No abstract

This exploratory research uses in‐depth qualitative interviews to investigate how 11 exceptional innovators in the electronics industry initiated, created, and commercialized radical innovations in their firms. From the data, two initial frameworks emerged for how radical innovations were created by these individuals. Four themes emerged associated with what these innovators bring to the organization as an underpinning for being able to radically innovate. Additional themes emerged as to the process by which they innovate. Across the literatures of innovation, psychology, and management, creativity is discussed in terms of person, product, or process. This research samples on highly creative innovations (products) and finds that it appears that both person and process need to be considered in attaining radical innovation. One may not be able to consider separately the person who achieves radical innovation from the process he or she uses to achieve it. These exceptional innovators have specific personality characteristics that support radically creative behavior, supplemented by a perspective or worldview that focuses on having a business orientation yet also a somewhat idealistic attitude. They have prepared for innovation by studying deeply, within not just one primary technology topic but also a secondary or peripheral technology topic. In addition, they have prepared broadly, across technology, business, and markets. They are both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated to innovate. People communicating what problems are urgently important to them to be solved produce external motivation for the innovator, who is then intrinsically motivated to solve these people's problems by creating new products. In terms of how they innovate, these exceptional innovators are organizationally savvy and both understand and participate in the politics necessary to gain acceptance of and resources for their project. They use an innovation process that emphasizes the up‐front aspects of finding interesting problems, planning first before executing, and understanding customer needs in great detail. This allows them to generate insights into how to solve those problems profitably for the firm. Once they have obtained and validated their insights for solving the problem, they participate in the actual implementation of the concept to a commercialized product. However, this development aspect of innovating is not much spoken of, as if it is taken for granted. Finally, they actively disseminate knowledge and acceptance of the innovation postinvention.

A substantial body of literature addresses the motivation of technical professionals in large corporations. Included are considerations of the motivation of subgroups, such as contrasting the motivation of scientists and engineers. Notably absent, however, is an in-depth, multiple-perspective consideration of both the motivation and demotivation of the small number of individuals in nearly every corporation who contribute significantly and disproportionately to the growth and profitability of the corporation. These exceptional, highperforming technologists, whom we refer to as technical visionaries (TVs), are the drivers of breakthrough, radical innovation. Through 64 in-depth interviews with TVs, their direct technical managers (TMs) and their human resource managers (HRMs), this research explores the similarities and differences in perception between these three groups concerning TV motivation and demotivation. TMs predominantly apply informal, personalized, and relational management motivating techniques. HRMs predominantly perceive value in the formalized, standard corporate structures and reward systems that serve the 'typical employee' for motivating TVs. By comparing the perspectives of TVs, TMs, and HRMs, we observe that the TMs are in strong alignment with TV perspectives on motivation and demotivation, while the HRMs are not in alignment with TV perspectives. Interestingly, both TMs and HRMs emphasize techniques most readily available to them. Most notable relative to demotivating TVs, the HRMs are least able to articulate an understanding consistent with that of the TVs. Based on these and other observations, we offer recommendations for those who manage these critical and unique technical visionaries.R&D Management 42, 2, 2012.

No abstract

No abstract