Motivating Technical Visionaries PDF

Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries in large corporations: a comparison of perspectives
John M. Hebda1, Bruce A. Vojak1, Abbie Grifn2 and Raymond L. Price1

1
College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1308 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801. john@johnhebda.com; bvojak@illinois.edu; price1@illinois.edu 2 David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, 1655 E. Campus Center Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112. abbie.grifn@business.utah.edu
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 signicantly and disproportionately to the growth and protability 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.
1. Motivating technical professionals
uch has been written regarding the various mechanisms companies can use to motivate technical professionals, the individuals who are the
source of innovation and thus future growth and protability, within the organization. Three broad categories of mechanisms for motivating these professionals appear in the literature (Hebda et al., 2007): (1) formal corporate structures; (2) corporate 101
R&D Management 42, 2, 2012. 2012 The Authors. R&D Management 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
John M. Hebda, Bruce A. Vojak, Abbie Grifn and Raymond L. Price incentives, rewards, and recognition; and (3) informal management techniques. Corporate structures are the written policies and procedures dictating the way a company is formally arranged or organized. Three main types of structures are cited as motivating technical professionals in rms: (1) dual ladders; (2) the so-called third career orientation (allowing individuals to bypass the dual ladder and move from one challenging project to the next); and (3) prestigious in-house technology societies (McKinnon, 1987; Allen and Katz, 1989; Shlaes, 1991; Brunner, 2001). These mechanisms provide technical professionals with position-based prestige and increased salaries while allowing them to remain in the technology domain, which means that implementing them increases technologist motivation. Corporate incentives, rewards, and recognition are the traditional focus of human resource staffs for motivating employees. Farris (2000) summarized the following broad categories of rewards used in rms: (1) salary; (2) individual nancial awards; (3) group nancial awards; (4) company professional awards and recognition (for example, awards for patents); and (5) promotions and formal career development processes. Corporate reward and recognition systems can either motivate or demotivate technologists, depending on how they are implemented. On the one hand, these systems are seen as being potentially powerful (Kerr and Slocum, Jr, 1987) and benecial for an organization (Westwood and Sekine, 1988; Chen et al., 1999) because they encourage technical contributors to innovate (Brunner, 2001). However, if the reward system is not properly implemented, demotivation and resentment are likely, and innovation can be hindered (Ellis and Honig-Haftel, 1992; Koning, 1993; Agarwal and Singh, 1998). The third category of motivational mechanisms, managerial methods, includes informal actions that are not part of formal company policy but are still implemented by individual managers or other corporate leaders to motivate individual technical professionals. Examples of these types of informal actions include providing better equipment, ofce space, or clerical support, assigning interesting, challenging or important problems, and providing greater freedom to technologists. Managers also are more motivating as individuals when they mentor and communicate effectively with their subordinates (Badawy, 1988). Effective personal management of technical personnel strongly inuences their motivation. The most effective reward systems for technical professionals consist of elements derived from each of the three motivating categories (Badawy, 1988). Previous research, however, has revealed that engineers and scientists respond differently to different 102
R&D Management 42, 2, 2012
types of motivators (Jauch, 1976; Badawy, 1988). For example, formal corporate structures, especially the prestigious in-house societies which grant members great freedom to explore problems of personal interest, have been found to be more useful in motivating scientists than engineers. While both groups can be motivated by the rewards and recognition systems, scientists are more motivated by mechanisms that allow them exposure outside of the rm, while engineers are more motivated by nancial rewards from the rm for their achievements. Engineers are motivated by more challenging assignments, while scientists are motivated by greater technical freedom. Both are motivated when managers provide them with increased resources to do their jobs (Badawy, 1988). Finally, scientists intrinsic motivation is greater when they have more effective information exchange relationships with their managers (Graen et al., 1982). Clearly, not all technical professionals are motivated by the same things, and management and the human resources function generally have recognized this, implementing different mechanisms to motivate different populations. Unfortunately, the research to date has focused only on motivational differences between different types of technologists, such as engineers versus scientists. To date, very little in the literature addresses whether truly exceptional technologists are motivated differently than the average employee, or whether technical and human resource managers understand how they are motivated. This research addresses this gap in the literature by investigating how technical visionaries say they are motivated and demotivated, compared to what their technical managers and human resource managers say motivates and demotivates them.
2. Innovation in large, mature rms

Innovation and new product development in large, mature rms occur through either incremental innovation or breakthrough, radical innovation. Incremental innovation, which improves the performance of current products along predictable trajectories and requires little, if any, technical invention, constitutes 70%80% of most large rms innovation portfolios (Barczak et al., 2009). It typically uses formal, Stage-Gate (Ancaster, ON, Canada) type processes (Cooper, 2001). While crucial to maintain and support the current business as technologies evolve and competitors improve their products, incremental innovation does not grow the rm substantively.
2012 The Authors R&D Management 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries In contrast, signicant, organic corporate growth occurs through creating and commercializing breakthrough, radical innovations. Liefer et al. (2000) dene these as products that (1) move the rm into new white space by providing an entirely new set of performance features, (2) offer at least a vefold increase in performance in a current feature, or (3) enable a decreased cost to produce of at least 30%. Although these may constitute only 20%30% of a rms product portfolio, they represent the growth engine of the rm. Formal Stage-Gate processes do not generate breakthrough new products (Liefer et al., 2000). Breakthrough innovations are generated by one of two pathways: technology push or innovator driven. In technology push projects, R&D scientists and engineers are tasked with inventing a new technology (Liefer et al., 2000). Typically, however, these researchers are not responsible for moving the technology to product application or commercialization once invented. That is done by others in the organization, such as champions and project managers, requiring a hand-off of the project (Grifn et al., 2009). Because of the disconnect between the inventor and the marketplace in technology push projects, it frequently is difcult to nd a product application large enough in revenue potential to offset the research expense (Liefer et al., 2000). Additionally, it is difcult to nd a champion who can move the technology into application and commercialization these projects frequently do not make it through the valley of death (Barr et al., 2009). As a result, many inventions of the technology-push pathway do not result in commercialized products that create signicant nancial return for the rm (Liefer et al., 2000). The second process for commercializing breakthrough innovation is an innovator-driven process (Grifn et al., 2012). In this paradigm, a small subset of very exceptional technical professionals is instrumental in developing and commercializing the breakthrough innovations that drive future rm growth and prots. These exceptional technical individuals, whom we term technical visionaries (TVs), act differently than the vast majority of technical professionals (Maloney, 2003; Perlov, 2004; Vojak et al., 2006; Grifn et al., 2009). TVs do not start from inventing a new technology. They start from understanding the needs and problems of an important set of potential customers, for which if a solution is found, a signicant revenue stream will result. In other words, they start from the application, trying to nd a solution for an interesting problem, rather than starting from the technology, as with the technology-push pathway. Only once they have
developed an in-depth understanding of customer needs do TVs invent in order to solve those problems. They then personally go on to champion and facilitate projects through the implementation process. TVs do not hand off the project to someone else after invention, but also go on to lead the development and commercialization efforts.
3. Motivating technical visionaries

Because of their difference in orientation from other technologists, TVs are motivated somewhat differently than the groups of technical professionals previously studied (Hebda et al., 2007). In our earlier research on TV motivation, we found that, in addition to the three types of motivators found in the literature on motivating technical professionals, two other types of motivators are also important: intrinsic motivation and the rms culture. First and foremost, TVs are intrinsically motivated driven internally to be highly creative and innovative because they want to see their ideas become a reality (Hebda et al., 2007). Seeing the breakthrough products they have created in the hands of customers and solving their problems drives their desire to repeat the effort. Thus, while scientists are committed to creating new knowledge and are professionally oriented, and engineers primarily prefer to apply current knowledge and are organizationally oriented (Jauch, 1976; Badawy, 1988), TVs may be thought of as being outcomes-oriented in both creating and applying new knowledge. They follow the Thomas Edison philosophy of I dont want to invent anything that somebody doesnt want to buy. Three aspects of culture are very important to TVs. They nd a culture that supports innovation motivating. They would nd working at 3M stimulating but not working at GM. Second, they nd a team atmosphere motivating, which strongly differentiates them from scientists. Finally, they nd having a critical mass of other creative individuals around them motivating. This is why they work in large companies, rather than in start-ups. In terms of the three types of motivators from the literature, for TVs, informal managerial actions are twice as important as formal rewards and recognition, and seven times more important than the organizational structures put in place to specically motivate technical professionals (Hebda et al., 2007). The formal motivating structures put in place by the human resource function are insignicant compared to what their managers do to motivate TVs.
103
John M. Hebda, Bruce A. Vojak, Abbie Grifn and Raymond L. Price

Table 1. Types of incentives for researchers (adapted from Badawy, 1988; Jauch, 1976 and Hebda et al., 2007) Supporting engineer motivation (organizationally oriented) Intrinsic motivation Apply knowledge Corporate structures Dual ladder Corporate rewards and recognition Merit salary increases Promotions within career ladder Stock options Prot sharing Rewards for suggestions Rewards or royalties for patents Special recognition and/or monetary reward for superior performance Managerial actions Increased challenge in job assignment Increased technical/clerical support Improved ofce space Supporting scientist motivation (professionally oriented) Intrinsic motivation Create knowledge Corporate structures Prestigious professional societies Third career orientation Corporate rewards and recognition Paid transportation to professional meetings Dues paid in professional organizations Tuition or other educational aid Encouragement to publish Participation in company seminars Managerial actions Greater freedom to come and go Better technical equipment Sabbatical leave for education Time off for professional meetings Supporting technical visionary motivation (outcomes oriented) Intrinsic motivation See ideas become a commercial reality Corporate structures Dual ladder Corporate rewards and recognition Innovation awards Patent awards Merit salary increases Peer recognition
Managerial actions Increased resources Time freedom Provide challenges Connect to customers Connect to business strategy Interest and appreciation, listening Accept failure Company culture Innovation support Team atmosphere Critical mass of creative people
Given their role in breakthrough, radical innovation and their ability to identify potential breakthrough opportunities, studying what motivates and demotivates TVs, to innovate is important. The research to date has found that motivating them is in fact different than motivating either scientists or engineers in general. Table 1 summarizes the more important aspects of those differences. Even more important, however, is determining whether TV managers and human resource managers understand how to motivate (and not demotivate) them, as they have learned to distinguish between how to most appropriately motivate scientists versus engineers. This research builds upon our prior study on motivating TVs in large corporations (Hebda et al., 2007) by comparing the motivational perspective of the TVs to that of their direct, technical managers (TMs), and to their human resource managers (HRMs). Additionally, this study addresses what TVs say 104
demotivates them and compares this to what TMs and HRMs believe lead to TV demotivation.
4. Methodology 4.1. Sample

The respondents for this study consisted of individuals in three different roles from 17 large, mature US-based technology-dependent corporations. All organizations were technology-driven companies with over $1.5 billion in annual revenue; they rely on continued innovation and technology advancement for long-term success. Table 2 lists the industries represented in the sample (as classied by http:// www.hoovers.com). Each triad of individuals consisted of at least one TV, one TM who has directly supervised the TV, and
Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries

Table 2. Industries represented by interview sample Aerospace and defense Automotive and transport Chemicals Computer hardware Computer services Consumer products manufacturers Electronics Industrial manufacturing Medical equipment Telecommunications equipment
their current organization was 18 years, with 13 having tenure of 20 or more. All had technical degrees and started their careers on the technical side of the business.
4.2. Field implementation

The in-depth interviews used a modied version of the voice of the customer methodology (Grifn and Hauser, 1993), which has shown that 20 interviews elicit between 90% and 95% of the full set of statements about a particular topic, while 25 interviews elicit over 95% of the full set. The Appendix contains an abbreviated version of the TV interview guide. All informants were interviewed either in person or by telephone by the rst two authors who had developed the research questions and interview guide, and so were intimately familiar with the purpose of the study. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, with the TV interviews tending to be longer, and the HRM interviews shorter. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed by a professional transcription service.
one HRM from their business unit. To nd these triads of individuals, persons with corporate liaison relationships with the college of engineering of a large US midwestern university were rst contacted, and a snowballing technique (Goodman, 1961; Welch, 1975) was used to nd appropriate individuals within the organization. We dened TVs to the corporate contacts as technologists who were involved intimately in a project, from its inception to its nish, that represented a signicant technical breakthrough (radical innovation), which successfully came to market, signicantly changed life by solving problems for individuals or rms that had not previously been solved, and brought in signicant revenue and prot to the rm. Revenues generated by these innovations typically were well above $100 million. An example of this type of innovation is the Always Ultra feminine hygiene pad (Cincinnati, OH, USA), whose thinness and design (made possible by revolutionary materials) made womens lives much more comfortable compared to the previous brick-like pad, and which has provided millions of dollars of prot to P&G (Grifn et al., 2012). We indicated that the technologists needed to be involved in the innovating itself, in moving the innovation along the path forward that the product took to market, and in helping overcome political adversity within their organization. Once an individual was identied as a TV by the corporate liaison, we conducted a preliminary interview to ensure that the innovation met the breakthrough criteria and that they were primarily responsible for the invention and its development and commercialization. Most TVs identied had been involved in multiple such breakthrough innovation projects. TVs then provided us with the names of their technical managers and HRMs. In total, we completed 64 interviews (24 TVs, reporting to 22 TMs, and 18 associated HRMs). The average amount of time that each TV had spent at
4.3. Data coding and analysis

Initial coding by the lead author was performed to identify all possible phrasings that might be motivators or demotivators. As informants were asked rst about motivators and then about demotivators, all responses rst were split into these two, high-level groups, and coding tags were added to each individual statement. Additional tags for the three general categories of motivators and demotivators identied in the literature (organizational structures, rewards and recognition, and TM actions) were added to each item. A large number of statements did not t into the three general categories and were retained for analysis without category tags. Initial coding thus resulted in a rough sorting of statements into eight general categories: for both the motivators and demotivators, the formal organizational structures; rewards and recognition; TM actions; and other. All statements were printed out on 3 by 5 cards, with the initial coding tags. Initial coding was followed by a team-based coding and analysis process. The purpose of this process was to ensure that the initial categorization of the statements was correct, identify themes and subthemes across the data, and to bring additional structure to the individual statements. Three professors and three graduate students used the KJ-Method of qualitative cluster analysis to create rst an afnity diagram, and then a tree chart of the coded data containing all of the motivators (Kawakita, 1982;
105
John M. Hebda, Bruce A. Vojak, Abbie Grifn and Raymond L. Price Spool, 2004). Rather than each coder individually categorizing the statements into preselected themes in a top-down coding procedure, and then checking for inter-rater reliabilities and resolving discrepancies, the KJ-Method is a bottom-up, team-based approach to creating categories and nding themes and subthemes from the specics of the data. In creating the bottom-up structure, the team started with the three top-level sets of categories identied in prior literature plus the other category for selfstated TV motivators. Starting with the statements initially coded as company structures, one team member read aloud an individual statement. This statement was placed on a table. After the next statement was read aloud, the group decided whether it was similar to the rst one or represented a slightly different (in some way) theme. If similar, it was placed near the rst. If not, a new grouping was started. All placements were made by full group consensus, with discussion among the participants resolving any initial discrepancies. When the statement was deemed to not be a company structure but belonged to one of the other categories, it was placed with those statements for later categorization. The team proceeded with this process until all statements initially coded as company structures had been grouped into subthemes. The team created high-level category names for the subthemes and then repeated the process within each high-level category, at times creating another layer of subgroups. This process was then repeated for the other three categories of motivators and then for the four demotivator categories. Ultimately, the statements labeled other became the two categories of Intrinsic Motivation and Company Culture. After structuring the TV data, the team repeated the process for the TM and HRM statements. reviewing the ndings and interpreting the results. First, we interviewed only TVs and did not interview less creative or noninitiating scientists and engineers who Badawy (1988) refers to as assistants and problem solvers, respectively. Instead, for our comparisons, we relied on the extant literature for comparing TVs to the more average technologist. Second, the snowballing technique we used to nd our TVs has inherent limitations, because it depends upon the research teams social networks. Thus, certain industries, such as pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, and software were not included in the sample. Whether these ndings thus apply to them is unknown. Additionally, we are only concerned with TVs in large, mature rms. Thus, our ndings likely do not apply to entrepreneurial individuals basing their start-up rms on a breakthrough innovation. Finally, we used a xed protocol, which asked about motivators within each category, and then asked about demotivators. This consistent ordering may have produced bias in the types of demotivators respondents articulated. With these limitations in mind, we next present our results.
5. Results 5.1. Summary

The TV, TM, and HRM triads identied a total of 599 TV motivators in ve categories, as shown in Table 3. As noted above, in addition to being motivated by awards and recognition systems, informal managerial actions, and company structures, TVs are inherently intrinsically motivated to create breakthrough innovations and also are motivated by various cultural aspects of the rm. The full sets of motivator categories identied by each group are shown separately in Figures 13. The rst number in the parentheses in each box indicates how many times that subcategory of motivators was mentioned by the population.
4.4. Limitations of the research method

As with all research, the methods we employed have limitations which must be taken into account when
Table 3. Distribution of motivators across categories Motivator mentions per person Technical visionaries TV-% of total Technical managers TM-% of total HR managers HR-% of total Awards, rewards, recognition 2.5 28 3.8 38 3.9 42 Things managers can do 2.2 25 3.5 35 2.8 30
Company structure 1.0 11 1.6 16 1.7 18
Intrinsic motivation 1.4 16 0.4 4 0.2 2
Company culture 1.6 19 0.8 8 0.8 8
Total
Ave. per person 8.7 10.1 9.4
208 100 222 100 169 100
106
TV MOTIVATORS
Intrinsic Motivation
Things Managers Can Do
Company Structure
Company Culture
Awards, Rewards, Recognition
See idea become reality (13,3)
Customer feedback (5,0)
Time (15,9)
Interest and appreciation (8,4)
Dual ladder (8,2)
Culture that supports innovation (10,1) Product teams / team atmosphere (7,1) Critical mass of creative people (6,0) Informal interaction with interesting people (5,2)
Patent awards (11,3)
Money (9,4)
Peer recognition (6,3)
Task itself (8,2) Internal (to company) motivators
Publications (4,0)
General resources (9,5) Freedom, flexibility, resources
Provide challenge (6,2)
Fellow program (6,1)
Innovation awards (13,3) Formal awards and recognition
Spontaneous bonus or incentive (4,1) Performance evaluation (4,0)
Informal awards (5,0)
Trade Seminars (3,0)
Listening (4,3)
Organizational structure (5,2)
General recognition (3,1) Informal rewards and recognition
Outside peer interaction (1,0) External (to company) motivators
Acceptance of failure (4,1)
Formal identification as a technical visionary (3,1)
Options (4,0)
Mentoring (3,0)
Leadership (2,3)
Group of elected technical leaders (1,0)
Money, incentives, performance grading
Training (4,1)
Inclusion (2,1)
Formal interaction with interesting people (4,0)
KEY ___________________ <MOTIVATOR> (#1,#2) <MOTIVATOR> - Displays the title of the motivator #1 Indicates the number of separate times this motivator was mentioned #2 Indicates the number of separate times this motivator was denoted as Best or Most Effective
Interpersonal management skills
Having a sense of belonging to something larger than yourself (3,1)
Figure 1. Complete set of motivators technical visionaries.
All respondents also were asked to identify the mechanisms that they believed were the best or most effective TV motivators within each category, as shown in Table 4. The second number in the parentheses in each box in the Figures indicates how many times that subcategory of motivators was cited as being the best or most effective in motivating TVs. The respondents identied a total of 257 TV demotivators, which fell into the six categories of Table 5. Four categories were identical to those that emerged as motivators: awards, rewards and recognition; things managers do (poorly); company structure; and company culture. While motivational when implemented well, items in these groups also can demotivate TVs if they are not executed correctly. Aspects of the development process also can demotivate TVs, for example when there is no formal process, as can just the external economic environment, which may limit the funds available for innovation. The full lists of TV demotivator categories identied by each group are shown separately in Figures 46, with the
numbers in parentheses indicating how many times each was voiced.
5.2. Different perspectives on motivating technical visionaries

We nd signicant differences in both the saliency and importance of different categories of perceived motivators as well as the content of those categories across TVs, TMs, and HRMs. Overall, we see that (a) the TMs perceptions of TV motivators are more similar the TVs perceptions of TV motivators than (b) the HRMs perceptions of TV motivators are to the TVs perceptions of TV motivators. Of the three groups, TVs were the least expressive about what motivates them. However, their responses across the ve categories were more balanced than the other two groups. The formal HR-implemented motivators (awards, rewards and recognition, and company structures) accounted for only 39% of the motivators they mentioned, the lowest percentage of all three groups. Importantly, over one third of the
107
TM PERCEPTIONS OF TV MOTIVATORS
Company Structure
Company Culture
Self-motivation (8,3)
Removal of obstacles (9,3)
Support / encouragement (8,7)
Challenging projects (13,8)
Dual ladder (13,6) Separate innovation group (9,5)
Follow ideas to product fruition (8,3)
Internal formal recognition (11,3) External recognition (8,0) General recognition / company philosophy on recognition (7,4) Peer recognition (6,0) Internal informal recognition (4,1) Recognition
Innovation awards (18,6)
Merit process (promotion / bonus) (8,1)
Money (8,5)
Listen (6,3)
Peer support / interaction (9,4) Customer interaction (4,0) Other things managers can do
Company culture (6,2)
Patent awards (13,0)
Options (5,1)
Sponsorship (5,2)
Get out to TVs (5,2) Interpersonal management skills
Structure (4,3)
Upper level visibility (3,0)
Small awards (2,0)
Small monetary rewards (2,0) Rewards
Other resources (5,1) Time inside organization (4,2)
Awards
Lack of structure (4,1)
Time outside organization (2,0) Freedom, flexibility, resources
Figure 2. Complete set of motivators technical managers.
motivating mechanisms mentioned by TVs belonged in the Intrinsic and Company Culture categories, compared to only 10%12% residing in these categories for the TVs and TMs. TVs are intrinsically motivated to innovate and see their ideas become reality. Even though respondents were not specically asked about intrinsic motivation, all 24 TVs spontaneously talked about their intrinsic motivation to tackle tough technical problems and come up with commercializable products that solve customer problems and generate prot. I am deeply motivated to get products into the eld. (TV3) While all of the TVs talk about the importance of their intrinsic motivation in being able to do the hard work to create breakthrough innovations, and TMs generally understand this, only one sixth of the HRMs (three out of 18) mention it. While the most insightful HRM (8) acknowledged: I view motivation of technical visionaries as not something that you can readily do. The best you could do is create an environment whereby the motivation can be self-driven. 108
None of them indicated that a most effective motivator was just the TVs own intrinsic motivation. TVs cited several aspects of culture as supporting motivation. For example, Small company culture in a big company atmosphere. (TV5) The philosophy of the organization is to build by commercializing innovations. (TV17) Overall, TVs are motivated by a culture that supports innovation and creativity, provides a critical mass of creative people to work with, and provides a team atmosphere where they can interact with other creative and interesting people. The most important and effective motivating factor for TVs (see Table 4) is how they are managed, being mentioned twice as frequently as awards, rewards and recognition, and four to six times more frequently than company structure or culture. The best managers are those who shield their people from the bureaucracy. They do the paperwork, they view themselves as enabling, rather than as the next rung on the career or
HRM PERCEPTION OF TV MOTIVATORS
Company Structure
Company Culture
Self-motivation (3,0)
Give TV time (5,3)
Show interest (7,1)
Customer interaction (8,3) Peer support and interaction (8,2)
Dual ladder (10,3)
Culture (7,5)
Patent awards (9,4)
Performance management (9,5)
Informal recognition (general) (11,9)
Give TV resources (3,2)
Communication (5,3) Interpersonal management skills
Focused product / project structure (7,4)
Firm reputation (4,1)
Innovation award (9,0) Awards
Money (8,2) Formal recognition within company (4,3)
Remove barriers (3,3) Freedom, flexibility, resources
Challenging projects (6,6)
Follow ideas to product fruition (3,3)
Stock options (5,1)
Development opportunities (6,2) Other things managers can do
Separate innovation group (5,1)
Bonus (4,0)
Management recognition (4,0) Opportunity for TV to present work (3,0) Recognition
Promotion (3,0) Company website (2,0) Variety of rewards / total package (2,1) Rewards
Figure 3. Complete set of motivators human resource managers.
Table 4. Distribution of best or most effective motivators across categories Best or most effective motivators per person Technical visionaries TV-% of total Technical managers TM-% of total HR managers HR-% of total Awards, rewards, recognition 0.6 25 0.7 21 1.4 36 Things managers can do 1.2 47 1.7 49 1.4 36 Company structure 0.3 10 0.7 20 0.6 14 Intrinsic motivation 0.2 8 0.1 4 0.0 0 Company culture 0.3 10 0.2 7 0.5 13 Total Ave. per person 2.5 3.5 3.8
60 100 76 100 69 100
just as administrators. If they view themselves as the grease on the skids, they enable innovation. (TV13) Placing a TV with a TM who understands how to support, protect, challenge, and interact with them is perhaps the single most important key to keeping TVs motivated over time. Nearly, all TVs mentioned that some of the formal HR mechanisms are, indeed, motivating. First, they acknowledged that some organizational
structures and career path elements that allow them to continue in their innovation efforts over time, including a dual ladder and a fellows program can be motivating: The purpose of the systems like this fundamentally is to keep really good scientists and engineers from having to make a career change to become a manager . . . These create an alternative for people such that they didnt suffer either in terms of compensation or title. (TV6)
109
John M. Hebda, Bruce A. Vojak, Abbie Grifn and Raymond L. Price Then, TVs also felt that receiving formal awards, rewards and recognition, especially nancial rewards, for their ideas and achievements can be motivating. However, as TV10 said: Rewards have to be competitive. However, . . . it is much more than just compensation that will keep me in my job. Perhaps the best way to think of these motivators is that they are salient in retrospect and help sustain intrinsic motivation but likely are not the primary reasons that TVs motivate. Overall, TMs were the most expressive in terms of citing the variety of mechanisms that motivate TVs, mentioning over 10 categories per person. TMs talk about motivating TVs as being a personalized combination of formal and informal structures and rewards: What technical visionaries want more than anything else, they want the public recognition that their ideas have really inuenced the product, inuenced the business. So whether that comes through the master inventor program, or through the salary or the technical award or the corporate technical recognition of them, what a visionary wants is to be identied as the person whose idea culminated in a successful product. (TM10) Its important that we nd a balance between a structured program, and a more intimate oneon-one program. (TM6) Individual recognition by the boss and recognition in front of their peers is the most effective. The monetary awards are great, but theyre transient. I think your individual reputation amongst your team and obvious support and recognition from your boss are the most powerful. (TM3) Across the categories, TMs mentioned awards, rewards, and recognition most frequently, followed by things that they themselves can do, with the company structure being less salient. Just like TVs, TMs believe that the most effective means they have to motivate TVs is through their own actions, being more than twice as effective as rewards and recognition and eight times more effective than company culture. Interestingly, TMs have some control over rewards and recognition (they are nominators for at least some of these rewards) and even more control over their own actions but very little control over company structure. Although TMs more frequently note the importance of TV motivators under their control, they clearly think of motivating TVs as a system of actions. 110
While both TVs and TMs noted the importance of TM actions, it was for slightly different reasons. TVs valued TMs for the time and resources they could provide as well as their ability to shield them from the rest of the corporation. TMs felt that in addition to resources, encouraging and challenging the TVs was similarly motivating; something not emphasized by the TVs. Recognizing that these TMs are likely to be better at managing these high-impact individuals than the average manager, perhaps this difference means that these managers have developed such subtle ways of encouraging and challenging TVs that the TVs do not see it as manipulative, but just part of the way in which they are managed. TVs and TMs were nearly identical in terms of the balance of what was identied as the most effective motivators across the categories of motivators, with managers actions the most frequently cited, followed by awards, rewards, and recognition. The one difference is that managers mentioned that company structure was much more effective in motivating TVs more frequently than the TVs report that it is. This overall similarity in their perceptions of effectiveness is not unexpected, as these TMs are likely effective managers of TVs, since the TVs are predominantly still working for these managers, and some have worked for them for a long time. If a TM does not know how to manage and motivate a TV, the TV typically moves to a new manager who did understand how they were motivated. Overall, therefore, there is high congruence between what TVs indicate they are motivated by, and how experienced managers actually motivate them. From these data, TMs of TVs understand that they need to use many motivators and use them as a personalized system to sustain the TV motivation. On the other hand, as a set, the HRM interviews are rather disturbing. Even though the interviewers dened what was meant by a Technical Visionary at the outset of the interview, specically named at least one person in the HRMs organization who fullled that role, and explicitly repeatedly referred to motivators and demotivators as they were salient to TVs in the questions they asked, the HRMs kept responding with their perceptions of motivators for the average, or for the good employee, rather than for the truly exceptional. For example, HRM19 states early in the interview: You know, the TVs that I have experienced at my company are rarely demotivated. I mean, they can get frustrated, but the ones Ive known, they just keep at it. Its in their blood HRM19 is one of only three (out of 18) HRMs in our sample who understands that TVs are intrinsically
Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries motivated. However, a few questions later, when asked what the best rewards and recognition are, he responds: . . . we have a performance ranking system. . . . that goes 1,2,3 . . . 1 is you exceed expectations on a regular, continuous basis. . . . I would say for technical visionaries, for people who are really strong performers, one of the best motivators is by giving them a rank of 1 . . . Only 20% of our employees should be in that rank 1. (HRM19) This HRM clearly regressed to expressing how to motivate the good, the top 20%, rather than the truly exceptional, the one in 50 to one in 200 that are in fact TVs (Vojak et al., 2006). Indeed, only two HRMs (8 and 18) predominantly addressed only the needs of truly exceptional technical contributors TVs during the interview. This is a major (negative) nding of this research: there is little evidence that the HR function or HR managers understand the need to address the special needs and motivations of exceptional performers differently from the general or good technical employee. Some do not even realize that these exceptional performers have the potential to bring signicant revenue and prot to the rm: Id have to say that . . . broad-based innovation and motivation of innovation is probably more important to a company than the one, two, or three superior ones. (HRM20) Thus, to HRM20, the most effective rewards for motivating innovation are the quarterly recognition of patent achievements. In this rm, rewards are based solely on patent quantity, not quality. Unfortunately, as incremental patents are likely easier and faster to create than patents for breakthrough inventions, this policy is unlikely to lead to breakthrough products. The TMs, on the other hand, generally were adept at differentiating between the motivational needs of TVs versus other employees: We also have a variable pay program which is pervasive throughout the company. I dont think thats particularly unique in motivating visionaries, thats been kind of a general employee motivator, but to me, I dont see the visionaries being all that taken by it. (TM10) There also is evidence that TMs understand that the HR function does not understand how to motivate TVs. For example, when asked what the worst
structure the company ever implemented in trying to motivate TVs was, TM13 responded: Most of those are generated in the HR community. These folks look at HR magazines . . . We tried to implement the ABC performance management process . . . That instilled a lot of non-teamwork attitudes among people. Believing that HR does not know how to motivate TVs may inuence their perception that the onus of motivating thus falls on them, as managers of the TVs. In general, there is little agreement between TVs and HRMs on what is motivating. First, TVs felt that awards, rewards, and recognition were able to help support and sustain motivation, but HRMs instead viewed these as one of the most instrumental motivators for TVs, as these comprised 42% of their total TV motivator mentions and 36% of the most effective TV motivators, equaling their perceived effectiveness of managerial actions. HRMs referenced awards, rewards, and recognition twice as frequently as TVs. Looking at the specic statements from each group, the TVs viewed motivation as more effective when it was individualized and personalized, and spread across many different formal and informal mechanisms, while the HRMs felt that institutional rewards, such as innovation awards and patents awards, were the most effective way to motivate TVs. An important nding of our work, then, is that HRMs do not seem to differentiate between motivating TVs and the average technical contributor.
5.3. Demotivating technical visionaries

Youre not going to make innovators . . . but you can kill them. You can stie them. (TV2) Just as rewards and incentives, TM actions and company structures and cultures can have a signicant positive motivation for TVs, they can have a negative impact as well. These four groups comprised 73% of all demotivator mentions by TVs. Just as awards such as money can help sustain a TVs motivation, they can be demotivators, as well, if not executed properly. I get [stock] options every year . . . While other people I talk to [do] too, theyre doing pretty mundane jobs and they get options every year also. Theres not a big differentiation. Sometimes its actually more of a de-motivation when you see what you think is a marginal person getting options. (TV19)
111

Table 5. Distribution of demotivators across categories Demotivator mentions per person Technical visionaries TV-% of total Technical managers TM-% of total HR managers HR-% of total Awards, rewards, recognition 0.8 20 0.7 16 0.8 26 Poor management 1.0 25 1.8 38 1.1 35 Company structure 0.8 21 1.1 24 0.6 19 Company culture 0.5 13 0.3 7 0.4 14 Process External (to company) 0.1 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 Total Ave. per person 4.0 4.7 3.2
0.8 19 0.7 16 0.2 5
97 100 103 100 57 100
TV DEMOTIVATORS
Poor Management
Company Structure
Company Culture
Process
External (to company)
Lack of openended time for visionaries (7)
Bureaucracy (9)
Company culture (7)
Promotion limitations (4)
No process (4)
Business / economic environment (3)
Dictator manager (5)
Organizational changes that did not work (6)
Poor metrics / company vision (3)
Rewarding the wrong people (4)
Thrown into administrative role (4)
Unsupportive manager (5)
Poor structures (5)
Short-term focus (3)
Rewarding the wrong thing (3)
Bad customers (4)
Meddling manager (4) Reward is too small (3) Manager that dismisses ideas (3)
Bad process (3)
Rewarding everyone the same (3) Taking away previous awards (2)
Not being able to follow product to market (2)
Bad vendors (1)
Figure 4. Complete set of demotivators technical visionaries.
TVs felt insulted when others were given awards they did not deserve, or when the company gave a very small award for a very large innovation or success. I was doing some very large work on a separate program and I got a $50 gift certicate after four months of hard work, which is not overly signicant. I gave it to my wife and let her gure out how to use it. (TV19) 112
While the literature focuses on macro-organizational aspects that motivate individuals (overall structures, reward systems), this research nds that there also are many micro-level aspects of the rm that can demotivate. For example, bad managers quickly demotivate TVs, ironically motivating them to nd a new boss within the company or even leading to their seeking a new job outside the rm. From TV22:
TM PERCEPTION OF TV DEMOTIVATORS
Poor Management
Company Structure
Company Culture
Process
Lack of funding (7)
Bureaucracy (7)
Short-term focus (7)
Reward the wrong people (7) Performance management (5) Short-term rewards dont match longterm goals (4)
Unfortunate decisions that must be made (6)
Too many constraints (6)
Poor structures (6)
Complexities of process (5)
Lack of resources (6)
Dual ladder (4)
Quotas on innovation process (3) Innovation process standards (1) Innovation process is lengthy (1)
Intimidation / criticism (5)
Structures promote competition (3)
Routine tasks (5)
Audit controls (3)
Meddling manager (4)
Physical environment (2)
Innovation on demand (3)
Too much / too little (3)
Figure 5. Complete set of demotivators technical managers.
The dictator manager. The one that wants to tell you whats wrong with your idea and tell you how to make it better. Or the one that wants to tell you how to go do it . . . That can be very demotivating. Managers that make rash decisions, that dont hear you out completely, that tend to mandate things as opposed to empower people . . . More worried about style than substance. (TV22) The know-it-all boss who says, Just do this. One of the most demotivating things is the boss who thinks he knows it all, is just very selfcentered. (TV11) As many things as a manager can do to support TV motivation, there are just as many ways in which their management of them can quickly demotivate them.
Organizational structures and culture also can be demotivating, such as structures that do not differentiate between the top 10%20% (demotivating) versus those that can carve out unique positions for the top one or two exceptional performers in an organization. Other structural demotivators include: This requirement that you need to have your time in research charged to . . . some sort of direct project . . . That puts a limit on your ability to explore the ideas, the space of ideas, the world of ideas . . . A bureaucratic structure can act as a demotivator. (TV4) Organizational change. I gure out how to get funding or get things done (such as the arcane purchasing process) and then they change the organization and I have to start over . . . Its
113
HRM PERCEPTION OF TV DEMOTIVATORS
Poor Management
Company Structure
Company Culture
Process
Lack of resources (8)
Poor structures (5)
Poor company vision (5)
Ineffective recognition (6)
TV pushed into management (3)
Set up TV for failure (6)
Bureaucracy (3)
Large company culture (in general) (3)
Performance management system (4) Recognize wrong people (3)
Dictator (4)
Dual Ladder (3)
Lack of attention / recognition (2)
Reward wrong thing (2)
Figure 6. Complete set of demotivators human resource managers.
unclear who can say yes to a process, but many people can say no. (TV13) On the cultural side, senior managements orientation toward innovation can set a demotivating tone across the entire organization: Who do we hire for our top managers? Mainly retired Generals. Generals are not innovators. By and large, the military is not a very innovative organization. Most of these generals . . . know how to work, theyve got lots of contacts within the military, but theyre not innovators . . . The head of new business, they better be a little bit innovative. (TV18) Another notable micro-level demotivator can be the innovation process itself. TVs felt demotivated when processes (or lack thereof) within the company prevented them from bringing their ideas and innovations to fruition. We have had times when the whole new idea development process has been structured and bureaucrat-ed to the point where you cant do any work because you have to ll out forms and justify your existence to other people all the time and that clearly goes against the innovation ambitions. (TV3) 114
In sum, in addition to poor management of TVs, which every TV identied as demotivating, organizational structures, reward systems, cultures, and even the innovation process, if not implemented appropriately, all can erode a TVs intrinsic motivation in the short term, with nearly equal saliency across the different categories. Avoiding demotivating TVs is at least as intricate as implementing the set of activities that will help sustain their intrinsic motivation.
5.4. Different perspectives on demotivating technical visionaries

In addition to their general alignment on TV motivators, TVs and TMs were somewhat aligned on their perceptions of what demotivates TVs, especially in terms of the salience of awards, rewards and recognition, company structure, and process as potential demotivators. As TMs were the most uent of the three groups in articulating what motivates TVs, so are they the most uent in articulating potential demotivators. Of the categories, TMs voice that their own poor management of TVs is the most frequently perceived potential demotivator. While TVs emphasized problems associated with managers becoming too involved and meddling with details, TMs also acknowledged that failing to provide resources can easily demotivate and hinder TV innovation. The TVs nd company culture to be somewhat more
Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries demotivating than do TMs. Again, company cultures are out of the TMs control, whereas their own behavior is not, so the focus of TMs on managerial behavior is not unexpected. This nding could also suggest that these are rather seasoned managers of TVs who have been sensitized to their special needs. Overall, HRMs are the least articulate group in perceiving what demotivates TVs. They are most aligned with TVs in the saliency of awards, rewards and recognition, poor management, and company culture to demotivation. HRMs, like TMs, cite poor management as the most frequent demotivator for TVs. Additionally, HRMs are more sensitive than either TMs or TVs to the bimodal role that awards, rewards, and recognition can play, if not implemented or administrated appropriately. Inappropriate administration of a reward system includes misaligning the size of an award or reward with the perceived contribution of the innovation, not rewarding or recognizing people who did contribute to an achievement and rewarding people who did not contribute to an achievement. In addition, the rm needs to gure out how to strike the balance between rewarding individuals and teams because . . . innovation often comes out of a collaborative setting and so if you reward the individual contributions, then you set up a system in which people are more hesitant to work in a more collaborative way. (HRM10). HRMs do realize that there are many aspects of the award, reward, and recognition system that could act as demotivators if not implemented carefully. Astoundingly, 40% of the HRMs could not think of a company structure that demotivated TVs, even though 80% of the TVs specically mentioned some manner in which the organizations structure could or did demotivate them. HRM answers to the question were typically short: Nothing comes to mind (HRM1); I really dont know of one (HRM3); Im going to have to take a pass on that (HRM12). When they did mention a structure-related motivator, HRM22 indicated that company structures that required the innovator to be spending way too much time either doing paperwork or delivering on some other project also demotivated TVs. HRM4 indicated that his TVs were demotivated by there being no denite career path and promise of milestones . . . where I can see where Im going. Interestingly, very few HRMs cite an ineffective or missing innovation process as a TV demotivator, while process accounted for 20% of the TV-mentioned demotivators. Again, part of the
imbalance across the saliency of demotivators may be due to the responsibilities of HRMs. The award, reward, and recognition systems are more in their purview, while innovation processes are not. In summary, all three groups indicate that poor management by TMs is the most salient TV demotivator, although both TMs and HRMs assign more saliency to this category than do the TVs themselves. In general (omitting the external to the company category), TVs are the most balanced in their articulation of potential demotivators, whereas TMs downplay the ability of company culture to demotivate, and HRMs seem unaware of the ability of an ineffective innovation process to demotivate. However, in general, there is much higher alignment in the saliency of TV demotivators than was found in the saliency of motivators, especially for HRMs.
6. Discussion and implications for management

Of the three groups we studied, TVs, their TMs, and their HRMs, the TMs were the most articulate about what could both potentially motivate and demotivate TVs. TVs were the least articulate about what motivates them to innovate, and HRMs were the least articulate about what demotivates TVs. When comparing the perspectives between the three groups of individuals, two important themes emerged. First, as the individuals (and groups) became further removed from the TVs, their opinions seemed to grow increasingly different from those of the TVs themselves. The views of the TMs who work closely with TVs, showed some minor differences, but overall were similar to those of the TVs. The opinions of the HRMs, on the other hand, varied considerably from those of the TVs and TMs. The second important theme that emerged was that both TMs and HRMs seemed to view motivation as it related primarily to the things they could control. For example, TVs are intrinsically motivated to innovate. Therefore, they focused more than the others on this aspect of motivation. They also tended to focus on the type of work they are doing and the expected results of that work. These results are consistent with the ndings of Farris who observed that persistence in the form of both energy and hard work is a facilitator of high-impact innovation (Farris, 1999). TMs focused on their actions and what they could control. Challenging job assignments, allocating time and resources, and supportive management practices were among the items that TMs saw as most effective
115
John M. Hebda, Bruce A. Vojak, Abbie Grifn and Raymond L. Price in motivating TVs. HRMs focused on the reward and recognition systems they help create and how those systems are administered. Each of the groups recognized as important some of the contexts in which TVs worked (company culture and company structure) but focused less on those issues. Four themes emerged that, if addressed, will help keep TVs motivated and innovating for the organizations in which they work. First and foremost, while TVs are intrinsically motivated, they also can be demotivated. It is important to select potential innovators based of their intrinsic motivation to solve customer problems. These results are also in line with what has been found elsewhere in the creativity literature that higher intrinsic motivation is associated with more creative outputs (Amabile, 1993, 1998). Then, it is important for organizations to avoid demotivating these highly skilled individuals by stiing innovation, assigning work that does not enable potential visionaries to contribute signicantly, or diminishing the value of their work through a poorly delivered award. Second, organizations need to ensure that the right managers are deployed to manage TVs. The most important non-intrinsic factor in both motivation and demotivation identied by TVs and TMs was the TVs manager. It is imperative to have a TM who both understands the breakthrough product development process and supports the TV through innovation and implementation. These TMs need to understand breakthrough innovation and the role of TVs in achieving breakthrough new products. TMs also provide the organizational support in terms of time and resources (Balbontin et al., 1999). They help overcome organizational challenges and obstacles and demonstrate a ne balance in management practice between listening and supporting and challenging and pushing. These TMs are also in a position to adjust and tailor recognition and rewards to the individual TV. They will have more latitude to do this in some organizations compared to others, but it is important that they tailor the formal systems as much as possible to the individual. As such, both TM selection and development should be given high priority when companies seek to increase innovative output. A corollary recommendation would be for TMs to be more assertive in inuencing the organizations award, reward, and recognition systems that relate to TVs. This would include: (1) recognizing that TVs are different and extremely valuable, (2) building in exibility in those systems that deal with TVs, and (3) then using this exibility to reward and recognize TVs appropriately. This may include stock options, bonuses, innovation awards, etc. 116
Third, companies need to bridge the divide in perception between HRMs and both TVs and TMs. Every HRM interview began with a clear and explicit denition of what a TV was and how it differed from the more general technologist population, and identied the TV we had interviewed specically. Additionally, each question they were asked specically referred to motivating Technical Visionaries. However, even with repeated, specic references to TVs, reading across the HRM interviews, it is striking just how few of them seem to be able to differentiate between the performance of the average technologist and the exemplar technologist the technical visionary even though these individuals worked in the organization for which the HRM had responsibility. The vast majority of the HRMs interviewed seemed unable to focus on how to motivate just those special individuals but kept reverting to the more general motivational processes and mechanisms in the rm. While TMs generally agreed with TVs on how they should be motivated, HRMs typically focused only on those things that catered to the average technical professional. In many cases, it does not make organizational sense to make exceptions to policies. However, TVs are some of the most valuable employees within an organization. HRMs need to work with TMs to ensure that they have the exibility they need to go outside of the average structures and techniques to motivate TVs. While many TMs already do this, it would be more effective and easier if they did so with formal company support. Finally, the organizational culture and the formal structures supporting breakthrough innovation are critical for a company. While these are hard for any individual to change, they set the stage for what is expected and what is done within an organization. The results of this study suggest several important factors to analyze and improve. The items that appeared in the motivating and demotivating lists included: (1) getting products to market, (2) bringing ideas to fruition, (3) a critical mass of creative people, and (4) a culture that supports innovation. When these factors are in place, we suspect that the organizational structure elements will also be in place. TMs, TVs, and executives will demand that the structure supports the results that are really desired. In summary, it is important to realize that motivating TVs involves a complex mix of actions, processes, and structures. No individual TV is identical to the others, and each is motivated and demotivated slightly differently. However, through insightful management and freedom to work outside of the company norms, organizations cannot only avoid
Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries demotivating TVs but also create an environment such that they are motivated to innovate.
Barr, S.H., Baker, T., Markham, S.K., and Kingon, A.I. (2009) Bridging the valley of death: lessons learned from 14 years of commercialization of technology education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education Archive, 8, 3, 370388. Brunner, G.F. (2001) The IRI medalists address: the Tao of innovation. Research-Technology Management, 44, 1, 4551. Chen, C., Ford, C., and Farris, G. (1999) Do rewards benet the organization? The effects of reward types and the perceptions of diverse R&D professionals. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46, 1, 4755. Cooper, R.G. (2001) Winning at New Products, 3rd edn. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Ellis, L. and Honig-Haftel, S. (1992) Reward strategies for R&D. Research-Technology Management, 35, 2, 1620. Farris, G. (1999) Patterns in high-impact innovation. In: Brockhoff, K., Chakrabarti, A., and Hauschildt, J. (eds), The Dynamics of Innovation: Strategic and Managerial Implications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 305320. Farris, G. (2000) Rewards and retention of technical staff. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Engineering Management Society. Goodman, L.A. (1961) Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32, 1, 148170. Graen, G.B., Novak, M., and Sommerkamp, P. (1982) The effect of leader-member exchange and job design in productivity and satisfaction: testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109131. Grifn, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1993) The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12, 1, 127. Grifn, A., Price, R.L., Maloney, M.M., Vojak, B.A., and Sim, E.W. (2009) Voices from the eld: how exceptional electronic industrial innovators innovate. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 2, 222240. Grifn, A., Price, R.L., and Vojak, B.A. (2012) Serial Innovators: How Individuals Create and Deliver Breakthrough Innovations in Mature Firms. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Hebda, J., Vojak, B.A., Grifn, A., and Price, R.L. (2007) Motivating technical visionaries in large American corporations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54, 3, 433444. Jauch, L.R. (1976) Tailoring incentives to t researchers. Research Management, November 2327. Kawakita, J. (1982) The Original KJ Method. Tokyo: Kawakita Research Institute. Kerr, J. and Slocum, J.W. Jr. (1987) Managing corporate culture through reward system. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 2, 99108. Koning, J.W. Jr. (1993) Three other Rs: recognition, reward and resentment. Research-Technology Management, 36, 4, 1929. Liefer, R., McDermott, C.M., OConnor, G.C., Peters, L., Rice, M.P., and Veryzer, R. (2000) Radical Innovation: How Mature Firms Can Outsmart Upstarts. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
7. Future research
As indicated earlier, this is a study of perceptions of what motivates and demotivates TVs in large, mature organizations. Future research should be done to empirically determine the extent to which these motivators and demotivators are present in an organization, and how that relates to the number of TVs, innovation rate, and overall success of breakthrough innovation in the rm and its contribution to revenue and prot.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the individuals who participated in the interviews for this research project, as well as those who helped nd individuals at their companies to interview. They all were very generous to dedicate their time from their busy schedules to assist with this research project, and these results would not have been possible without this generosity. We also wish to thank our two other research assistants who participated in the data analysis, Matthew Marvel and Edward Sim.
References
Agarwal, N. and Singh, P. (1998) Organizational rewards for a changing workplace: an examination of theory and practice. International Journal of Technology Management, 16, 1/2/3, 225238. Allen, T.J. and Katz, R. (1989) Managing engineers and scientists: some new perspectives. In: Evans, P., Dos, Y. and Laurent, A. (eds), Human Resource Management in International Firms. London: Macmillan. pp. 191199. Amabile, T.M. (1993) Rethinking rewards. Harvard Business Review, 71, 6, 3749. Amabile, T.M. (1998) How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 75, 5, 7688. Badawy, M.K. (1988) What weve learned managing human resources. Research Technology Management, 31, 5, 1935. Balbontin, A., Yazdani, B., Cooper, R., and Souder, W.E. (1999) New product development success factors in American and British rms. International Journal of Technology Management, 17, 3, 259282. Barczak, G., Grifn, A., and Kahn, K.B. (2009) PERSPECTIVE: trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 1, 323.
117

Maloney, M. (2003) Technical visionaries and product champions. MS General Engineering Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. McKinnon, P.D. (1987) Steady-state people: a third career orientation. Research-Technology Management, 30, 1, 2632. Perlov, K. (2004) Characteristics of technical visionaries in industry as perceived by American and British Industrial Physicists. MS General Engineering Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Shlaes, C. (1991) Rewarding and stimulating creativity and innovation in technical companies. Proceedings of the 1991 IEEE Conference on Technology Management: the New International Language. Spool, J. (2004) The KJ-technique: a group process for establishing priorities. User Interface Engineering Newsletter. http://www.uie.com/articles/kj_technique/ Vojak, B.A., Grifn, A., Price, R.L., and Perlov, K. (2006) Characteristics of technical visionaries as perceived by American and British industrial physicists. R&D Management, 36, 1, 1724. Welch, S. (1975) Sampling by referral in a dispersed population. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 2, 237245. Westwood, A. and Sekine, Y. (1988) Fostering creativity and innovation in an industrial R&D laboratory. Research-Technology Management, 31, 4, 1620.
Raymond L. Price is the Severns Chair for Human Behavior and Professor in Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He also holds an appointment as Professor of Human Resource Education. Prior to joining the university in 1998, he was Vice President of Human Resources at Allergan, Inc. His primary charter at the university is to provide opportunities for engineering students to understand and develop skills in human behavior: interpersonal skills, leadership, and management skills that will be useful to them in their careers.
Appendix Interview instrument

This is an abridged interview instrument for the technical visionaries. For the interviews with the technical managers and HR representatives, the questions were slightly modied to ask what structures/ incentives/etc. were put in place that served to motivate technical visionaries within their organizations 1. We dene motivational structures as formal, written policies and procedures in place that serve to motivate or demotivate employees. With this, we also consider the way in which the company is formally arranged and organized. As a reminder, when we discuss motivation, we are always referring to motivating (or demotivating) a technical visionary to continue striving to innovate. a. What was the last structure that you remember being put in place that served to motivate you to continue to strive to innovate? i. What behavior(s) did this motivate? ii. What was good about this structure? iii. What was bad? Note: Repeat iiii for each motivating or demotivating question b. What was the best motivating structure that has been put in place in your company? c. What was the worst motivating structure that has been put in place in your company? d. Can you recall any structures that acted as de-motivators (motivated you to not work hard at innovating)? e. Can you recall any other structures that we have not yet discussed that serve to motivate technical visionaries to continue striving to innovate in your rm? f. Can you recall any other structures that we have not yet discussed that serve to motivate
John Hebda is currently a Case Team Leader at Bain and Company. He received his MS in Systems and Entrepreneurial Engineering and BS in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The research appearing in this paper was completed during his time at the University of Illinois. His research has also appeared in IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Bruce A. Vojak is Associate Dean for Administration in the College of Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He also holds Adjunct Professor appointments in Electrical and Computer Engineering and Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering, and serves on the Board of Directors for Midtronics, Inc. Prior to joining the university, he was Director of Advanced Technology at Motorola. His research interest is in strategic technology management, in particular how innovators come to know what to do. Abbie Grifn holds the Royal L. Garff Presidential Chair in Marketing and is Chair of the Marketing Department at the University of Utahs David Eccles School of Business. Prof. Grifns research investigates how to measure and improve the process of new product development. She is an avid environmentalist, skier, hiker, and quilter. 118
Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries technical visionaries to continue striving to innovate in other rms through friends or colleagues that you know? g. Can you recall any other structures that we have not yet discussed that serve to de-motivate technical visionaries in your rm? h. What, in your view, is the most effective structure overall in motivating you and other technical visionaries? 2. In the next few questions, we will discuss incentives, rewards and recognition, and their use to motivate technical visionaries to continue striving to innovate. a. What was the last time a you were given an incentive, reward or recognition that served to motivate you to continue striving to innovate? b. Would you classify this as: i. Incentive/reward or recognition? (or both?) ii. Public or private? iii. Fixed or variable? iv. Monetary or non-monetary? v. Formal (written policy) or informal (unwritten)? vi. Individual or Team-based? Note: Repeat ivi for all classication questions c. What was the best incentive, reward or recognition you have received, with the goal the incentive, reward or recognition being motivation? Would you classify this as: d. What was the worst incentive, reward or recognition you have received as an attempt at motivation? Would you classify this as: e. Can you recall any other incentives, rewards or types of recognition that we have not yet discussed that have been used to motivate yourself and other technical visionaries in your rm? Would you classify this as: f. Can you recall any incentives, rewards or recognition that acted as de-motivators (motivated you to not work hard at innovating)? Would you classify this as: g. Can you recall any other incentives, rewards or recognition that we have not yet discussed that have been used to motivate yourself and other technical visionaries in other rms through friends or colleagues that you know? Would you classify this as: h. Can you recall any other incentives, rewards or types of recognition that we have not yet discussed that serve to de-motivate yourself and other technical visionaries in your rm? Would you classify this as: i. What, in your opinion, is the most effective incentive, reward or type of recognition overall in motivating technical visionaries? j. In your opinion, which of the following in each pair is more effective in motivating technical visionaries to continue striving to innovate? i. Public Incentive/reward vs. public recognition ii. Private incentive/reward vs. private recognition iii. Public recognition vs. private recognition iv. Public incentive/reward vs. private incentive/reward v. Monetary vs. Non-monetary rewards vi. Collective vs. Individual rewards vii. Formal vs. informal rewards viii. Fixed vs. variable rewards? 3. In the next few questions, we will discuss motivational techniques. Techniques include informal methods directly applied by managers or other leaders, as well as anything used to motivate yourself and other technical visionaries that did not fall into one of the two categories weve already discussed. a. What was the last managerial technique that you remember that motivated you? b. What was the best managerial technique (in terms of motivating yourself and other technical visionaries) that has been used in your company? c. What was the worst managerial technique (in terms of motivating yourself and other technical visionaries) that has been used in your company? d. Can you recall any managerial technique that acted as de-motivators (motivated you to NOT want to perform the desired behavior or action)? e. Can you recall any other managerial techniques that we have not yet discussed that serve to motivate yourself and other technical visionaries in your rm? f. Can you recall any other managerial techniques that we have not yet discussed that serve to motivate yourself and other technical visionaries in other rms through friends or colleagues that you know? g. Can you recall any other managerial techniques that we have not yet discussed that serve to de-motivate yourself and technical visionaries in your rm? h. What is the most effective managerial technique overall in motivating yourself and other technical visionaries?
119

Motivating Technical Visionaries PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivating Technical Visionaries PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries in large corporations: a comparison of perspectives

John M. Hebda1, Bruce A. Vojak1, Abbie Grifn2 and Raymond L. Price1

1. Motivating technical professionals

2. Innovation in large, mature rms

3. Motivating technical visionaries

John M. Hebda, Bruce A. Vojak, Abbie Grifn and Raymond L. Price

4. Methodology 4.1. Sample

Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries

4.2. Field implementation

4.3. Data coding and analysis

5. Results 5.1. Summary

4.4. Limitations of the research method

Company structure 1.0 11 1.6 16 1.7 18

Intrinsic motivation 1.4 16 0.4 4 0.2 2

Company culture 1.6 19 0.8 8 0.8 8

Ave. per person 8.7 10.1 9.4

208 100 222 100 169 100

R&D Management 42, 2, 2012

2012 The Authors R&D Management 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries

Things Managers Can Do

Awards, Rewards, Recognition

See idea become reality (13,3)

Customer feedback (5,0)

Interest and appreciation (8,4)

Dual ladder (8,2)

Patent awards (11,3)

Peer recognition (6,3)

Task itself (8,2) Internal (to company) motivators

General resources (9,5) Freedom, flexibility, resources

Provide challenge (6,2)

Fellow program (6,1)

Innovation awards (13,3) Formal awards and recognition

Spontaneous bonus or incentive (4,1) Performance evaluation (4,0)

Informal awards (5,0)

Trade Seminars (3,0)

Organizational structure (5,2)

General recognition (3,1) Informal rewards and recognition

Outside peer interaction (1,0) External (to company) motivators

Acceptance of failure (4,1)

Formal identification as a technical visionary (3,1)

Group of elected technical leaders (1,0)

Money, incentives, performance grading

Formal interaction with interesting people (4,0)

Interpersonal management skills

Having a sense of belonging to something larger than yourself (3,1)

Figure 1. Complete set of motivators technical visionaries.

numbers in parentheses indicating how many times each was voiced.

5.2. Different perspectives on motivating technical visionaries

John M. Hebda, Bruce A. Vojak, Abbie Grifn and Raymond L. Price

Things Managers Can Do

Awards, Rewards, Recognition

Removal of obstacles (9,3)

Support / encouragement (8,7)

Challenging projects (13,8)

Dual ladder (13,6) Separate innovation group (9,5)

Follow ideas to product fruition (8,3)

Innovation awards (18,6)

Merit process (promotion / bonus) (8,1)

Company culture (6,2)

Patent awards (13,0)

Get out to TVs (5,2) Interpersonal management skills

Upper level visibility (3,0)