I heard a fascinating piece on NPR that in some ways relates to the post I put up a couple of days ago on the Tata car and innovation-society dynamic. The whistling thorn tree in Africa protects itself from being eaten up by elephants through an interesting adaptation. It secretes a tasty sap that draws thousands of red ants to it. When elephants try to eat the tree, these mercenary red ants attack them and thus the tree is protected. The NPR piece however piqued my interest further as it went on to discuss an experiment that Dr. Todd Palmer of the University of Florida has been conducting.

Dr. Palmer wondered what would happen to the red ant-tree alliance if there was no danger from elephants. Would the tree stop generating the sap? So in his experiment, Dr. Palmer created elephant-safe enclosures for some of these trees and watched for 10 years. One would think without the elephant danger, the trees would flourish, right? But a decade later, many of the “protected” trees had died and the others were growing more slowly than before. Why? Most of the trees had gradually reduced the production of the sap–when there is no danger of elephants, why produce sap and host red ants? So with sap reduced, the red ants had gone away. But now, various other insects came on to the trees, and some of the trees now have big holes, and others died.

From a business innovation perspective, what is the lesson? First, as I noted in the Tata car post, one never knows how the society-innovation dynamic will play out. As the biologist Mark Bertness of Brown University remarks, “It’s a reminder that you never know what you are going to get when you mess with Mother Nature.”

Second, some analogies between this tree-ant-elephant story and innovation management are also worth considering. Like the analogy between reducing sap production and optimizing production in an organization; or the analogy between the certainty with which the tree assumed red ants are needed only to fight the menace of elephants and the projections that we make with certainty in our strategic decision making.

See any other analogies?

Bruce Nussbaum’s BusinessWeek post about the $2500 car, which Tata is going to introduce in India has raised a storm. Nussbaum opines that the increased crowding on Indian roads and higher levels of pollution will be a big problem for India. Tom Friedman made a similar argument in an NY Times column a few weeks ago. (Incidentally, at a holiday party in my daughter’s school in what is a progressive, liberal district I saw an interesting illustration of how Friedman’s “flat world” is flat yes, but holed all over with deep wells. One of the mothers–of Indian origin–had brought in cut pieces of mango for the potluck. She found herself having to explain what kind of fruit a mango is! And to think that most mangoes that you can buy in a US grocery store in December come from Mexico, one country south!)

Anyway, to come back to the Tata car, many comments in response to Nussbaum’s post, mostly from Indians, are reacting from a national sense of pride and outrage, where a newfound Indian confidence allows the questioning of hitherto-sacred “white wisdom.” However, I must agree with Nussbaum and Friedman about the effects–there is no doubt that traffic congestion and pollution will increase. But in questioning the “rightness” of the Tata car innovation, Nussbaum and Friedman have forgotten or neglected a critical phenomenon: the dynamics of innovation.

Innovations are not passive outputs from a business organization into society. Rather, innovations become sites of interaction between the organization and the society in which the innovation is introduced. One of my earlier posts was about defining innovation from the intelligence perspective. The connection in such a definition between an innovation and the “value” it provides to a society or a market cannot be missed–this value is what determines the success or failure of any innovation. This is where the concept of a “dynamics of innovation” comes in. An innovation may not amenable to a society, in which case it gets appropriately modified or dies a death, sometimes sooner, sometimes later. On the other hand, a society may deem an innovation so valuable that it modifies itself. On my last trip to Hyderabad and Bangalore (cities which Friedman and Nussbaum mention–I was born in Bangalore and grew up there, and my family now lives in Hyderabad), I saw something that Western visitors often miss–eighty-year old parents and grandparents using cellphones and SMS, using computers and videochatting. Yes, they’re not very adept at using these innovations, but they manage adequately. This is what I mean by a society adapting to an innovation.

What does this mean for the Tata car? Simply that despite increased congestion, despite higher pollution, if Indian society deems the Tata car valuable, it will adapt itself to absorb it. Roads may widen. The 3-wheeled autorickshaws that inefficiently carry people around cities may get replaced by less-polluting $2500 taxicabs. Who knows?!

What is the connection between competition and innovation? When an organization focuses on its competition, is it good or bad from an innovation perspective? Hamid Shojaee has an interesting post that details this issue in the context of Microsoft. The post took me back to when I used to teach an HBS case on the browser wars between Microsoft and Netscape.

According to Shojaee, Microsoft’s overfocus on its competition kills innovation. While Shojaee is right, he is only partially right, because this ties back into what we mean by innovation. Shojaee’s perspective on innovation is one that is common but only partial: that all innovation is radical, paradigm-shifting. In fact, most innovation is incremental. If Toyota implements 1 million new ideas every year, what does that say about innovation in Toyota? 1 million new car designs, or new car features, or new business processes? As has been well-documented, most of these 1 million ideas lead to incremental improvements.

In fact, from the ISmarts perspective, a focus on competition is necessary for innovation. Analytical ISmarts allow a firm to watch the market for trends, watch competition for new ideas, and sift through all that the ideas “out there” to construct a portfolio of innovation projects. As a Gartner study found, many smaller firms which do not have the resources to invest in original R&D, watch the competition for new ideas that look promising (analytical ISmarts), reverse-engineer and implement these ideas (operational ISmarts), and then market them aggressively in their local markets (communicative ISmarts). In this innovation strategy that Gartner terms “fast follower”, innovation paradoxically does not rely on invention.

Here’s a news release discussing Vivékin Group’s recent survey results

 

For Immediate Release

First-of-its-kind Survey Finds Clinton Regarded Better “Change-Agent” Than Obama, Has More “Leadership Intelligences”; Edwards Fares Poorly

The ability to handle or create change is indexed by five “leadership intelligences.” A survey conducted by Vivékin Group of Chapel Hill, NC, found that respondents rated Clinton higher than or on par with Obama in four of five intelligences. Obama was better than Clinton in only one category. Biden and Edwards ranked third and fourth respectively. Among Republicans, McCain was ranked best in three categories, with Ron Paul and Huckabee ranked best in one category each. Giuliani and Romney received uneven ratings.

Chapel Hill, NC. January 3, 2007 - Every Presidential candidate claims to be a “change agent.” How do you assess a candidate’s ability to deal with the unexpected or to create change? Such an ability is reflected by the leader’s intelligence-the ability to combine knowledge, experience, perception, and imagination to solve a new, unanticipated problem. But, intelligence does not mean its popular conceptualization as IQ. Through a decade of research at the Wharton School, Purdue University, and the University of Minnesota, the Chapel Hill, NC-based management consultancy firm, Vivékin Group has developed a framework that helps rank Presidential candidates on the basis of five kinds of leadership smarts (LSmarts): Analytical, Operational, Inventive, Communicative, & Ethical LSmarts.

These LSmarts may be defined as follows:

Analytical LSmarts: The ability to respond to new situations that call for analysis

Operational LSmarts: The ability to respond to surprise crises in operations

Inventive LSmarts: The ability to set a vision, to provide new ideas, to provide creative solutions

Communicative LSmarts: The ability to respond to new situations using communication skills

Ethical LSmarts: The ability to understand the ethical dimensions of a new issue or to perceive the ethical standpoints of others

In a four-day, web-based survey, respondents used this framework and rated Hillary Clinton higher than or on par with Obama in four of five intelligences. Obama was rated higher than Clinton in only one intelligence. Biden and Edwards ranked third and fourth respectively. Among Republicans, McCain was ranked best in three categories, with Ron Paul and Huckabee ranked best in one category each. Giuliani and Romney received uneven ratings.

The survey was also unique in involving respondents who are associated with the media. Since 36% of respondents were from media, interesting comparisons can be made between media- and non-media responses.

“This is the first survey of its kind, and we were surprised by the results,” said Dr. Baba Prasad, President and CEO of Vivékin Group. “While Senator Clinton is well-known for her analysis and operations-oriented nature, we were amazed that that she matched Senator Obama in areas that are considered his strengths: the ability to set a vision, and the ability to respond quickly using communication skills.”

Participation Statistics

35% or respondents are media persons - 65% are non-Media

58% Male - 42% Female;

Age Groups

46-60 years: 50%; 31-45 years: 31%; 18-30 years: 11%; 61-75 years: 8%

Other interesting observations from the survey

Respondents associated with the media (MR) versus non-media respondents (NMR)

1. MR rated Huckabee significantly higher for communicative intelligence than NMR did (77.8% versus 42.8%)

2. MR rated Clinton significantly higher for communicative intelligence than NMR did (94% versus 67%)

3. MR rated Obama higher for communicative intelligence than NMR did (89% versus 73.3%)

4. MR rated Clinton less for ethical intelligence than NMR did (44.0% versus 52.7%)

5. MR rated Obama significantly more for ethical intelligence than NMR did (77.7% versus 46.7%)

Gender differences?

Women were generally more guarded in giving candidates high ratings. Specifically, with regard to Clinton, women were harsher to her than men in three categories.

Men rated Huckabee significantly higher than women on communicative intelligence.

Overall, however, there was no significant trend in women or men favoring one candidate over another.

DETAILS OF RESULTS

[Percentage score reflects how many respondents ranked the candidate "High" or "Very High" in each leadership intelligence category; other categories were "Average", "Low", and "Very Low"]

Analytical LSmarts

(ability to respond to new situations requiring analysis)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
McCain	75.0%	Biden	80.0%
Giuliani	65.4%	Clinton	76.9%
Romney	61.6%	Obama	57.7%
Huckabee	15.4%	Edwards	52.0%

Operational LSmarts

(ability to respond to surprise crises in operations)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
McCain	75.0%	Clinton	70.9%
Giuliani	74.6%	Biden	56.5%
Romney	60.9%	Obama	45.9%
Ron Paul	28.5%	Richardson	41.0%
Huckabee	16.7%	Edwards	37.6%

Inventive LSmarts

(ability to set a vision, to provide new ideas)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
Ron Paul	61.9%	Clinton	68.0%
Giuliani	48.0%	Obama	68.0%
McCain	45.5%	Biden	57.7%
Romney	33.3%	Kucinich	39.1%
Huckabee	20.8%	Edwards	37.5%

Communicative LSmarts

(ability to respond to new situations using communication skills)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
Huckabee	56.7%	Clinton	79.2%
Ron Paul	54.6%	Obama	79.2%
Giuliani	50.0%	Edwards	52.1%
Romney	50.0%	Biden	39.1%
McCain	16.7%	Richardson	25.0%

Ethical LSmarts

(ability to understand the ethical dimensions of a new issue or

to perceive the ethical standpoints of others)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
McCain	50.0%	Obama	58.4%
Romney	45.9%	Clinton	50.0%
Huckabee	39.1%	Biden	43.5%
Giuliani	24.7%	Edwards	43.4%
Ron Paul	23.8%	Richardson	33.3%

Vivékin Group has now opened a similar web-based survey to the general public at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=CVDmCfy5onWirBylihce0A_3d_3d

About Vivékin Group

Vivékin Group is a management consulting firm working with innovation and leadership development. Its pioneering ISmarts and LSmarts frameworks apply theories of human intelligence to innovation management and leadership development in corporate environments. Vivékin’s growing list of clients includes firms in India and Fortune 500 companies in the USA. Dr. Baba Prasad, President and CEO, got his Ph.D. at the Wharton School and taught at prestigious business schools before he founded Vivékin Group.

Interview Contact

Baba Prasad (Ph.D., The Wharton School)

President and CEO
Vivékin Group
919-338-8164
http://www.vivekingroup.com

###