Last week at the Second World Congress on the Future of Work, we spent a lot of time talking about how to implement new types of work models. Of particular interest were the trends of gradual retirement (vs. a full stop at 65, 66, etc.) and the emergent workforce, the characteristics of which can be found here. During these conversations, the need for leadership emerged loud and clear, and we also spent time talking about the new types of skills that managers need (focus on collaboration vs. command/control - more on that later).
What was striking to me, however, was the relative lack of conversation about money. When I suggested that in order to innovate around the future of work you needed a budget, I was met with resistance, with one of the audience members stating that she didn't feel like budget was a factor, that leaders would figure it out -- would innovate -- without worrying about budgets.
Now, for a pilot program, a budget is probably less important. Many new programs seem to be coming up from the grassroots in a corporation, and therefore work outside the traditional budget route. However, if a company wants to move beyond the pilot phase, they need to seriously consider how budgets -- particularly in facilities, IT, and HR -- need to be re-swizzled to support new programs.
If we look at this same innovation - budget issue in marketing and communications, we run into similar issues. We innovate on a shoestring, and we are currently trying to figure out how to budget for all of these new communications tools, for example, where the cost of the infrastructure isn't the issue -- it is time.
When you are innovating, you by definition don't always know what the costs are. Pilot programs exist, in part, in order to quantify benefits and costs, to figure out what works and what doesn't. It seems to me, however, just on anecdotal evidence, that innovation is shortchanged by the insistence that it be done with next to no money. By assuming that it can, we run the danger of placing undue burden on the innovator, who can easily burn out fighting his/her (usually) uphill battles.
What do you think? Are we in the habit of shortchanging innovation due to an assumption it can be done on a shoestring? Stretching this a bit further, does this mean that by focusing only on shareholder value, for public companies for example, does this mean that innovative ideas can't be funded?
Comments