Good ideas stunt innovation?
As sure as everyone knows whose face appears on the $1,000 bill, you can always count on human nature to try to ruin a good thing.
Look at Robert Goldstone. He is a cognitive scientist at Indiana University and he is convinced good ideas have a downside. When people hear a good idea they spend too much time jumping on the bandwagon and trying to take a piece of the action instead of innovating on their own.
"It turns out not to be effective if different inventors and labs see exactly what everyone else is doing because of the human tendency to glom onto the current 'best' solution," Goldstone said.
Goldstone's research examines and charts group behavior and the patterns in which people unknowingly participate. He found the fully connected groups performed the best when solving simple problems. Small world groups, however, performed better on more difficult problems. For these problems, the idea that "the more information, the better" is not correct.
"The small world network preserves diversity," Goldstone said. "One clique could be coming up with one answer, another clique could be coming up with another. As a result, the group as a whole is searching the problem space more effectively. For hard problems, connecting people by small world networks offers a good compromise between having members explore a variety of innovations, while still quickly disseminating promising innovations throughout the group.”
Think about it, when you hear a good idea, does that mean the end, or is it just the beginning? Good ideas should spawn other more creative ideas, but how often to organizations bog down on the minutia of the process and not allow for true creativity? Look around your organization for the answer.
By the way, before you Google it, Grover Cleveland is on the $1,000.
Talk to me.
Look at Robert Goldstone. He is a cognitive scientist at Indiana University and he is convinced good ideas have a downside. When people hear a good idea they spend too much time jumping on the bandwagon and trying to take a piece of the action instead of innovating on their own.
"It turns out not to be effective if different inventors and labs see exactly what everyone else is doing because of the human tendency to glom onto the current 'best' solution," Goldstone said.
Goldstone's research examines and charts group behavior and the patterns in which people unknowingly participate. He found the fully connected groups performed the best when solving simple problems. Small world groups, however, performed better on more difficult problems. For these problems, the idea that "the more information, the better" is not correct.
"The small world network preserves diversity," Goldstone said. "One clique could be coming up with one answer, another clique could be coming up with another. As a result, the group as a whole is searching the problem space more effectively. For hard problems, connecting people by small world networks offers a good compromise between having members explore a variety of innovations, while still quickly disseminating promising innovations throughout the group.”
Think about it, when you hear a good idea, does that mean the end, or is it just the beginning? Good ideas should spawn other more creative ideas, but how often to organizations bog down on the minutia of the process and not allow for true creativity? Look around your organization for the answer.
By the way, before you Google it, Grover Cleveland is on the $1,000.
Talk to me.
