Models of the creative process underlying innovation have traditionally been based on a romantic worldview.^[5] In this romantic framework, idea generation, a potential in all people, is seen as a mystical event. Recent research, however, has painted a rather different picture of creative thought. Creative thought is commonly held to occur selectively in response to complex, novel, ill-defined problems in which the individual has discretion concerning the approach, or approaches, to be taken in problem solving.^[6] Typically, generation of solutions to these kinds of problems requires a high level of expertise and a substantial investment of cognitive resources.^[7] To solve these problems, people must define the problem, gather relevant information, identify appropriate concepts, combine and reorganize concepts, generate ideas based on this new conceptual structure, evaluate and revise these ideas, plan and execute implementation of the idea, and monitor idea implementation.^[8] Effective execution of these processing operations requires appropriate application of strategies for working with information relevant to the domain at hand.^[9] Even given expertise, effort, and effective execution of requisite processing strategies, most creative efforts fail.^[10]

The high failure rate of new ideas frames the problem confronting organizations in an idea-driven economy.^[11] It is not always clear if a new idea is needed. And, even when new ideas are needed, substantial time and effort must be invested in idea development,^[12] and the likelihood of rejection by the market is substantial—remember the Edsel. To complicate matters further, organizational routines and economies of scale cannot be readily used to offset this risk.^[13] Further, multiple parties, with conflicting and competing agendas, will be involved in the generation, development, and fielding of new ideas, resulting in conflict that can bring idea generation and development to a halt^[14]—a point nicely illustrated in Detroit’s late development of front-wheel drive cars.^[15] Even if organizations somehow manage to shepherd an idea through all these gates, they are left with a problem. Someone else may come along and steal the idea without incurring the costs entailed in the initial idea development.^[16]

This thumbnail sketch of the challenges involved in idea generation, and the development of innovative new products, is important because it frames the problem confronting leaders who seek innovation. Ultimately, the leaders of innovative ventures must (1) identify and define problems worth pursuing—those problems where the potential payoffs of the solution justify the risk; (2) create a context that allows multiple parties to work together in generating viable ideas—ideas that have a chance of successful implementation; and (3) manage the context of idea development and fielding—to ensure that viable ideas are likely to be adopted in the market place.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the nature of the model implied by this definition, generation, and implementation framework. Within this framework, environmental analysis, recognition of opportunities or potentialities, along with the significance of failures or deficiencies, vis-à-vis the environment, is held to trigger strategic analysis of the problem by a leadership team. This leadership team, based on its analysis of the problem, or potentiality, defines a mission focused on certain broad objectives. Mission definition, in turn, allows formation of the teams to be tasked with the creative problem solving and establishment of the climate and context in which the team will operate. Team products and processes are then evaluated by leaders and other members of the organization, with relevant criteria and broader organizational considerations shaping evaluation and revision of the idea. Evaluation and revision provide a basis for planning idea development and subsequent fielding of the product, or products, developed on the basis of this idea—activities that require adequate support and resources as well as process management.

Figure 6.1. Core Functional Requirements for Leaders of Creative Efforts.

In the context of the present discussion, this model is noteworthy because it indicates the key considerations that must be taken into account as leaders define problems, shape idea generation, and shepherd people through the process of idea development and fielding. An understanding of what leaders must do suggests the kind of actions that might be taken to enhance performance in leading for innovation.

The missions that provide a basis for innovation in organizations do not arise spontaneously. Instead, they appear closely linked to the demands made by, and potentialities evident in, the environment in which the organization is operating. In fact, internal and external turbulence seems to stimulate innovation by energizing a search for adaptive solutions.^[17] Souitaris’s findings indicated that use of external information sources such as customer feedback, supplier feedback, market research, competition monitoring, technology monitoring, joint ventures, and international contacts all contributed to innovation.^[18] External information, including events (for example, product failures) that have adaptive implications, is especially likely to induce innovation when problems are revealed.^[19] However, at least at times, identification of potentialities (for example, new technological capabilities) can also induce innovation.^[20]

The importance of environmental adaptation in determining the need for, and feasibility of, innovation has a rather straightforward implication with regard to the leadership. Leadership requires active monitoring of the internal and external environment. Some support for this conclusion has been provided by Koberg, Uhlenbruck, and Sarason, who found that innovation was positively related to environmental scanning and analysis by senior leaders.^[21] Although it appears that information seeking is critical to innovation, it is of little value unless leaders can identify the portents of this information. For example, failure to recognize the importance of personal computers led IBM to enter the market late, after surrendering substantial market share to competitors. In research along this theme, Kickul and Gundry found that leader creative abilities moderate the impact of scanning on innovation.^[22] Similarly, O’Connor found that the ability of leaders to forecast future trends was critical to innovation.^[23] These findings point to the value of attempts to develop creative thinking and forecasting skills.^[24]

The available evidence also indicates that the diversity of the information sought in scanning contributes to innovation. As a result, senior leaders who initiate innovation possess a diverse network of atypical contacts^[25]—for example, a plastics manufacturer who has contacts in the building industry. However, Bonnardel and Marméche found that diverse external information contributes to innovation only when people have substantial expertise.^[26] Apparently, without appropriate expertise, people have difficulty integrating information from different sources and extrapolating the implications of this information. Thus, to lead for innovation, people need expertise in the domain where the innovation is taking place.^[27]

What should be recognized in this regard, however, is that organizations are complex, multifunctional entities that must respond to a complex, multifaceted, internal and external environment. Given the time required to develop expertise and its specificity to a particular content area or domain, these characteristics of organizations suggest that effective leadership of major innovative efforts will require leadership teams—teams containing diverse expertise—rather than an individual leader.^[28] The advantage of diverse leadership teams in contributing to innovation is that they increase the amount of different external information available.^[29] Another way diverse teams contribute to innovation is that they provide the multiple perspectives needed for integrative thought and comprehensive evaluation.^[30] Still another way they contribute to innovation is by providing leaders who can fulfill different roles in different phases of the idea generation and development process.^[31] Thus Hauschildt and Kirchmann found that the technical and financial success of innovative projects increased when multiple leaders filling multiple different roles were involved.^[32]

From a practical perspective, these findings indicate that leadership for innovation will require shared leadership.^[33] Shared leadership, which entails both power sharing and collaborative decision making, is only likely to prove effective if attempts are made to enhance team performance. Thus, interventions intended to clarify goals and objectives, build trust, define shared mental models, and encourage open, lateral, communication may prove useful.^[34] Finally, to ensure collaboration, joint accountability—evaluations based on project success rather than individual achievement—will be required.

Identification of a potential opportunity or a problem requiring attention, however, does not imply that leaders should automatically seek innovation. Instead, a decision should be made as to whether or not innovation represents a viable, adaptive response. In making these strategic decisions, the leaders must take into account a number of considerations, including (1) the readiness of the market; (2) the strategic envelope, or conditions of the market, in which pursuing the idea will prove valuable; (3) the cost of idea development; (4) the feasibility of protecting the advantages accruing to initial development of the idea; (5) the available skills and resources for idea development; (6) likely synergies with other efforts; and (7) long-term strategic positioning.^[35] The problem that arises here, however, is that by virtue of their novelty and ambiguity, strategic decisions with regard to innovation are difficult and will be undermined by the application of short-term financial criteria.^[36] Thus leaders must apply a long time frame, in which risk is accepted.

When appraising problems and potentialities, leaders are most likely to define and pursue efforts that “fit” with the organization’s current culture, markets, core competencies, and technologies. Of course, these high-fit, or incremental, innovations have a greater chance of success and can be developed at lower cost over a shorter time frame.^[37] Moreover, sustained chains of incremental innovation can be used to build truly high performance organizations—consider DuPont’s work in polymers. The difficulty that arises when fit is used to frame strategy with regard to innovation, however, is that the problems and opportunities identified, and the solutions pursued, will be similar to those considered in past efforts—consider General Motors’ failure to pursue hybrid engines. As a result, application-of-fit standards in framing innovation strategy may lead to missed opportunities and an inability to cope with radical environmental and technological change.

One implication of these observations is that leaders must create a perception of fit that articulates how ideas fit in the context of other ongoing organizational activities.^[38] Thus, leaders seeking innovation must engage in political tactics, not only acquiring top management support but also building acceptance for the legitimacy of the effort based on competitor threats, linkage to other initiatives, and competency building.^[39] Leaders, moreover, in strategy formulation must determine how to structure and manage the effort to buffer and maintain the work.^[40] In other words, the leaders of creative efforts must shape the context in which the work will be conducted—they cannot simply order innovation.

Strategy, of course, establishes the parameters around which a mission is formulated. In contrast to a vision, which articulates an idealized future, a mission is product- or solution-oriented, to be executed within certain defined parameters. Missions (for example, DuPont’s attempt to develop synthetic fibers that mimicked the properties of wool), specifically challenging technical missions that produce valued outcomes, have been found to be powerful motivators for creative people.^[41] In fact, studies by Rickards, Chen, and Moger, at an individual level, and Pinto and Prescott, at a group level, have shown that a sense of mission is critical to innovation in organizational settings.^[42]

A sense of mission contributes to innovation in four ways. First, clear objectives to which team members are committed maintain motivation in the face of failure or resistance.^[43] Second, missions provide a structure around which collaborative relationships can be established and conflicts resolved on a task rather than a personalized basis.^[44] Third, missions provide a framework for structured idea development that does not unduly restrict the autonomy and potential unique contributions of team members.^[45] Finally, missions provide a framework for sense making, and sense making is critical to performance wherever people must work on the kind of novel, ill-defined tasks that call for creative thought.^[46]

These varied, and powerful, effects of mission indicate that leadership will involve defining, and engaging people in, the mission at hand. In defining missions, leaders must take into account a number of considerations. To begin, missions must be defined that prove challenging to people with respect to the development and application of their professional expertise. And missions must be defined in such a way that they are neither too narrow, thereby restricting creativity, nor too broad, thereby providing insufficient guidance.

Not only must leaders carefully define missions; they must engage, and reengage, people in the mission. One way leaders engage people in a mission is by creating a sense of crisis, or urgency, surrounding the mission.^[47] Another way leaders engage people in a mission is by articulating its significance for others and the organization as a whole.^[48] Still another way leaders engage others in a mission is by energizing people emotionally.^[49] A case in point may be found in Oppenheimer’s development of the first atomic bomb, where war, patriotism, and the excitement of breaking new technical ground made multiple innovations possible.

In organizations, creative problem solutions are developed and built around missions. Traditionally, leaders have not been viewed as integral to creative problem-solving efforts. Having defined the mission, their job is to stand back and let the creative people do their work. Although this view seems plausible, it is simply not borne out by the facts of the matter. In one study along these lines, Andrews and Farris obtained measures of leader attributes that might be related to innovation, including technical evaluation, motivating others, and autonomy granted and found that leader technical skills was the best predictor of team creative performance.^[50] In another study along these lines, Barnowe examined the productivity of research and development teams with respect to five leader attributes: (1) support, (2) participation, (3) closeness of supervision, (4) task emphasis, and (5) technical skill.^[51] He found that the leader’s technical skill was the best predictor of creativity and innovation.

The importance of leader technical skills to team performance indicates that leaders make a real tangible contribution to problem solving and idea generation. Leaders perform a critical function by obtaining, and calling the group’s attention to, external information that must be considered in problem solving.^[52] Leaders, moreover, serve to stimulate the elaboration and exploration of idea implications, which has been found to be critical to the generation of creative problem solutions.^[53] Finally, leaders define viable and nonviable solution paths within the broader context of the effort at hand—an important determinant of the nature and success of creative problem-solving efforts in technical fields.^[54] It is, of course, difficult to see how any of these functions can be executed if leaders lack requisite technical skills and good creative problem-solving skills.

Not only must leaders shape solutions; they must also shape the interactional context in which creative problem-solutions are generated. Thus, leaders must stimulate active intellectual engagement—to spur the development of new ideas and approaches.^[55] They must not only encourage participation but know whose participation is likely to prove crucial.^[56] And they must manage debate surrounding technical issues in such a way that the integration of different technical perspectives becomes possible. Thus, technical and creative problem-solving skills (for example, problem definition, conceptual combination) allow leaders to orchestrate the context for the integrative efforts that provide a basis for idea generation. The need for leaders to orchestrate the idea generation context, however, suggests that wisdom and interpersonal skills may also be at a premium in leading for innovation.^[57]

Leaders, of course, must do something more than shape the context for idea generation; ultimately, leaders must evaluate the problem solutions proposed by others.^[58] Traditionally, solution evaluation has been viewed as a reactive, nongenerative activity in which the merits of a proposed idea are evaluated with respect to fixed standards such as cost effectiveness, market share, and risk. In contrast to this traditional view of the idea evaluation process, more recent research suggests that idea evaluation may be an inherently generative activity in which initial ideas are reshaped and reformed to enhance their chances of success.^[59]

This point is nicely illustrated in a recent study by Lonergan, Scott, and Mumford, who asked undergraduates to assume the role of marketing managers reviewing advertising campaigns being developed for a new product.^[60] The campaigns presented to these “managers” were selected to reflect varying levels of quality and originality. It was found that the most original and highest-quality campaigns were obtained when the standards for initial evaluation and revision of ideas applied led to revisions intended to enhance the workability of highly original ideas and when the standards applied led to revisions intended to enhance the originality of higher-quality ideas. Thus, leaders’ evaluations, vis-à-vis subsequent revisions, contributed to the generation of more creative products.

One implication of these findings is that leaders should try to provide compensatory feedback in appraising new ideas. An example may be found in the kind of feedback Lee Iacocca provided to the designers during his turnaround of the Chrysler Corporation—encouraging the design of practical cars, not just technology development. Another, perhaps somewhat more subtle, implication of these findings is that leaders should apply different standards when appraising different ideas—varying evaluation criteria over time as initial ideas are elaborated and extended. Hence, a key contribution made by leaders is defining the kind of standards that should be applied in evaluating and revising ideas at a given point in time and in certain settings.^[61]

With regard to idea evaluation, however, another point should be borne in mind. In evaluating ideas, leaders, like people in general, are subject to a number of potential biasing factors.^[62] Leaders, for example, may be too quick to reject risky ideas, especially when the short-term benefits of these ideas are not immediately apparent.^[63] They may also underestimate the originality of truly novel ideas.^[64] And they may underestimate the demands imposed by idea implementation due to the operation of optimistic biases.^[65] All of these phenomena will undermine the value of feedback with regard to idea revision, suggesting that interventions intended to minimize these errors—both structural interventions (for example, requiring active analysis of idea implications) and training interventions (for example, looking for the truly original features of ideas)—may well prove useful in enhancing leader performance.

Beyond their contributions to idea generation and evaluation, the actions taken by leaders in defining the environment in which the work takes place will influence creativity and innovation. Leaders play a key role in defining climate—people’s beliefs about expectations in their work environment.^[66] The role of leaders in defining climate is noteworthy because climate perceptions have been found to have a marked impact on innovation, producing multiple correlations in the .40 to .50 range with measures of idea generation and innovation.^[67] In fact, evidence indicates that creative people may be unusually sensitive to environmental requirements and contingencies.^[68]

A variety of climate dimensions have been identified that might influence innovation. In a review of this literature, Mumford and his colleagues identified twelve dimensions that are commonly considered core aspects of a creative climate: (1) autonomy, (2) risk taking, (3) intellectual stimulation, (4) participation, (5) rewards for innovation, (6) positive peer group relationships, (7) cohesiveness, (8) positive supervisory relationships, (9) rewards for innovation, (10) organizational integration, (11) mission clarity, and (12) appropriate challenge.^[69] Broadly speaking, it appears that an environment where people can safely pursue and develop new ideas in collaboration with others, where idea development is supported by the organization, contributes to innovation.

Although it is not surprising that these perceptions would contribute to people’s willingness to pursue creative work, one is left with a question. How should leaders go about engineering this kind of climate? One answer to this question may be found in Jaussi and Dionne, who found that leader role modeling of relevant behaviors was integral in shaping climate perceptions and encouraging innovation.^[70] Clearly, leaders may create feelings of autonomy and participation by avoiding overly close supervision and involving people in decision making. Perceptions concerning the value of risk taking and rewards will be influenced by how leaders react to and evaluate new ideas, as well as their willingness to support idea development efforts. In this regard, however, it is important to bear in mind the observations of Taggar, who indicated that interventions of this sort are best structured around missions and people’s intellectual contributions to these missions.^[71] Thus, climate interventions, if they are to prove successful, must encourage open exchange within the context of the work being done.

It should be recognized that however important leader behavior may be in shaping climate, climate perceptions are not fully under the control of leaders. The broader culture of the organization, particularly in organizations that evidence strong cultures, will influence the kind of climate likely to emerge in teams working on creative tasks.^[72] This point is of some importance for two reasons. First, leaders must manage climate interventions within a group vis-à-vis the broader culture of the organization. Second, leaders must seek to understand the culture, structure, and strategy of the organization and how these variables operate to shape the approaches that can be used in developing a creative climate.

Climate, of course, is also a function of the people who have been brought together to work on a project. As a result, the actions taken by leaders in team construction may have a marked impact on initial idea generation and subsequent innovation. There appear to be two major ways leaders’ actions in team formation influence idea generation and innovation: (1) structural interventions and (2) process interventions.

With regard to structure, research indicates that innovation increases with team size up to a size of about five to seven individuals. After this maximum size is exceeded, group process demands result in diminished innovation, with this process loss being particularly marked when the group contains a relatively large number of highly creative individuals.^[73] The problem confronting leaders of creative ventures, however, is that many, perhaps most, real-world innovative work projects will involve a far larger number of people. Leaders, as a result, must often manage innovative work by creating multiple subteams with distinct missions where the activities of these subteams are integrated by a steering committee.^[74] The problem here is that leaders must engage in integrative sense-making activities intended to articulate how the efforts and missions of various subteams make uniquely valuable contributions to the broader mission at hand.^[75]

With regard to process, evidence indicates that cohesive teams possessing shared, albeit moderately diverse, mental models tend to evidence higher levels of innovation, in part because these conditions permit the collaborations needed for innovation.^[76] The problem that arises in this regard, however, is that highly cohesive teams with well-established normative structures may become isolated and fall prey to a “not invented here” syndrome in which people reject information and ideas that originate outside the group.^[77] Thus, the leaders must ensure effective cross-team exchange, with these exchanges becoming more important as the group becomes more cohesive and ideas move from initial generation to development, thereby involving a wider range of functions and stakeholders.^[78]

Once an idea has been generated, development of the idea and the eventual fielding of an innovative new product will, it is hoped, occur. The translation of ideas into viable new products or processes is a difficult, demanding activity in most organizations, requiring the involvement and support of multiple units. Complexity and the need for coordination^[79] implies that planning idea development and fielding will be a critical activity in any creative venture. In keeping with this observation, Maidique and Zirger found that senior managers’ investment of time and effort in planning the development and fielding of new ideas was critical to the success of the product development effort.^[80]

In one sense, the influence of planning on idea development and fielding is straightforward. Typically, multiple parties (for example, manufacturing, marketing, sales, and purchasing) will, at some stage, be involved in the development and fielding of new ideas. Unless leaders have developed viable plans, it is unlikely that the multifunctional coordination needed for idea development and fielding will occur. In another sense, however, planning has a somewhat more subtle, and perhaps more pervasive, influence. Plans ultimately represent a mental simulation of future actions, in which these simulations are used to identify key actions, causal factors that must be leveraged, requisite resources, contingencies on actions, and applicable restrictions.^[81] The availability of this framework not only allows leaders to identify and manage the variables (for example, resources and restrictions) that determine the success of idea development; it provides the basis for recognition of emergent opportunities and construction of the backup plans that permit rapid adaptation of activities to respond to problems encountered in the idea development effort.^[82]

These observations are noteworthy, in part, because they indicate that a critical function of leadership teams will be construction and revision of the plan for development and fielding of new ideas. In leadership teams, planning tends to be case based, where past experience, practical experience, is used to forecast the implications of different approaches or actions.^[83] One implication of this finding is that relevant and diverse practical experience may be necessary for effective planning in new product development efforts. Planning, however, also depends on the analysis of experience. This point is of some importance because of the various errors that occur in planning, including overreliance on salient past cases, failure to consider multiple, complex, interactive outcomes, and errors of optimism with regard to support and contingencies.^[84] As a result, leaders must apply critical analytic thought to cherished new ideas, but cannot undermine the enthusiasm that surrounds creative efforts. Thus, leaders—like Steve Jobs—who create conditions where sustained innovation is possible must be both critics and cheerleaders.

Although people will invest cognitive resources in idea analysis as implementation plans are being formulated, once plan execution begins people appear to adopt an implementation mindset in which the plan is simply implemented.^[85] In innovation, however, multiple issues will arise that must be addressed if successful development and fielding is to occur. Leaders, as a result, must actively monitor the progress made with respect to implementation plans, challenging people to find ways to adjust and adapt these plans to current conditions and information. Thus, leaders must not only create structures that allow them to stay on top of things; they must establish a climate that encourages ongoing, adaptive revision of ideas and idea development strategies. Illustrations of this point may be found in such diverse companies as Intel and 3M.

Idea development and fielding will typically involve a broader range of people and perspectives than initial idea generation to ensure that different forms of expertise are actively engaged. The use of multifunctional teams contributes both to the speed with which new products are developed and to the ultimate success of new product development efforts.^[86] Although multifunctional teams contribute to innovation by encouraging external communication, enhancing coordination, and ensuring the ready availability of relevant expertise, their use presents the leaders with three challenges.

First, by virtue of differences in background, multifunctional teams evidence lower cohesion and greater conflict.^[87] Second, diversity and lack of a shared history inhibits coordination and makes communication of team members’ activities more difficult.^[88] Third, conflict, coordination difficulties, and lower cohesion, along with the implied loss of social support, induce stress.^[89] And stress may inhibit the adaptive refinements needed for idea development.

These characteristics of multifunctional teams imply that the management of these teams represents a critical problem confronting leaders. For multifunctional teams to prove successful, leaders must be found who are capable of building credibility, evidence personal commitment to the mission, ensure that all voices get a fair hearing to build shared commitment, and use this commitment as a basis for building cohesion. Finally, because leaders cannot rely on established social processes, they must create formal structures that act to promote effective exchange among diverse people with different agendas and limited familiarity. Thus, the leaders of creative efforts must be capable of rapidly identifying and establishing the formal structures needed when diverse groups of people must work together.^[90]

The development and fielding of new ideas is a demanding, inherently costly effort. As a result, idea development and fielding efforts are likely to flounder if adequate time and adequate resources have not been provided.^[91] Thus, as Dougherty and Hardy found, sustained support was critical to the success of new product development efforts.^[92] In organizations, however, where time is short and resources are limited, it is not an easy task to ensure that requisite time and resources are available. Accordingly, a key role of the leadership team is ensuring that requisite time and resources are available to see the project through. One important implication of this observation is that the leaders must sell senior management on the value of the effort and ensure the ongoing commitment of senior management to the project. Early involvement of senior management in the project, of course, is one strategy that might be used to acquire support.^[93] What should be recognized here, however, is that early involvement is likely to prove of little value if this involvement is not sustained over time.

In selling projects, however, leaders must recognize that ideas and products are not, from an organizational perspective, something of value in their own right. Thus, in acquiring support, leaders must be able to link ideas, and the products flowing from these ideas, to broader organizational strategy.^[94] Consider for example, the relationship between Fox Television News and the Murdoch newspaper chain, which are under common ownership. Thus, the leadership of innovative efforts requires strategic awareness—an awareness that may well be rare among the technically oriented people who drive the development of new ideas. In selling projects, moreover, it is important to bear in mind the point that the pursuit of new ideas is an inherently ambiguous and risky undertaking. As a result, politics will be embroiled in the evaluation of ideas and the willingness of senior managers to pursue ideas. Accordingly, leaders must not only have an understanding of the politics operating in an organization; they must have the ability to build the kind of stable political alliances that will ensure long-term support.

To complicate matters further, ideas are not an easy thing to sell in organizations. One cannot always make a rational economic case for new ideas because their significance may be hard to understand. As a result, the leaders of creative efforts must become “actors”—actors who are capable of constantly engaging people in the promise of an idea even as they try to manage the many problems and pitfalls involved in the development of new ideas.^[95] Thus, Henry Chauncey, in founding the American standardized testing industry, articulated the bright future of standardized tests even as he grappled with the many challenges continually facing the educational testing service in its early years.^[96]

Before turning to the broader conclusions of our observations, certain limitations should be noted. To begin, we have examined the requirements for the leadership of creative ventures from a general cross-field perspective rather than focusing on a particular occupation. This point is of some importance, because some cross-field differences in the requirements for the leadership of creative efforts will exist as a result of field demands.^[97] Along related lines, in the present effort we have focused on critical functions that must be executed by leaders or leadership teams. Thus, relatively little attention has been given to followers’ perceptions of and reactions to leaders. Moreover, little has been said about potential multilevel influences—senior executive team, board, stockholders, competitors, and employees, for example—even though there is reason to suspect that multilevel interactions represent a complex set of influences shaping innovation requirements and thus the demands imposed on the leaders of innovative projects.^[98]

Even bearing these caveats in mind, we believe that the present effort has some noteworthy implications for understanding both the requirements for the leadership of innovative ventures and the kind of actions that may be taken to enhance leader performance. Perhaps the most clear-cut conclusion that may be drawn is that the requirements imposed on those who must lead innovative projects are far more complex than we typically assume. It is not enough for leaders simply to encourage idea generation by others. Instead, leaders must scan the internal and external environment, using this scanning and analysis of strategic potentials to define the missions that provide the structure guiding idea generation and innovation. Thus, leaders, typically leadership teams, define the context in which innovation will occur.

Nor is it enough for leaders simply to define the context in which innovation will occur. Instead, leaders play an active role in setting the parameters for idea generation, exerting a profound influence on the nature of the ideas generated vis-à-vis the evaluations and feedback they provide. While the leaders of creative efforts make real, tangible contributions to idea generation, especially in terms of the integration of broader systems considerations, leaders must also create and maintain a viable climate for idea generation. After idea generation, leaders take on a new role, planning idea development and fielding, acquiring requisite support and resources, and managing the idea development and fielding process. Thus, to direct innovative projects, leaders must be able to think both generatively and practically—managing people just as they manage ideas.

These observations about the nature of creative leadership have some important implications for best practices of leader performance. Far and away, the strategy most commonly used to prepare leaders to direct innovative projects is creativity training—typically training that seeks to enhance creative problem-solving skills and reshape common assumptions about the nature of creative work.^[99] Given the need for leaders to recognize and respond to original ideas, and establish a direction for creating problem-solving activities, there would seem to be value in attempts to develop creative thinking skills. It is, however, an open a question whether other forms of creativity training (for example, imagery, story writing) will have much value in preparing people to lead projects calling for innovation.

Despite the wide range of training used to prepare leaders to direct these projects, the model presented in this chapter suggests that there are some noteworthy deficiencies evident in the kind of training currently available. For example, training in scanning and innovation strategy formation would seem to have real promise given the role of scanning and strategy in mission definition, yet it is not common to provide this training to those who will lead projects calling for creative work. Moreover, there would seem to be value in training that helps leaders define and articulate mission.^[100] Unfortunately, few training programs exist to help leaders engage in planning for innovation.

Not only does this model suggest some new types of training that might be used to prepare leaders to direct innovative projects; it suggests that creativity training taken unto itself may not prove sufficient. However important creative thought may be for leaders,^[101] the leaders of projects involving innovation will need a number of other types of training. Given the importance of planning to successful product development and fielding, training intended to provide leaders with forecasting and project management skills would seem useful. Along similar lines, leaders might find training beneficial that describes potential climate intervention strategies. Thus, a broader, more comprehensive, approach to training appears to be required given the multiple, complex functions involved in leading for innovation.

In addition to extending current training interventions, and tailoring these interventions to the needs of the people leading innovative ventures, the model we have presented in this chapter indicates that training is neither the sole nor necessarily the most effective way of enhancing leader performance with regard to innovation. For example, leaders might be given guidelines and procedures for the appraisal of creative ideas. Alternatively, experts in high-potential areas might be explicitly involved in strategy sessions to provide the background information needed to link strategy to scanning and help establish the connections needed to acquire relevant political support. Although other examples of this sort might be cited, the foregoing examples seem sufficient to make our point. The key work functions underlying successful leadership for innovation suggest that a far wider variety of interventions might be designed that would contribute to performance.

Indeed, given the nature of leadership on innovative projects, one might argue that a far wider range of interventions should be applied. For example, the role of experience in planning and team management suggests that there might be value in the design of systematic career development programs, especially programs that provide exposure to understudy roles.^[102] Along similar lines, given the requirements imposed on leaders, it would be valuable to have assessments available that expressly target critical competencies such as planning, climate management skills, and innovation strategy formation.^[103] Given the fact that innovation ultimately involves change—often a rather significant change—and the marshalling and management of teams, there may also be value in interventions intended to provide the leaders of creative efforts with change management and team management skills.^[104]

These observations about the kind of interventions likely to enhance leader performance point to a broader conclusion. Traditionally, the leadership of creative people and innovative product development efforts has been seen as a narrow activity of limited general interest. In contrast to this traditional, stereotypic view, leadership for innovation is an unusually complex and demanding activity involving multiple functions unfolding over time as missions are identified, ideas generated and evaluated, and plans constructed for idea development and fielding. When this observation is considered in light of the critical role creativity and innovation play in the success and survival of organizations in our knowledge-based twenty-first-century economy, it would seem that the leadership for innovation might provide an ideal test bed for “best practice” models developed to address a number of different types of leader performance interventions.