Fast Talk

I think that it needs to come from both sides. Management needs to commit to a strategy of innovation so that people on the bottom are free to commit time and talent to the innovation process. The people at the bottom will be motivated by the opportunity to demonstrate leadership and feel more engaged by the company. The big breakdown that I have seen in the past is not walking the walk in the middle ranks, where people are concerned with productivity of the people below to basic performance numbers and see innovation as a threat to their subordinates time...in the middle they say that they're committed to the those at the top, but don't understand why people aren't taking more of an active role at the bottom. This question is sort-of like the chicken or the egg for innovation...

Bottoms up. At least that is my preference because I feel less like a fascist manager. Also my people are much smarter than I. (grammar?)

You need an idea champion at the bottom - someone who translates his experience on the floor into viable innovation; and you need an idea guru at the top - someone who can tell what's a good idea and knows how to push it through the organization.

bottom-up, but depends on the culture of the company of course.

ANY kind of innovation is effective in my eyes; organizations must be open to all avenues of ideas to gain a competitve edge. Does "effectiveness" matter if the innovation produces results, monetary or otherwise?

Bottom Up Innovation is more effective. Our world has so many innovative and exciting people who may not have the position and prestige, but are sometimes even more innovative than those who are on top.

I think definitely a bottoms-up approach is the right way to go. The tools and processes that are innovated should be designed by those closest to the customer (a.k.a. in the trenches).

Their input should be taken into consideration at all times considering they're the ones that either make or break an organization (after the customers, that is).

Neither is more effective - it is dependent on the iinovation and the circumstnaces

Innovation can come from any employee at any level within a company. However without the top-down support, bottoms-up innovation isn't going to be very effective and visa versa, a top-down innovation without the bottoms-up buy-in will be difficult as well. It depends on company culture along with numerous other factors.

Innovation that has profitable outcomes primarily comes from top-down inspiration and drive, and bottom-up practicality and usefulness.

Both.
Visionary leaders and very often a company's founders lead innovation from the top down.

Bottom up is much harder
...(because lower level employees are fighting the inertia and the rules and procedures and company history),...
but if handled right is a very valuable way to achieve some level of innovation too.

The more likely vehicle of lower level employees innovating comes with good open facilitators and employee meetings. Not a "go through the motions meeting.." but a meeting where people are drawn in and engaged.

...Even the crew on midnight shift...

Organization dependent.

If a company is positioned to sense markets (its own traditional market as well as those outside of its base), then it best is posiitoned for innovation wherever the company is organizationally closest to the consumer / market.

In companies that innovate well, this occurs at top, bottom, middle. In companies that don't innovate well, it is typically because they are turned inward rather than toward the market.

Benjamin W. got it right. Both sides count. Trying a 'bottoms up' approach without strategic top down direction (and associated commitment) which sets the playing field is utterly frustrating for an innovator. Nothing moves.

The best innovations occur in relationship to ones customer, so it is more appropriate to look at this as inside-out and outside-in. Innovation is a process that serves a need and it should be treated like any other process in an organization. Innovation is neither romantic or elitist, it is what it is a structured process that enterprise can nurture and deploy. An innovation of the business model is the natural work of enterprise leadership, it shouldn't be seen as something special, this is a central expectation at the strategic level of the organization, that talent at this level of the organization possess the ability to abstract problems as well as relate this to the environment. The romance of innovation is serendipity but the reality of it is just knuckle-down thinking and hard work......M.

Top-down has resources and time. Bottoms-up sometimes has a more realistic vision. I favor top-down, but part of the top-down research should involve consulting those at the bottom for ideas.

There is no gainsaying the fact that without support from the top bottom up innovation is unlikely to succeed. By the same token top down innovation is also unlikely to be a success story if the bottom up is lukewarm. To enable top down innovation,the top has to nurture an environment of motivated freedom for innovative ideas at the bottom.

I think both strategies are important.You need the top bottom commiment strategy and infinance and the bottom up commitment for implementation and correct attitude.