John - Yep. That’s a good perspective. Challenges to ideas to help ideas become better and organizations separate the signal from the noise. I guess it could be seen as a survival mechanism. A friend of mine talks about the “anti-change antibodies”. They roam the virtual halls and destroy new ideas. The corporate immune system.

Good comments, thanks!

In fact I’d say you have it the wrong way around. What’s the worst that can happen if an internal innovation doesn’t take off? Get re-assigned to a “boring” job? Quit in disgust?

However, launch a new product or business into the consumer space? You may be putting everything on the line, and everyone associated will feel some very real pain if you fail.

But that’s a digression. I think the real point is to make a disctinction between simply “idea people” and (usually) groups that are recognised “innovators”. Innovators by definition have the special skills/influence/connections to “get things done”. If they didn’t, it wouldn’t be “innovation”.

When I read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point I was immediately drawn to contextualise the message in terms of driving change in at work. Definitely worth a read from that perspective, particularly some of the ideas on how major change usually rests on three distinct roles: the maven (person with the ideas/expertise); a connector (with the relationships/networks); and the salesman (the influencer/closer/dealmaker).