AInnovation is key to business survival, and companies invest heavily in resources to encourage it. But according to business consultant Terry Leahy, too many firms concentrate on trying to find the next big breakthrough, whereas most valuable innovations come from making small changes to existing products or services. In addition, innovation does not rely on lone geniuses. Scientific and commercial breakthroughs are almost always team efforts involving people with diverse skills and perspectives.
BResearch shows that creating an innovative environment is far from simple. For example, some companies design opulent, state-of-the-art innovation centers, yet employees working in them often feel less creative than those in older, more conventional surroundings. Physical environments matter, but social and psychological factors play a vastly more decisive role in determining whether creative thinking translates into viable products.
CPsychologist Robert Cialdini has identified several psychological drivers that stifle innovation in corporate settings. One major barrier is the fear of failure. When companies punish mistakes, employees play it safe, avoiding risky or novel ideas. Furthermore, people in hierarchical organisations frequently look to their superiors for approval and cues on how to behave, creating an echo chamber that suppresses dissenting voices and alternative ideas.
DAnother key obstacle is what psychologists call groupthink. In tightly-knit teams, members place excessive value on consensus, discouraging conflicting viewpoints. Psychologist Charlan Nemeth demonstrated that introducing dissent – even when the dissenting opinion is incorrect – dramatically improves decision-making quality. Dissent forces team members to re-examine assumptions, consider different angles, and generate more creative alternatives.
ELeadership styles also have a profound impact. Supportive leaders who express confidence in their team's ability to innovate inspire greater creativity than authoritarian leaders. Furthermore, effective leaders recognize that almost every individual can be creative under the right conditions, provided they are given psychological safety, autonomy, and clear goals.
FFinally, how innovations are evaluated determines their fate. Organizations often fall into the trap of evaluating innovative ideas with the same rigid metrics used for mature products, leading them to reject highly promising innovations prematurely. Successful innovators create protected spaces where new ideas can be piloted, tested, and iterated before facing full commercial scrutiny.
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
27. The writer refers to Terry Leahy to illustrate the point that:
28. What does the writer state about physical work environments?
29. According to Robert Cialdini, innovation is frequently discouraged by:
30. What was the key finding of Charlan Nemeth's research on dissent?
Complete each sentence with the correct ending, A–G, below.
List of Endings:
A encourages teams to reconsider foundational assumptions.
B empowers individuals across diverse experience levels.
C guarantees instantaneous commercial success.
D prevents companies from making any expenditure.
E suppresses creative initiative by promoting conformity.
F requires protective pilot environments before full roll-out.
G focus primarily on minor refinements rather than giant leaps.
Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer? Write YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer, NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer, or NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this.
36. Physical surroundings are the single most important determinant of employee innovation.
37. Nearly any worker has the capacity to be creative if the right conditions are provided.
38. Project teams achieve optimal performance when all colleagues have identical IQ scores.
39. Small start-ups invariably innovate more effectively than massive multinational firms.
40. Direct managerial approval is always more persuasive to team members than feedback from peers.