Marlow and Matt are getting on fine with the team but look, there’s a few things missing here, essentials.

Tom Briggs walked back into the room and sank into a chair, still wheezing slightly after choking coffee down his windpipe. He gathered himself, came to some internal decision and sat upright.

“I’m responsible for talent management at Accipiter. I work for Marjie Thanos, the VP of Human Resources. We’ve determined that we need to increase employee engagement, and I was asked to head up a small team focused on innovation and employee engagement. The reason we called you, Mr. Marlow, is because we read a short piece you published on innovation and employee engagement.”

“So you’ve recognized that the cultural aspects of the organization may present challenges to innovation, and you believe by increasing employee engagement you may affect the culture and gain more innovation?”

“That’s our thought – it’s something we hoped to discuss with you today.”

I had to admit the goal was reasonable, even if the means were questionable. Most firms we’d worked with observed increases in employee engagement once innovation had been demonstrated as a successful initiative in the organization. At this point I wasn’t sure which was the cart, and which was the horse, or if it mattered which was out in front.

“So” I continued, “what’s the ultimate goal here. Is Accipiter seeking more innovation, or more employee engagement? Which is the driver?”

“Frankly” said Susan “that’s what we are trying to determine. Tom and I have different responsibilities but are working on projects that may overlap or intertwine. The outcomes of one of our projects may support or enable the other, or they may simply get in the way. Tom found your firm based on your white paper, and I asked to sit in on this meeting to understand what help you could provide from an innovation perspective.”

This topic was really more of Matt’s bailiwick than mine, and I could see him becoming more interested and involved in the conversation. Matt should have been a human resources guru – probably was one in a previous life. He simply loved the interplay about people, compensation and motivation. He joined the conversation at this point.

“What we’ve found in our innovation work at Marlow” he said “is that innovative firms often have very engaged employees, and a lack of engagement is often, but not always the case at less innovative firms. Engagement stems from excitement and strong belief in the firm, its products and its direction. Innovative firms are self-reinforcing – they create products and services that energize the employees, who then contribute more ideas and more of their time and energy into the business. These are definitely cultural attitudes, but they can’t be attained in a short time period. Again, our experience shows that it can take several years of innovation before the organization becomes fully engaged and you see the changes in the corporate culture that you are interested in.”

I winced at that last statement, ready to duck and cover. For most firms, 90 days is an eternity, Rome was built in a day and the earth itself was fully formed in no more than a year. To talk about a two or three year transition in most firms was to be laughed out of the room. I glanced first at Phillips, who was frowning and shifting in his seat. A pure Seven Schema guy, I suspected, looking for the “quick wins”. I made a note to ask him later how long his firm had been working on Seven Schema and how long it took to take root in the organization. Briggs, on the other hand, looked at peace – almost as if Matt had assuaged his fears. Johansen, on the other hand, simply darted glances between Phillips and Briggs, a little uncertain of the politics and power play underway.

Briggs broke the silence. “Matt, you’ve confirmed some of our thinking, in terms of engagement and the time my team believes it will take to adequately change the culture. Bill believes we need to step up our innovation efforts and achieve a more engaged workforce, however I’m not sure the board or the management team is on board yet for such a long implementation and deployment effort. What we’re going to need..”

“Are some quick wins.” I finished his statement. It’s one thing to see the movie, it’s another to star in the same production multiple times.

“Yes” Both Briggs and Phillips said simultaneously.

Phillips continued “We know, at the management team level, that we need to increase our growth rates and create new products on a more effective basis. We are at risk of losing our position in the market, versus Tynder and other firms. We need new products out in the market in the next few quarters. We want employee engagement, but we need a steady stream of new products to recapture our share and gain more visibility in the market.” He emphasized “want” and “need” to demonstrate which was the cart, and which was the horse, at least in his mind.

So, here is was, the classic confrontation of the dissonance of innovation. A firm needs change, needs new products and services immediately, needs to overhaul its corporate culture and needs to engage its employees in a new and meaningful way. It needs to quickly regain market share, do a much better job identifying customer needs and converting those needs into new products and services, and continue to meet aggressive quarterly projections. If I could solve all of these problems simultaneously, I wouldn’t be a rumpled, cranky innovation consultant with a fifth of Old Granddad in his hip pocket. No, I’d be in a hammock in the Caymans, swaying in the soft breezes with a pina colada in my hand.

“Ok” I said “we’re still waiting for Bill to join us. I’ve got a good picture from Fred, and Susan, and from you Tom, about the needs from an innovation perspective. What’s Bill going to tell us that we haven’t already heard?”

Phillips nodded at me and said “Right. Bill’s going to help us decide which of these initiatives is most important. We don’t have any money budgeted for this work and few people who could quickly tackle any one of these challenges. We need to understand his priorities and the investments he’s willing to make.”

Both Matt and I slunk a little lower in our chairs. The work sounded promising but there was no budget associated with the requirements, and staffing was certainly going to be a challenge. I had a card up my sleeve however, a real fire starter that I had brought along for just this objection.

“Did you read the business section of the Times today?” I asked, pulling it out of my briefcase.I pushed the newspaper down the table, and recapped the key story. Tynder had made a takeover bid for a small but fast growing UK firm that promised to chip away even more market share from Accipiter. If Tynder was successful, several of Accipter’s product lines which were already lagging would come under even further pressure.

Phillips grew fairly pale while reading the article and sat back, a man on the hot seat. Johansen seemed energized by the article, like an athlete in the zone just before an event.

Briggs said “Bill needs to see this.”

At that point, 45 minutes late, Bill Thompson entered.

About the author:

Jeffrey PhillipsJeffrey Phillips is VP Marketing and a lead consultant for OVO Innovation. Jeffrey has led innovation projects for Fortune 5000 firms, academic institutions and not-for=profits based on OVO Innovation’s Innovate on Purpose™ methodology. The Innovate on Purpose methodology encourages organizations to consider innovation as a sustainable, repeatable business process, rather than a discrete project.

Jeffrey is the author of “Make Us More Innovative,” a book that encompasses much of the OVO Innovation methodology, and blogs about innovation at Innovate On Purpose. He is a sought after speaker and has presented to corporations, innovation oriented conferences, and at a number of universities. In 2010 he chaired the Innovate North Carolina conference and was a keynote speaker at Queen’s University, University of the Pacific, UNC and several other colleges and conferences. Jeffrey has an MBA from the University of Texas at Austin and an undergraduate degree in engineering from the University of Virginia.