Status and Innovation -- Summary

A couple of weeks ago we asked if you thought there was a correlation between innovation and low status, based on a Science magazine article about animal innovators. Your responses stimulate some provocative thoughts:

From: Ellen Willoughby, Ellen.Willoughby@marconicomms.com
I think that people in general are not empowered enough to believe their ideas or innovations can be useful to others.

From: Simon Rawson, simon@microz.com.au
There certainly is a correlation between successful innovation and status! When discussing sources of innovation the CEO of a power company here in Australia said of middle management, "They are very dangerous. They have the power to say no, but not to say yes. They are not measured on innovation but on their ability to carry out their responsibilities."

The message is clear: Power relationships seen in most hierarchies stifle innovation. For innovation to be taken up you need processes by which innovations can be evaluated and rewarded, performance measures that recognise innovation and a culture of acceptance for innovation.

From: "Boenig, James", JMBoeni@colemancorp.com
It's interesting that you mentioned this phenomenon. Several years ago my boss attended a week long creative leadership training at the Center for Creative Leadership in Colorado Springs.

One of the exercises was for the team to figure out how to survive an imaginary snow storm using only the contents found in their imaginary car.

A very timid young lady made up her list along with the others. Then they debated and voted on the way the 20+ item list needed to ordered. The extroverts, persuaders, and dominant individuals ruled. The young lady said nothing as her list was tossed out piece by piece as wrong. There was a correct order that had been very carefully worked out prior to the exercise. Guess who was right? Yep. She was.

From: rvdt, rvdt@oce.nl
There are 2 issues here:
1) Are people with low status more or less innovative
2) Do people with low status propagate their innovations better or worse

ad 1)
a) One of the triggers to be innovative is the lack of resources, that would stimulate one to do innovations.
b) On the other hand a fatalistic attitude is contra productive to do innovations. If low status implies more fatalistic attitudes then no solutions are generated.

ad 2)
Propagation of innovations have a number of parameters:
a) one has to realize that one has made an invention
b) does the inventor takes his invention serious enough to take action (remember those ideas you didn't write down)
c) the problem must occur frequent enough to let the innovater remember the solution himself.
d) if the added value of the innovation is visible for others it will propagate itself, if not it depends on the inventor.
e) does the innovator have resources to propagate his idea?
f) are there already good existing solutions for the problem

The most important reason of why innovations die with their innovator is 2b, followed by 2a. Low status has less influence I think.

From: Keith Carey, kcarey@charm.net
Yes, I agree that the lower the status in the company the better the inventions. In a large company the workers at the ground floor that come face to face with customers are the ones who really keep the customer's best interest at sake when thinking about goals and ideas to shoot for in a company. A CEO is too far separated from his customers, instead they are generally only focused on the shareholders and not the customers. A CEO that remembers core values of honesty, integrity and a constant quest to meet and exceed the needs of their customer is a position that in a much better need to survive. A company that acknowledges the importance of the role and innovation the lower ranks bring to the company are the real thinkers of modern time.

From: "BRIGGS,KATHLEEN L." , BRIGGSKL@apci.com
I shared this with several groups within our company but with minimal response. I think it is so true and we will have a hard time capturing the ideas of "the quiet ones" as long as we are paying so much attention to the noisy politicians.

From: "[iso-8859-1] Jos Miguel Vicente Gomila", vicente@triz.net
In the book of Robinson & Stern "Corporate creativity" (Berret-Koehler Publishers) there are plenty of examples showing that true novel ideas come very often from people far away from headquarters (i.e. low status). The point is that those innovations cited in the book did manage to see the light (in spite of the fight many had to win).

Assuming that these are only a fraction of the ideas generated in a company. How many ideas (future innovations) are being produced in the 'outer layers' of a firm? even more, with the increasing complexity of market and specially technology, ideas need to be shared and backed to become an innovation. Tricky, eh?

From: Tom Asacker, toma@hfactor.com
In today's business world, status is achieved by those who think fast, under pressure. People who are skilled at manipulation and presentation of data, rise to the top.

On the other hand, innovation requires expertise in slow and hazy, rather than fast and clear, ways of knowing. Draw your own conclusions.

From: DearestSan@aol.com
I think there is a correlation. I have known and worked with many low income people who have great ideas. The ideas never got off the ground for three reasons as far as I could see.
1) No one would listen to the "average" person or worker.
2) They didn't have the finances or connections to make it work.
3) Great ideas, but low self confidence.
Many consultants make a fortune by going into companies and "picking" the workers brains and then presenting findings/changes to top management.

From: "Zimmerman, Betty", Betty.Zimmerman@fmr.com
When talking about highly innovative individuals, an executive in a Fortune 500 company explained to me that he liked "to have innovators close at hand -- in a closet where they could be brought out at command and returned after being heard." Another executive in that company delivered a ?motivating? speech to employees in which he emphasized the desire to "harness the creativity of the individuals" ---- As we all know, you harness a workhorse.

I think these two executives represent the attitudes of many: "Innovators, give us your ideas and we will decide if they should survive." Innovations survive only if the innovator drives her vision/dream/idea to implementation or finds an implementer who will take the innovation to implementation.

It seems to me that the status of innovators is not "low" because they are not even in the hierarchy -- innovators are off to the side.

From: dale.mcintyre@kodak.com
I would offer that there is a high degree of correlation between innovation and status. Innovation is a form of career evolution in the corporate sense. When it becomes innovate or die, corporate organisms innovate. Successful innovation, occurs when the evolutionary path is well networked or the overall corporate entity is also facing a near death experience.

Once your status has been elevated in the corporation, optimization of what got you there tends to take over. (George Land's Tape is great for this) Innovation is cost and nonuniformity: enemies of the new state!

From: Paolo Terni, paolo.terni@galactica.it
Chaos Theory tells us that a system generates new & innovative behaviors when it is pushed far from equilibrium.

"Far from equilibrium" means that the system is subject to an increase in "pressure", inputs that generate inner entropy; that forces the system to find better ways to reduce entropy locally.

If that is so, we can think of "low status" as an "eternal pressure" that stimulates the system to find better & new solutions.
From: Anne Robinson, anniecreate@hotmail.com
This may not be a "pure" answer. At one time in my checkered career I wrote a Texas School of the Air program on great inventors, titled WHAT'S THE BIG IDEA? I learned that often the inventors were poor or low paid. However they had these brilliant ideas. If the idea came at the RIGHT time they were termed geniuses. If the idea came at the wrong time they were often termed idiots and put in debtors' prison because they couldn't pay ther bills. For that reason I reach my folks in my HUNCH BUNCH (intuition group) to intuit not only WHAT but WHEN. (Earlier I had one night seen in letters of light in the darkness the formula for genius. I didn't write it down and by the next morning couldn't remember it. All I could fetch up was "X Time". I puzzled over that for a long time and finally decided it meant that genius was multiplied by the time it was demonstrated.

The radio series proved that formula. Texas hug.

From: Debra Amidon, entovation@mediaone.net
Most people do die with inventions in them. Innovators - those able to either create or adopt an invention AND bring it to the next stage of innovation (i.e., commercialization) - are definitely in a minority. Not being watched? Worse! Most of them were eliminated through the downsizing process. And to compound things, those left behind were fearful of even 'responsible risk-taking, a competence' one might argue is essential to prosperous innovation. Cute analogy...

From: Ken Dutch, Ken.Dutch@abnamro.com
Let's spin this another way. Perhaps what the other primates lack are the enterprise management skills necessary to recognize and deploy innovators. I don't know whether there's any sort of relationship between division of labor and durability of innovations, but it seems that there ought to be. There may have been skilled craftsmen throughout the Dark Ages whose techniques were lost for lack of a cathedral to work on.

From: Sheryl Lemma, lemma@lvc.edu
At my current organization, much of the innovation does come from the 'low-status.' As a member of the Computer Services department, I have seen our college's support staff come up with wonderful ideas for streamlining processes within the organization. I think the reason that typically 'low-status' (I'm very uncomfortable with that term!) people come up with the best ideas is that from adversity comes the greatest creativity -- out of necessity.

From: Harry Vardis, vardis@mindspring.com
The problem with most innovators is that they are not marketing men and that's why their talent so often goes unappreciated. It took a major effort to appreciate the telephone and other such major innovations. Imagine how many go unnoticed every day!!

From: Pamela Dodd, pamdodd@mindspring.com
Innovators' ideas often challenge the status quo. High power people have a lot invested in the status quo. Hence it makes sense that innovators might more likely be lower status people. When you're part of a one-up group, you usually don't see your privilege.

For you, it's just the way things are. It's reality. When you belong to a one-down group, you see patterns more easily - and see what might be needed to move beyond them to something new. Also, lower status people have less to lose by being innovative.

From: John Saunders, john.a.saunders@abbott.com
Innovators (by definition) look at things differently, and often have values that are different than the "powers that be". If an innovator fails to connect his or her vision with the values of those in power, the ideas are generally dismissed as "oddball" and "impractical" (i.e., the benefit doesn't justify the risk). Because his or her values are different, it's often hard for the innovator to see why the values of "the rulers" are important, and why the innovation must be "sold" in terms of those values. The reality is that if the innovation isn't sold to those with the power to make it happen, it will die out with the innovator, if not before.

From: "Lisa Dominy (LEWISON)", ldominy@microsoft.com
I believe that there are Edisons, Einsteins, Bill Gates, Paul Allens, etc. all over the place and in each one of us. Status might be a barrier, I like to think in solutions. The challenge is to convey the idea to the right people, find assistance to make it real, market to the people who want or need it. There is no avenue yet, for the greatest minds to come forth, the innovators to express their thoughts freely without criticism.

Many of these people are thought of as dreamers and a bit "off". There will be a place for those Edisons, etc. to go to soon. The web and interactive TV will change that and open up new worlds to the greatest minds of our future no matter what the status.

From: Jonathan Kraft, strive4impact@hotmail.com
I think the correlation is that the smaller and less competitive ones in the groups spend less time competing and therefore have more time to be more innovative. (A.K.A. The nerd in high school who everyone thought was a loser because he didn't play any sports or do much of anything physically)

As for them not being noticed, that is only true until they build something of great benefit. Then they are either praised, or shunned, or both. I have seen interviews with both Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos--Amazon.com-- and both of them strike me as the type that was shut down or ignored in high school by their peers. As a side not to that, the innovations both of these men presented were originally very criticized by family, or friends, or co-workers. Then Bill Gates got big, and everyone hated him because he got big without being competitive, he just built the best product. Then Bezos got big, and everyone hated him because what he built was basically a no-brainer (Hey, I'll sell books, but I'll do it better and faster and cheaper!) Now people hate them both because they have what most everyone else wants... success and money, on their own terms.

The innovators aren't necessarily always the small and overlooked, but they are the ones who don't care what other people think because they know their vision can and will become reality. Look at what Vinton Cerf (The founding father of the internet) is now doing with the interplanetary internet.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it. So did e-mail when it made its debut in 1983. If people want to be innovators, they must have a dream in which they believe so strongly that nothing will stop them from achieving it. If people want to be a part of innovation, they must change their mindset to be able to envision the dreams of others.

From: Jan Stoltman, rjstoltman@earthlink.net
I don't think there's necessarily a relationship. Often innovation is sparked by "difference" - that is, the intersection of differences - whether that is cultural difference, economic difference, religious difference, gender difference. The "edge" where these differences meet is a tremendously fertile ground for innovation. Those who innovate often just have minds that are open to this creative "fertilization."

The only connection I could see is that often those who are benefitting from the status quo have less incentive to innovate. So those who are "lower" in status - and are not benefitting - may see ways to innovate that those "higher up" do not.

I've also seen examples of putting together individuals of "higher status" and "lower status" and it ends up being innovative for both.

In a "system" or "organization" however, there needs to be an openness and willingness to innovate - otherwise, not only will the innovations (and possibly innovators) wither - but eventually, so will the organization or system (whether that system is a family, a community, a neighborhood, a business, etc.)

From: "Dooley, Jim", Jim.Dooley@stauto.com
I've definitely seen a correlation between innovation and business hierarchy. It is not that people actively climbing the ladder aren't innovative, but they have a status and reputation that they want to protect. Innovation can be seen as "rocking the boat," so they have personal stakes that can be lost. Someone perceived as being "on a lower ladder rung" in the business hierarchy has less to lose, and may be more free in expressing innovative thoughts. But, they have less influence to make things happen.

From: Jack Ring, jring@amug.org
Correlation between innovation and low status is only half the story. The other half is the correlation between innovation and high status. For examples, Howard Hughes, Bill Gates, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Henry Kissinger. The "deadband" is located at the median -- where the "normal" people hang out. Innovation happens in the tails of the distribution -- where the "misfits" are --- but not necessarily the low status misfits.

From: Dale M. Parish, IE_DMP@HAL.LAMAR.EDU
I believe there is a positive correlationship between innovators and focus on the end that necessitated the innovative means, and an inverse correlation between (often self) promotional interests and innovative interests. The innovator is guilty of the NIH--not invented here--violations: we've never done it that way, so you're not a team player /trying to interrupt the status quo/ only trying to be different, etc.

From: mpmb, mpmb@gateway.net
Someone once told me that in order to effect change, you must be in a position to effect change. "Leaders" can be egoists who refuse to see the innovations of 'low status' people or we can be people who understand that we don't have all the ideas and it is up to us to seek out those who can help us think our way into positive, productive course alterations.

I don't have all the ideas nor scientific findings to back any of this up, just experience, which doesn't count for a whole lot in a lot of organizations or places these days. Thanks,

From: "Auman, Debi", dauman@dpss.co.san-bernardino.ca.us
How do we surmise that their innovations die with them? We don't speak the same language. Perhaps their innovations are shared amongst themselves. I think it's of particular interest that people keep comparing intelligent human beings with animals. If we keep telling them that they came from animals, we should not wonder when they begin to act like animals.

From: Malinda Y. Long, mlong@cbs-companies.com
Similar to human leaders, alpha males and females have the propensity for self-promotion and domination in addition to the basic survival instinct. Those that are exclusively focused on survival are not in the mode to persuade or force others into utilizing their techniques. This could explain the correlation between innovation and low status.

From: Dan Vogel, dan_vogel@yahoo.com
The primary transmitter of culture in primates is the mother. So any innovation by a 'low-status' mother is transmitted directly to her children. If the innovation is a positive they succeed and praise their mothers. If not, they complain about how their mother's screwed them up. Happy Mother's Day!

From: Dr. Ronald Fountain, Rgf2908@aol.com
One of the reasons that innovations by primates, in particular the higher level ones, frequently die with them is their self-perceived lack of status and power more than their actual status. In the lower primates innovation is related to addressing problems shared by the entire relevant society. There, communication and transfer of problem-solving knowledge occurs seamlessly and quickly. In more emotionally complex primates and societies we second-guess our role and the importance of our innovations, often hiding them from view, and ourselves from the potential of social criticism until we die.

From: Debbie Baker, d.baker@ix.netcom.com
I do believe the status of the innovator is indicative of whether the innovation lasts. Two things specifically come to mind. the Saturday, 6 May 00 "For Better of For Worse" comic strip where the little girl sees something and no one believes her til her grandfather sees it also. Her line to her dad is "How come grown ups believe other grown ups and they don't believe me?"

The second instant comes from a friend who's 13 year old said something startling in its astuteness and her parents comment was "Where did you come up with that?" and not from a standpoint of wonder and acknowledgement.

From: Mary Joy de Rivera, maryjoy@terra.com.pe
Low status people, or poor people must innovate daily to survive. They must be creatives each day of their lives to bring food to their families.

From: Greg Rennier, grennier@att.net
I can't say for sure if there is a link between innovation and low status, but there is a logical link. Those of low status often lack resources; a lack of resources often produce alternative methods out of necessity. Those with resources often throw great money at their solutions; those without have to survive by other means. Farmers are a perfect example. You'll never see a more innovative group. They are always adapting and modifying equipment to perform tasks that would cost them thousands.

From: ArtistGuy29@aol.com
Yes, I think status has a lot to do with getting noticed. And If you can't afford to get something patented your not likely to just give your ideas to someone who can afford to make millions off it and leave you broke and unnoticed!!!!! Cody Hamil

From: DPRICE, DPRICE@ddiworld.com
I think there can be a correlation between low status and innovation--one could argue that those closest to a job who more intimately know what is involved are best at knowing what could/should be improved or changed.

They're also sometimes the first to be so close though that they can't see the forest through the trees. With the former, there's nothing more frustrating than leaders who don't empower people to act on their innovations. With the latter there's nothing better than a leader who challenges you to expand your thinking and get out of the woods. So to me, the leader is often the key.

From: Susan L. Murphy, slmurphy@kemperinsurance.com
I think some of the best innovations are created by the "lazy" people in our society. Unfortunately, we miss out on using their ideas, because we discount the "lazy" person's ways of doing things as not being worthwhile.

From: Dorothy Martin, dmartin@coop.ext.colostate.edu
Who said, "Necessity is the mother of invention"? For a long time I thought need drove innovation--that if we didn't need it, it wouldn't be created--but I'm not so sure anymore. Sometimes competition (or greed) drives innovation--an entrepreneurial spirit that necessitates (necessity?) continual innovation to create cutting edge products and be financially successful. Sometimes I think entrepreneurs create products, then advertise to create the market (the need). Did the public demand electric toothbrushes?

From: Maribel Andonian, maribel.andonian@dnax.org
I don't know if there is correlation between low status and innovation. As a graphic designer and long-time volunteer in the non-profit world, I have designed many marketing collateral pieces pro bono on very tight production budgets. The challenge is to create an expensive look and feel that will grab the intended audience's attention on a shoestring budget. I become much more creative and innovative under those conditions than I am on the rare occasion when the client says "Money is no object."

From: KMCinspire@aol.com
Once upon a time Legos came loose in a simple box. Now they come as a set with directions. If we can't take the time to allow for and notice spontaneous innovation in children no wonder the notion that we should with adults has been lost.

From: Cosmulescu Sorin, scosmulescu@rodae.ro
I think it's speculation to state that there is a clear correlation between the individual's low-status and his productivity in innovation and inventions.

However, the idea itself is quite interesting. The one who has the born call to innovate & invent is a creator by excellence, no matter what social category he belongs to. Probably his life in difficult conditions stimulates the individual to continuously search new, unprecedented and sensational solutions to problems in order to reach success and higher living standard, and to demonstrate the society was unjust to him.

To my opinion inspiration comes from God, and there is a finite number of innovators. Each innovator brings his own creation and new ideas, that no one else will appraise like himself. As long as humankind will exist, the innovators will exist and create.

One question: What social status had the following: Archimedes, Leonardo da Vinci, James Watt, Niepce, Darwin, Edison, Henri Coanda, Marconi etc.?