Motivating technical visionaries.pdf

7/28/2019 Motivating technical visionaries.pdf

1/19

Motivating and demotivatingtechnical visionaries in largecorporations: a comparisonof perspectives

John M. Hebda1, Bruce A. Vojak1, Abbie Griffin2

and Raymond L. Price1

1College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1308 W. Green Street, Urbana,IL 61801. [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, 1655 E. Campus Center Drive, Salt Lake City,Utah 84112. [email protected]

A substantial body of literature addresses the motivation of technical professionals in largecorporations. Included are considerations of the motivation of subgroups, such as contrast-

ing 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 dispro-

portionately to the growth and profitability of the corporation. These exceptional, high-

performing 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 concern-

ing 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

employeefor motivating TVs. By comparing the perspectives of TVs, TMs, and HRMs, weobserve 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 recommen-

dations for those who manage these critical and unique technical visionaries.

1. Motivating technical professionals

Much has been written regarding the variousmechanisms companies can use to motivate

technical professionals, the individuals who are the

source of innovation and thus future growth and

profitability, within the organization. Three broad

categories of mechanisms for motivating theseprofessionals appear in the literature (Hebda et al.,

2007): (1) formal corporate structures; (2) corporate

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.101


2/19

incentives, rewards, and recognition; and (3) informal

management techniques.

Corporate structures are the written policies andprocedures dictating the way a company is formally

arranged or organized. Three main types of structures

are cited as motivating technical professionals in

firms: (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 socie-

ties (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 imple-

menting 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 firms:

(1) salary; (2) individual financial awards; (3) group

financial 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 potentiallypowerful (Kerr and Slocum, Jr, 1987) and beneficial

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 innova-

tion 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 corpo-

rate leaders to motivate individual technical profes-sionals. Examples of these types of informal actions

include providing better equipment, office 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 person-

nel strongly influences 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 engi-

neers and scientists respond differently to different

types of motivators (Jauch, 1976; Badawy, 1988).

For example, formal corporate structures, especially

the prestigious in-house societies which grantmembers great freedom to explore problems of per-

sonal interest, have been found to be more useful in

motivating scientists than engineers. While both

groups can be motivated by the rewards and recog-

nition systems, scientists are more motivated by

mechanisms that allow them exposure outside of the

firm, while engineers are more motivated by financial

rewards from the firm for their achievements. Engi-

neers are motivated by more challenging assign-

ments, while scientists are motivated by greater

technical freedom. Both are motivated when manag-

ers provide them with increased resources to do their

jobs (Badawy, 1988). Finally, scientists intrinsicmotivation is greater when they have more effective

information exchange relationships with their man-

agers (Graen et al., 1982).

Clearly, not all technical professionals are moti-

vated 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 exceptionaltechnologists are motivated differently than the

average employee, or whether technical and human

resource managers understand how they are moti-

vated. This research addresses this gap in the litera-

ture 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 firms

Innovation and new product development in large,

mature firms occur through either incremental inno-

vation or breakthrough, radical innovation.

Incremental innovation, which improves the per-

formance of current products along predictable

trajectories and requires little, if any, technical inven-

tion, constitutes 70%80% of most large firms inno-

vation 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 tech-

nologies evolve and competitors improve their prod-ucts, incremental innovation does not grow the firm

substantively.

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

102 R&D Management 42, 2, 2012 2012 The AuthorsR&D Management 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd


3/19

In contrast, significant, organic corporate growth

occurs through creating and commercializing break-

through, radical innovations. Liefer et al. (2000)define these as products that (1) move the firm into

new white space by providing an entirely new set of

performance features, (2) offer at least a fivefold

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

firms product portfolio, they represent the growth

engine of the firm. 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 andengineers are tasked with inventing a new technol-

ogy (Liefer et al., 2000). Typically, however, these

researchers are not responsible for moving the tech-

nology to product application or commercialization

once invented. That is done by others in the organi-

zation, such as champions and project managers,

requiring a hand-off of the project (Griffin et al.,

2009). Because of the disconnect between the inven-

tor and the marketplace in technology push projects,

it frequently is difficult to find a product application

large enough in revenue potential to offset the

research expense (Liefer et al., 2000). Additionally,it is difficult to find 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

significant financial return for the firm (Liefer et al.,

2000).

The second process for commercializing break-

through innovation is an innovator-driven process

(Griffin et al., 2012). In this paradigm, a small subset

of very exceptional technical professionals is instru-

mental in developing and commercializing thebreakthrough innovations that drive future firm

growth and profits. These exceptional technical indi-

viduals, whom we term technical visionaries (TVs),

act differently than the vast majority of technical

professionals (Maloney, 2003; Perlov, 2004; Vojak

et al., 2006; Griffin et al., 2009). TVs do not start

from inventing a new technology. They start from

understanding the needs and problems of an impor-

tant set of potential customers, for which if a solu-

tion is found, a significant revenue stream will result.

In other words, they start from the application, trying

to find a solution for an interesting problem, ratherthan 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 prob-

lems. They then personally go on to champion andfacilitate projects through the implementation

process. TVs do not hand off the project to someone

else after invention, but also go on to lead the devel-

opment and commercialization efforts.

3. Motivating technical visionaries

Because of their difference in orientation from other

technologists, TVs are motivated somewhat differ-

ently than the groups of technical professionals pre-

viously studied (Hebda et al., 2007). In our earlierresearch 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 moti-

vation and the firms culture.

First and foremost, TVs are intrinsically motivated

driven internally to be highly creative and inno-

vative 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 commit-ted 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 find a culture that supports innovation motivat-

ing. They would find working at 3M stimulating but

not working at GM. Second, they find a team atmos-

phere motivating, which strongly differentiates themfrom scientists. Finally, they find having a critical

mass of other creative individuals around them moti-

vating. 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 specifi-

cally motivate technical professionals (Hebda et al.,

2007). The formal motivating structures put in place

by the human resource function are insignificantcompared to what their managers do to motivate

TVs.

Motivating and demotivating technical visionaries

2012 The Authors

R&D Management 2012 Blackwell Publishing LtdR&D Management 42, 2, 2012 103


4/19

Given their role in breakthrough, radical innova-

tion and their ability to identify potential break-

through opportunities, studying what motivates and

demotivates TVs, to innovate is important. The

research to date has found that motivating them is infact 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 man-

agers and human resource managers understand how

to motivate (and not demotivate) them, as they have

learned to distinguish between how to most appro-

priately motivate scientists versus engineers.

This research builds upon our prior study on moti-

vating 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

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 individu-

als 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 classified by http://

www.hoovers.com).Each triad of individuals consisted of at least one

TV, one TM who has directly supervised the TV, and

Table 1. Types of incentives for researchers (adapted from Badawy, 1988; Jauch, 1976 and Hebda et al., 2007)

Supporting engineer motivation

(organizationally oriented)

Supporting scientist motivation

(professionally oriented)

Supporting technical visionary

motivation (outcomes oriented)

Intrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation

Apply knowledge Create knowledge See ideas become a commercialreality

Corporate structures Corporate structures Corporate structures

Dual ladder Prestigious professional societies Dual ladder

Third career orientation

Corporate rewards and recognition Corporate rewards and recognition Corporate rewards and recognition

Merit salary increases Paid transportation to professionalmeetings

Innovation awards

Promotions within career ladder Dues paid in professional

organizations

Patent awards

Stock options

Tuition or other educational aid

Merit salary increases

Profit sharing

Encouragement to publish

Peer recognition

Rewards for suggestions

Participation in company seminars Rewards or royalties for patents

Special recognition and/or monetaryreward for superior performance

Managerial actions Managerial actions Managerial actions

Increased challenge in jobassignment

Greater freedom to come and go Increased resources

Increased technical/clerical support Better technical equipment Time freedom

Improved office space Sabbatical leave for education Provide challenges

Time off for professional meetings Connect to customers

Connect to business strategy

Interest and appreciation, listening

Accept failureCompany culture

Innovation support

Team atmosphere

Critical mass of creative people




5/19

one HRM from their business unit. To find thesetriads of individuals, persons with corporate liaison

relationships with the college of engineering of a

large US midwestern university were first contacted,

and a snowballing technique (Goodman, 1961;

Welch, 1975) was used to find appropriate individu-

als within the organization.

We defined TVs to the corporate contacts as tech-

nologists who were involved intimately in a project,

from its inception to its finish, that represented a

significant technical breakthrough (radical innova-

tion), which successfully came to market, signifi-

cantly changed life by solving problems forindividuals or firms that had not previously been

solved, andbrought in significant revenueand profit to

the firm. Revenues generated by these innovations

typically were well above $100 million. An example

of this type of innovation is theAlways Ultra feminine

hygiene pad (Cincinnati, OH, USA), whose thinness

and design (madepossible by revolutionary materials)

made womens lives much more comfortable com-

pared to the previous brick-like pad, and which has

provided millions of dollars of profit to P&G (Griffin

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 theproduct took to market, and in helping overcome

political adversity within their organization.

Once an individual was identified as a TV by the

corporate liaison, we conducted a preliminary inter-

view to ensure that the innovation met the break-

through criteria and that they were primarily

responsible for the invention and its development and

commercialization. Most TVs identified 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

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 sideof the business.

4.2. Field implementation

The in-depth interviews used a modified version of

the voice of the customer methodology (Griffin and

Hauser, 1993), which has shown that 20 interviews

elicit between 90% and 95% of the full set of state-

ments 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 first two authors who had developedthe 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.

4.3. Data coding and analysis

Initial coding by the lead author was performed to

identify all possible phrasings that might be motiva-tors or demotivators. As informants were asked first

about motivators and then about demotivators, all

responses first were split into these two, high-level

groups, and coding tags were added to each indi-

vidual statement. Additional tags for the three

general categories of motivators and demotivators

identified in the literature (organizational structures,

rewards and recognition, and TM actions) were

added to each item. A large number of statements did

not fit 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 motivatorsand demotivators, the formal organizational struc-

tures; rewards and recognition; TM actions; and

other. All statements were printed out on 3 by 5cards, 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 sub-

themes across the data, and to bring additional struc-

ture to the individual statements. Three professors

and three graduate students used the KJ-Method of

qualitative cluster analysis to create first an affinitydiagram, and then a tree chart of the coded data

containing all of the motivators (Kawakita, 1982;

Table 2. Industries represented by interview sample

Aerospace and defense

Automotive and transportChemicals

Computer hardware

Computer services

Consumer products manufacturers

Electronics

Industrial manufacturing

Medical equipment

Telecommunications equipment


2012 The Authors



6/19

Spool, 2004). Rather than each coder individually

categorizing the statements into preselected themes

in a top-down coding procedure, and then checkingfor inter-rater reliabilities and resolving discrepan-

cies, the KJ-Method is a bottom-up, team-based

approach to creating categories and finding themes

and subthemes from the specifics of the data. In cre-

ating the bottom-up structure, the team started with

the three top-level sets of categories identified in

prior literature plus the other category for self-

stated 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 firstone or represented a slightly different (in some way)

theme. If similar, it was placed near the first. 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 catego-

rization. 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 forthe 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.

4.4. Limitations of the research method

As with all research, the methods we employed havelimitations which must be taken into account when

reviewing the findings and interpreting the results.

First, we interviewed only TVs and did not interview

less creative or noninitiating scientists and engineerswho 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 find

our TVs has inherent limitations, because it depends

upon the research teams social networks. Thus,

certain industries, such as pharmaceuticals, agribusi-

ness, and software were not included in the sample.

Whether these findings thus apply to them is

unknown. Additionally, we are only concerned with

TVs in large, mature firms. Thus, our findings likely

do not apply to entrepreneurial individuals basingtheir start-up firms on a breakthrough innovation.

Finally, we used a fixed 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 identified a total of

599 TV motivators in five categories, as shown in

Table 3. As noted above, in addition to being moti-

vated 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 firm. The full sets of

motivator categories identified by each group are

shown separately in Figures 13. The first number in

the parentheses in each box indicates how many

times that subcategory of motivators was mentionedby the population.

Table 3. Distribution of motivators across categories

Motivator mentionsper person

Awards,rewards,recognition

Thingsmanagerscan do

Companystructure

Intrinsicmotivation

Companyculture

Total Ave. perperson

Technical visionaries 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.4 1.6 208 8.7

TV-% of total 28 25 11 16 19 100

Technical managers 3.8 3.5 1.6 0.4 0.8 222 10.1

TM-% of total 38 35 16 4 8 100

HR managers 3.9 2.8 1.7 0.2 0.8 169 9.4

HR-% of total 42 30 18 2 8 100




7/19

All respondents also were asked to identify the

mechanisms that they believed were the best or

most effective TV motivators within each cat-

egory, 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 identified a total of 257 TV demo-

tivators, 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 imple-

mented well, items in these groups also can demoti-

vate 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 listsof TV demotivator categories identified 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 motivatingtechnical visionaries

We find significant differences in both the saliency

and importance of different categories of perceivedmotivators 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 five 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 themotivators they mentioned, the lowest percentage of

all three groups. Importantly, over one third of the

TV MOTIVATORS

Intrinsic

Motivation

Task itself

(8,2)

See idea

become reality

(13,3)

Customer

feedback (5,0)

Trade

Seminars (3,0)

Publications

(4,0)

Outside peer

interaction

(1,0)

Internal (to

company)

motivators

External (to

company)

motivators

Things

Managers Can

Do

Company

Structure

Fellow

program (6,1)

Dual ladder

(8,2)

Culture that

supports

innovation

(10,1)

Critical mass

of creative

people (6,0)

Product

teams / team

atmosphere

(7,1)

Organizational

structure (5,2)

Formal

identification

as a technical

visionary (3,1)

Group of

elected

technical

leaders (1,0)

Having a

sense of

belonging to

something

larger than

yourself (3,1)

Training (4,1)

Formal

interaction with

interesting

people (4,0)

Informal

interaction with

interestingpeople (5,2)

General

resources

(9,5)

Time (15,9)

Interest and

appreciation

(8,4)

Listening (4,3)

Provide

challenge (6,2)

Acceptance of

failure (4,1)

Freedom, flexibility,

resources

Interpersonal

management skills

Leadership

(2,3)

Mentoring

(3,0)

Inclusion (2,1)

Innovation

awards (13,3)

Patent awards

(11,3)

Peer

recognition

(6,3)

General

recognition

(3,1)

Informal

awards (5,0)

Formal awards and

recognition

Informal rewards

and recognition

Money (9,4)

Performance

evaluation

(4,0)

Spontaneous

bonus or

incentive (4,1)

Options (4,0)

Money, incentives,

performance

grading

Awards,

Rewards,

Recognition

KEY

____ ____ ____ ____ ___

(#1,#2)

- Displays the title of the

motivator

#1 Indicates the number of separate

times this motivator was mentioned

#2 Indicates the number of separatetimes this motivator was denoted as Best

or Most Effective

Company

Culture

Figure 1. Complete set of motivators technical visionaries.


2012 The Authors



8/19

motivating mechanisms mentioned by TVs belonged

in the Intrinsic and Company Culture categories,

compared to only 10%12% residing in these catego-

ries for the TVs and TMs.

TVs are intrinsically motivated to innovate and see

their ideas become reality. Even though respondents

were not specifically asked about intrinsic motiva-

tion, all 24 TVs spontaneously talked about their

intrinsic motivation to tackle tough technical prob-

lems and come up with commercializable products

that solve customer problems and generate profit.

I am deeply motivated to get products into the

field. (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 bestyou could do is create an environment whereby

the motivation can be self-driven.

None of them indicated that a most effective motiva-

tor 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 supportsinnovation and creativity, provides a critical mass of

creative people to work with, and provides a team

atmosphere where they can interact with other crea-

tive 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 fre-

quently than company structure or culture.

The best managers are those who shield their

people from the bureaucracy. They do thepaperwork, they view themselves as enabling,

rather than as the next rung on the career or

TM PERCEPTIONS OF TV

MOTIVATORS

IntrinsicMotivation

Self-motivation

(8,3)

KEY

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (#1,#2)

- Displays the title of themotivator




times this motivator was denoted as Bestor Most Effective

CompanyStructure

Follow ideas to

product fruition(8,3)

Separateinnovation

group (9,5)

Lack of

structure (4,1)

Company

culture (6,2)

Structure (4,3)Upper level

visibility (3,0)

ThingsManagers Can

Do

Removal of

obstacles (9,3)

Sponsorship

(5,2)

Time outside

organization(2,0)

Time insideorganization

(4,2)

Other

resources(5,1)

Money (8,5)

Support /

encouragement(8,7)

Listen (6,3)

Challenging

projects (13,8)

Get out to TVs

(5,2)

Freedom, flexibility,resources

Interpersonalmanagement skills

Customerinteraction

(4,0)

Peer support /interaction

(9,4)

Other thingsmanagers can do

Fellow

program (5,0)

Merit process

(promotion /bonus) (8,1)

Internal

informalrecognition

(4,1)

Innovation

awards (18,6)Dual ladder

(13,6)

Patent awards(13,0)

RewardsAwards

Internal formal

recognition(11,3)

General

recognition /company

philosophy on

recognition(7,4)

Externalrecognition

(8,0)

Peer

recognition(6,0)

Recognition

Awards,Rewards,

Recognition

Small

monetaryrewards (2,0)

Options (5,1)

Small awards

(2,0)

CompanyCulture

Figure 2. Complete set of motivators technical managers.




9/19

just as administrators. If they view them-

selves 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 theformal 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 funda-

mentally is to keep really good scientists and

engineers from having to make a career change

to become a manager . . . These create an alter-native for people such that they didnt suffer

either in terms of compensation or title. (TV6)

HRM PERCEPTION OF TV

MOTIVATORS

Variety of

rewards / total

package (2,1)

Performance

management

(9,5)

Promotion

(3,0)

Dual ladder

(10,3)

Bonus (4,0)

Rewards

Informal

recognition

(general)

(11,9)

Management

recognition

(4,0)

Formal

recognition

within

company (4,3)

Opportunity for

TV to present

work (3,0)

Recognition

Awards,

Rewards,

Recognition

Stock options

(5,1)

Money (8,2)

KEY

______ ______ _______

(#1,#2)

- Displays the title of themotivator




times this motivator was denoted as Best

or Most Effective

Things

Managers Can

Do

Peer support

and interaction

(8,2)

Give TV

resources

(3,2)

Remove

barriers (3,3)

Give TV time

(5,3)

Communication

(5,3)

Show interest

(7,1)

Challenging

projects (6,6)

Development

opportunities

(6,2)

Freedom, flexibility,

resources

Interpersonal

management skills

Customer

interaction

(8,3)

Other things

managers can do

Intrinsic

Motivation

Self-motivation

(3,0)

Company

Culture

Focused

product /

project

structure (7,4)

Firm

reputation

(4,1)

Company

website (2,0)

Culture (7,5)

Separate

innovationgroup

(5,1)

Follow ideas to

product fruition

(3,3)

Patent awards

(9,4)

Fellow

program (6,2)

Innovation

award (9,0)

Awards

Company

Structure

Figure 3. Complete set of motivators human resource managers.

Table 4. Distribution of best or most effective motivators across categories

Best or most effectivemotivators per person

Awards,rewards,recognition

Thingsmanagerscan do

Companystructure

Intrinsicmotivation

Companyculture

Total Ave. perperson

Technical visionaries 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 60 2.5

TV-% of total 25 47 10 8 10 100

Technical managers 0.7 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.2 76 3.5

TM-% of total 21 49 20 4 7 100

HR managers 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.5 69 3.8

HR-% of total 36 36 14 0 13 100


2012 The Authors



10/19

Then, TVs also felt that receiving formal awards,

rewards and recognition, especially financial

rewards, for their ideas and achievements can bemotivating. 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 com-

bination 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 influenced the

product, influenced the business. So whether

that comes through the master inventor pro-

gram, or through the salary or the technical

award or the corporate technical recognition of

them, what a visionary wants is to be identified

as the person whose idea culminated in a suc-

cessful product. (TM10)

Its important that we find a balance betweena structured program, and a more intimate one-

on-one program. (TM6)

Individual recognition by the boss and recog-

nition in front of their peers is the most effec-

tive. The monetary awards are great, but

theyre transient. I think your individual repu-

tation 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, followedby 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 recogni-

tion 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 theircontrol, they clearly think of motivating TVs as a

system of actions.

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 couldprovide 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 identified as the most effectivemotivators across the categories of motivators, with

managers actions the most frequently cited, fol-

lowed 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 TVtypically moves to a new manager who did under-

stand how they were motivated. Overall, therefore,

there is high congruence between what TVs indicate

they are motivated by, and how experienced manag-

ers actually motivate them. From these data, TMs of

TVs understand that they need to use many motiva-

tors 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

defined what was meant by a Technical Visionary at

the outset of the interview, specifically named at least

one person in the HRMs organization who fulfilledthat role, and explicitly repeatedly referred to moti-

vators and demotivators as they were salient to TVs

in the questions they asked, the HRMs kept respond-

ing 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




11/19

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 expec-

tations 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 factTVs (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) finding

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 excep-

tional performers differently from the general or good

technical employee. Some do not even realize that

these exceptional performers have the potential to

bring significant revenue and profit to the firm:

Id have to say that . . . broad-based innova-

tion 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 firm, rewards are

based solely on patent quantity, not quality. Unfortu-

nately, as incremental patents are likely easier and

faster to create than patents for breakthrough inven-

tions, 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 theHR 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 com-

munity. 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 influence 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 helpsupport and sustain motivation, but HRMs instead

viewed these as one of the most instrumental moti-

vators for TVs, as these comprised 42% of their total

TV motivator mentions and 36% of the most effec-

tive TV motivators, equaling their perceived effec-

tiveness of managerial actions. HRMs referenced

awards, rewards, and recognition twice as frequently

as TVs. Looking at the specific 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 institutionalrewards, such as innovation awards and patents

awards, were the most effective way to motivate TVs.

An important finding 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 stifle them. (TV2)

Just as rewards and incentives, TM actions and

company structures and cultures can have a signifi-cant positive motivation for TVs, they can have a

negative impact as well. These four groups com-

prised 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 everyyear . . . 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. Some-

times its actually more of a de-motivationwhen you see what you think is a marginal

person getting options. (TV19)


2012 The Authors



12/19

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 sepa-

rate program and I got a $50 gift certificate

after four months of hard work, which is notoverly significant. I gave it to my wife and let

her figure out how to use it. (TV19)

While the literature focuses on macro-organizational

aspects that motivate individuals (overall structures,

reward systems), this research finds that there also

are many micro-level aspects of the firm that can

demotivate. For example, bad managers quickly

demotivate TVs, ironically motivating them to find a

new boss within the company or even leading totheir seeking a new job outside the firm. From

TV22:

Table 5. Distribution of demotivators across categories

Demotivator mentions

per person

Awards,

rewards,recognition

Poor

management

Company

structure

Company

culture

Process External

(to company)

Total Ave. per

person

Technical visionaries 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.1 97 4.0

TV-% of total 20 25 21 13 19 3 100

Technical managers 0.7 1.8 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 103 4.7

TM-% of total 16 38 24 7 16 0 100

HR managers 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 57 3.2

HR-% of total 26 35 19 14 5 0 100

TV DEMOTIVATORS

Company

Culture

Poor

Management

Company

culture (7)

Poor metrics /

company

vision (3)

Short-term

focus (3)

Awards,

Rewards,

Recognition

Promotion

limitations (4)

Rewarding the

wrong thing (3)

Rewarding the

wrong people

(4)

Reward is too

small (3)

Rewarding

everyone the

same (3)

Taking awayprevious

awards (2)

Process

No process (4)

Bad customers

(4)

Thrown into

administrative

role (4)

Bad process

(3)

Not being able

to follow

product to

market (2)

Bad vendors

(1)

Lack of open-

ended time for

visionaries (7)

Unsupportive

manager (5)

Dictator

manager (5)

Meddling

manager (4)

Manager that

dismisses

ideas (3)

External (to

company)

Business /

economic

environment

(3)

Company

Structure

Bureaucracy

(9)

Organizational

changes that

did not work

(6)

Poor

structures (5)

Figure 4. Complete set of demotivators technical visionaries.




13/19

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 verydemotivating. Managers that make rash deci-

sions, that dont hear you out completely, that

tend to mandate things as opposed to empower

people . . . More worried about style than sub-

stance. (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 self-

centered. (TV11)

As many things as a manager can do to support TV

motivation, there are just as many ways in whichtheir 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% (demotivat-

ing) versus those that can carve out unique posi-tions 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 figure out how to get

funding or get things done (such as the arcanepurchasing process) and then they change the

organization and I have to start over . . . Its

TM PERCEPTION OF TV

DEMOTIVATORS

Process

Complexities

of process (5)

Bureaucracy

(7)

Unfortunate

decisions that

must be made

(6)

Lack of

resources (6)

Intimidation /

criticism (5)

Routine tasks

(5)

Poor

Management

Lack of

funding (7)

Too many

constraints (6)

Innovation on

demand (3)

Meddling

manager (4)

Too much / too

little (3)

Innovation

process is

lengthy (1)

Awards,Rewards,

Recognition

Reward the

wrong people

(7)

Dual ladder (4)

Performance

management

(5)

Short-term

rewards dont

match long-

term goals (4)

Quotas on

innovation

process (3)

Innovation

process

standards (1)

Short-term

focus (7)

Poor

structures (6)

Physicalenvironment

(2)

Structures

promote

competition (3)

Company

Structure

Audit controls(3)

Company

Culture

Figure 5. Complete set of demotivators technical managers.


2012 The Authors



14/19

unclear who can say yes to a process, but

many people can say no. (TV13)

On the cultural side, senior managements orienta-

tion 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 innova-

tive 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 pre-

vented them from bringing their ideas and innova-

tions 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 fill out forms

and justify your existence to other people allthe time and that clearly goes against the inno-

vation ambitions. (TV3)

In sum, in addition to poor management ofTVs, which

every TV identified as demotivating, organizationalstructures, 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 ondemotivating technical visionaries

In addition to their general alignment on TV motiva-

tors, TVs and TMs were somewhat aligned on theirperceptions of what demotivates TVs, especially in

terms of the salience of awards, rewards and recog-

nition, company structure, and process as potential

demotivators. As TMs were the most fluent of the

three groups in articulating what motivates TVs, so

are they the most fluent 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 empha-

sized problems associated with managers becoming

too involved and meddling with details, TMs also

acknowledged that failing to provide resources caneasily demotivate and hinder TV innovation. The

TVs find company culture to be somewhat more

HRM PERCEPTION OF TV

DEMOTIVATORS

Dictator (4)Dual Ladder

(3)

Bureaucracy

(3)

Lack of

attention /

recognition (2)

Poor

Management

Poor

structures (5)

Lack of

resources (8)

TV pushed

into

management

(3)

Set up TV for

failure (6)

Poor company

vision (5)

Large

company

culture (in

general) (3)

Performance

management

system (4)

Company

Culture

Awards,

Rewards,

Recognition

Ineffective

recognition (6)

Reward wrong

thing (2)

Recognize

wrong people

(3)

Company

StructureProcess

Figure 6. Complete set of demotivators human resource managers.




15/19

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 managerialbehavior is not unexpected. This finding 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 oradministrated appropriately. Inappropriate admin-

istration of a reward system includes misaligning the

size of an award or reward with the perceived contri-

bution of the innovation, not rewarding or recogniz-

ing people who did contribute to an achievement

and rewarding people who did not contribute to an

achievement. In addition, the firm needs to figure out

how to strike the balance between rewarding indi-

viduals and teams because

. . . innovation often comes out of a collabo-

rative setting and so if you reward the indi-vidual 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 specifically 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 indi-

cated that his TVs were demotivated by there being

no definite career path and promise of milestones

. . . where I can see where Im going.

Interestingly, very few HRMs cite an ineffec-

tive or missing innovation process as a TV demoti-vator, 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 theirpurview, while innovation processes are not.

In summary, all three groups indicate that poor

management by TMs is the most salient TV demoti-

vator, 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 articu-

lation of potential demotivators, whereas TMs down-

play the ability of company culture to demotivate,

and HRMs seem unaware of the ability of an inef-

fective innovation process to demotivate. However,

in general, there is much higher alignment in the

saliency of TV demotivators than was found in thesaliency of motivators, especially for HRMs.

6. Discussion and implicationsfor 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 moti-

vates 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 opin-

ions 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 theycould 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 con-

sistent with the findings 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 timeand resources, and supportive management practices

were among the items that TMs saw as most effective


2012 The Authors



16/19

in motivating TVs. HRMs focused on the reward and

recognition systems they help create and how those

systems are administered. Each of the groups recog-nized 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 organiza-

tions in which they work. First and foremost, while

TVs are intrinsically motivated, they also can be

demotivated. It is important to select potential inno-

vators based of their intrinsic motivation to solve

customer problems. These results are also in line with

what has been found elsewhere in the creativity lit-

erature that higher intrinsic motivation is associated

with more creative outputs (Amabile, 1993, 1998).Then, it is important for organizations to avoid demo-

tivating these highly skilled individuals by stifling

innovation, assigning work that does not enable

potential visionaries to contribute significantly, 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 identified by TVs and TMs was the

TVs manager. It is imperative to have a TM who

both understands the breakthrough product develop-ment process and supports the TV through inno-

vation 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 obsta-

cles and demonstrate a fine balance in management

practice between listening and supporting and chal-

lenging and pushing. These TMs are also in a posi-

tion 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 itis 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 pri-

ority when companies seek to increase innovative

output.

A corollary recommendation would be for TMs to

be more assertive in influencing 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

flexibility in those systems that deal with TVs, and

(3) then using this flexibility to reward and recognizeTVs appropriately. This may include stock options,

bonuses, innovation awards, etc.

Third, companies need to bridge the divide in per-

ception between HRMs and both TVs and TMs.

Every HRM interview began with a clear and explicitdefinition of what a TV was and how it differed

from the more general technologist population, and

identified the TV we had interviewed specifically.

Additionally, each question they were asked specifi-

cally referred to motivating Technical Visionaries.

However, even with repeated, specific references to

TVs, reading across the HRM interviews, it is strik-

ing just how few of them seem to be able to differ-

entiate 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 inter-viewed seemed unable to focus on how to motivate

just those special individuals but kept reverting to the

more general motivational processes and mecha-

nisms in the firm.

While TMs generally agreed with TVs on how

they should be motivated, HRMs typically focused

only on those things that catered to the average tech-

nical professional. In many cases, it does not make

organizational sense to make exceptions to policies.

However, TVs are some of the most valuable empl-

oyees within an organization. HRMs need to work

with TMs to ensure that they have the flexibilitythey 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) bringingideas 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 motivat-

ing TVs involves a complex mix of actions, proc-

esses, and structures. No individual TV is identical

to the others, and each is motivated and demotivated

slightly differently. However, through insightfulmanagement and freedom to work outside of the

company norms, organizations cannot only avoid




17/19

demotivating TVs but also create an environment

such that they are motivated to innovate.

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 moti-

vators and demotivators are present in an organiza-

tion, and how that relates to the number of TVs,

innovation rate, and overall success of breakthrough

innovation in the firm and its contribution to revenue

and profit.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the individuals who

participated in the interviews for this research

project, as well as those who helped find 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 dataanalysis, 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 Manage-

ment, 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 Busi-

ness Review, 71, 6, 3749.

Amabile, T.M. (1998) How to kill creativity. Harvard Busi-

ness 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 firms. International Journal of

Technology Management, 17, 3, 259282.

Barczak, G., Griffin, A., and Kahn, K.B. (2009) PER-

SPECTIVE: trends and drivers of success in NPD prac-

tices: results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 1,

323.

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 edu-

cation. The Academy of Management Learning and Edu-

cation 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

benefit 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 Manage-

ment 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 Perform-ance, 30, 109131.

Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1993) The voice of the cus-

tomer. Marketing Science, 12, 1, 127.

Griffin, A., Price, R.L., Maloney, M.M., Vojak, B.A., and

Sim, E.W. (2009) Voices from the field: how exceptional

electronic industrial innovators innovate. Journal of

Product Innovation Management, 26, 2, 222240.

Griffin, A., Price, R.L., and Vojak, B.A. (2012) Serial

Innovators: How Individuals Create and Deliver Break-

through Innovations in Mature Firms. Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Hebda, J., Vojak, B.A., Griffin, A., and Price, R.L. (2007)

Motivating technical visionaries in large American cor-porations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-

ment, 54, 3, 433444.

Jauch, L.R. (1976) Tailoring incentives to fit 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 Manage-

ment Executive, 1, 2, 99108.

Koning, J.W. Jr. (1993) Three other Rs: recognition,

reward and resentment. Research-Technology Manage-

ment, 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.


2012 The Authors



18/19

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 careerorientation. 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., Griffin, A., Price, R.L., and Perlov, K. (2006)

Characteristics of technical visionaries as perceived by

American and British industrial physicists. R&D Man-

agement, 36, 1, 1724.

Welch, S. (1975) Sampling by referral in a dispersed popu-

lation. 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.

John Hebda is currently a Case Team Leader at Bain

and Company. He received his MS in Systems and

Entrepreneurial Engineering and BS in ElectricalEngineering from the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign. The research appearing in this

paper was completed during his time at the Univer-

sity 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 Administra-

tion 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 EnterpriseSystems 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 tech-

nology management, in particular how innovators

come to know what to do.

Abbie Griffin 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. Griffins research investi-

gates how to measure and improve the process of newproduct development. She is an avid environmental-

ist, skier, hiker, and quilter.

Raymond L. Price is the Severns Chair for Human

Behavior and Professor in Industrial and Enterprise

Systems Engineering at the University of Illinois atUrbana-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, lead-

ership, and management skills that will be useful to

them in their careers.

Appendix

Interview instrument

This is an abridged interview instrument for the tech-

nical visionaries. For the interviews with the techni-

cal managers and HR representatives, the questions

were slightly modified to ask what structures/

incentives/etc. were put in place that served to moti-

vate technical visionaries within their organizations

1. We define 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 organ-

ized. As a reminder, when we discuss motiva-

tion, 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 ordemotivating 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 firm?f. Can you recall any other structures that we

have not yet discussed that serve to motivate




19/19

technical visionaries to continue striving to

innovate in other firms through friends or col-

leagues 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 firm?

h. What, in your view, is the most effective struc-

ture overall in motivating you and other tech-

nical visionaries?

2. In the next few questions, we will discuss incen-

tives, 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 classification ques-

tions

c. What was the best incentive, reward or recog-nition you have received, with the goal the

incentive, reward or recognition being motiva-

tion? Would you classify this as:

d. What was the worst incentive, reward or rec-

ognition 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 dis-

cussed that have been used to motivate your-

self and other technical visionaries in your

firm? Would you classify this as:

f. Can you recall any incentives, rewards or rec-

ognition that acted as de-motivators (motivatedyou 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 firms 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 dis-

cussed that serve to de-motivate yourself and

other technical visionaries in your firm? Wouldyou 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

Motivating technical visionaries.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Motivating technical visionaries.pdf