Listen to the podcast:
The pace of change in today’s business world is so rapid that it seems as if there’s no room for tradition. Innovation is a hungry machine that requires a constant stream of new ideas. But research from Wharton management professor Laura Huang suggests there are situations in which tried-and-true traditionalism can be a help, not a hindrance. She and co-authors Cristina B. Gibson of the University of Western Australia, Bradley L. Kirkman of North Carolina State University and Debra L. Shapiro of the University of Maryland explore the topic in their latest paper, “When Is Traditionalism an Asset and When Is It a Liability for Team Innovation? A Two-study Empirical Examination.” Huang recently discussed their findings with Knowledge@Wharton.
An edited transcript of the conversation follows.
Knowledge@Wharton: Your research looks at something you call traditionalism. What does that mean?
Laura Huang: Traditionalism is the tendency to want to do things in the old ways, in the ways that things have always been done. It’s this tendency to say, “Why fix something that’s not broken? If it’s worked in the past, why shouldn’t we keep doing it this way?”
Knowledge@Wharton: You’re looking at traditionalism as it applies to team dynamics when those teams are trying to innovate. What inspired this research?
Huang: Traditionalism is not just a quality of individuals, it’s also a cultural value. Some cultures are more likely to want to preserve the old ways of doing things. Some cultures are much more likely to be innovative and want to try new things. One thing we were looking at was, just from a cultural perspective, are there certain types of people, certain types of cultures that are more likely to want to preserve these old ways of doing things? Now that we’re in an era where innovation and technology, and new ways of doing things are given so much credence, we wanted to see how traditionalism would impact teams that were tasked with innovation exercises or goals.
Knowledge@Wharton: My first thought of traditionalism was someone who has been there forever, someone who is deeply entrenched in a company. What you show in the paper is that it’s not necessarily how long you’ve been there, it’s more of a mindset.
Huang: That’s right. It’s certainly the case that those who are in organizations for a really long time may be those who want to preserve the old ways of doing things. But it’s not always like that. There are definitely individuals who just feel more comfortable with not changing things all of the time. There are other individuals who have a new idea every day or want to change the way things are done. When we think about innovation, we tend to think about it as wanting to do things in a different way. But we found that there is a more complicated relationship between traditionalism and innovation.
“Traditionalism is not just a quality of individuals, it’s also a cultural value.”
Knowledge@Wharton: You break down innovation into two parts for this research: idea generation and implementation. Talk about the difference between those parts and how traditionalism impacts them?
Huang: I think that’s probably one of the more interesting parts of this research, which is that we tend to think of innovation as one big bucket of things, but the skills that are required to generate novel and new ideas are very different from the skill sets that are needed to see whether the idea is a useful one. Can we actually implement this? Can we actually execute this? When we lump these skill sets together, we may be missing out on ideas that are truly innovative. We may be coming up with ideas that are radical and novel but don’t go anywhere because we haven’t thought about how to implement them. Or we may be missing out on some really cutting-edge stuff because we’re thinking too hard about the execution and the practicalities of taking that idea forward.
In this research, we break the two apart, just as lots of scholars have done, to understand what innovation is really about. We find that traditionalism helps in some instances and it hurts in other instances based on what type of innovation you’re trying to bring forward.
Knowledge@Wharton: You tested this both in a company in the aerospace industry and also among MBA students. Once you got those two groups together in their separate field studies, what did you find when they started working on their projects?
Huang: What we found was that diversity is a great thing in terms of generating ideas, having lots of different perspectives, lots of different opinions. People drawing from diverse experiences, diverse functions, things that they have done. But in terms of idea implementation, that functional diversity and experience-based diversity is not always going to be an asset. Because in terms of implementing something, things need to move rapidly sometimes. We need to take things forward, and we don’t necessarily need lots of opinions in order to take something from point A to point B. Traditionalism can actually be an asset in terms of implementing ideas, in terms of thinking about how diverse do we want teams to be in this thought process.
I think the main finding is to think about what type of innovation you’re trying to bring forward and whether you want high average levels of diversity or if you want variants in terms of diversity that you’re looking to bring into the team.
Knowledge@Wharton: You pointed out in this research that a lot of times when innovation fails, it is often because of a team dynamic issue that has nothing to do with the idea. It has everything to do with the people.
Huang: Absolutely. An average of 65% of startups or ventures are failing because of people-based issues. In a business school environment, we spend a lot of time talking about marketing and strategy and financials and accounting. But two-thirds of the reasons why companies fail are because of team dynamics and people issues, and power and status issues, and all of the things that have to do with the people rather than the product or the market or the financials.
“We may be coming up with ideas that are radical and novel but don’t go anywhere because we haven’t thought about how to implement them.”
Knowledge@Wharton: Should companies start testing traditionalism in the way that maybe you did in this study? If not, what else could they do?
Huang: I think it’s more about getting a sense for who your employees are and their individual differences. Traditionalism is certainly an important one, specifically as it relates to innovation because of this focus on new versus old and how we can re-jigger the old to form something new. It becomes a quality that is specifically important. But I think in general when we are forming teams, think about what is the outcome that we want to take out of this team? What is the outcome that we’re expecting this team to produce? We should do our best to form these teams based on those skill sets.
Might this be an instance where diversity of thought is important, versus might it be an instance where diversity is not important? We sometimes tend to confound diversity in terms of gender or race ethnicity with diversity of thought. It may always be good to have diversity in terms of gender, race and those sorts of things, but we sometimes lose the fact that the importance of that is because of the differences in viewpoints and thoughts and experiences. Rather than putting a singlehanded label on something, we should really be trying to link what those business objectives are to how is diversity helping us, how is diversity allowing us to go forward with this?
Knowledge@Wharton: This makes it more complicated to form an ideal team because you’ve got to consider many things that come into play.
Huang: Absolutely, especially in today’s day and age where teams are not always co-located. Sometimes there is diversity in terms of geographic disparities, so forming these teams and thinking about these individual issues is all the more difficult because of these realistic logistical challenges that we face in organizations today.
Knowledge@Wharton: In an ideal world, it would be great to have one group work on idea generation and one group work on implementation. But when you’re looking at traditionalism, is there a way to train employees to think about themselves in terms of this quality and then apply that to create a better team dynamic?
“The skills that are required to generate novel and new ideas are very different from the skill sets that are needed to see whether the idea is a useful one.”
Huang: I think so. I think it’s making people aware of these differences. We have our strengths and we have our weaknesses, and some people are naturally going to be better at the idea generation piece of it. Some people are naturally going to be better at the idea implementation piece of it. To the extent possible, really taking what people are good at and making them great at it is often a lot more effective than taking people’s weaknesses and trying to make them average or good at something.
But there are realistic constraints. When we recognize that we’re putting these teams together, make sure that we know why everyone is a part of this team. Perhaps make sure that people know that we’re bringing you on because we’re really hoping that you’re going to provide this perspective in terms of generating ideas. Or bring somebody else on and say, “We’ve seen you succeed in all of these other projects where you’ve really been able to help us execute and take this idea forward, and we’re hoping that you can help us think about the constraints and the logical ways that we can take this forward.
Knowledge@Wharton: Is there also a hiring aspect to this? Can we ask job candidates certain questions that tease out what part of innovation they may be good at?
Huang: I think you’re touching upon two really important things there. The first is that when we think about organizations and what they’re trying to produce, everybody wants to be innovative. But a lot of these organizations have their bread and butter. They have what they’re good at, and they can’t always just innovate and do new things because they have to maintain that base and that core. One of the challenges for a lot of these organizations is, how can we continue to maintain our core functionality, our core assets, while still exploring these other areas?
“Taking what people are good at and making them great at it is often a lot more effective than taking people’s weaknesses and trying to make them average or good at something.”
The second piece is really around, how do you bring people in to support not only what we did in the past but also where we’re going in the future? That is where diversity does matter. It’s about hiring people that can help us with what our organizations are doing now but also where our organizations are going in the future. We may not always know where those organizations are going in the future, and sometimes it’s too late to bring people in that are just thinking in one mindset. When we do bring in people with diverse experiences, diverse functions, they’re able to think in different ways that allow us to, as Wayne Gretzky said, skate to where you think the puck is going rather than skating to where the puck is. They can skate to where they think the puck is going.
Knowledge@Wharton: What’s next for this research?
Huang: In general, my research looks at perceptions and cues and how people make decisions. This paper is really taking a look at how this cue, this aspect of this individual dynamic around traditionalism, impacts how we innovate. I’m going to continue taking this forward in terms of looking how entrepreneurs and investors think about innovation and their decisions, and how there are lots of subtle signals and cues that are driving our decisions outside of just the economic factors.
Mastering Innovation: From Idea to Value Creation
Become the catalyst for company-wide change when you learn how to construct the architecture that drives innovation in an organization.
Learn more.
Join The Discussion
One Comment So Far
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Excellent.
Here is an interesting study on the subject:
When is traditionalism an asset and when is it a liability for team innovation? A two-study empirical examination
“Team innovation requires idea generating and idea implementing. In two studies, we examine how these team activities are affected by the extent to which members value traditionalism – that is, placing importance on preserving old ways of doing things over breaking precedent and forging new approaches. We proposed that higher average levels of team traditionalism would be negatively associated with idea generating but positively associated with idea implementing. Conversely, we proposed the opposite effects for diversity on team traditionalism. Further, we argued that these effects would be mediated by team process conflict because diversity on team traditionalism might make it more likely that members will debate what to retain versus newly adopt, and team agreement is more likely to occur when team members’ values are shared, rather than discrepant, with one another. Supporting our assertions, we found that whether traditionalism is an asset or liability for team innovation depends on whether (1) the average level (versus diversity) of team traditionalism is examined; and (2) idea generating versus idea implementing is of primary importance. Specifically, idea generating benefits from higher diversity on team traditionalism, whereas idea implementing benefits from higher average levels of team traditionalism. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.”(Laura HuangCristina B Gibson, Bradley L Kirkman ,Debra L Shapiro, Journal of International Business Studies, August 2017, Volume 48, Issue 6).
TRADITIONALISM AND INNOVATION: PHILOSOPHY, EXEGESIS, AND INTELLECTUAL HISTORY IN JN˜ANAS ´R IMITRA’S APOHAPRAKARAN: A INTRODUCTION
Among the most salient features of Sanskrit philosophical literature is its commentarial orientation. This orientation is reflected not only in texts that comment explicitly on other texts, but also in those independent works that do not present themselves as doing so. Even in such independent works philosophical problems are typically framed and their solutions are presented with reference to foundational texts in their respective traditions.1 Due to this commentarial orientation, Sanskrit philosophers often have two objectives: To demonstrate that their arguments are philosophically sound and to show that their conclusions are sanctioned by, and in fact implicit in, these foundational texts.2 This second objective is so important that even radically innovative philosophers often go to great lengths to portray themselves as unoriginal, presenting new ideas and arguments as if they were merely drawing out the implications of the foundational texts of their tradition.3 As a result of this, scholars have tended not to view the broader commentarial tradition as a locus of real innovation.( LAWRENCE J. MCCREA AND PARIMAL G. PATIL, Journal of Indian Philosophy (2006) 34)
Without change there is no innovation, creativity, or incentive for improvement. Those who initiate change will have a better opportunity to manage the change that is inevitable.- William Pollard.
Every once in a while, a new technology, an old problem, and a big idea turn into an innovation. -Dean Kamen.
There is no innovation and creativity without failure. Period. -Brene Brown
Awesome Quotes from Einstein
1. “The only real valuable thing is intuition.”
2. “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
3. “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.”
4. “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”
5. “The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.”
6. “The gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”
7. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
8. “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”
9. “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.”
10. “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”
11. “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”
12. “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
13. “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”
14. “Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.”
15. “When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours. That’s relativity.”
16. “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”
17. “What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.”
18. “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
19. “A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?”
20. “A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?”
21. “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”
22. “Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.”
23. “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
24. “Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.”
25. “I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”
26. “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
27. “I think and think for months and years. Ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right.”
28. “The value of a man should be seen in what he gives and not in what he is able to receive.”
29. “Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.”
30. “We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”
31. “You ask me if I keep a notebook to record my great ideas. I’ve only ever had one.”
32. “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
33. “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”
34. “Not everything that counts can be counted; and not everything that can be counted counts.”
35. “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
(The Heart of Innovation).
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India