The Individual in Research Innovation: Eleven Hypotheses About

13 The Individual in Research Innovation: Eleven Hypotheses About Innovators

Downloaded by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on May 18, 2018 | https://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: August 8, 1980 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1980-0129.ch013

JOSEPH A. STEGER

1

School of Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12181

There are a number of conceptions, stereotypes, legends and notions that commonly come to mind even within the scientific community when the innovative person is described. We have sought to test and validate or invalidate some of the more common of these conceptions with this study. Eleven hypotheses were generated from commonly held notions about innovators and innovation. Fortunately, we had the opportunity to use an industrial laboratory and an academic organization (containing two laboratories) as our testing ground. For this study, we defined innovation as a discrete jump in theory, method, or product. The concept of discontinuity is the important essential in the definition. It should be noted that the definition only refers to measurable outcomes, e.g., theory, method, or product. The definition does not deal with ideas or abstractions that do not enter fields of knowledge in a testable manner. By the use of peer nomination in the three different laboratories, we established samples of innovative, productive and non -productive scnentists. Having peer nomination coverage for individuals from each group yielded a validity of convergent placement. The sample represented sixteen different disciplines, thirty-three different U. S. universities, and twelve foreign universities. This was a very diversely trained group of people. Utilizing this sample of scientists, we investigated these eleven testable hypotheses or notions about innovators in the form of questions using interviews and questionnaires.

1

Present address is Colt Industries, Executive Offices. 430 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022 0-8412-0561^Wi7-12p-147$5.()0/0 © 1980 Anttft6à6%iyârâlîySociety Smith and Larson; Innovation and U.S. Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1980.

148 1.

INNOVATION AND U.S. RESEARCH: PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Do i n n o v a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s possess enables them to innovate?

a unique q u a l i t y that

There i s a l a r g e body of l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with t h i s question, and i t seems everyone has been l o o k i n g f o r the Holy G r a i l i n p i c k i n g i n n o v a t o r s . Unfortunately, there i s no one unique q u a l i t y that d i f f e r e n t i a t e s innovators from non-innovators.


Conclusion: In research, the a b i l i t y to innovate i s a complex product of i n h e r i t e d a t t r i b u t e s , s o c i a l o r i g i n s , p a r e n t a l support, t r a i n i n g , chance f a c t o r s and work environmental f a c t o r s . 2.

What about i n h e r i t a b l e a t t r i b u t e s such as i n t e l l i g e n c e . Are they more i n t e l l i g e n t than t h e i r peers?

At f i r s t thought, one might think that the innovators must be smarter than the non-innovators. However, there i s obviously a problem c o r r e l a t i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e with i n n o v a t i o n . They are not the same t h i n g . Conclusion: I n t e l l i g e n c e (a high degree of i t ) i s needed to c a r r y out i n n o v a t i v e work i n science and engineering, but i t i s only a necessary, but not s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n . We could not d i s t i n g u i s h the i n n o v a t i v e from the non-innovative i n d i v i d u a l s by i n t e l l e c t u a l prowess. At l e a s t i n t e l l e c t does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e innovators from noninnovators. That does not say that you do not need a degree of i n t e l l i g e n c e to be an innovator. But i t does say that i t i s o b v i o u s l y not the only c o n d i t i o n necessary to be an innovator. There i s something e l s e m i s s i n g . So we move onto another question which i s probably the most common assumption, namely, innovators are c r a z y . 3.

Innovators have to be weird or otherwise they could not innovate. A previous paper i n t h i s book drew the c o n c l u s i o n that innovators must to step o u t s i d e of t h e i r c u l t u r e ; i f they d i d not, they could not innovate. Is t h i s true?

The problem with d i s c u s s i n g normality i s — What are the dimensions of normality? Are we c o n s i d e r i n g them s o c i a l l y d i f f e r e n t ? Are they deviant or p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y are they strange. Are we t a l k i n g about them p h y s i c a l l y or do they have some k i n d of d i s a b i l i t y . We c a t e g o r i z e those dimensions of normality and examined them as d i f f e r e n t i a t o r s of innovators and non-innov a t o r s . Using deviant behaviors or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , we could not f i n d any d i f f e r e n c e between the groups. The innovators had a lower d i v o r c e r a t e , c l o s e r family t i e s , and a l l of the normal social attributes. There was no d e v i a t i o n , and we could not d i f f e r e n t i a t e the groups.

Smith and Larson; Innovation and U.S. Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1980.

13.

STEGER

Individual in Research Innovation

149

Conclusion: Innovative i n d i v i d u a l s are "normal" i n those a t t r i butes u s u a l l y used to d e f i n e n o r m a l i t y . The use of deviant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or behaviors would not a l l o w one to d i s c r i m i n a t e i n n o v a t i v e from non-innovative r e s e a r c h e r s .


4.

One commonly h e l d argument which i s very s t r o n g l y a r t i c u l a t e d by the s c i e n t i s t s i s that they are more independent than t h e i r peers, and that i s why they come up with these new developments. Again, t h i s presents a problem. What does t h i s mean—independence? Does i t mean that they are s o c i a l l y independent, that they are f i n a n c i a l l y so independent they can go o f f and do what they want? Does i t mean that somehow i n t e l l e c t u a l l y they are independent?

Conclusion: Innovative i n d i v i d u a l s are i n t e l l e c t u a l l y independent of t h e i r parents at e a r l y ages. T h i s allows f o r i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g of the environment. The r e s u l t i n g experience leads to an independence of thought. Notice that the c o n c l u s i o n s t a t e s — " i n t e l l e c t u a l l y independent" — n o t e m o t i o n a l l y . The i n n o v a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s t i l l had support i v e parents. They c o u l d go back to the parents when they needed to be patted on the head. However, i f t h e i r f a t h e r s a i d , "You never touch a wire to that l i t t l e o u t l e t over there, you might get h u r t " the i n n o v a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l w i l l wait u n t i l the f a t h e r leaves and think, " I wonder i f that's t r u e ? " and proceed to s t i c k the wire i n the o u t l e t . The i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g about t h i s behavior was that the i n n o v a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l i s c o n s t a n t l y experimenting without knowing i t . This i s very d i f f e r e n t from other c h i l d r e n that are t o l d not to put wires i n t o an o u t l e t so that they w i l l not be h u r t . These c h i l d r e n never do and never s u f f e r the consequences, and they never gain the j o y s . This makes a b i g d i f f e r e n c e i n the m o t i v a t i o n of the innovator. The innovators r e g a l e s us w i t h s t o r i e s that are a b s o l u t e l y h y s t e r i cal. Some of the s t o r i e s were not so humerous because the i n novator was h u r t . On the other hand, an unpleasant experience did not stop them; i t even e x c i t e d them more about s o l v i n g some problems. This becomes very important as a source of m o t i v a t i o n for the innovator. 5.

Did the innovators have s k i l l s at young ages or l a t e r i n l i f e that other people d i d not possess? What gave them some of t h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l independence? We looked f o r a l l types of s k i l l s — m a t h e m a t i c a l , r e a d i n g , observations and even a t h l e t i c prowess. We found that there was one that d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ; the r e s t of the s k i l l s d i d not. That p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l may be one of the most important i n t e l l e c t u a l l y , because i t may be a c o r o l l a r y of some other i n t e l l e c t u a l aspects of the innovator. This s k i l l was


150

INNOVATION AND U.S. RESEARCH:

PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

r e p o r t e d a l s o by Roe i n 1952 i n her study of eminent s c i e n t i s t s which s t a t e d that i n n o v a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s c o u l d read at much e a r l i e r ages than t h e i r non-innovative counterparts, and they were a v i d readers as c h i l d r e n . Conclusion: Reading as a s k i l l i s manifested e a r l y i n the l i f e of i n n o v a t i v e s c i e n t i s t s . This " a v i d " reading may be an e a r l y i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r unending c u r i o s i t y .


6.

A commonly s t a t e d d i f f e r e n c e between innovators and noninnovators i s that the innovators are great r i s k - t a k e r s and are much more w i l l i n g to take a r i s k . We examined v a r i o u s i n v e n t i o n s and tracked these i n v e n t i o n s back to who was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r them. This included how i t was done and what was done.

Conclusion: Innovative i n d i v i d u a l s , when compared to p r o d u c t i v e researchers of equal t e c h n i c a l background, are no more h i g h l y risk-taking. Given the p r e p a r a t i o n , work, i n t e l l i g e n c e and p e r s i s t e n c e of innovators, most of what may be perceived as r i s k s by o t h e r s , are f a i r l y sure " b e t s " f o r innovators. When working on a new concept, an innovator becomes so c e r t a i n that i t i s such a sure bet that he does not understand why others think i t i s a r i s k . A d d i t i o n a l l y , an innovator cons i d e r s every f a i l u r e that he has had as j u s t more i n f o r m a t i o n . That i s very d i f f e r e n t than the person who sees every p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e as a r i s k . Therefore, we can not conclude that innov a t o r s are more r i s k - t a k i n g because they do not think that they are, although from an o u t s i d e p e r s p e c t i v e they are. Innovators see t h i s as simply a process of o b t a i n i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n . You could say that innovators are greater r i s k - t a k e r s i f you take i t from your p e r s p e c t i v e .

7.

Another n o t i o n a t t r i b u t e d to innovators i s that they are more adaptive or f l e x i b l e than t h e i r more r i g i d counterparts in science. The problem with f l e x i b i l i t y i s the same as with normality or with r i s k - t a k i n g , that i s , "How do you d e f i n e f l e x i b i l i ty?" Do we d e f i n e i t i n terms of t r y i n g a l l the a l t e r n a t i v e s or w i l l i n g to explore avenues. What does i t mean to be f l e x i b l e ? To the innovator, f l e x i b i l i t y means an openness to informat i o n exchange. They are very f l e x i b l e and w i l l l i s t e n to almost anything. This i s probably why s e r e n d i p i t y occurs. An innovator t h i n k s , "Hum, I don't know. Let's t r y i t . "


13.

STEGER


151


In that sense, they are more f l e x i b l e . There i s a very important d i f f e r e n c e . They can generate more a l t e r n a t i v e s and that i s why they are more f l e x i b l e . I f an i n d i v i d u a l and you are working on a problem and you only have one s o l u t i o n , what do you do? You keep g e t t i n g a l a r g e r hammer. That's a l l you do. But what does an innovator do? He t r i e s another a l t e r n a t i v e . It doesn't bother them to have four experiments simultaneously being conducted on the same problem. Whereas, f o r the non-innovator that's almost too much to handle i n terms of t h e i r r i g i d i t y . They would have a nervous breakdown i f a l l four were ongoing. Suppose they a l l worked? Conclusion: What may appear to be f l e x i b i l i t y i n the innovator may be the r e s u l t of the innovator's a b i l i t y to generate more than one a l t e r n a t i v e coupled with h i s maturity i n t o l e r a t i n g ambiguity to gain a t e s t e d s o l u t i o n . 8.

Are innovators b e t t e r t r a i n e d than t h e i r non-innovating counterparts? Did they study under b e t t e r people? Did they go to b e t t e r schools? Did they have b e t t e r equipment? Because s u r p r i s i n g l y enough, given the F e d e r a l Government's and the s t a t e governments' i n t e r v e n t i o n i n education, we might think that t h i s question would have been asked. We couldn't f i n d one piece of l i t e r a t u r e on i t ; we could not d i f f e r e n t i a t e innovators by where they went to s c h o o l , who they s t u d i e d w i t h , or the equipment that they used. The innovators emerged from even some of the poorer e n v i r o n ments f o r s c i e n c e . The t r a i n i n g d i d not seem to d i f f e r e n t i a t e them from non-innovators. T r a i n i n g d i d , by the way, d i f f e r e n t i a t e p r o d u c t i v e from non-productive s c i e n t i s t s . T r a i n i n g has a l o t to do w i t h b e t t e r normal s c i e n c e , not innovation.

Conclusion: The s k i l l s (e.g., v e r b a l , mathematics) necessary to gain a formal degree i n s c i e n c e and engineering need e a r l y development i n the home environment. But t r a i n i n g at the c o l l e g e l e v e l d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a t e i n n o v a t i v e from non-innovative researchers. 9.

A commonly h e l d s o c i o l o g i c a l axiom i s that i n n o v a t i o n may not f l o u r i s h unless the c u l t u r e or the b e l i e f system allows it. We i n v e s t i g a t e d t h i s but i n a d i f f e r e n t way. We i n v e s t i g a t e d t h i s n o t i o n by again l o o k i n g at the three groups of


152

INNOVATION AND U.S. RESEARCH:

PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


s c i e n t i s t s and determining i f the b e l i e f systems that they grew up under, mainly r e l i g i o u s , would d i f f e r e n t i a t e them i n terms of i n n o v a t i o n . I t turns out i t does. Do value or b e l i e f s d i f f e r e n t i a t e innovators? I t turns out that i t does. I f the b e l i e f system incorporates the universe as unknowable or as a c h i l d one i s t o l d not to ask c e r t a i n questions, t h i s becomes one's b e l i e f . Why would you become a s c i e n t i s t ? This i s f a t a l i s t i c i n the sense that t h i s system considers that there i s nothing we can do about nature anyway. Therefore, one would normally go o f f and do something e l s e . Secondly, there i s a s u s p i c i o n of science which c e r t a i n r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s do h o l d . Of course, i f the center of the b e l i e f i s on the a f t e r l i f e , why would you be concerned with now? I f one i s very busy g e t t i n g ready to d i e , you're not going to concern y o u r s e l f with improving the current s t a t e of a f f a i r s . B e l i e f systems do have a l o t to do with i n n o v a t i o n . We can not n e c e s s a r i l y g e n e r a l i z e that to the question of the e f f e c t of c u l t u r e . But c e r t a i n l y f o r the i n d i v i d u a l s we examined, i t d i d . Conclusion: C e r t a i n b e l i e f systems, namely, those i n c o r p o r a t i n g the universe as unknowable, s u s p i c i o n of s c i e n c e , t r a d i t i o n of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m , and the focus of thought on the a f t e r l i f e lower the p r o b a b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l becoming an i n n o v a t i v e s c i e n t i s t or engineer. 10. A r e l a t e d n o t i o n to the freedom of b e l i e f i s the freedom of the s c i e n t i s t . What about freedom? Does the innovator have to have a f r e e environment to innovate? Or, as some authors b e l i e v e , anybody can innovate i f you give them freedom to innovate. There was a n o t i o n extremely prevalent i n the s i x t i e s that complete freedom i n the l a b o r a t o r i e s would lead to greater innovation. Companies moved t h e i r R&D l a b o r a t o r i e s out i n t o the woods. The r e s u l t s were d i s a p p o i n t i n g . Companies are now moving t h e i r l a b o r a t o r i e s back c l o s e r to the f a c tories. Why would that i n c r e a s e innovation? The i n novators were not p e r s i s t i n g i n t h e i r work, they were pers i s t i n g i n t h i n k i n g . But the two have to go together. That i s one c o n c l u s i o n a l l the innovators t o l d us. Edison was right. There i s no s u b s t i t u t e f o r work. They are c o n s t a n t l y working. When we went to v i s i t innovators, some were i n t h e i r lab f i x i n g equipment. When asked i f they had t e c h n i c i a n s , they s a i d , "yes, but i f I use the technicians, how am I going to get i d e a s ? " Therefore, the innovators themselves were i n the l a b o r a t o r y working. We

examined freedom f o r the innovator.

It i s a

fairly



13.

STEGER

153


complicated answer. There i s ample evidence that i n very r e s t r i c t i v e environments you o b t a i n i n n o v a t i o n . Most people do not want to hear that but i t i s a b s o l u t e l y t r u e . One may have to be i n by e i g h t and can not leave u n t i l f i v e ; one may be f o r c e d to take t h e i r lunch hour from twelve to one; one may be h e l d accountable every month, you w r i t e r e p o r t s — a l l kinds of r e s t r i c t i o n s . However, t h i s i s not to argue t h a t , given more freedom, you would not o b t a i n more innovation. But i t does say that some of the arguments about freedom r e a l l y are f i t t i n g American dogma more than they are f i t t i n g the data. I t i s a n i c e i d e a but I am not so sure that t h i s n a t i v e concept of freedom l e d to more innovation. They were a b s o l u t e l y slaves to the problem on which they were working. Freedom i s d e f i n e d as the a b i l i t y to j u s t leave and walk away from work. Innovators can not walk away from i t . They are t h i n k i n g about the problem constantly. They are very confined i n d i v i d u a l s i n the i n t e l l e c t u a l sense. Conclusion: There i s evidence that i n n o v a t i o n can occur i n a " f r e e " or i n a r e s t r i c t i v e environment. This i s not to say that any i n d i v i d u a l may be more innovative i n a " f r e e " environment than i n a "non-free" s i t u a t i o n . But i t does i n d i c a t e that the assumption that freedom i s necessary f o r i n n o v a t i o n i s a gross o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n f i t t i n g American dogma. This has been an o v e r s i m p l i f i e d s u p p o s i t i o n about freedom which i s j u s t not t r u e . There i s tremendous d i s c i p l i n e going i n t o research. D i s c i p l i n e and freedom to explore a l t e r n a t i v e s are not incompatible, but n o n a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and no d i s c i p l i n e do not lead to s c i e n t i f i c i n n o v a t i o n . Our s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s suggest that g i v i n g the i n n o v a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y over h i s own research may enhance i n n o v a t i o n . A comment should be made on a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and

the

innovator.

Innovators p r e f e r to be h e l d accountable because they are s u c c e s s f u l and have i n n o v a t i v e successes. They want these v a t i o n s recognized.

inno-

11. Do innovators, when compared to non-innovators, have unclear boundaries between work and non-work. In other words, do i n n o v a t i v e researchers i n c o r p o r a t e work as the f a b r i c of t h e i r l i f e more than a non-innovator? Conclusion: Innovative i n d i v i d u a l s have no d i s t i n c t boundaries between work and nonwork. They love research. They center t h e i r l i v e s on the meaning of t h e i r work.


154

INNOVATION AND U.S. RESEARCH: PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

These eleven hypotheses and the r e s u l t i n g conclusions from our i n t e r v i e w s are a s t a r t to more r e a l i s t i c a l l y d e s c r i b i n g and e x p l a i n i n g the innovator. 1979.


RECEIVED November 19,


The Individual in Research Innovation: Eleven Hypotheses About

Recommend Documents