The Innovation PantheonThe Innovation Pantheon.How the orchestration of the Gods of Innovation can lead the way toinnovati...
The Innovation Pantheon1. IntroductionThe 12th European Conference on Creativity & Innovation (ECCI) was organized from 14...
The Innovation PantheonI was inspired by the gods of management presented by Charles Handy (1985) for a betterunderstandin...
The Innovation Pantheon2. Backgrounds. A bird’s eye view over the innovation landscape.By a bird’s eye view on the innovat...
The Innovation PantheonBefore we reach the 6th ECCI, our next milestone, we arrive in the year in which the bookThe Knowle...
The Innovation PantheonSo far Athena was introduced as god of innovation who organizes the innovation processand Zeus as t...
The Innovation Pantheon3. Intermediary mechanisms in leadership and innovation as organizingprinciples for the gods of inn...
The Innovation PantheonHere I suggest to distil two basic cognitions of empowerment from table 1. First it seemsplausible ...
The Innovation PantheonFig. 1: Innovation gods organized around empowermentA nice company one would like to think, but how...
The Innovation Pantheon4. The orchestration of the Innovation Pantheon.The innovation gods have been presented in the Inno...
The Innovation PantheonThe same holds for Dionysus. His dualistic character is determined by the essential nature ofvalues...
The Innovation PantheonThe first five roles figure in the primary innovation process supporting Athena in specificsteps on...
The Innovation PantheonSo far the metaphor of the Innovation Pantheon which brings us to the following questions.Which tac...
The Innovation Pantheon4.2. Inspirational influence of Janus.Theoretically it can be expected that the use of pro-active i...
The Innovation PantheonVariables                Transformational Leadership                      Inspirational Influence  ...
The Innovation Pantheon5. Theoretical and practical implications.This Innovation Pantheon invites to reflect on theoretica...
The Innovation PantheonThe Politician.Ideas have to be brought into good currency within an institutional context. Therefo...
The Innovation PantheonInspirational leadership, intermediary mechanisms and innovation.So far inspirational leadership, r...
The Innovation PantheonDiversity of Strategic Roles and Role Breadth Self-Efficacy are new concepts in this modelthat may ...
The Innovation Pantheon5.3. Innovation Paradoxes resolved.In paragraph 2 (p. 5) a sneak preview was given of the way Zeus ...
The Innovation Pantheondamage’ in a continuous learning process to create a readiness to innovation. This is in linewith N...
The Innovation PantheonReferencesBandura (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Compa...
The Innovation PantheonReferences continuedNauta, A., Van Vianen, A., Van der Heijden, B., Van Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. (2...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Innovation pantheon of panta rheyn


Published on

Organizational readiness to innovation.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Innovation pantheon of panta rheyn

  1. 1. The Innovation PantheonThe Innovation Pantheon.How the orchestration of the Gods of Innovation can lead the way toinnovation.Herman HovingAbstractOn the occasion of the 12th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation the InnovationPantheon was designed starting with a journey through the innovation landscape. On this journey thegods of management came on handy to transform them into gods of innovation. Also empowermentas intermediary between inspirational leadership and innovation came to the foreground. Influenceand Meaning as basic cognitions of empowerment are used as design factors of the InnovationPantheon. However they are not sufficient to realize collaboration between Athena, Zeus, Apollo andDionysus as innovation gods because they have the nasty habit of fighting each other. With the helpof Janus as their leader the innovation gods are orchestrated to contribute to innovation and to bringideas into good currency within an organizational context. The role of Janus as a leader of innovationis described by Inspirational Influence tactics. The most important implications for the managementand organization of innovation are the accentuation of the role of the Politician and a multi-levelapproach to innovation. Theoretical implications are summarized in a model to research newrelationships between inspirational leadership and innovative behaviour. Finally the innovationparadoxes of Time, Control and Knowledge are solved by the Innovation Pantheon.Content1. Introduction2. Backgrounds. A bird’s eye view on the innovation landscape.3. Intermediary mechanisms in leadership and innovation. Introduction of the Innovation Pantheon.3.1. Coherence and cognitions of empowerment.3.2. Influence and Meaning.4. The orchestration of the Innovation Pantheon.4.1. Janus revisited.4.2. Inspirational influence of Janus5. Implications for practice and research. The innovation paradoxes resolved.5.1. Implications for research.5.2. Practical implications for innovation management.5.3. Innovation paradoxes resolved. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 1
  2. 2. The Innovation Pantheon1. IntroductionThe 12th European Conference on Creativity & Innovation (ECCI) was organized from 14-17September 2011 in Faro (Portugal) to ‘bring together methods and tools from collaborativearts, science, business, education, technology and social development, which can be adaptedto innovation in organizations’ (convocation of the conference). Speakers and participantswere requested to keep following question in mind: “How is it possible to devise ways ofdirecting people with entirely different occupations, backgrounds and experiences to agreeon a common purpose to achieve unique solutions?”This inspired me as an invited speaker to reflect on the forces in the management ofinnovation. During the preparation of my presentation these reflections evolved into the fullmodel that I will present here and that will answer the question put forward. It will alsoprovide solutions to the basic innovation paradoxes of Knowledge, Time and Control. Let meintroduce them first .Often, especially in The Netherlands and this may be generalized to other Europeancountries, it is maintained that business doesn’t profit enough from academic knowledge. Itis believed that vast amounts of knowledge are available at universities. However there issupposedly not enough transfer of knowledge from academia to business. This is theparadox of Knowledge that not only is a concern to academia but also inflicts innovationmanagement.The paradox of Control is related to dominance of old control mechanisms in management .When the management of innovation is confronted by a ‘control and command’ styleapproach little success may be expected. Should we then totally absolve from control in themanagement of innovation? The answer has to be a clear ‘no!’ Management of innovationcan be characterized as ‘controlled chaos’ which implies a form of control will always beneeded to bring ideas into good currency, but this is not control as we generally know it. Thisconstitutes the innovation paradox of Control. We might be inclined to say farewell tocontrol but (some form of) control will always be necessary.Finally the paradox of Time refers to an important bottleneck in innovation managementthat is known as the lack of time for innovation. There never seems to be time available forinnovation. When everything is all right with the business and profits are high all time ofmanagers is consumed by ‘ business as usual’. Production and sales have priority and timeshould not be ‘wasted’ on innovation. However, when the business is not doing well thereneither is time for innovation because all efforts are put on cost cutting and downsizing.In this article solutions to these paradoxes will be presented. Innovation management isdefined as ‘to bring ideas into good currency within an institutional context’ (Van de Ven,1986). This puts the human side of innovation on the foreground. Mythology can be inspiringin the study of human affairs. Therefore Greek gods come on handy in explaining howpeople can agree on a common purpose to achieve unique solutions. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 2
  3. 3. The Innovation PantheonI was inspired by the gods of management presented by Charles Handy (1985) for a betterunderstanding of an organization’s character or culture. He distinguished four roleorientations in organizations that correspond to four Greek gods.Athena, the goddess of wisdom but also a warrior goddess, stands for the task orientationthat can be recognized in project structures. As a real problem solver Athena is focussed onresults. The power orientation in organizations is symbolized by Zeus who is the spider in theweb who controls everything and everybody by his omnipotent power. Organizations canalso be characterized as role oriented and then Apollo is their god who stands for functionalroles organized in ’silos’ such as research, planning, production, marketing and sales. Thebureaucracy is an example of a formal Apollo culture. The organization that focusses onpersonal interests is symbolized by Dionysus. While the task oriented organization isexclusively organized around tasks the person oriented organized is structured aroundpersons and the values they espouse as for example in a partnership of lawyers. In thisarticle I will demonstrate how these gods of management can become gods of innovationand describe the type of leadership that can make them agree upon a common purpose toachieve unique solutions as required in the management of innovation. Unlike humansorganizations can be characterized as polytheistic. Therefore all gods can be found in oneorganization but they don’t go so well together and their collaboration is problematic. TheInnovation Pantheon will solve this problem.In the next paragraph major theoretical and practical insights from more than two decadesof practical and academic experience with innovation will be presented by a bird’s eye viewon the innovation landscape. This also allows me to couple the gods of management tosuccess factors in the management of innovation and to introduce them as gods ofinnovation. Furthermore intermediary mechanisms between leadership behaviour ofinnovation managers and their followers that can account for innovative results will beintroduced throughout this journey. In paragraph three I will work out these mechanism asdesign factors of the Innovation Pantheon that will be introduced in paragraph four. Thefinal paragraph is devoted to theoretical and practical implications. Innovation paradoxeswill be resolved. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 3
  4. 4. The Innovation Pantheon2. Backgrounds. A bird’s eye view over the innovation landscape.By a bird’s eye view on the innovation landscape I will use mainly but not exclusively a socialpsychological approach to innovation management. Basic question then is what kind ofinfluence will be required to bring ideas into good currency within an institutional context.This approach stands closer to the work of Van de Ven et al. (2008) than to the approach ofTrott (2008). Both authors however, agree upon the conceptualization of innovation as aprocess that can be managed or influenced.Taking a bird’s eye view we now will make a journey through the innovation landscape thatstarts in 1987. In that year the first ECCI was organized in The Netherlands and two moredeliveries of the ECCI, the conference in 1999 and the one held in 2011, will be milestonesthroughout this journey. 1987 ECCI I. Vision and innovation. Enter Athena. 1997 The knowledge creating company. 1999 ECCI VI . Metaphors an powerful innovation tools. Enter Zeus. 2000 Coherence and cognitions of empowerment 2006 The7 laws of innovation. Innovation values. Enter Dionysus 2008 Strategy safari and Strategic Roles. Enter Apollo 2011 ECCI XII. Innovation Pantheon.Table 1: A journey through the innovation landscapeIn 1987 I served as an innovation consultant at the Innovation Consultancy Group (ICG) ofthe Dutch organization of Applied Scientific Research (TNO). At the first ECCI I presented apaper on vision building applied to personal development. The founder of the ICG of TNOand one of the major organizers of the first ECCI then recently was assigned as professor inthe Policy and Organization of Product Development (‘ innovation management’ ) at theFaculty of Design at Delft University. His inaugural address was titled Vision and Innovation(Buijs, 1987) and stressed the role of vision in the innovation process that was preferablymanaged in a step wise innovation project. The innovation project intended to be a learningprocess that also had to result in new products and services and - not to forget- in additionalturnover for the innovating company. In this focus on results we now recognize Athena whocan serve as an innovation god by organizing the innovation process in a project. Thereforethe first milestone of the journey is the presentation of Athena as a god of innovation whoorganizes the innovation process to deliver an innovation need, a vision and finally concreteresults such as new products and services. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 4
  5. 5. The Innovation PantheonBefore we reach the 6th ECCI, our next milestone, we arrive in the year in which the bookThe Knowledge Creating Company was published by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Animportant publication for at least two reasons. First, an entirely new concept of knowledgewas clearly distinguished in the context of innovation. Tacit knowledge was distinguishedfrom explicit knowledge and this was crucial for the creation, sharing and valuation ofknowledge that was conceptualized as a justified belief that is created in social interaction.Knowledge as a justified belief will later help us to understand especially the role of Zeus inthe Innovation Pantheon. Second, Nonaka and Takeuchi made a distinction betweentemporary innovation and continuous innovation. An innovation project is a form oftemporary innovation while the development of an innovative climate refers to continuousinnovation. This distinction will be of significance when the orchestration of the InnovationPantheon will be discussed in paragraph four.The 6th ECCI was held in 1999 and also in The Netherlands. My contribution was thepresentation of an experiment with metaphors. This experiment also served to test a theoryabout the effectiveness of inspirational leadership (Hoving, 2001). Metaphors are powerfulinnovation tools that can give way to new business models. For example the Beertender fordelivery of beer opens new markets for breweries. An airport is quite another way toorganize air traffic and related economic activity than an airstrip. Metaphors can also serveto direct new business activities. Flow for example is a metaphor of Aalberts Industries, acompany that produces equipment to control various flow processes. All acquisitions andinnovations of Aalberts industries have to contribute to flow to create synergy between thevarious industries.This milestone in our journey brings us to the role of idea generation techniques such asmetaphors as powerful innovation tools. De Bono (1982) qualified these techniques asbelonging to the operative method of lateral thinking in contrast to the inductive and thedeductive method. In the operative method the solution is contained in the tools. It is by thisoperative method that Zeus organizes idea generation in the innovation process in anomnipotent way. Mnemonics such as PMI (Plusses, Minuses and Intriguing points) help toanalyse a business situation in the fuzzy front end of the innovation process. CAF(Considering All Factors) is helpful in testing the potential value of a vision. By using thesetools or operations in an interactive way Zeus also contributes to the proper use ofknowledge in the innovation process. Enter Zeus as an innovation god!The next stop on our journey we make in the year 2000 when I published a dissertation onleadership and innovation (Hoving, 2000). It was demonstrated that feelings of coherenceand self-regulation played key role as intermediary mechanisms in the explanation of theeffects of inspirational leadership on followers in an innovation process. In this wayInspirational leaders obtained more innovation and a higher innovation pace, i.e. moreturnover from new products or services. Lissack and Roos (2001) exclaimed a year later inthe journal Long Range Planning to “Be coherent, not visionary” thereby accentuating therole of coherence, which is not to say that vision is unimportant. According to Hoving (2000)coherence and vision can be theoretically related to the cognitions of empowerment as theyhave been distinguished by Thomas and Velthouse (1990). Cognitions of empowerment playa key role in recent research on leadership and innovation. Therefore they will also be usedto build the Innovation Pantheon. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 5
  6. 6. The Innovation PantheonSo far Athena was introduced as god of innovation who organizes the innovation processand Zeus as the innovation god who provides powerful innovation tools. Innovationmanagement as the ‘bringing of ideas into good currency’ could be related to inspirationalleadership and this on its turn is expected to exercise its influence through cognitions ofempowerment.To elaborate the concept of inspirational leadership further I published together withhistorian and journalist Rik Plantinga The 7 laws of innovation (Hoving & Plantinga, 2006).The 7 laws of innovation stress the human side of innovation and correspond to seven basicsteps in the innovation process. In this way they provide Athena with a road map to organizeinnovation as a project. They also express innovation values that can inspire those involvedin the innovation process: intuition, creativity, force, fantasy, emotion, empathy andcourage. In this use of values we now may recognize Dionysus who can inspire participantsin the innovation process. Enter Dionysus as a god of innovation.By the way, the treatise of the laws of innovation also provided additional operations as KEK,CREATIVITY and OTMF that complete PMI and CAF as operative methods in Zeus’ toolkit.They will later reappear in the Pantheon but I will not elaborate them here because of spacelimitations. For a full description I refer to Hoving & Plantinga (2006).Let us now take the opportunity to make a short strategy safari (Mintzberg et al., 2008) onour journey through the innovation landscape. Mintzberg et al. used the metaphor of asafari to describe ten schools in the study of strategy development. To be able to develop anactive approach to innovation management as a form of strategy development I derivedeight strategic roles from these schools. In these roles we now recognize the hand of Apolloas a god of management who stands for the role orientation in organizations. Apollobecomes a god of innovation when we locate these roles in the innovation process in asimilar way Mintzberg et al. have suggested to organize the strategic schools in the strategyprocess (Mintzberg et al., 2008, final chapter). The result of this exercise is presented inparagraph 4 where the full Innovation Pantheon will be introduced.Finally we come to the end of our journey. So far the gods of management have beenintroduced as innovation gods but they are not yet organized. At the 12th edition of the ECCIin Faro I have presented their organization in a preliminary version. The term Pantheonrefers to the ways the gods of innovation can be organized. This preliminary version of theInnovation Pantheon now will be further elaborated using basic concepts that weredistinguished in the journey through the innovation landscape. These concepts also figure inrecent research as intermediary mechanisms between leadership behaviour and innovationby followers. In the next paragraph they will be used to constitute basic organizing principlesfor the gods of innovation. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 6
  7. 7. The Innovation Pantheon3. Intermediary mechanisms in leadership and innovation as organizingprinciples for the gods of innovation.On our journey we have met the concept of coherence that emerged as an intermediarymechanism in the relation between inspirational leadership and innovation. Coherence wasrelated to cognitions of empowerment. In recent research the relation betweentransformational leadership and intermediary mechanisms is emphasized (NederveenPieterse et al., 2010; Gumusleoglu & Ilsev, 2007). Intermediary mechanisms as coherenceand cognitions of empowerment that play a key role in the explanation of the effects ofleadership on innovation now will be compared and integrated into two new factors.3.1. Coherence and cognitions of empowerment.In an empirical study the role of inspiring behaviour of managers was investigated (Hoving,2000). Inspirational leadership can be described as the presentation of a vision, which in turncan lead to enhancement of coherence in the form of manageability of the innovationprocess by followers and reinforcement of their self-regulation. These effects weremoderated by self-esteem and could eventually lead to stronger innovative behaviour.Effects of meaningfulness and comprehensibility, the other theoretical components ofcoherence, could not be demonstrated in this study. Factor analysis of results demonstratedthat coherence consisted of one factor that could best be described as manageability.Recent studies found empirical evidence for cognitions of empowerment as intermediarymechanisms in the relation between transformational leadership and innovation(Nederveen Pieterse, 2010; Gumusluogu and Ilsev, 2009). Psychological empowerment wascomposed of following elements or cognitions: competence, self-determination, impact andmeaning, usually measured by one scale.Now we may expect coherence and cognitions of empowerment to play an important role asintermediary mechanisms in relation between inspirational/ transformational leadership andinnovation. They are compared in table 1 to suggest new cognitions of empowerment.Cognitions of empowerment Components of coherence New cognitions of EmpowermentSelf determinationImpact Manageability InfluenceCompetenceMeaning Meaningfulness Meaning ComprehensibilityTable 1: New cognitions of empowerment Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 7
  8. 8. The Innovation PantheonHere I suggest to distil two basic cognitions of empowerment from table 1. First it seemsplausible that Meaningfulness as a coherence factor and Meaning as a cognition ofempowerment correspond to each other. Earlier we noticed that meaningfulness andcomprehensibility could not empirically be validated as coherence factors while meaningfigured in recent research as a cognition of empowerment. Therefore I suggest here tonominate Meaning as a basic cognition of empowerment. Meaning as a cognition ofempowerment then also is supposed to have a connotation with comprehensibility. Makingmeaning also has been stressed as key success factor of entrepreneurship (innovation) byGuy Kawasaki in his inspiring pitch about this topic. According to Kawasaki this can be doneby improving the quality of life. With a background at the Macintosh Division of Apple hedeclares that Apple employees were not motivated by making money, but “we weremotivated changing the world to make people more creative”. Other ways to make meaningare the prevention of something good to disappear and ‘to right a wrong’.Second, Manageability as a coherence factor is equalled in table 1 to impact, autonomy andinfluence as cognitions of empowerment. Research demonstrated that empowerment,measured one-dimensionally, and Manageability - as component of coherence- playsignificant roles as intermediary mechanisms between leadership and innovation. Now Isuggest to summarize them all under the common denominator of Influence as cognition ofempowerment keeping in mind that this cognition has connotations with manageability,impact, competence and self-determination.3.2. Influence and Meaning.The innovation process (Athena) and the innovation tools (Zeus) now can be classified underInfluence as cognition of empowerment. Empowering Influence is exercised by Athena andZeus by making the innovation process manageable through competence of those who areinvolved, through the impact of operations and through the self- determination that resultsfrom the alternation of divergent and convergent thinking that will be explained in the nextparagraph.Strategic roles in the innovation process (Apollo) and Inspirational values (Dionysus) will beclassified under the cognition of Meaning. It is evident that Dionysus makes Meaning by hisinspiring values but for Apollo this doesn’t seem as obvious at first sight.Meaning however, is also provided by Apollo through the expectations that are related tothe roles. In the Pantheon the Analyst for example is expected not only to rationally analysethe situation of the organization but also to do this in an intuitive way. Intuition then is aninnovation value. This dualistic character is inherent in all gods of innovation and will beexplained in the next paragraph when we introduce the leader of the Innovation Pantheon.Foregoing results in the introduction of an Innovation Pantheon that is designed by Influenceand Meaning as cognitions of empowerment (figure1). Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 8
  9. 9. The Innovation PantheonFig. 1: Innovation gods organized around empowermentA nice company one would like to think, but how can collaboration between these gods beachieved besides their organization for the sake of empowerment? Enter Janus! Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 9
  10. 10. The Innovation Pantheon4. The orchestration of the Innovation Pantheon.The innovation gods have been presented in the Innovation Pantheon designed by Influenceand Meaning as cognitions of empowerment. Now we have to remember that these Greekgods have the nasty habit of fighting each other! Therefore the initial question that wasraised for the 12th ECCI (see introduction) now can be reformulated. How can we realize thecollaboration of Athena, Zeus, Apollo and Dionysus as gods of innovation? Meaning andInfluence have been suggested as organizing principles but how can these be activated?Janus comes to the rescue.4.1. Janus revisited.Janus figured already in the work of Arthur Koestler (1985) in which he was introduced in aholographic approach of life sciences in general and creativity in particular. Koestler titled hisbook ‘Janus. A summing up’ and in the Innovation Pantheon Janus is revisited. Janus standsbasically for the human division that can be compared to the distinction that has been madebetween planning on the left side and management (or leadership) on the right hemisphereof the brain (Mintzberg, 1976). More recently this aspect of dualistic functioning also isdemonstrated in The innovation Journey of Van de Ven et al. (2008) as the alternated use ofdivergent and convergent thinking that forms an essential part of each innovation process.This alternation of thinking modes also is a key element of the innovation process outlined inthe 7 laws of innovation (Hoving & Plantinga, 2006). Each of the 7 steps is characterized by adivergent (first!) and subsequent a convergent phase to achieve original and unique resultsthat finally materialize in new business activities. It is the role of Zeus to provide tools thatorganize this kind of alternation that can best be achieved by operative methods as PMI,KEK, CAF, CREATIVITY and OTMF.Actually the whole Pantheon, not only Athena and Zeus but also Apollo and Dionysus, isaffected by this dualism. For Apollo this means that every strategic role reflects bothplanning by the left and managing by the right hemisphere, which corresponds to thealternation of divergent and convergent thinking in the innovation process.Let’s consider for example the role of the Analyst who helps to define the need forinnovation in the first step of the process by composing a Profile of Demands and Desires(PDD) for a new business activity (Hoving & Plantinga, 2006). This PDD is based on a PMI ofthe business situation and identification of first ideas of the participants in the innovationprocess. It therefore contains elements of divergent – in the form of intuitive ideas- andconvergent - in the form of the rational analysis of the situation- thinking. Intuition can alsobe interpreted as ‘forgotten rationality’ (Hoving & Plantinga, 2006, pp. 9-11). Therefore theAnalyst is both analytic and intuitive. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 10
  11. 11. The Innovation PantheonThe same holds for Dionysus. His dualistic character is determined by the essential nature ofvalues. A value provides general direction to behaviour as well as a focus on a specificoutcome by deriving a norm from it. This may be contaminated when values are presentedas norms as often seems the case. In this context it is exemplary that the Dutch tend to say‘norms and values’ while the Belgians speak about ‘values and norms’. The Belgians are right(this time …) because values do precede norms. So intuition as ‘forgotten reality’ is a valuethat welcomes immediate insight. Intuition as a norm is expressed by the requirement toexpress first insights in the form of first and often not yet so concrete ideas at the start ofthe innovation process.Janus is the god with the two faces. These faces represent his dualistic character. This isexpressed by his empowerment of the innovation gods through his omnipresent Influenceand by providing Meaning in the Innovation Pantheon. Janus is also known as a gate keeperand I would like to introduce him here in the role of a gate keeper to time.Following the distinction between continuous and temporary innovation that has been madeearlier Janus is able to organize innovation management in time. To this purpose he maywear either the face of Kronos or of Kairos. Both are gods of time but represent differentmodalities of time. Kronos stands for chronological or linear time while Kairos stands for theright time or the right moment. In mythology he is described as a young man that can run by.You get lucky when you succeed to grasp him by his hair. If you fail you might have to wait along time before Kairos comes by and luck might be yours! Kairos stands for a kind ofpreparedness to innovation while Kronos deals more directly with the innovation process.Now it will be obvious that activities of Athena and Zeus fall in the category of linear time.They are led by Janus when he shows his face of Kronos.On the other side Apollo and Dionysus represent a kind of preparedness to innovation bycreating an innovative climate or culture. In the next table these roles are summarizedreferring to their original strategic schools (Mintzberg et al., 2008).Strategic school Apollo’s rolePositioning school AnalystCognitive school Knowledge ManagerDesign school DesignerPlanning school PlannerEntrepreneurial School EntrepreneurCultural school Culture managerLearning school TeacherPolitical school PoliticianTable 2 : Strategic schools and Apollo’s roles Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 11
  12. 12. The Innovation PantheonThe first five roles figure in the primary innovation process supporting Athena in specificsteps on the innovation path. The last three roles are of a supportive character. Thesesupportive roles can be effectuated anywhere and anytime in the innovation process andespecially serve to make meaning.Having assigned the role of leader of the Innovation Pantheon to Janus and by identifyingthe strategic roles of Apollo the full Innovation Pantheon can now be presented (figure 2).Various elements as expressed by Athena, Zeus and Dionysus during the innovation journeyreappear in this Pantheon. To sum up Athena stands basically for the definition of aninnovation need, the development of a vision and the transformation of vision into concreteresults such as new business activities. Zeus stands for powerful innovation tools (oroperations). Last but not least Dionysus’ values of intuition, force, emotion, chance,empathy, fantasy and courage inspire the Analyst, Knowledge Manager, Designer, Planner,Entrepreneur, Teacher, Culture Manager and Politician to fulfil their respective roles to thebest of their abilities.Fig. 2: The full Innovation Pantheon** Supportive roles of Apollo have been deleted for the sake of simplicity but this does not mean they areunimportant. On the contrary!With Janus as their leader Athena, Zeus, Apollo and Dionysus now can make orchestratedefforts to bring ideas into good currency within an institutional context. This orchestrationgoes by the organization of pairs of gods. Janus organizes as Kronos the efforts of Athenaand Zeus in chronological time. As Kairos he organizes Apollo and Dionysus to seize the rightmoment for innovation. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 12
  13. 13. The Innovation PantheonSo far the metaphor of the Innovation Pantheon which brings us to the following questions.Which tactics does the leader - Janus- have to his availability to get things done through theinnovation gods? Inspirational influence is the key to the answer of this question. The otherquestion – when will Janus show a specific face ? - will be addressed when implications formanagement will be discussed.Finally a comment has to be made about the metaphorical character of the Pantheon. Theinnovation gods may serve for a better understanding of the organization of innovation.They give us grip on innovation and help to measure variables that are in play. Referring tothe Sanskrit origin of measurement ‘maya’ which literally means ‘not that‘ we can say this isan illusion. Nevertheless this illusion of control is helpful to make innovation managementcomprehensible, manageable and meaningful. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 13
  14. 14. The Innovation Pantheon4.2. Inspirational influence of Janus.Theoretically it can be expected that the use of pro-active influence tactics by a leader willbe a better predictor of innovation than more general leadership styles. For that purpose thePersonal Influence Tactics (PIT) questionnaire was developed and used in research onleadership and innovation (Hoving, 2000). The PIT measures two tactics: ‘InspirationalInfluence’ and ‘Exchange’. Another device to measure this type of leadership is theMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Bass, 1985). The Transformational Leadershipscale of the MLQ originally was designed to measure vision, individual consideration,building of trust, charisma , inspiration and intellectual stimulation as elementstransformational behaviour of a leader. However most studies do not distinguish betweenthese aspects and only use one scale to measure transformational leadership. TheInspirational Influence Tactic is also measured by one scale consisting of eight items thatthrow more light on specific inspirational influence behaviour by a leader (table 3). The inspirational leader*: Provides examples (metaphors and analogies) in service of problem-solving Presents an important plan enthusiastically Has the other do he/she is good at Has the other reformulate a problem Takes care the other can choose a new angle on a problem Has the other transform a problem into a challenge Encourages the other to set goals to excel him/herself Takes care the other has a clear understanding of a problemTable 3: Influence behaviour of the inspirational leader (agent version, Hoving, 2000).* The alpha as measurement of internal consistency of this scale was .77. The alpha of the targetversion was .88. The agent is the person who exercises influence upon another person as shown intable 3. The target is the person who is influenced by another person (usually a superior).Results obtained by the use of the Inspiration Influence Tactic scale and theTransformational Leadership Style scale are shown in table 4. These results demonstraterelationships between leader behaviour, intermediary mechanisms such as Empowermentand Manageability and outcomes such as innovation and creativity. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 14
  15. 15. The Innovation PantheonVariables Transformational Leadership Inspirational Influence Style (MLQ) Tactics (PIT)Empowerment .33 *Innovation .04 * (not significant) .28 ***Creativity .17 ** .29 ***Empowerment .27 **Manageability .65 **** Nederveense Pieterse et al. (2010 ) ** Gumusluoglu and Ylsev (2009) **** Hoving (2000)Table 4: Comparison of Transformational Leadership Style with Inspirational InfluenceTactics.The right column contains correlations from the study by Hoving (2000) while the leftcolumn contains correlations from studies by Nederveense Pieterse et al. (2010) andGumusluoglu and Ylsev (2009). All are significant except the correlation of .04 betweenTransformational Leadership and innovation and they are not very high which usually isfound in social scientific research. Inspirational Influence Tactics correlate .28 withInnovation, .29 with Creativity and .65 with Manageability. The Transformational LeadershipStyle correlates .33 and .27 with Empowerment, .04 with Innovation (n.s.) and .17 withCreativity.Inspirational Influence Tactics show stronger relationships with creativity and innovationcompared to leadership styles. They also demonstrate stronger relationships with anintermediary factor as Manageability (a component of coherence) whereas correlationsbetween the Transformational Leadership Style and empowerment were substantially lower.These results seem to confirm that a preference for influence tactics to measureinspirational leadership in relation to innovation is reasonable. Further research onconvergent and predictive validity of instruments measuring leadership as styles and asinfluence tactics is required.Foregoing gives insight into the inspirational influence exercised by Janus. In summary theinspirational leader has to pay simultaneously attention to the primary innovation process,operations, strategic roles and innovation values in a holistic approach of innovationmanagement. As a leader he/she exercises inspirational influence as described in table 3.Using the metaphor of the Pantheon this is the way Janus leads the way to innovation by hisorchestration of the gods of innovation. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 15
  16. 16. The Innovation Pantheon5. Theoretical and practical implications.This Innovation Pantheon invites to reflect on theoretical and practical implications. Last butnot least it can also provide solutions to the innovation paradoxes.5.1 Theoretical implications of the Innovation Pantheon.Alternatives for cognitive factors.Influence and Meaning are defined as cognitions of empowerment thereby stressing acognitive approach to the management of innovation. This predominantly cognitiveapproach needs to be completed with social factors as for example innovative climate(Nederveen Pieterse et al. , 2010).In the Innovation Pantheon this role is fulfilled by Apollo through the exercise of fivestrategic roles in the primary innovation process that are completed by three supportiveroles. These roles can establish an innovative climate in organizations. In this way theycomplete the cognitive approach to produce a richer and more complex model of innovationmanagement.Management of diversityThis immediately raises the problem of management of diversity that is even intensified bythe introduction of relatively new roles of the Culture Manager, the Teacher and thePolitician. This certainly causes greater diversity which makes effective management ofdiversity more urgent. The solution to this problem of management of diversity lies also inthe hands of Janus being a transformational or inspirational leader. Recent researchdemonstrated that transformational leaders are better capable of dealing with diversity(Kearny and Gebert, 2009). Future research into the relationships between transformationalleadership and the configuration of strategic roles can provide more insight into themanagement of this type of diversity.Dominant rolesThis research into diversity can also be focussed on presumed dominance of certain roles. Itcan be expected that the roles of the Planner, Designer and Analyst will be dominant just astheir corresponding schools of Planning, Design and Positioning are the dominant StrategicSchools of the past decades according to Mintzberg et al. (2009). Further research mightexplain how and to what extent transformational leadership can improve especially thesaliency of the supportive strategic roles in the management of innovation and their specificeffects on innovation. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 16
  17. 17. The Innovation PantheonThe Politician.Ideas have to be brought into good currency within an institutional context. Thereforespecial attention has to be paid to innovation as a political process. This role is fulfilled byApollo as a Politician. Then special political and negotiation skills are required that areimmanent in the dualistic role of Apollo as explained when Janus was revisited (paragraph4.2) This dualism can also be found in theories on negotiation. Generally two styles ofnegotiation can be distinguished: the distributive -zero sum game- style and the integrative –nonzero sum game- style. The latter is also known as the win / win style. It can be expectedthat Politicians as integrative negotiators are better able to align interests underlying themeanings that are involved in the innovation process. This is what Peter Block (1989), had inmind with ‘positive political skills at work’, which was also the subtitle of his book about theempowered manager. As we have already noticed this empowerment can best be achievedby transformational leadership. Therefore we might expect that transformational leaders areespecially effective inducing positive political skills in Politicians thereby empowering themin the innovation process. In contrary the transactional leader - by exercising only Exchangetactics – is expected to focus only on the distributive or exchange style of the Politicianthereby decreasing his empowerment. This can be a subject of future research.Role breadth self-efficacy.Another implication for theory of the Innovation Pantheon is concerned with theoreticalbackgrounds of transformational leadership theory. Most researchers make use of the MLQto conceptualize and measure this type of leadership and to distinguish it from transactionalleadership. However, relations between the factors of transformational leadership andcognitions of empowerment are not explicitly specified in these approaches. Relationsbetween inspirational leadership, coherence, self-regulation and innovation have beenspecified and empirically investigated using social cognitive theory (Hoving, 2000).In this study it could not be demonstrated that self-efficacy plays a role as an intermediarymechanism between inspirational leadership and innovative behaviour of followers.However self-efficacy is the cornerstone of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997). It hasalso been demonstrated that self-efficacy can explain why people show more perseverancein obtaining goals even when circumstances are difficult (Bandura and Wood, 1989), whichcertainly is not unimportant for difficult tasks such as the management of innovation.Therefore this concept should not be neglected. The fact that self-efficacy could not beempirically validated in the study of Hoving (2000) might be attributed to the generaldefinition of self-efficacy in this study. Recent research demonstrated that role breadth self-efficacy may be a better concept (Nauta, 2009; Den Hartog and Belschak, 2011, in press).The concept of role breadth self-efficacy therefore should be used in further research. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 17
  18. 18. The Innovation PantheonInspirational leadership, intermediary mechanisms and innovation.So far inspirational leadership, role breadth self-efficacy, cognitions of empowerment anddiversity of strategic roles emerged as key elements that can entail a new model forleadership and innovation and the management of innovation.Role breadth self-efficacy in the innovation process is a promising concept for furtherresearch. This type of research might also benefit from the operationalization of leadershipin the form of inspirational influence tactics. Then these tactics can also be compared totransformational and transactional leadership styles as concurrent predictors of innovation.The Innovation Pantheon demonstrates that better prediction of innovation may result fromtaking also strategic roles into account. In this way social factors complete cognitions ofempowerment in the explanation of innovation. This can be summarized in figure 3.Leader behaviour * Follower behaviour Results * Role Breadth Self-EfficacyInspirational Influence behaviour * Meaning Innovative behaviour * Influence * Diversity of Strategic RolesFig 3: Relations between leader behaviour, intermediary mechanisms in followers andinnovative behaviour.Figure 3 summarizes basic concepts and relations between leaders and followers that havebeen introduced so far. They are expected to play a key role in the management ofinnovation and provide directions for future research . Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 18
  19. 19. The Innovation PantheonDiversity of Strategic Roles and Role Breadth Self-Efficacy are new concepts in this modelthat may account for better prediction and explanation of innovative behaviour. It isremarkable that most, if not all, research in this field is correlational and cannotdemonstrate causal relationships while most models, also that depicted in fig. 3 do supposecausal relationships. Therefore future research should not only investigate correlationsbetween variables but also focus on causal relationships as has also been noticed byNederveen Pieterse et al. (2010).5.2. Implications for practiceAs the most important implications for management I will focus here on the special role ofApollo as Politician and the multilevel approach of innovation management. By a multilevelor holistic approach the innovation paradoxes can also be solved.Apollo’s role as PoliticianBy distinguishing Apollo’s role as Politician we come close to the concept of empowermentas described by Peter Block (1989). This implies that positive political skills will be at workwhen the Politician is involved in the innovation process. He/ she brings different partiestogether to find win/win solutions. However, they will not succeed if they all work under abureaucratic contract. Basically then is that all parties realize the necessity to adhere to theentrepreneurial contract. This requires that they all work according to the principles ofautonomous partnership, enlightened self-interest and authenticity (Block, 1989).Multilevel approach to innovation managementWith the help of the Innovation Pantheon a multilevel approach to the management ofinnovation is within reach of managers who have to lead the way to innovation. Being asJanus they can profit from the different contributions of Athena and Zeus. With the face ofKronos they can manage innovation in (chronological) time as Athena by the organisation ofinnovation projects that are supported by Zeus who provides the powerful innovation tools.On the other hand they can evoke Kairos with the help of Apollo and Dionysus to create areadiness to innovation. This implies the organization of Apollo’s strategic roles and theestablishment of an innovative culture that espouse the innovation values of Dionysus.Basically managers of innovation have to deal with the dualism that is inherent in theInnovation Pantheon. This confronts them with a new problem. When to show the face ofKairos and when will Kronos be preferred? It will certainly not be easy to be like Janus!In order to present an attractive management perspective I finally bring back to mind theparadoxes of Time, Control and Knowledge. To resolve these paradoxes the InnovationPantheon also comes on handy ( ). This will eventually also be conducive to act like Janus asa leader of innovation. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 19
  20. 20. The Innovation Pantheon5.3. Innovation Paradoxes resolved.In paragraph 2 (p. 5) a sneak preview was given of the way Zeus resolves the InnovationParadox of Knowledge by using De Bono’s operative method. This operative method can beused individually and in interaction. It is especially the interactive use of the operativemethod that creates knowledge of participants as a justified belief. By performing a PMI ofthe business situation participants in the innovation process who each might often holddifferent and at first sight incompatible views will come to a clear and collectiveunderstanding of the innovation need. As such Zeus helps to generate a justified belief of theinnovation need and by little dispute. So far the solution of the Knowledge Paradox on amicro level in the primary innovation process.The same may hold for the solution of this paradox on the macro level of scientific/academicinstitutions and companies. Remember the complaints about the lack of transfer ofknowledge that is supposed to be abundant available in academia to business. Thispresupposes knowledge as an objective entity that is stored and available in some place, aconcept in which object and subject are separated. This is the dominant concept ofknowledge in Western societies. The innovation paradox of Knowledge is resolved whenknowledge is conceived of as a justified belief that emerges from social interaction. Bybringing participants from institutions and companies together skilled interventionists asZeus are helpful by the introduction of operative methods to create (new) knowledge asjustified beliefs.The Innovation Pantheon also makes clear how the Paradox of Control can be resolved. Thisparadox is caused by the dominant exercise of external control that is contra-productive inthe management of innovation. External control is in the Pantheon replaced by self-controlof the innovation gods. By providing them Influence and Meaning they are empowered toinnovate. It is the new leadership of exercising Inspirational Influence that empowersparticipants in the innovation process. Self-control in the form of empowerment of followersreplaces external ‘control and command’ exercised by the leader. Inspirational leadershipmakes us all gods of innovation!Finally the Paradox of Time can be resolved by the Pantheon. When Janus shows his face asKronos innovation is organized along chronological time by Athena and Zeus. Innovation canthen be accomplished by the organization of innovation projects but these are timeconsuming, complex and risky. The failure rate can be high. Moreover Athena and Zeus makewar of innovation. This cannot be a permanent state in an organization!Therefore a readiness to innovation that can be organized by Apollo and Dionysus has to bepreferred and can be the epitome of innovation management. Unfortunately thisorganizational readiness to innovation might be as difficult to obtain as an organizationalculture. Here Athena and Zeus may come to the rescue by the organization of innovationprojects as learning projects. Then the failure rate of these projects merely is ’collateral Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 20
  21. 21. The Innovation Pantheondamage’ in a continuous learning process to create a readiness to innovation. This is in linewith Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) who consider new product development as the mostimportant process of organizational knowledge creation. To them organizational knowledgecreation is a derivative of new product development and they suggest an hypertext structureas a structural base for knowledge creation. The Innovation Pantheon shows characteristicsof such a hypertext organization. In this context it is symbolical that supportive roles arehidden in in the Pantheon. They are not visible in fig. 2. The Teacher, the Culture Managerand the Politician are the invisible hand of Janus. Then the Teacher will ensure that aninnovation project is a learning experience. Innovation values will be supported andexpressed by the Culture Manager. The Politician will build the plots that unite the partiesthat are necessary to seize the right moment to bring an idea into good currency. Forexample the Knowledge Manager, the Designer and the Planner can be urged by a Politicianto come together to transform a vision into a design for a new activity that is accompaniedby a proper business plan for its realization.This does not deny that new product development or innovation projects should deliverconcrete results. However, the most important contribution of an innovation project as alearning experience will be that it invites Apollo and Dionysus to manifest themselves.Therefore the training of a critical mass of the work force in innovation project managementin the perspective of the Innovation Pantheon can be a good policy to organize innovation.Considered this way Kairos beats Kronos but this is not a problem because both are thefaces of Janus, two sides of the same medal. We don’t have to bother about time andconsidered this way concrete results of innovation projects are side catch. Not unimportant,but side catch in a process that brings the organization in a state of readiness to innovation.Van de Ven et al. (2008) to some extend come to the same conclusion as a result of theirstudy of innovation projects over a period of nearly two decades in the MinnesotaInnovation Management Program. In their advice for innovation managers andentrepreneurs the authors conclude “to learn to go with the flow" keeping in mind thatwhile they can learn to manoeuvre through the innovation journey, they cannot control itsflow.In terms of the Innovation Pantheon this comes down to learn not only to be as Athena andZeus and manage innovation in chronological time but also -and more important - to be likeApollo and Dionysus to create an organizational readiness to innovation. This makes theinnovation paradox of time obsolete. Eventually the organization will always seize the rightmoment for innovation. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 21
  22. 22. The Innovation PantheonReferencesBandura (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Bandura, A. & Wood, R.E. (1989). Effects of perceived controllability and performance standards onself-regulation of complex decision making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,805-814.Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: The Free Press.Block, Peter (1989). The empowered manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas.Buijs, A. (1987). Innovatie en interventie. Inaugural address. Delft University.De Bono (1982). De Bono’s Thinking Course. London: BBC.Den Hartog, D.N. & Belschak, F.D. (2011). When does transformational leadership enhance employeeproactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of AppliedPsychology, in press.Gumusluoglu, Lale, & Ilsev, Arzu (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizationalinnovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 261 - 273.Hoving, H. (2000). Leiden met PIT. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht: Lemma.Hoving, H. (2001). Inspiring Effects of Metaphors. In: Fit for the future. Leo van Geffen, Han van derMeer & Tudor Rickards (eds.). Enschede: Twente University Press.Hoving, H. &, Plantinga, R. (2006). The 7 Laws Of Innovation. Rotterdam: Panta Rheyn.Kawasaki, G. (2004). The art of the start. Stanford Technology Ventures Program., Eric & Gebert, Diether (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: Thepromise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 94(1), 77-89.Koestler, A. (1978). Janus - A summing up. London : Hutchinson.Lissack, M.R. & Roos, J. (2001). Be coherent , not visionary. Long Range Planning, 34, 53-70.Mintzberg, H. (1976). Planning with the left side and managing with the right. Harvard BusinessReview , July- August , 54, 49-58.Mintzberg, Henry, Joseph Lampel, and Bruce Ahlstrand (2008). Strategy Safari: A Guided TourThrough The Wilds of Strategic Management. New York: Free Press. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 22
  23. 23. The Innovation PantheonReferences continuedNauta, A., Van Vianen, A., Van der Heijden, B., Van Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. (2009). Understandingthe factors that promote employability orientation: The impact of employability culture, careersatisfaction, and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,82, 233-251.Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press.Nederveen Pieterse, A. , Knippenberg, D.L. van, Schippers, M.C. , Stam, D.A. (2010). Transformationaland transactional leadership and innovative behaviour: The moderating role of psychologicalempowerment. Journal of Organizational Behaviour , volume 31, issue 4 pp. 609-623.Thomas, K.W., Velthouse, B.A. (1990), "Cognitive elements of empowerment: an interpretativemodel of intrinsic task motivation", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 pp. 666-681.Trott, P. (2008, 4th edition). Innovation management. Harlow: Prentice Hall.Van de Ven, A. H, Polley, D. , Garud, R. & Venkataraman, S. (2008). The innovation journey. OxfordUniversity Press.Van de Ven , A.H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science,332, 590-607. Panta Rheyn, Herman Hoving 23