In my keynote address at the Human Factors in Telecommunications conference in March, the audience and I asked and answered the question “how do some teams achieve innovation, while others do not?” Because the term “innovation” is overused, we defined what it is, and its value, by looking at the biggest innovations in telecom over the past 20 years. We then talked about the ten principles that promote invention.

Just 20 years ago, the average person used a desk phone to communicate real-time. We geeks can remember using terminal windows with Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. Could we have envisioned a mobile phone at the time? Maybe. Could we have envisioned one with GPS and driving directions? That was the stuff of Star Trek!

Look at a couple more innovations: The iPod with iTunes and the browser (Firefox). Apple is now the #1 distributor of music in the world! Without a browser, you wouldn’t be viewing this blog entry, and the world-wide web wouldn’t exist. These innovations changed market dynamics.

Geoffrey Moore calls this “disruptive innovation” in his book Dealing with Darwin. Companies can—and need to—differentiate themselves with disruptive ideas. These inventions increase revenue, stock price, long-term value, and success. Disruptive innovation is the killer app that drives dramatic revenue increases.

What kind of environment stimulates such innovation though? For the most part, innovations fill a personal or social gap. This isn’t all, of course, but it is fundamental. Multiprotocol routers were developed at Stanford—in a playground—to connect people. Digital Communities (Facebook and twitter) were invented because somebody said “I’d like to connect with my friends and stay connected whenever I want.” I contend that innovations happen in a playground when teams are given room to play, to invent.

Even for those innovations that did happen in large companies, the inventors were often small, highly autonomous units. In many cases, the inventors spun off from a corporation so they could innovate, and were re-acquired by the company (Cisco has done this a number of times). So, if innovation happens in a playground, how can you stimulate this kind of playground in your company? We talked about ten attributes that stimulate such an environment, and I’ll talk about two here.

At Yahoo!, we spend time dedicated to innovating. We go offsite for a week in Yahoo! Design Labs (YoDeLs), which were introduced by Heather Cassano and Jill Strawbridge. In short, designers, researchers, engineers, product managers, and more bring their research and perspectives, and we come out aligned around great ideas, so we can implement them rapidly. In the next several months though you’ll see some market-changing ideas, largely because of these practices.

But talking about and practicing innovation are very different. Understanding how to create a culture of innovation, involving cross-functional teams in the right way, driving effective process, and maneuvering the politics of innovation, all require experience. I’m thinking of holding a course at CHI2009 about the ten attributes required to stimulate innovation. I’d love your thoughts: Would this be useful?

Have you ever known a manager who you felt shouldn’t manage people? Maybe you’ve worked for one. Most of us have at one point or another. On the other hand, most of us have also had great managers. What sets great managers apart from bad ones? More importantly, if you’re thinking of becoming a manager of a User Experience team, how do you know this is the right move for you?

I believe that being a manager of people is no better or worse than being in an individual contributor role. In fact, for the most part, managers don’t produce the actual artifacts that drive results. In a fundamental way, it’s the researchers and designers who produce the great work in our industry. Don’t get me wrong: A great leader can direct a team to produce the best work of their careers and tune the teams to perform at their peak, and this is important. But it’s not more important than having great designers who can produce market-changing ideas. So, if we don’t have a value-judgment that being a manager is better, then why do most designers and researchers want the word “manager” or “director” in their title?

That’s just the problem: in most organizations today, if an employee wants to advance in his or her career, management is the only choice. In such organizations, leaders make more money, garner more respect, and often make the strategic decisions that impact career opportunities—or the lack thereof—for individual contributors. So, if a highly successful engineer wants to make more money, she has to become a Manager, then a Director, even if she does not want to. In such companies, rising to the level of a Director as an individual contributor is prohibitively difficult.

An important question then is how we as an industry can give equal weight to great individual contributors and great managers alike, because a great company needs both. At Yahoo!, we have some truly world class designers who make a huge impact on everything they touch. While I would be happy to see them mentor other designers, I feel it would be a waste to make them people managers. It would be like taking Michael Jordan in his heyday and turning him into a non-playing coach.

Perhaps more importantly, I believe that because we promote into management roles people who are not great leaders, we diminish the level of expertise in leadership across our industry. Many people with whom I speak believe that design managers—for instance—should just be better designers and that leadership characteristics aren’t important. In my recent article in UX Matters (uxmatters.com), I articulate the key competencies and values that make great managers great. Please take a look at this article and let me know what you think.

One of my key points is that we should not pursue a path because it is the only path that apparently permits us to grow. The book Now, Discover Your Strengths can help you understand what competencies you possess, and what’s going to make you happy.
Are you a manager? Do you want to be? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, ask yourself whether you embrace the competencies and attributes of great leaders. It’s okay if you don’t—really. But if you don’t, find a company that is willing to give you credit for the skills you do have and promote you as an individual contributor.

But just as I’d ask about any career choice, my question for anyone who wants to become a manager is “Why?” If the answer is “because being a manager and all it entails energizes me,” then do it. Pursue your passion. You’ll make a positive contribution to your company, and you can help your employees be more productive and happier. What is it that you love and are good at? Whatever it is, do that!