My husband shared an editorial from one of his engineering magazines. The post, Trying to be innovative is like trying to be taller, takes the position that the ability to be innovative has a large genetic component. Therefor any attempt to train people in innovation is a waste of time.
People who become engineers on company payrolls have a variety of positive genetic traits, but innate innovativeness generally isn’t one of them. That’s one conclusion to be drawn by the work of Scott Shane, a professor of economics at Case Western Reserve University and a specialist in innovation management. He says corporate training programs today don’t account for the reality that portions of what people bring to the table for decision-making, creativity, and innovation come from genetic influences. In particular, he singles out leadership training and innovation programs as being genetically doomed to failure. Such initiatives do little more than fine-tune the skills of those genetically predisposed to excel in these areas, Shane says.
Of course, one of the key factors here is the post is talking about people on company payrolls. Since the engineers in my life who work for themselves certainly are creative, innovative, and make decisions. You have to be when you work for yourself, at least in more challenging economic times.
Are they underestimating people?
I’ve worked with a lot of people over the years who say they aren’t creative. And not just mention it, but tell me over and over. They don’t even give themselves a chance. So many people have early childhood wounds from someone telling them their drawing of a horse looks like a dog, so they shut down and have avoided everything that might even have a chance of being considered creative. I don’t think it’s that they aren’t creative, it seems more like any creative potential is overshadowed by creative anxiety. Underneath the fear is an underdeveloped skill. Not a lack of potential.
Innovation seems to be more about executing creative ideas, which often is right in the center of an engineers skills. They know how to methodically work through a challenge, and are particularly adept at identifying parameters and limitations. It seems particularly strange to single out innovation as the skill engineers don’t have.
Perhaps it’s the definition of norms that is the problem?
The article closes with this
One last thing companies should ponder before wishing for a payroll full of innovators: Individuals who innovate are also the ones genetically primed to thumb their nose at their bosses and strike out on their own.
Maybe it’s because so many workplaces are hostile to the natural curiosity of creatives and innovators? Maybe it’s because there are so many definitions of how things should be that don’t take into account the full range of diversity? Maybe because innovation and creativity are seen as genetic traits rather than skills to develop?
I like to hear your comments and stay in touch.
I’m working on a new series of tools for personal and professional development. To be the first to know about them and introductory specials, sign up to be on the Early Explorer list.
Christine, I agree–the writers of this article ARE underestimating people. But they’ve been socialized into this attitude, just as the so-called “non-creative” people themselves have been.
I think a big part of the problem is that when we hear the word creativity, most of us automatically think of art. Painting, drawing, sculpting, making music, whatever…even you, who I know thinks of creativity much more broadly, used an “art” example about people having “early childhood wounds from someone telling them their drawing of a horse looks like a dog.”
We are ALL born creative. Unfortunately, society convinces most of us otherwise. But the good news is that we can learn to get back in touch with that innovative, outside-the-box part of ourselves if we want to.
Interesting post!
I agree, people most often equate creativity with art, and often being able to draw realistically. I would guess it’s more nurture than nature that determines the ability to be creative and innovative. It’s hard for me to know since I had both, and it all feels natural. But I have worked with thousands of people over the years, and have had the honor of watching them discover those creative places in themselves. It’s my favorite part of what I do.
The guy making these claims makes them as an “expert” and yet his expertise is in economics.
His argument is based on genetics, a field he knows no more about than you or I.
That’s just bad argumentation. He’s not an expert at all, just a guy with a job as an economist with some strongly held opinions that someone is giving credence to.
By and large, I am highly suspicious of any explanation of social behaviour based on genetics. This one seem particularly specious.
I’m with you. Innovation may be discouraged in large organizations. It is also likely to draw on characteristics and ways of thinking that create challenges to things the employers don’t want challenged. There are probably good structural reasons big companies have difficulties with innovation. Unfortunately, this guy is looking for those reasons in the wrong places.
JoVE,
Thanks for affirming my suspicions. It just didn’t feel quite right. Certainly not in alignment with my experience.