Thomas Friedman, in a recent New York Times editorial, cited the price of oil as a factor in the emergence of alternative fuels and conservation.

"For a lot of reasons – some cyclical, some technical and some having to do with the emergence of alternative fuels and conservation – the price of crude oil has fallen lately to around $60 a barrel. Yes, in the long run, we want the global price of oil to go down. But we don’t want the price of gasoline to go down in America just when $3 a gallon has started to stimulate large investments in alternative energies. That is exactly what OPEC wants – let the price fall for a while, kill the alternatives, and then bring it up again."

What Friedman is seeing is no different from a pattern that undermines innovation in most organizations. Inconsistent support of innovation is no support at all.

Innovation is not a functional by product of funding. It is a fundamental attitude toward change. If innovation is in favor when the organization is economically flush, then dropped when times are tight, then initiatives really have no future.

Friedman uses the term “petro-authoritarianism” to define the force that can undermine fuel and conservation innovation. But, a broader pattern of “X-authoritarianism” is visible whenever leadership’s convictions are not aligned. Support for innovation has to exist at the top. But, it also has to cascade throughout the organization to avoid conflicts of interest.

InnovationTools editor, Chuck Frey, posted an interview with Gerald Haman, founding partner of Chicago-based SolutionPeople. Haman said:

"If your organization does not have a shared definition of innovation, it’s very difficult for employees to talk about it…The communication confusion makes it difficult for employees to talk about what innovation is and how innovation can help….A shared vision helps leadership and everyone in an organization communicate to innovate. If a vision for innovation is not communicated, then it may be difficult for people to be motivated."

From one perspective, innovation for alternative fuels and conservation are not, and probably can never be supported universally as a strategy for decreasing energy dependence on foreign oil producers. From another perspective, the voice of the consumer is growing louder and people like Sir Richard Branson hear it. He is contributing significant long term funding to the development of innovative fuel alternatives. That is a pretty clear message he’s communicating. And, maybe consistency itself, in the alternative fuel realm, has entered a new level of innovation.