Do You Hire For IQ Or Klout Score?
BY ANDREW RAZEGHI
OCTOBER 29,
2012
What is the right balance between intelligence and social
connectivity? From an innovation perspective, this difference is very
significant. In fact, it can mean the difference between success and failure.
In the past decade,
the word “friend” became a verb, the word “like” became a noun, and “tweet”
became more than a birdsong. Social technology--originally designed for
communication between college co-eds--has since brought down governments in
Egypt and Tunisia. Thomas Payne would have been proud.
We
are outrageously connected. Today, the average American has roughly 600 online and offline
relationships (ironically, our
number of “close friends” has remained relatively unchanged at 2.16. And yes,
the 0.16 is the one who still owes you money.)
As a result of our
hyper-connectivity, we are fast-moving from what management scholar Peter
Drucker called the knowledge economy to a social economy. The line is quickly
blurring between the value of what we know and who we know. This then begs the
question: which is more important? Is it more valuable to have the answer? Or
is it more valuable to know who has the answer?
In
an academic environment we call the latter cheating. But in the corporate
world, does it really matter if you know the answer to the problem, or is it
more important that you can find out who does? In very practical terms,
consider the impact of our social economy on recruiting new employees and
professional development. Given a choice of hiring an expert with a high IQ or
a generalist with a high Klout score (a measure of social influence), whom do you
hire? Or does it depend upon the task? In sales and marketing roles, the extent
of one’s personal and professional network along with his or her influence
score should be considered. Shouldn’t it?
What is the right
balance between intelligence and social connectivity? From an innovation
perspective, this difference is very significant. In fact, it can mean the
difference between success and failure.
Consider one of the
most famous innovation battles: Tesla vs. Edison.
Nikola Tesla, the
multi-talented engineer and father of Alternating Current (AC), was--no
doubt--a genius. His knowledge in electrical and mechanical engineering led to
a series of inventions that had impacts on radio communication, X-ray
technology, and even attempts at intercontinental wireless transmission (his
famed Wardenclyffe Tower). Yet, although he beat Edison in setting the
electrical standard, he was a recluse and ultimately lived his finals days in
room 3327 at the New Yorker Hotel where died in poverty in 1943.
On the other hand, we
have his nemesis--Thomas Edison. Edison, whose Direct Current (DC) lost out to
Tesla’s technology, led a fruitful life and died a wealthy man. What was the
difference between Tesla and Edison?
While there are many,
perhaps the most notable difference when it comes to innovation was the nature
of their social networks. Tesla had essentially one productive relationship:
George Westinghouse (who licensed and commercialized Tesla’s technologies). Edison,
on the other hand, was famously well connected. Edison understood the power of
social networking long before it became a pick-up tool for college co-eds.
Among Edison’s network were automotive pioneer Henry Ford, tire innovator
Harvey Firestone, naturalist and essayist John Burroughs, Bishop William
Anderson, and--for good measure--the then sitting President of the United
States, Warring G. Harding. Known famously as the Vagabonds, in 1918, this
creative crew even went camping together in the Smokey Mountains (in Ford’s
cars using Firestone’s tires of course).
While Tesla invented
in isolation, Edison created out loud. He understood the value of a social
network. And while Edison’s original patent application for the electric light
bulb was rejected, he acquired and licensed technologies and attracted the best
and brightest engineers to join him in the commercialization of his electrical
lighting system.
This difference
between innovating privately and innovating out loud is one of the most
significant differentiators between successful innovators and those that fail.
It largely explains the success of new venture accelerators, corporate new
venture groups, and even academic researchers. Those with the most robust,
engaged, and diverse social networks win. For example, I am a Limited Partner
at the new venture accelerator Excelerate Labs in Chicago. Each summer summer,
our ten portfolio companies are connected to and coached by over 150 mentors.
Imagine not only the sparks of insight that are encouraged, but imagine the
connections that are made. Success only happens to those who innovate out loud.
Your idea is worthless if no one cares about it, but it’s worth even less if no
one knows about it.
Herein
lies the fundamental--and often misunderstood--difference between creativity
and innovation. Creativity is how you think.
Innovation is how you act. In academic circles,
cognitive scientists study creativity. Social scientists study innovation. Of
course, creativity and innovation are intrinsically connected. However, while
most innovators are also creative not all creators are often innovative.
Creative people--artists, designers, and inventors--frequently lack the social
and political skills required to make their ideas commercially viable. And so
they fail.
Organizations suffer
the same fate. Those organizations that encourage innovation among their
employees yet do not provide the channels of distribution--both internally and
externally--for those ideas to be socialized within the company and within the market,
often do nothing more than create great expectations and equally great
frustration among employees. In order to succeed, we must teach individual
employees how to be innovators as much as creators. Thinking differently is
only half the battle. Acting differently (notably, learning how to socialize
new ideas) can be the difference between success and failure. One of the
greatest opportunities to improve talent development is in helping employees
learn how to create internal and external coalitions for their creative ideas.
Building political equity and market acceptance of an idea is not a skill
explicitly taught in school, yet it is perhaps the most fundamental skill that
will be required for organizations to succeed in the future.
This shift FROM a knowledge
economy TO a social economy raises a number of questions for you to consider
with your team:
·
How do you currently evaluate and place prospective employees?
·
Do you consider the social influence of new talent in your
recruiting process?
·
Do you have a process for evaluating which types of projects
should be managed collaboratively (socially) versus individually?
·
Where appropriate, how do you encourage and foster social
networking across your organization?
·
How do you encourage and foster external collaboration outside of
your company and across sectors of industry?
·
What incentives and performance management systems do you have in
place to encourage “creative teaming” vs. “functional innovation”?
·
What are you doing to help your leaders understand their role in
transitioning from a knowledge economy to a social economy?
No comments:
Post a Comment