Complacency implausible argument for Nokia’s slow-down

An interesting article in the International Herald Tribune dated 27/09/2010 explores the reasons why mobile phone leader Nokia slowed down, letting RIM’s Blackberry and Apple’s iPhone take the technology lead.

In this case as in many others, analysts are quick to put complacency at the top of the list:

Shoe-maker Nike innovates to reduce footprint

Nike’s Considered Design is an example of harnessing innovation to meet a strategic challenge at the confluence of 3 powerful streams: a societal demand for lower environment footprint, the consumer’s continuous expectations of higher performance at lower price, the never-ending race for supply chain cost-effectiveness. 

Having set the challenge, Nike identified 3 key areas to focus on to meet it: less waste, more environmentally-friendly materials, less solvent. In a classic case of rediscovering old ideas to address new challenges,

Metrics to drive effective innovation that investors can buy

According to yearly McKinsey surveys, innovation is one of the top-3 priorities for around two third of companies. It is a critical enabler of differentiation and growth. To create a sense of urgency, align individual performance contracts, and convincingly communicate with investors about innovation, companies need to assess the effectiveness of and return on their innovation investment.

A question I am often asked is: “sure, but what metrics can we actually use?”.

You do not grow a plant by pulling on it

The Work Foundation publishes the results of an interesting study: Exceeding Expectation: the principles of outstanding leadership. Amongst the differences that make the difference between good and great leadership, I picked this distinction: Delegate task v. Delegate space for autonomy

The distinction most definitely applies to innovation leadership. You do not grow a plant by instructing it to do so, or worse by pulling on it.