protectors and sponsors of the outside group

After reduced costs and improved the process, companies are faced with the need for growth, and the imperative of innovation is at the forefront of their concerns, both in the products and activities or operating modes. If the occurrence of innovation seems sometimes mysterious, it is clear that it is involved in a human context with people, teams and organizations who know how to break with the usual procedure, the repetition of the past to open to novelty. There is even a paradox between innovation and the essence of the modern organizations seeking to standardize, repeat, reproduce efficiently.

Among all the factors favourable to this innovation, is obviously the original personalities of these creative professionals with great flexibility and a great opening. The talent of these figures would be to integrate the originality of their approaches in the constraints of an organization to make effective and operational. Some companies are deliberately seeking these figures out of the ordinary. This can often be vain and sometimes unsuccessful. In a study of the "stars" of the finance, it was found that these innovative and effective geniuses saw their efficiency significantly lower when they changed their business, after having been driven out by a competitor (1). In fact, looking for stars or outstanding professionals is often tend to overestimate their talent as a success factor and underestimate how much their teams, organizations, methods of working together allow that talent to flourish in the previous business.

Indeed, innovation in the enterprise is a collective phenomenon. Evidenced by the development organizations by projects, in transversal teams or all sorts of multidisciplinary teams attached to a problem. The complexity of the problems forced to combine different skills and to "produce" innovation as a whole. This is therefore the practical issue of management of proximity of these teams. To what extent can management on a daily basis promote or, on the contrary, to prevent it Management of proximity, it means this concrete and daily work of the teams coaching.

By working with managers on the type of management that they favour innovation teams, several strong features appeared. The first concerns the attitude to the rules, procedures or processes. A rigid attitude, an application without discernment of these rules are considered inhibantes to the innovation process. This deserves to be noted at the time where it is drawn to document and to freeze the process. Some companies have made the experience of the perverse effects of so much documented procedures that they discourage any innovation. The second concerns the quality of the working relationship between the members of the team and with the manager: relationships made opening and listening in respect of the roles of each would seem to encourage innovation. It is important to point out at the time where the pressure on the time and the results, on the one hand, the universal claim for more autonomy, on the other hand, lead to sometimes flee these human relationships are the daily experience of the work. Finally, there is the exemplary attitude manager innovation, experimentation or novelty and its ability to enhance what contributes.

Two levels of response therefore appear to impose a management of innovation friendly proximity. The first is the managers themselves and their mode of management. The second concerns the context of the exercise of their activity management.

Management of proximity: Bonaparte

the broom

In areas where innovation is important, where it runs many projects, Leavitt and Lipman-Blumen (2) develop their concept of the "hot group", typical of the organizations where it brings together complementary skills to complete a project. These groups of professionals do not match the traditional image of the harmonious team which served as a reference for decades. On the contrary, the members of these groups have generally not team spirit; individualists focused on their task, they find an accomplishment very personal. Manager innovation then is to operate effectively together these individualists, and this requires four main skills.

First, must be tolerance for chaos and ambiguity. One for management, it is giving orders immediately carried out, follow the procedures to the letter and assume that each is likewise will be necessarily very unfortunate situations where flexibility, flexibility and openness make uncertain operating modes regardless of the issue of the production to achieve.

Second, the manager must focus its management on the social process of the team rather than on the task. This separation between technical and social process is classic in management: manager, is to ensure that the objective is achieved, and the task; It also ensure relationships within the group so that people can effectively interact and coordinate their activities. It is this social process that need to be leaders of "hot groups" by being attentive to relations, communication, conflict resolution or the morale of everyone in the group. This represents a real challenge, since the system of values and skills of many managers are rather at the level of the task: this is also why they have been promoted managers...

Third, managers must be "pro-", i.e. protectors and sponsors of the outside group. If members of a "hot group" generally do not perceive the inputs of a manager for their daily work, they blame him, however, everything that could hinder their work. The security and recognition are important elements of the quality of work of the group.

Fourthly, States that manager under these conditions is also a drama. The authors suggest there that it is not enough to have the authority, or even personal legitimacy. Equally, it is insufficient to do appeal to manager the rules of the undertaking, the delegations of responsibility, the definitions of functions or the contours of the established procedures. Manager is to use a wide range of skills with the capacity for negotiation, compromise, seduction, or intimidation. It is the person in all of its components is committed in the exercise of this mission.

Thus, it appears that manager under these conditions is not easy, but, on the contrary, much more difficult than in normal and stable situations. Better yet, this requires personal skills that are not easy, but more difficult to develop (3). The model of manager can no longer be that of Bonaparte at the bridge of Arcole as the represents Vernet, proud and front-line soldiers who blindly follow and full of confidence. Models of the new manager in a situation of innovation must be searched, in sport in General, "curling" in particular. In this exciting sport akin to the pétanque on ice, an athlete drags a stone of granite polished ice to approach it as possible to the centre of concentric circles drawn at the other end of the rink. Curling, our manager of innovation would be the bearer of broom;

He rubs the ice in order to facilitate the progression of the stone. He develops great efforts for the success of the launch, but without ever touching the stone... As in many human activities, the manager must make great efforts to ensure that nothing happens, or at least that everyone has the impression. Pass of Bonaparte the broom is not easy. This requires not only expertise on the part of managers, but also another vision of themselves and their role, a shift from their sources of recognition.

A favourable context: consistency and perseverance over gadgets

A mode of management may be favourable to innovation if the context is. In this context, look in the first place staff policies. Inconsistent management practices with HRM practices will prove to be very inefficient. In a study on the policies of companies successful, Pfeffer (4) stresses the fact that they are less human resources policies with consistency and perseverance with which they are applied. This consistency must be at several levels: between policy and practice of management of human resources, between these practices and the "business model", in last place with references to the company database (culture, values, etc.). Sample corporations include SAS Institute, a company of the end of the 1970s that developed in the area of software for statistical analysis of data before cover many areas of the software and information systems. Innovation is a strong feature of the company that managed to cross the last thirty years with steady growth despite profound changes in the sector, products, requirements of customer and even the professional culture of its employees. The most striking in the review of Pfeffer on this company, it is the consistency of human resource management practices: highly selective recruitment, great attention to the quality of life in the workplace, flat organizations with a large autonomy and responsibility left to the greatest number, etc. But the most important is not: in this business, innovation and development are at the heart of the "business model" and the great attention paid to the people and the quality of their lives and their work organisation, which promotes the collective, is intended to contribute to this vision of the business. These conditions are not sufficient because another defining characteristic of their "business model", the first attention to customers. Innovation is in permanent contact with customers to identify the emergence of their needs and their participation in all stages of development. The working conditions and human resources management are nothing without this stimulus from the outside.

Some will say that the culture of the company is a context element essential to the effectiveness of the management of proximity. It is true that there are cultures of innovation. Citroën, for example, had this reputation in the automotive sector. But what is meant by this Is it possible to develop a culture of innovation Should never forget that culture, it is what people do and not what they say. Rather than what they are doing this are the references for their actions, not always aware. These references underlie actions, decisions and behaviour; they developed their efficiency. Culture has therefore no magic. A culture develops in consistent and persistent action. The idea of strengthening a culture of innovation can support, but the requirements are as follows.

First, it must consider the existing references in the current culture on innovation: what kind of innovation, with what recognition, in what areas, to what effect.

Second, the strengthening, is standing in the first place on evaluation systems. These are collective evaluations: extent of management control, the "reporting", the presentation of the results, the allocation of resources, the arbitration of investments reflect this concern for innovation. They are also semi-collectives or individual evaluations in the systems of recognition and reward teams and individuals, for example.

Personnel policies do therefore not the enabling environment for a generator management of innovation, is consistency between these human resources management practices and the "business model", on the one hand, and the culture of the company, on the other hand, which is the essential condition.

Develop managers for innovation

We should not conclude from the foregoing that innovation depends on that of outstanding personality of manager or the context of this managerial relationship. You can also develop managers so they know create the managerial environment favourable to innovation. To do this, a branch should act on several levels.

The first is to admit that one can (must) develop managers. I.e. give them the means to learn their role and related practices. See the Organization of training management of some companies now left to the jurisdiction of the buyers, are sometimes doubtful of the awareness of the need to develop managerial skills.

The second level is to effectively develop allowing them to acquire basic skills to the Bonaparte crossing MOP bearer. The evolution of its role, awareness of induced changes in behaviour, the discovery of new sources of satisfaction in the exercise of management require a true learning. Two tracks allow to initiate such a process: start developing managers able to evolve their role so that it inspires innovation requires that they know better identify behaviours of manager and their causes. In all situations where the manager by his lack of listening, its bad relations or its lack of openness blocks or hinders innovation, it is rarely by malice or ill will, but more often by mistake. You can learn to better identify its ways of doing and understanding. The second runway is to identify the consequences of his behaviour on others: if managers had this ability, they would not fatal errors that break on a daily basis any possibility of innovation both in the content of the activities in the way of working.

The third runway of action, it is not just to develop managers. In flatter organizations where officials must fend for their results, in negotiated objectives, but with a wide latitude on the means of achieving, there is sometimes the temptation to let so self-contained that one does more nothing. Managers will be fully effective only if their practice stands not with the general operation of the undertaking, if the practices at the highest level are best. Help have appropriate innovation management mode, it is not to fall in the syndrome of the war of 1914-1918, when the Parisian intellectuals, sipping their absinthe in the terrace of cafes, gave advice to the poilus, supporting the mud, the canister and typhus to the bottom of the trench...