Why innovative people fail

The study demonstrates that people who adapt positively to adversity and don't let challenges defeat them are also more prone to innovative behaviours. Mental resilience allows people to take in the new information in negative feedback, accept it in a constructive way and remain operative.

This also means being able to let go of an idea once it is proven unsuccessful and continuing to explore other solutions. The field data revealed that intellectual humility was also at the core of innovation. The more innovation-driven individuals had a mindset that was humble in the face of new information and they were open to learning by acknowledging the limits of their own knowledge. Intellectual humility also allows openly sharing feedback that is discouraging, which may open up new avenues for developing alternative solutions.

When running the experiments, the individuals had to submit their unfinished ideas for early evaluation by users or other relevant stakeholders and receive instant feedback. These situations required participants to show courage and step out of their comfort zone , as they did not know what the response would be. The only way to find out was to place themselves in a vulnerable situation, facing the risk of refusal and failure.

In the study, most individuals experienced difficulties with being sensitive towards uncertainties. The participants required constant help from the tutors to notice uncertainties before moving on to designing experiments. The more innovation-driven individuals were open to learning by acknowledging the limits of their own knowledge. The temptation to move directly to the realisation of the idea was great and individuals were not able to identify uncertainties. With the tutors' support, various uncertainties were found, and the next experiment resulted in changes to the solution.

When designing the experimentation setup, participants struggled to design valuable experiments — that is, to keep them small, fast and focused. In tutoring sessions, participants were trained to develop the ability to identify the smallest and fastest action that will produce the required learning and move forward.

Thus, size ultimately becomes the very thing that resists growth with increasing intensity, ultimately even taking it to a complete halt. So, how does one avoid succumbing to the same fate?

If we've learned anything from history, it's that the only way to reroute the train that's headed towards a cemetery of fallen titans is by consciously taking larger and larger risks in order find or create opportunities that aren't hindered by existing structures and processes.

Now with risk I don't mean putting all eggs in a random basket and hoping for the best. I'm referring to the act of investing time and resources into something which is strategically thought through, but regardless has no guaranteed or immediate return on investment. This is something that especially larger organizations are very reluctant to do.

However, changes - such as adopting more risky ventures - must happen incrementally by taking steps into the right direction and building on what already is, instead of attempting sudden large changes that will likely get shot down in their infancy and ultimately discourage any future attempts.

When the situation is dire enough, people know that they won't have another option and will simply adapt or leave. When it comes to improving an organization to be more "innovation friendly", we must look at it from two angles. One is changing how the company is structured and how it does things in practice and the other sculpting how people are acting, or in other words, culture.

A typical organizational structure seen in larger organizations is hierarchical due to its efficiency and manageability. However, it is very unyielding and thus limiting in terms of innovation. The problem is that the front line, which typically includes a vast majority of the employees in a company, gets easily ignored.

The are several reasons for this. For one , a hierarchical structure filters information flow, which can easily cause bottlenecks for innovation in the middle management. Thus, if you want ideas from the front line — as you most likely should — the process needs to be facilitated in a very intuitive and empowering manner.

Third, when the management has long neglected the ideas and input of the front line, it has instituted a mentality that their input is neither required nor wanted, which results in both parties having a problematic mindset. Unfortunately, fixing these problems is no easier than understanding their origins. However, a good place to start is at the common root of the problems; a decrease in the responsibility for decision-making the lower you go in the hierarchy.

This would not only make it possible for middle management to take initiative for innovation regarding the front line and their own job, but also free up significant resources in the leadership to focus on the big picture, as well as on supporting and empowering their teams.

They work as the oil in the engine that makes systematic development of ideas into actual innovations possible. Now, the issue with processes — especially in larger organizations — is that they often either inhibit innovation or fail to support it adequately.

In our experience, to combat efficiency-thinking , in addition to refining inhibiting processes into ones that actually support idea management and development , there need to be additional ways of working that are devoid of hard-coded expectations for quantifiable results on day one — although still guided by an underlying intent or purpose.

This gives breathing room for ideas to generate and progress along their natural course. Finally, many organizations are missing the correct tools to help manage innovation, improve communication, and engage employees.

Good communication and employee engagement are generally important as they, in turn, further promote innovation. Optimally one tool can be used for more than one of the aforementioned purposes.

However, the most important thing is to have the right tools for the job. Things were going from bad to worse for Honda, as it learned in a very cruel way that what was tremendously popular in Tokyo suburb areas was a complete flop on American soil. After a while, they came back in the US with high-powered bikes that became an instant success.

Success can only be achieved through repeated failure and introspection. Success represents the one percent of your work that results from the 99 percent that is called failure. Great deals of successes have been failures in the beginning. What today may seem like a logical invention that was meant exactly for that purpose, this is not always the case.

People have to ready to fail; success cannot be achieved without gaining all the necessary variables from a problem. At Penn State University, there is a course for engineering students which is called Failure The sole purpose of this class is for students to take risks and do as many experiments as possible.

The more fails they have it gets them that much closer to an A grade. Another great example is Christopher Columbus. He set out to discover a new and easier route to India.

He landed in America and the rest is history. Pfizer scientists were testing a drug called Viagra which was meant to reduce high blood pressure. After further investigations it lead to the discovery of the effects it had on men, thus making Viagra one of the most successful failures in recent history. Innovation needs to be paired with caution, research, and common sense to be successful, and many people are skeptical of trying to improve on something customers already appreciate.

Many executives or organizational leaders are difficult to get on board with innovation, because change might make them feel threatened. They could be feeling threatened by change, and are afraid they might be replaced as changes come sweeping through the office.

Many people who are averse to innovation are simply more inclined to logic than creativity. Understandably, some people are cautious about innovation. Mistakes can be costly, and while failure is part of the innovation process, diving in full speed can lead to massive losses. Those who are cautious may not be uncomfortable with innovation itself, just with the speed of progress and change. Failure is a normal part of the innovation process, but many people refuse to accept that fact.

Instead, they put unreasonable expectations on innovations and innovators, or simply avoid new ideas altogether. No one is exempt from the failure aspect of innovation—many big companies had some famous innovations that failed , including Pepsi, Ford, and even Apple. Creative people just have to accept that not all ideas work out, which is difficult for some.