I never really believed the wisdom in the HBR articles that said innovation comes through the middle ranks of most organizations. I did not refute it either but maintained a certain level of skepticism. Then couple days ago while participating in a corporations strategy development session, I became obvious. The leaders exuded a passion for the future, it was visible but sadly the vision was stale. The mission was not much more than one that read like the nearest competitor's and worthy of not a whole lot more than being framed and placed in the hallways to to get anyone really excited about. What was most alarming was how generic the strategies for the next fiscal year ended-up being.
Strangely enough the strategies were being confused to opportunities.
The data supported the strategies but there were too broad, lacked prioritization, lacked measures associated (the idea was to revisit the strategies and assign measures at some point in the future). As a consultant I experience more than my fair share of such organizations. In my understanding the result is mediocrity in performance of the organization, mediocrity of the results and a constant need to change to improve on performance while focusing on the symptoms and not the root cause. The strangest thing is that leadership is unable to connect the dots and see the cause. Some how in many cases these same organizations will hit a home run but at most times when the ball reaches the ropes it is merely based on the middle managers and the executors who internalize the strategies into creative expression and innovative engagements with the consumer, the shopper and their ecology.
In closing I thought this quote by Peter Drucker sums it up!
"No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings." - Peter Drucker
