We’re at it again: after Friday’s anti-Engagement rant, today we think “innovation” is over-used.
Dissecting the buzzword “innovation” is going to get us in trouble with the pundits. After all, a good percentage of the readers, viewers and commenters on this site might, themselves, be innovative individuals.
For instance: are you the Chief Innovation Officer of your company? Good for you. You’re joining the ranks of companies that make innovation a priority. By announcing to the world that you have someone in charge of innovating, you prove that innovation is truly innovative at your company (which is probably called “Innova”).
If you don’t have a Chief Innovation Officer, then you could always hire this guy, whose ad pops up when you Google the term. (Here’s a link to the Complete Innovator.)
If you do have a Chief Innovation Officer, what is it that they do? (Other than this unfortunate recent incident from a company whose troubles go beyond hiring someone to innovate.)
Do they report into the Chief Strategy Officer?
Back in the day, Dave from Area 224 worked at a company in the financial data space. At the time, this company didn’t have a Chief Innovation Officer – but they did have a CEO whose plain-speaking style got the troops motivated. One of his favorite sayings ended up posted on quite a few cubicle walls:
If our customers knew what we were working on right now, would they pay us for it?
A-ha! That might not be “innovation” – but it makes a heck of a lot of sense in the client services universe.
Here are the challenges we’ll issue to you, gentle (innovative) readers:
Any Chief Innovation Officers who actually Innovate?
AND, is there a better way to articulate the fact that you are consultative, smart, and are adding value?
Let’s cut through the BS, please.
