
Search:
  • Subscribe
  • What is TRIZ?
  • Contradiction Matrix
    & 40 Principles
  • Archives
  • Best Practices
    • General
    • Software, Innovation and Creativity
    • Consultants, Innovation and Creativity
  • Call For Papers
  • Dictionary
  • Events Calendar
  • Jobs
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Discussion Forum
  • Related Topics
  • Business Process Mgt
  • Innovation
  • Outsourcing
  • Six Sigma
  • Quick Access
  • Help
  • Search
  • Advertising
  • Article Archive
  • Newsletter Archive
  • Reader Feedback
  • Editorial Panel
Cass Pursell

Commentary by Cass Pursell

Email and RSSSubscribe via Email or RSS   |   Cass Pursell's Biography Biography
November 28, 2007
Print | Email

The Four Archetypes

In my last post, I referenced a recent article found on Forbes.com. The article, "Built for Innovation", was written by Stephen Wunker and George Pohle. Wunker leads the healthcare, financial services, and telecom industry practices at Innosight, one of the organizations referenced in the article as contributors to the research referenced there, and Pohle is a senior Partner in the Business Consulting Services and the Global Leader of IBM's Business Strategy Consulting Practice and its Institute for Business Value (IBV).

Their article is based on research on the structures of innovative companies. The authors found four distinct models, or archetypes, that represent the majority of today's successfully innovative companies that I'll detail below.

The "Marketplace of Ideas" archetypal organization is led by executives who are content with "leading from behind", a notion that is referred to directly in the Tao te Ching: "When a good leader is finished, the people think they did it themselves". That is, lead through empowerment of the people, rather than by undertaking all tasks yourself. This type of organization, modeled best by Google, recruits staff for their creativity and passion for problem solving, and uses well-stated goals and boundaries to provide staff the necessary focus while creating an environment that allows for and encourages experimentation.

The "Visionary Leader" archetypal organization is led by an executive with insight and creativity, such as Steve Jobs, who motivates employees to pursue a vision. This organization values staff who are skilled at working within a team and at executing the leader's plans. The organization creates processes that are built around well-understood mechanisms aligning the executive's vision to the team's daily activities, and typically focuses its collective attention on a small subset of large initiatives.

The "Systematic Innovation" archetypal organization has strong traditional executive leadership that sets priorities, raises urgency at the appropriate time, and allocates resources effectively. Such organizations assign small groups of cross-functional employees to discrete tasks and do not penalize failure. There is typically a high tolerance for dissent and experimentation in the culture, and a number of diffuse product lines, as seen in a company such as Proctor and Gamble, that are impossible for a small set of individuals to dictate and control.

The "Collaborative Innovation" archetypal organization has leadership that is expert in developing strategic alliances and which recognizes when to outsource. Its staff is empowered to make deals with outside vendors with minimal approval polices; the organization excels at choosing the right external partner or technology that enables dynamic reconfiguration. This type of organization is above all excellent at understanding and responding to its customers' needs (think Facebook).

The idea behind understanding the four archetypes is to place your own organization into one of these contexts, based on your organization's distinct personality. Trying to imitate a firm that embodies an archetype that your firm does not itself embody is a mistake, and will likely lead to a failed innovation program. Know yourself and don't try to change your natural method of innovation - as the authors point out, it's like trying to change your genetic makeup with plastic surgery.

Comments [98] | Permalink
Categories: General

COMMENTARY COMMENT
ADD A COMMENT
RECENT ENTRIES
RSS
  • The Mother of Invention?
  • It's Innovative, But Is That a Good Thing?
  • A Vote for Process Innovation
  • Structure is a Good Thing
  • You Measure What Matters
  • The Decline of the Corporate Lab Rat?

LATEST COMMENTS
  • Innostructure by prada uk
  • Balanced Innovation by ugg boots for discount
  • The Innovation Constraint by christian louboutin heels
  • Process for Innovation Conference by Bobby Clarke Jersey
  • Surveying Innovation Activity by flyers Jersey
  • Vintage Drucker on Innovation by bruins jerseys

COMMENTATORS
Ellen Domb [107]  RSS Ellen Domb's Biography
Jack Hipple [62]  RSS Jack Hipple's Biography
Katie Barry [54]  RSS Katie Barry's Biography
Praveen Gupta [46]  RSS Praveen Gupta's Biography
Michael S. Slocum [34]  RSS Michael S. Slocum's Biography
Cass Pursell [29]  RSS Cass Pursell's Biography
James Todhunter [21]  RSS James Todhunter's Biography
Lynda Curtin [14]  RSS Lynda Curtin's Biography
Michael Cyger [10]  RSS Michael Cyger's Biography
Prakasan Kappoth [10]  RSS Prakasan Kappoth's Biography
Guest Commentator [9]  RSS Guest Commentator's Biography
Bob Carter [4]  RSS Bob Carter's Biography
Rod King [4]  RSS Rod King's Biography
Bob Malanga [2]  RSS Bob Malanga's Biography
Kady Srinivasan [2]  RSS Kady Srinivasan's Biography
All Commentators

CATEGORIES
About Commentators [15]  RSS
Buzz/Press [65]  RSS
Companies [26]  RSS
Conference [107] RSS
General [141]  RSS
Leadership [28]  RSS
Management [93]  RSS
Methodology [133]  RSS
Strategy [114]  RSS

ARCHIVES
RSS
  

* Current Month
* Full Archive



Ad Links

Legal Information. © 2006 - 2012 CTQ Media. All rights reserved. v1.0, 0.3 Submit an Article • About The TRIZ Journal • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Site Map