Five years ago, Alex Honnold scaled the sheer face of the 3,000-foot El Capitan escarpment alone and without ropes—the only person to have ever done so. Honnold has great skill and discipline, but he is also blessed with a special brain: an MRI scan has shown that his brain doesn’t register fear.
Innovation may not put you at risk of sudden death, but it is anxiety inducing nonetheless. It is more ambiguous than any other business activity, requiring bold bets in the face of uncertain outcomes and a willingness to persevere despite setbacks, criticism, and self-doubt. Which is why most teams, in moments of honest self-reflection, will agree that fear can paralyze innovation. In fact, 85 percent of executives we recently polled agree that fear holds back innovation efforts often or always in their organizations. Average or below-average innovators are three times more likely than innovation leaders to report this phenomenon. Yet nine out of ten organizations are doing nothing to allay these fears. In essence, they are counting on having Alex Honnolds among them to spearhead initiatives that others dare not attempt.
Given innovation’s critical importance to driving growth, that is a risky strategy. Leading innovators not only recognize the role that fear plays but also invest in building corporate cultures that pair the infrastructure necessary for success with a thoughtful design of employees’ emotional journey.
To understand what a successful innovation culture entails, we conducted a survey and in-depth interviews with executives around the world responsible for leading and executing innovation projects inside large organizations. We then looked for differences between how leading innovators (organizations ranked in the top quintile of innovation1 ) and all others tackle the fears that can hobble innovation efforts.
We found that the culture and employee experience of innovation correlate highly with an organization’s overall success at innovating. At the same time, fear is a constant for almost all practitioners. However, there are big disparities in the nature and intensity of that fear, as well as in how companies temper its negative impact.
What are we afraid of?
Fear is a complex and personal topic—what intimidates or paralyzes some can motivate others to act boldly. In aggregate, however, our research shows that three fears hold back corporate innovation more than others: fear of criticism, fear of uncertainty, and fear of negative impact on one’s career. Individuals working at average or below-average innovators are two to four times more likely than those working at leading innovators to cite these fears as barriers to innovation.
We were intrigued to find that the fear of career impact emerged as the biggest differentiator between those who work at top innovation companies and others, being 3.6 times more prevalent. Such worries have predictable consequences. When we believe our decisions can put our advancement or compensation at risk, loss aversion takes the steering wheel and drives us to hedge our bets. This results in employees being reluctant to fully invest (or gamble) their careers on innovation, let alone on a single innovation project.
Leading innovators are much more successful at alleviating these career concerns by making innovation an explicit requirement of professional success. For example, these companies are 2.9 times more likely than average and lagging innovators to expect executives to demonstrate innovation initiative in order to advance.
The second-biggest human barrier to innovation is difficulty dealing with uncertainty and loss of control. Such fears trigger the ambiguity effect, a cognitive bias that leads us to avoid options with uncertain outcomes. Management executives seeking more control over outcomes often prioritize incremental innovations they perceive as less risky or push teams for assurances that their projects will pay off, producing the counterproductive result of less experimentation, less-ambitious ideas, and less creativity. To allay their fear of uncertainty, some leaders treat past market dynamics as predictors of future performance—a risky assumption, particularly in dynamic times.
This fear plagues average or below-average innovators almost three times as much as it does leading innovators. Employees of top innovators are 11 times more likely than those at other organizations to say that their organizations incentivize risk taking and five times more likely to report encouragement of experimentation. Leading innovators also have a more nuanced understanding of which experiments can be reversed (as most can) and which ones are commitments to scale.
Fear of criticism, the third big hurdle to innovation, is something we all feel to some degree. Group conformity and tribalism are basic survival instincts, but these tendencies can imperil companies’ innovation success. Industry norms shape employees’ sense of what is possible, discouraging them from bringing forward ideas that sharply break with convention. When ideas do materialize, people water them down to fit those norms. This conformity bias leads us to follow the crowd, even if it is to our organization’s detriment.
As with the other two fears, leading innovators are much better at easing these trepidations, with 1.5 times fewer executives reporting them than those at other organizations. Employees of successful innovators are also three times more likely say that their organizations make it easy to critique ideas openly.
Left unchecked, these and other fears can compound into large cultural barriers, transforming initial enthusiasm for innovation into apathy. Indeed, executives at innovation outperformers describe work environments filled with positive energy and enthusiasm, and identify creativity and excitement as the top feelings associated with innovation (see sidebar, “Five ways to move past fear”).
Five fundamentals of innovation culture
Organizations wishing to build a thriving culture of innovation need to be systematic and intentional. Our research and client experience have shown that all high-performing innovators embrace to various degrees five dimensions of innovation culture. READ MORE
By Laura Furstenthal, Alex Morris, and Erik Roth
It has become increasingly apparent that executives are reluctant to use the acronym ESG. With the ESG term sidelined and greenwashing rife, Alexandra Mihailescu Cichon, Chief Commercial Officer, RepRisk discusses what this means for the future
Deposit return schemes (DRS) are gaining traction worldwide as a practical solution to combat environmental pollution and encourage recycling. These schemes incentivise consumers to return empty bottles for various rewards, effectively reducing waste and promoting a circular economy.
Demand for low-carbon buildings could be three times higher than supply, thereby driving the circular transition. This is just one finding from our panel on circularity in the built environment at the 2024 annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.