Five Discovery Skills that Distinguish Great Innovators
In The Innovator's DNA, authors Jeff Dyer , Hal Gergersen, and Clayton M. Christensen build on the idea of disruptive innovation to outline the five discovery skills that distinguish the Steve Jobses and Jeff Bezoses of the world from the run-of-the-mill corporate managers. Key concepts include:
- Academic and medical research supports the idea that innovative tendencies are not genetic. Rather, they can be developed.
- The authors identify five discovery skills that distinguish successful innovators: associating, questioning, observing, networking, and experimenting.
In their new book, The Innovator's DNA, authors Jeff Dyer, Hal Gergersen, and Clayton M. Christensen build on the idea of disruptive innovation to explain how and why the Steve Jobses and Jeff Bezoses of the world are so successful. This excerpt from Chapter One summarizes the five discovery skills that distinguish innovative entrepreneurs and executives from run-of-the-mill managers.
What Makes Innovators Different?
So what makes innovators different from the rest of us? Most of us believe this question has been answered. It's a genetic endowment. Some people are right brained, which allows them to be more intuitive and divergent thinkers. Either you have it or you don't.
But does research really support this idea? Our research confirms others' work that creativity skills are not simply genetic traits endowed at birth, but that they can be developed. In fact, the most comprehensive study confirming this was done by a group of researchers, Merton Reznikoff, George Domino, Carolyn Bridges, and Merton Honeymon, who studied creative abilities in 117 pairs of identical and fraternal twins. Testing twins aged fifteen to twenty-two, they found that only about 30 percent of the performance of identical twins on a battery of ten creativity tests could be attributed to genetics. 6 In contrast, roughly 80 percent to 85 percent of the twins' performance on general intelligence (IQ) tests could be attributed to genetics. 7 So general intelligence (at least the way scientists measure it) is basically a genetic endowment, but creativity is not. Nurture trumps nature as far as creativity goes. Six other creativity studies of identical twins confirm the Reznikoff et al. result: roughly 25 percent to 40 percent of what we do innovatively stems from genetics. 8 That means that roughly two-thirds of our innovation skills still come through learning—from first understanding the skill, then practicing it, and ultimately gaining confidence in our capacity to create.
This is one reason that individuals who grow up in societies that promote community versus individualism and hierarchy over merit—such as Japan, China, Korea, and many Arab nations—are less likely to creatively challenge the status quo and turn out innovations (or win Nobel prizes). To be sure, many innovators in our study seemed genetically gifted. But more importantly, they often described how they acquired innovation skills from role models who made it "safe" as well as exciting to discover new ways of doing things.
If innovators can be made and not just born, how then do they come up with great new ideas? Our research on roughly five hundred innovators compared to roughly five thousand executives led us to identify five discovery skills that distinguish innovators from typical executives. First and foremost, innovators count on a cognitive skill that we call "associational thinking" or simply "associating." Associating happens as the brain tries to synthesize and make sense of novel inputs. It helps innovators discover new directions by making connections across seemingly unrelated questions, problems, or ideas. Innovative breakthroughs often happen at the intersection of diverse disciplines and fields. Author Frans Johanssen described this phenomenon as "the Medici effect," referring to the creative explosion in Florence when the Medici family brought together creators from a wide range of disciplines—sculptors, scientist, poets, philosophers, painters, and architects. As these individuals connected, they created new ideas at the intersection of their respective fields, thereby spawning the Renaissance, one of the most innovative eras in history. Put simply, innovative thinkers connect fields, problems, or ideas that others find unrelated.
The other four discovery skills trigger associational thinking by helping innovators increase their stock of building-block ideas from which innovative ideas spring. Specifically, innovators engage the following behavioral skills more frequently:
Questioning. Innovators are consummate questioners who show a passion for inquiry. Their queries frequently challenge the status quo, just as [Apple Inc. co-founder Steve] Jobs did when he asked, "Why does a computer need a fan?" They love to ask, "If we tried this, what would happen?" Innovators, like Jobs, ask questions to understand how things really are today, why they are that way, and how they might be changed or disrupted. Collectively, their questions provoke new insights, connections, possibilities, and directions. We found that innovators consistently demonstrate a high Q/A ratio, where questions (Q) not only outnumber answers (A) in a typical conversation, but are valued at least as highly as good answers.
Observing. Innovators are also intense observers. They carefully watch the world around them—including customers, products, services, technologies, and companies—and the observations help them gain insights into and ideas for new ways of doing things. Jobs's observation trip to Xerox PARC provided the germ of insight that was the catalyst for both the Macintosh's innovative operating system and mouse, and Apple's current OSX operating system.
Networking. Innovators spend a lot of time and energy finding and testing ideas through a diverse network of individuals who vary wildly in their backgrounds and perspectives. Rather than simply doing social networking or networking for resources, they actively search for new ideas by talking to people who may offer a radically different view of things. For example, Jobs talked with an Apple Fellow named Alan Kay, who told him to "go visit these crazy guys up in San Rafael, California." The crazy guys were Ed Catmull and Alvy Ray, who headed up a small computer graphics operation called Industrial Light & Magic (the group created special effects for George Lucas's movies). Fascinated by their operation, Jobs bought Industrial Light & Magic for $10 million, renamed it Pixar, and eventually took it public for $1 billion. Had he never chatted with Kay, he would never have wound up purchasing Pixar, and the world might never have thrilled to wonderful animated films like Toy Story,WALL-E, and Up.
Experimenting. Finally, innovators are constantly trying out new experiences and piloting new ideas. Experimenters unceasingly explore the world intellectually and experientially, holding convictions at bay and testing hypotheses along the way. They visit new places, try new things, seek new information, and experiment to learn new things. Jobs, for example, has tried new experiences all his life—from meditation and living in an ashram in India to dropping in on a calligraphy class at Reed College. All these varied experiences would later trigger ideas for innovations at Apple Computer. Collectively, these discovery skills—the cognitive skill of associating and the behavioral skills of questioning, observing, networking, and experimenting—constitute what we call the innovator's DNA, or the code for generating innovative business ideas.
Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review Press. Excerpt from The Innovator's DNA. Copyright 2011 by Jeff Dyer, Hal Gregersen, and Clayton M. Christensen. All rights reserved.
6. Marvin Reznikoff, George Domino, Carolyn Bridges, and Merton Honeyman, "Creative Abilities in Identical and Fraternal Twins," Behavioral Genetics 3, no. 4 (1973): 365-377. For example, the researchers gave them the Remote Associations Test (RAT), where they would present twins with three words and ask them to find a fourth word linking the three; they also gave them the Alternative Uses Test, where they would ask the subjects to brainstorm as many alternative uses for a common object—like a brick—and code how many total and divergent responses the subjects provide.
8. Other studies that have found that nurture trumps nature as far as creativiety goes include: F. Barron, Artists in the Making (New York: Seminar Press, 1972); S.G. Vandenberg, ed., Progress in Human Behavior Genetics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968); R.C. Nichols, "Twin Studies of Ability, Personality and Interest," Homo 29 (1978), 158-173; "Creativity, Heritability, and Familiarity: Which Word Does Not Belong?" Psychological Inquiry 4 (1993): 235-237; N.G. Waller, T.J. Bouchard Jr., D.T. Lykkien, A. Tellegen, and D. Blacker, "Why Creativity Does Not Run in Families: A Study of Twins Reared Apart," unpublished manuscript, 1992. For a summary of research in this area, see R.K. Sawyer, Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.)