Who helps you to innovate? The power of radical circles in vision creation

The ultimate goal for those who innovate, and quite likely the greatest challenge they face, is the creation of a radical new vision. Indeed, when the willingness of an individual or a company goes beyond solving an existing problem the question is: how can I find a new vision (i.e., that which rethinks the rules and proposes a new interpretation of what is meaningful in a given industry)? In the “age of discontinuity” in which we live in there is a growing emphasis on the human dimension; a number of companies are putting people first, and starting with the individual relationships rather than with systems or structures. This human dimension, which implies looking at people as human beings rather than as users (of a given product), makes us get closer to their heart and helps us to (hopefully) understand what is meaningful to them. Previous studies have shown how new interpretations arise when we collaborate with external parties and this thesis has been written as an attempt to clarify which are the external sources one can leverage on when willing to propose a new vision. One of the answers: radical circles. These are restricted groups of individuals that collaborate beyond formal organizational structures and by challenging one another draft a vision in clear contrast to the dominant rules of their industries. Theory and practice related to radical circles is extended in this thesis by means of qualitative case studies. Such a research design is argued to fit with the exploratory aim of this thesis. The empirical setting is four circles of radicals (Slow Food, Memphis, Homebrew Computer Club, and the Stonemasters) and the corresponding business initiatives that were generated. The findings from the study show that circles work in intimacy first, meaning the quest is done privately. In this journey your own thoughts are exposed to, challenged and negotiated with others – the circle members, who are the most faithful audience one can get. The negotiation is based on criticism and experimentation, and eventual consensus. The gatekeeper and the charismatic leader are important referents of the circle structure, but would be unable to get anywhere without the rest of the constituents, special mention to salient members (i.e., members at the poles). Instead, the second part of their work is public, and this is when they consolidate their vision and create mass impact. The reification can be done through a number of actions: communicating, explaining, embodying, transferring, and nurturing. In this phase, the role of the charismatic leader is still crucial, and a new role emerges, that of the operative manager, who is the person responsible of making sure the action plan is fulfilled. All in all, the nucleus of the circle will tend to stay small, and if there are any new comers these will be few. After all, the circle will quite likely dismantle and the members will begin their own voyage, individually. The contribution of the above-shared findings to the literature is three-fold. First, and foremost, it sheds some light to the “black-box” we can leverage on when attempting to innovate the meaning of things (which is after all what we do when coming up with a new vision). Second, it invites open innovation literature to expand its scope by giving some space to debates. Third, it adds on the theory of collaborative circles by providing some hints on the business impact these circles can have. The thesis, furthermore, contributes to managerial practice through a thorough illustration of practices, which may serve as inspiration for either collaborating with a radical circle or for creating your own.