I’ve written previously about the growing role recombination plays in innovation, so it should perhaps come as no surprise that it’s hugely beneficial to the innovation process when we share our ideas, successes and failures.
A study published last year highlighted that if we withhold information, then people tend to do the same with us.
“More specifically, employees who intentionally hide more knowledge seem bound to receive such selfish behavior in return from their co-workers, which will ultimately hurt them and decrease their creativity,” the researchers write in the study.
Nevertheless, there remains a strong desire to claim an idea as ones own and therefore gain either financially or otherwise from it. A recent study reveals, however, that making such a strong claim to an idea, especially in its early stages, can be counterproductive, and can stifle involvement from others in its development.
Being open with your ideas
The authors asked participants to provide feedback on an idea for promoting a restaurant. In one group the idea was framed in a way that made clear that despite their input, the idea would most certainly belong to someone else.
The contributions in this group were understandably rather muted and much less creative than in the other groups. What’s more, the participants enjoyed contributing less and appeared more disengaged in the whole process.
This was followed up by a second experiment whereby it emerged that the effect was especially strong when people were primed to think as though they were independent people when giving their feedback.
It transpired that when we feel independent, we have a desire to make a unique impact on things, and not just muddle along in the pack.
If participants were primed to think of themselves as more interdependent however, then they tended to make better contributions despite being told that the glory for the idea would not be shared with them.
The theory behind that is that feeling interdependent prompts us to move away from dissent, so whilst it may encourage contributions, it isn’t likely to generate the kind of critical feedback required to really push an innovation forward.
All of which really underlines the importance of a culture of openness when it comes to innovation. It’s something I wrote about a few years ago after a study by the University of Buffalo looked at whether giving up patent protection helps or hinders an organization.
The study suggests that the benefits of giving up patent protection far outweigh the risks of surrendering market share. Their findings reveal that by opening up their original innovation to further research it helps to stimulate demand for the product, whilst at the same time enabling it to evolve more rapidly.
“This research arose from the notion that a too-tight patent protection actually may hinder technological progress, reflected in sovereign acts taken by firms who give it up,” Gilad Sorek, author of the study explains.
So whilst the company may lose a bit of market share as other companies build on the original innovation, the process of doing this makes the entire market larger, therefore benefiting the original innovator more than if they had kept things to themselves.
Very interesting.
Adi, this is very true. In fact we see that much of the progress of humanity comes from humans being able to build on the knowledge and understanding of our ancestors. GNU/Linux is a great example as to where free collaboration can reach. We see GNU/Linux eating up market share from proprietary Unix operating systems because people value freedom more than vendor lock-in.
So very true. Sharing failures is the key to innovation by preventing resources and time being wasted. If we were more open to selflessly sharing our failures as much as our successes this we would achieve greater innovation sooner. Good read!
I'd say that it depends… typically there are two set of folks involved in innovations – innovation team and investor. They have completely different set of goals and influence the patent ideology. It also depends upon the level of expenses incurred in innovation, ease of replication, innovation and offering lifetime, generalized vs niche, etc. In principle, knowledge sharing and cumulative effort will always expedite the innovation process. The patents are applicable only in certain geography. In some countries, there is limited patent concept… and knowledge sharing is allowed by law like in China. I liked the way you narrated Dopamine Neuronal Impact in one of your previous article, and it does changes the innovation and thought process behavior.
Related to this is the 'have your cake and eat it' world of consultancy .. where folk get paid for having/realising great ideas, but learn a lot along the way that they can sell to the next customer.
Sharing and cooperation is crucial success factor in innovation teams. I believe innovation and R&D teams are better than individuals if they are well managed and captained. But if innovation team captaining is not done "right", then -as your research source suggest- people end up behaving more selfish, hindering team work and innovation. Though, I am not sure that if extending cooperation culture in innovation teams to patent protection is applicable, or not. There are many more factors to be included in IP strategies.
It is the old adage, he who knows has the power. Early in my career, I learned that my success was going to be built with the success of those around me. It is amazing what can be accomplish by open interactions between people of different backgrounds and perspectives.