Innovation engagement is necessary for innovative companies to remain competitive and sustain growth.
Having everyone on board, regardless of their level of participation in the innovation process, is a vital component of exercising your company vision.
With team members united in leveraging skills and organizational creativity, successful project management and execution of innovation initiatives follow.
Hence, as the project manager of the company, you are required to understand how you can utilize organizational structure in effectively taking risks and overcoming challenges.
That way, you can become an innovative company capable of engineering teams that collaborate in making informed decisions to achieve company goals.
To begin, there are three main types of innovation engagement strategies that you need to learn about: the top-down management style, the bottom-up approach, and the hybrid approach.
In this article, we will take a look at the differences between these three and determine which management approach fits your business.
Let’s start.
What is the top-down approach to innovation?
Top-down innovation focuses on creating an environment that allows the development of ideas from business leaders and other members of senior management.
Known as the traditional approach to innovation, the top-down management style recognizes managers as the organization’s sole decision-makers when it comes to innovation activities.
Business leaders will actively seek out promising innovation opportunities and direct resources toward them.
They will then establish the company’s direction, plans, and projects, while everyone else follows suit.
In this type of innovation engagement, the senior management creates the goals, objectives, and strategies that will drive innovation effectively.
While the rest of the team, however, executes it.
One of the most famous organizations to focus on and succeed in this type of management is Apple.
As seen in their most successful products, the tech giant’s top management, particularly Steve Jobs, drove and supervised the development of the iPod, iPhone, and Macintosh.
While the company’s engineering teams concentrated on product delivery.
Advantages and disadvantages of the top-down approach
The main advantage of the top-down approach to innovation is that it allows for the rapid deployment of innovation initiatives.
This means that ideas can be realized quickly and efficiently while ensuring that resources are allocated to the areas of greatest relevance to the company.
Because of that, the vagueness and confusion are minimal due to the centralized decision-making process.
Hence, there is great understanding and cohesiveness in executing innovation campaigns and other activities.
This more defined vision is considerably simpler to carry out, and communication is neither complicated nor overwhelmed by numerous modifications and viewpoints.
However, the top-down approach can be restrictive and risk-averse.
Without the chance to hear any other input, the company may find it difficult to handle unforeseen issues and opportunities.
Moreover, top-down innovations provide fewer opportunities for creative collaboration, as all communication flows from team leaders to members with little to no room for discussion.
In effect, this decreased interdepartmental collaboration may, at some point, hinder innovation.
Additionally, it calls for proactive action to maintain a sense of engagement, connection, and respect among non-leadership employees.
Thus, other members of the team may feel that their ideas aren’t welcome and that their inputs aren’t valued at all.
This creates an inevitable gap between employees and the organization, which may then result in poorly-informed decisions and unsuccessful projects.
What is the bottom-up approach?
The bottom-up management style emphasizes the importance of allowing ideas and initiatives to come from employees.
This approach to innovation demonstrates how companies include everyone in the innovation process.
The management team creates environments that encourage employees to share their ideas.
They involve every team member in the big picture. They refuse to opt out anyone who can provide feedback and contribute to their success.
As the bottom-up approach is open to experimenting with ideas and solutions generated from within the organization, the company can then capitalize on existing knowledge and expertise.
They can exercise their ability to create new value by leveraging the collective intelligence of their organization as a whole.
This may mean investing in processes that foster team collaboration. Not only for product design, software development, and creating new technology.
But also for making incremental changes and other little coordinated steps that will significantly contribute to the industry.
Example of a bottom-up innovation approach
Large organizations can also utilize the bottom-up approach. One example of this is Google:
Where engineers are at the forefront of the company’s innovation agenda and are capable of making a huge influence on the organization’s innovation success.
This was particularly true in the early years of the business, and this strategy has helped Google to develop and expand quickly.
However, the management has unavoidably taken stronger control as the firm has grown.
Particularly over significant and profitable products like its search, advertisements, and YouTube operations.
However, Google continues to take this engineer-led method to innovation in numerous aspects of the company, allowing engineers the flexibility to try new things and build big aspirations for innovation.
Advantages and disadvantages of the bottom-up approach
The main advantage of using the bottom-up approach is that it allows for the free flow of ideas and creativity from anyone in the organization.
This means that everyone, whether manager or rank-and-file employee, is encouraged to share their perspectives and collaborate with one another in developing innovative solutions.
In addition, the bottom-up approach is more efficient in terms of establishing two-way communication within the business.
It will be easier for team members to approach bosses with their unique perspectives, resulting in a greater level of commitment and involvement in the tasks being undertaken.
Furthermore, this also gives employees a sense of value and alignment with expectations as they understand how vital their role is in the innovation process.
This encourages greater accountability and opportunities for participation, which aids in boosting employee morale and productivity.
However, the bottom-up approach also has its disadvantages.
A downside to this method would be the difficulty that it comes with in terms of control, which may lead to too many ideas being presented at once.
As a result, the process can be overwhelming and difficult to manage because it requires both the leadership and staff to be highly organized.
The bottom-up approach may lengthen the entire innovation process as ideas have to be carefully evaluated before the selection process can even begin.
That is because some ideas may not be suitable for the organization due to their nature and other considerations that may not fit with the brand at all.
A perfect example of this is how a startup may not have the resources nor the capacity to implement certain ideas:
A limitation that restricts the type of ideas that companies can accept, no matter how good they may be.
Meaning, not all viable ideas will be implemented, which can hinder the organization from enjoying tangible benefits that could’ve propelled its growth and development forward.
Lastly, employees may not have the necessary expertise or knowledge to develop high-quality ideas.
However, organizations can mitigate this risk by providing training and other resources to support to facilitate the quality of ideation and innovation within the company.
Hybrid approach
A hybrid approach is when you use both the top-down and bottom-up methods of innovation.
Naturally, with this approach, organizations can benefit from the advantages of both methods while mitigating their respective disadvantages.
The hybrid approach also allows the upper management to be the drivers of innovation strategy, while also giving employees the freedom to develop and share ideas.
It also allows organizations to take advantage of their employees’ ingenuity, while also exercising control over what the organization gets to implement.
Overall, the hybrid approach is a great way for organizations to foster innovation engagement in a holistic and comprehensive way.
By combining the top-down and bottom-up approaches, organizations can create an environment that encourages collaboration and innovation from all levels of employees.
All these while still being able to effectively control the quality of ideas before and after the innovation process.
Ultimately, using a hybrid approach is a great way for organizations to enjoy the combined benefits of innovation that come from their employees’ innovative thinking and their authority as business leaders.
By combining the top-down and bottom-up approaches, businesses may foster an atmosphere that supports the establishment of an innovation culture while still maintaining leadership.
This way, businesses can ensure that their innovation efforts are successful and that their employees are engaged and motivated to come up with innovative solutions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, organizations should consider using a hybrid approach to foster innovation engagement.
Integrating both top-down and bottom-up approaches can help companies foster a culture of collaboration and creativity while maintaining management and decision-making authority.
That way, organizations can benefit from the advantages of both methods while gradually managing their drawbacks for maximum growth.
Improve your innovation engagement with Accept Mission today. Download our free innovation ebook today to learn more.
