<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: free-ranging conversation with greg matthews (humana consumer innovation team)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.freerangecomm.com/2009/11/free-ranging-conversation-with-greg-matthews/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.freerangecomm.com/2009/11/free-ranging-conversation-with-greg-matthews/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:21:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Matthews</title>
		<link>http://www.freerangecomm.com/2009/11/free-ranging-conversation-with-greg-matthews/comment-page-1/#comment-322</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg Matthews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freerangecomm.com/?p=4055#comment-322</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a really good question, Michelle.  And the answer primarily points back to corporate hierarchy for me.  We work in a big company, and when companies get big I don&#039;t think there&#039;s any way to avoid the formation of hierarchies.  The problem is that hierarchies aren&#039;t inherently great for innovation.

What we&#039;ve found is that good ideas can come from anywhere - a person&#039;s title and experience doesn&#039;t enhance their ability to contribute to creativity (in fact, it may be a negative!).  I think that our secret sauce (one of them, anyway) is that we&#039;ve found a way, as an innovation team, to effectively eliminate hierarchy early in the innovation/design process so that every creative idea has equal voice and weight ... but later on the process (when we&#039;re implementing and commercializing) a more traditional employee/supervisor relationship resumes - because it&#039;s valuable at the END of the process, and not valuable at the BEGINNING.

What that&#039;s meant is that we&#039;ve had to build a team of people that is pretty comfortable with ambiguity in relationships and professional development.  It&#039;s our hope (and it&#039;s proved to be true so far) that the kind of work we do far outweighs any downsides associated with having non-traditional roles, relationships and communication styles.

Hope that helps; if I haven&#039;t interpreted your question in the way you intended, just let me know; I&#039;d be happy to pull up a virtual chair with you and have a conversation right here in Fran&#039;s comments section!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a really good question, Michelle.  And the answer primarily points back to corporate hierarchy for me.  We work in a big company, and when companies get big I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s any way to avoid the formation of hierarchies.  The problem is that hierarchies aren&#8217;t inherently great for innovation.</p>
<p>What we&#8217;ve found is that good ideas can come from anywhere &#8211; a person&#8217;s title and experience doesn&#8217;t enhance their ability to contribute to creativity (in fact, it may be a negative!).  I think that our secret sauce (one of them, anyway) is that we&#8217;ve found a way, as an innovation team, to effectively eliminate hierarchy early in the innovation/design process so that every creative idea has equal voice and weight &#8230; but later on the process (when we&#8217;re implementing and commercializing) a more traditional employee/supervisor relationship resumes &#8211; because it&#8217;s valuable at the END of the process, and not valuable at the BEGINNING.</p>
<p>What that&#8217;s meant is that we&#8217;ve had to build a team of people that is pretty comfortable with ambiguity in relationships and professional development.  It&#8217;s our hope (and it&#8217;s proved to be true so far) that the kind of work we do far outweighs any downsides associated with having non-traditional roles, relationships and communication styles.</p>
<p>Hope that helps; if I haven&#8217;t interpreted your question in the way you intended, just let me know; I&#8217;d be happy to pull up a virtual chair with you and have a conversation right here in Fran&#8217;s comments section!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michelle James</title>
		<link>http://www.freerangecomm.com/2009/11/free-ranging-conversation-with-greg-matthews/comment-page-1/#comment-308</link>
		<dc:creator>Michelle James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:01:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freerangecomm.com/?p=4055#comment-308</guid>
		<description>Hi Greg,
Love hearing about the interaction you have with employees in allowing them to help develop ideas and actually following through on trying them. 
What would you say was the biggest eye opener you learned from employees that changed your communication style? 

Thanks,
Michelle</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Greg,<br />
Love hearing about the interaction you have with employees in allowing them to help develop ideas and actually following through on trying them.<br />
What would you say was the biggest eye opener you learned from employees that changed your communication style? </p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Michelle</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

