(Figure 1)

Steve Blank defines Innovation Theater as:

“When our innovation activities deliver few or no tangible results, we are performing innovation theater.”
— Steve Blank (2019), Why Companies Do ‘Innovation Theater’ Instead of Actual Innovation

Although no one intends to put on a show instead of creating real impact, the signs are everywhere—94 % of executives report frustration with innovation performance, and you’ve probably felt it yourself.

We unwittingly deepen that resistance by:

• Treating innovation as an add-on → saps the organization’s ability to enact change

• Mismatching ambition and capability → setting goals the enterprise can’t support

• Misaligning activities with strategy → tackling changes too large to manage

• Chasing idea volume over problem focus → solving the wrong challenges

• Overpromising results → failing to pinpoint meaningful impact

• Neglecting the language gap → losing business stakeholders in translation

• Underestimating execution complexity → letting good ideas stall

Implications (Figure 2)
To break free, companies must become innovation-first organizations—structures designed around change, with clear authority, resources, and processes to turn ideas into results.
(See my article on building innovation-first enterprises for a deep dive.)

The Idea (Figure 3)
Imagine you’re the CEO who sees the need for fresh momentum. You bring in advisors, scour the latest industry reports and management releases, and map out an innovation roadmap. You assemble a dedicated task force, launch pilot programs, and expect a surge of breakthrough solutions. You project higher revenues, leaner operations, new customer segments, and stronger sustainability credentials. Board members cheer, teams rally, and you eye that coveted “CEO of the Year” award!

Steve Blank has defined Innovation theater as:
“When our innovation activities deliver few or no tangible results, we are performing innovation theater.”
— Steve Blank (2019), Why Companies Do ‘Innovation Theater’ Instead of Actual Innovation

Whilst we rarely set out to perform innovation theater, there are clear signals that it’s happening—94 % of executives report being dissatisfied with their innovation outcomes, and you’ve probably seen it firsthand.

Performing innovation theater
We seldom plan to put on a show when we launch innovation initiatives, yet the very trappings—titles like “Chief Disruption Officer” or “Head of New Ideas”—can feel more theatrical than transformational. We gather bright minds, stage brainstorming sessions, and generate excitement, but genuine change often stalls.

Examples of innovation actions and theater

• Call to action / Ideation challenges – Typically framed as “generate and evaluate ideas within a set timeframe,” yet few concepts ever move beyond the whiteboard.

• Hackathons – Teams sprint to build MVPs in 24–48 hours, only to find prototypes misaligned with core strategy.

• Innovation retreats / Workshops – Off-site creativity boosts morale but rarely produces follow-through on business objectives.

• Open ideation – Inviting ideas from customers or external partners sounds inclusive, but suggestions often miss the mark on corporate priorities.

• Innovation labs / rooms – Trendy spaces full of gadgets, yet little evidence they yield actionable solutions.

• Silicon Valley outposts – Planting executives in startup hubs with hopes of “importing” agile culture, only to see corporate norms reassert themselves.

• Accelerators / Incubators – Funding startups for potential acquisition, but cultural and operational clashes impede integration.

• Chief Innovation Officer – Creating a dedicated role can relegate innovation to “someone else’s problem,” rather than embedding change across the organization.

Why do we end up with theater?
Two forces conspire to turn innovation into spectacle:

1. Innovation equals change, and deep change triggers strong resistance in efficiency-driven enterprises.

2. Poorly designed programs—mismatched in scope, ambition, or context—amplify that resistance instead of reducing it.

Innovation means change – resistance is strong
At its core, innovation disrupts established routines. Organizations optimized for reliability and cost control will instinctively push back against initiatives that threaten the status quo. Incremental improvements (à la Kaizen) slip through more easily, but radical transformations often falter.

Bolting on Innovation
Treating innovation as an add-on—mirroring traditional R&D silos—dooms it to ineffectiveness. As Peter Drucker famously said:

“A company exists to win customers. As such, it has only two functions: marketing and innovation.”
To honor that truth, firms must weave innovation into their core operations, not tack it on as an afterthought.

Our activities can encourage greater resistance
Beyond structural inertia, we can unintentionally increase pushback by:

• Misaligning initiatives with the organization’s true capabilities

• Chasing idea quantity over problem quality

• Expecting outsized impact from generic activities

• Failing to bridge the language gap between creative teams and executives

• Overlooking the complexity of actual implementation

Misaligning innovation activity ambition and enterprise innovation ambition
When leadership declares grand innovation goals without providing the means to achieve them, resistance soars. Frameworks like McKinsey’s Three Horizons can help align disruptive projects with separate units or an ambidextrous model that balances today’s operations with tomorrow’s explorations.

Looking for ideas rather than the big problems to solve.
Would you rather collect hundreds of half-baked ideas or zero in on a few high-impact challenges? As G. Satell observes:

“The most innovative firms aren’t the ones with the most ideas—they’re the ones relentless in finding the right problems to solve.”
By anchoring innovation around clear “jobs to be done,” you create compelling narratives that reduce resistance.

Expecting too much
Internal ideation programs have their place, but research shows top-line product breakthroughs often stem from customer insights, not employee suggestions alone. If you want meaningful revenue growth, look outside first—unless your front-line teams already live the customer’s struggle daily.

Not closing the language gap
When ideators and executives speak different dialects, frustration and misalignment follow. Iterative tools like the Lean Canvas establish a shared framework for articulating value propositions and execution plans.

Not understanding execution complexity
Underestimating the real-world hurdles of rolling out an innovation is a surefire way to stall progress. Models such as Den Hertog’s service-innovation framework can map complexity and highlight how to simplify change—whether through process enablers, targeted training, or scope adjustments.

Wrapping Up
Avoiding “innovation theater”—where buzz replaces breakthrough—demands two insights:

1. Innovation is change, and organizations built for efficiency resist non-routine shifts.

2. We must transform enterprises to be innovation-first, embedding authority, resources, and streamlined processes to enact change.

Simultaneously, our innovation efforts must minimize added resistance by aligning with realistic ambitions, focusing on critical problems, engaging the right stakeholders, bridging communication divides, and rigorously managing execution complexity. Only then will our initiatives move from mere spectacle to tangible results.

As a final comment, it’s always interesting to learn more about the origins of the term innovation theater. Here’s a video where Steve Blank explains how he coined the concept and shares his tips for avoiding it.