What's an idea worth?

I published an article today on ERE that is something I've been very passionate about for the last few years - Idea Recruiting. We're in an innovation economy, not a knowledge economy. The rhythm of business has accelerated and changed in many ways - innovate, reap, destroy; innovate, reap, destroy.

Most recruiting systems I've seen (with the possible exception of Google's - but I'd have to see it to believe it) screen out innovators. This isn't a "blame the vendor" statement - this is as much what the customers are looking for as much as what the vendor is providing. Any resume that is unique, different or convention-defying gets surreptitiously put in the junk pile.

So what is an idea worth? If your idea was the iPod, that was worth billions to Apple ($7 billion per year to be exact). If your idea was the Internet, you might have given it away for free (Tim Berners-Lee did), although he could have made billions or dare I say trillions off of it - which other companies have done. And I love this story too. Meanwhile, advertising agencies (like the one who recently won Virgin America's business) and consulting firms make a living off of the value of great ideas.

As a director of recruiting, your job is to find the talent that creates the most value for your organization. Innovators are playing an increasing role in creating shareholder value - one might argue that they create the most shareholder value these days - and figuring out how to find and attract this very different breed of talent is one of the most critical initiatives you can launch within your organization.

Comments

[George LaRocque]

Dave, Good luck with the new blog. I hope you find consulting rewarding.

Regarding your current post - a question: Could a resume EVER really identify an innovator? or just where they worked, when, and what they worked on?

Now my 2 cents: I think it takes more than a resume to screen an Innovator in or out. As blogs, blog posts, social networking, more powerful search tools, personal websites, the emergence of video on the web, talent platforms that offer CRM, etc. etc. etc. continue to become additional tools for an employer to consider in making a hiring decision, is the resume still the currency for a candidate? or the price of admission?

Okay, that's enough strategy for one night. Good Luck Dave! Stay in touch!

[Dave Lefkow]

I would argue that innovators are more often screened out than in because of resumes. I don't have hard data to prove this, but I do know that the most innovative people I have ever met:

- Don't follow conventions in their experience or in their resumes
- Get bored very quickly when they can't innovate or are forced to focus on operations and efficiency
- Might look like (and even be) job hoppers

Just because you don't have the requisite 10 years of experience doesn't mean you can't come up with great or unique ideas.

[Jason Warner]

Dave,

One point that is worth mentioning is that many large organizations are often systemic in their lack of ability to foster and nuture innovation. So a deeper issue that organizations sometimes face is not that they screen out innovators, but that the culture/politics/structure etc of the orgnanization stifles talent. I think many organizations actually don't screen out innovators, they just don't recognize how to build effective systems to allow that innovation to cultivate while still meeting the business objectives of 'today'. Google addresses this with the much discussed "20% time" where some employees can devote 20% of their time to developing new ideas or products that they are passionate about.

[Dave Lefkow]

Couldn't agree more Jason. See this link to see how Philips changed their culture to accomodate innovation for a very special individual (the guy who eventually invented the iPod):

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/17/stopfight.html

I must say that I do wonder about the 20% time for some at Google (and other companies that have followed suit). How do they measure the effectiveness of this policy (other than products that come to market and making recruiting easier). The reason I ask is that I've seen this at other companies - some engineers use this time very well, while others build things that have no business value whatsoever. Are the engineers given a set of guiding principles, tactics that will help them build things in ways that make sense for end users and the business as a whole? Stifling creativity isn't the intent, but 20% of an engineer's time is super-valuable.