Tendencies that Hijack Innovation

Regardless of what type of organization you lead (even if that “organization” is as small as your family), there are times when you feel stuck and not sure how to move forward.

Below are some of the reasons why. 

Here are 4 tendencies, or biases, taken from the world of social science, that explain why we might be the biggest hurdle for our own creativity.

Mere Exposure

The mere exposure effect explains the phenomenon of why we feel more positively about something or someone that is familiar to us and why we are naturally more skeptical about that which is genuinely new.

• Have you ever started liking a song only after hearing it a few times?
• Or watched a sitcom or comedian that seems to get funnier the more often you watch (I mean, Seinfeld just keeps getting better as I get older.  It’s like a fine wine)?
• Or maybe you’ve started liking a certain type of food that you used to not care for?

This is mere exposure.  The more we’re “exposed” to something, the more we tend to like it.  Except black licorice.  That just gets worse.  Research shows that most other things tend to benefit from familiarity, though.

In his original study, Robert Zajonc demonstrated that people consistently ranked images and words more positively after viewing them more often.  Subsequently, we’ve discovered that this is true even if those images are fed to us subliminally (creepy, I know).

Besides marketers using this to get us to like their products, why do we need to know about this?

Effects on Creativity

Among other things, the mere exposure effect causes us to…

•             …Prefer the status quo.  It’s what we know.  It’s what’s familiar to us.
•             …Be naturally skeptical or suspicious of new ideas.
•             …Limit ourselves to incremental change.  We don’t want too much new, too quickly.
•             …Think more positively about our own ideas and be more dismissive of others’.
  •        …Repeat what’s been done by others rather than pioneer what’s needed for our context.

Counteracting Mere Exposure

As with every other item on the list below, awareness is our first step in overcoming the mere exposure effect.  We have to notice that it’s happening in us and in those around us.  Pay attention.

Noticing is only the beginning, though. Here are a few other ideas on how to make this newfound knowledge work for you and not against you:

Expose yourself to the unfamiliar. 

Talk to new people, read broadly, try new things – become a collector of ideas.  Expand the limits of what seems “familiar” to you.

Practise empathy.

Not your usual creativity hack, I know.  Empathy, learning to truly listen and understand another person’s perspective, will help you see the world with someone else’s eyes, opening your mind up to a different way of thinking.

Be patient with new ideas.

Just because we are uncomfortable with something the first time we hear it doesn’t mean it isn’t the right move.  As Jony Ivy, the chief design officer at Apple, often says, “Ideas are fragile.”  Consider implementing a “cooling off period” after a new idea has been introduced, where no decisions or judgments on that idea are permitted.  For our team, we put them in an “Ideas parking lot” list in Asana, allowing us to capture our good ideas in the moment and revisit them later.

Make it feel familiar.

When trying to lead change or present a new direction, our ideas will be received better if we can somehow connect them to something that people already know and love.  This is why sushi seemed so strange and foreign in America until they started making it with familiar ingredients and called it the California Roll.

Don’t wait for a big reveal.

It’s tempting to develop new ideas in seclusion and present a more polished product later in the process.  The likelihood of it being received well goes down because no one has been exposed to it in any form yet.  Rather, have initial conversations with key people, “leak” information throughout, and create teasers – do what you have to do to get people primed and ready to give this new idea a fair shot.

Loss Aversion

Have you ever noticed how something seems more valuable to you once you’re the owner?  A 1977 Chevette seemed like just another weird old hatchback to me when I was 16 until it became my weird old hatchback.  Then it became the coolest car in town.

Loss aversion is the phenomenon of being more motivated to hold on to something we have than we are to acquire something new.  I.e. We are more afraid to lose something than we are to gain something.

Studies consistently show that we sell things at a higher price than we would be willing to pay for them ourselves (just a quick look on eBay to see how much people are asking for their old junk will confirm this principle).

This means that when we’re making a trade with someone, both parties need to feel like the item they’re getting is worth more than the item they’re losing.

In fact, studies show that something new needs to seem like it’s anywhere from 1.6 – 2.5x better than our current reality in order for us to accept it.

This is also known as the endowment effect, and of course, it has huge implications on our ability to innovate.

Effects on creativity

Loss Aversion…

•             …ensures a skeptical response to any suggestion that includes a risk of loss.
•             …falsely inflates the value of what we’re already doing (which also inflates the sense of risk).
•             …means the arguments for our existing practices will always seem more compelling than the arguments against.  The “con” list needs to be 1.6 – 2.5x stronger than the “pro” list before we will consider a change.

Counteracting Loss Aversion

Learn to combat this bias and you will not only learn to see risk more objectively, but you will also understand how to better lead others through change.  Some ideas include:

Don’t just vision-cast, problem-cast.

People don’t just need to see where they’re going, they also have to see why they don’t want to stay where they are.  Chances are good that those you’re leading are looking at their current circumstances through rose-coloured glasses, so help them see (and feel) the pain of the current reality.

People don’t just need to see where they’re going, they also have to see why they don’t want to stay where they are. Click To Tweet

Honour people’s grieving process.

If we perceive change as loss, then we have a grieving process to go through.  For those you’re leading, recognize that their anticipated future is disappearing and they’ll need space to process that loss and reimagine what will be.  Even in our efforts to “problem-cast,” we need to honour the past and acknowledge that we can only move forward because we’re standing on the shoulders of those who went before us.

Create a culture of experimentation

Hold everything with an open hand.  Encourage questions, evaluate everything, celebrate ideas, experiment, and embrace failure as part of the process of growth.  When you learn to see yourself as never having fully arrived, but always en route, movement becomes easier.

Attain distance.

Chip and Dan Heath suggest asking yourself two simple questions to circumvent the strong emotions connected to loss aversion.  “If we quit today, what decision would our successor make?” and, “What advice would I give my best friend if they were in the same situation as me?”  Studies show that the right way forward can seem less threatening (and much more obvious) when we view it from someone else’s perspective.

This is one of the powers of prayer, actually.  You distance yourself from the present reality and attempt to see it from God’s perspective.

Watch out for sacred cows

Sacred cows are perfect examples of how we can falsely inflate the value of something over time.  The church is usually filled with these, and it makes the experience of loss aversion particularly strong (E.g. organs, youth pastors, weekly worship services, singing, governance models, Sunday School model, membership structures, mode of baptism, etc.).  These will always be difficult to change, but learning to identify them in advance can make sure you don’t get caught off guard in your efforts.

Confirmation Bias

This is a big one.  And a bit unsettling if you think about it too long.

This bias causes us to dismiss ideas that don’t line up with what we already believe, or what we want to believe, and to accept too easily the ideas that confirm these beliefs.

Put another way, if we want something to be true, everything within us will work towards convincing us it is.

What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact. @WarrenBuffett Click To Tweet

Confirmation bias is why first impressions are hard to change.  We’ll just keep spotting reasons to confirm our initial evaluation.

• It’s why we some leaders seem to us like they can do no wrong, while others can never get it right.  This is called either the “halo effect” or the “horn effect” (Google that).
• It’s why our current views and beliefs are likely to get stronger when they are challenged, rather than weaker.  AKA the “backfire effect.”
• It’s why your stubborn friend will continue to argue a point long after everyone else thinks it’s ridiculous (admit it, you’re that stubborn friend, aren’t you?).
• It’s also how conspiracy theories grow (or how the Flat Earth Society is still a thing).

Political, hot-button topics are great examples of where we see this.  Let’s take the issue of climate change as an example.  If you believe this is a serious issue, you’ll tend to read articles and listen to people who confirm this and give you ideas on how to live in a more earth-friendly way.  If you don’t believe this is a big issue, you’ll find articles that state climate change as a regular cycle of our planet and dismiss most of it as hype which is being reinforced by politicians and opportunistic businesspeople. 

We take in exponentially more content that agrees with us than disagrees.  In this way, whatever you want to believe is what you will tend to confirm.

(Side note: the fact that our social media newsfeeds and our online search results are designed to filter content to show us only what is most “relevant” to us reinforces this confirmation bias.  In other words, don’t trust Google to help you diversify your thinking).

Yes, this is a bit scary and could put you into a real deconstructionist tailspin for a while, but for the sake of this article, let’s just look at what effect this has on our creativity.

Effect on Creativity

Confirmation bias…

•             …is focused on reinforcing existing ideas and beliefs, not coming up with new ones.
•             …hijacks our intuition and uses it against us.  It will take your first impressions and gut reactions and slowly begin to prove those things to be true (even if they’re wrong).
•             …causes the first half-decent idea in a brainstorming session to become the benchmark against which all further ideas will be judged (which, you guessed it, just works to confirm that initial idea).
•             …will skew our evaluation efforts.  We latch on to the success stories for programs and initiatives we like while dismissing the criticisms or shortcomings (or vice versa for programs we don’t like).

Counteracting Confirmation Bias

There is no magic bullet for this one; the most powerful thing you can do is wake up and pay attention to the ways this is affecting you and the teams you’re a part of.  Limiting its effects will take a conscious effort.  Some ideas include:

Fall in love twice.

Chip and Dan Heath suggest that teams continue to pursue new ideas until they truly have more than one option that they love.  Yes, confirmation bias will still work to reinforce these two ideas, rather than one, but at least you’re not stuck in a single track.

Gather the data

Confirmation bias thrives in the realm of intuition, first impressions, and gut reactions.  While our gut can be a helpful resource if it’s been trained well with the right experiences and knowledge (as Gladwell in Blink points out), we need to have a healthy distrust of it as well.  Whenever possible, gather data and do your research before making a decision.  Data keeps you honest.  There have been many times on our team where we were tempted to believe one thing only to be proven wrong when we looked at the numbers.  Anecdotal, subjective evidence will almost always confirm your pre-existing biases, so train yourself to dig deeper to find the truth.

Data won’t necessarily make you more creative, but it can help ensure that your creativity is pointed in the right direction and that you choose the correct innovation to move forward with.

Multi-track

Another suggestion from the Heath bros here (go buy the book already).  Rather than pursuing and working out options together as a team, break up the group and have multiple teams exploring multiple options at the same time.  This can seem inefficient but will guard against any single idea falling prey to this bias (also a great way to counteract the next one on the list).

Groupthink

Groupthink happens when we value the unity and cohesion of the group more than we value making the right decision.

When we genuinely like the people we work with, we tend not to voice our disagreements and doubts as often as we would otherwise.  Quite simply, because we want them to keep liking us.  If we’re critical of an idea, or even just hesitant, we may offend someone or be labelled as a “poor team player.”  Dissension may be interpreted as disloyalty or lack of trust.

In fact, as the level of trust goes up in a group, the danger of groupthink also increases.  We give each other the benefit of the doubt rather than challenging what needs to be challenged.  To paraphrase Jon Acuff:

A group that can’t be questioned will end up doing questionable things.

The reasons for this are innocent enough, but it results in a false consensus or false unity, which will shortcircuit your efforts at innovation.  As a leader, you may believe everyone is on board when the truth is that the majority are indifferent, or even opposed, but are simply staying quiet.  As the saying goes, silence does not equal consent.

Effect on Creativity

By now, you can likely connect the dots here.  Groupthink…

•             …limits the amount of “out-of-the-box” thinking that a group is capable of because new ideas are viewed as critical of existing practices (therefore, also critical of the people who are currently demonstrating those practices – i.e. your teammates).
•             …causes a group to pursue weak ideas rather than digging deeper to find the real gold.
•             …decreases the group’s willingness to second-guess a decision, even when negative side-effects have been discovered (here’s another term for you to Google: “sunk-cost fallacy”).
•             …creates a false sense of certainty and causes the group to believe that they don’t need to gather more data or seek outside opinions.

Counteracting Groupthink

Warning: any steps you take to work against this phenomenon are likely to feel uncomfortable, and you risk losing some of the warm, cozy feelings you have as a team.  It’s going to be worth it, though, so press on.

“Duty to Dissent”

Kim Scott, in her excellent book, Radical Candor, shares the idea of passing a gavel (or some other prop) around at a brainstorming meeting with the words, “duty to dissent” on it.  Whoever has the gavel is responsible for arguing the opposing viewpoint.  She practices this as a way to encourage debate, which she sees as a rock tumbler for ideas.  There may be a lot of friction and noise, but it comes out polished and beautiful at the end (or will crumble into nothing if the idea wasn’t really a gem).

Leaders speak last

Leaders who are passionate about certain ideas will increase the likelihood of groupthink because most team members want to be on good terms with the leader and are less likely to challenge them.  When the leader speaks first in these settings, it prematurely ends the process of ideation.  If you feel like this is a possibility in your group, it may be a good idea to hold your tongue and let the team brainstorm ideas and solutions before speaking up.

Don’t start with group discussion

Kahneman gives the suggestion of getting individuals to think through and write down their own solutions and ideas before entering into a group brainstorming process, and then asking the quieter, more reserved members to share their ideas first.  This ensures that all the initial ideas are shared rather than silenced through the process of groupthink.  This also helps to counteract another bias called the “anchoring effect.”

Second Chance meetings

Irving Janis, the initial researcher on Groupthink, suggests having a secondary meeting after the initial round of brainstorming to provide a place to second guess decisions and express doubts over the proposed direction.  This defuses some of the emotion around groupthink and gives everyone another chance to challenge weak ideas or to bring up any ideas that they previously remained silent about.  As a leader, you have to actively create opportunities for dissent.  Never assume everyone agrees or that everyone has said everything they would like to say.

What’s your take?

Which of these resonate with you?  Where have you seen them played out on your teams or in your own life?

Once you understand some of the inner workings of the mind, it becomes easier to understand why innovation is so difficult.  It’s a miracle it happens at all.

Hopefully, understanding these biases will also help you counteract them and lead your team or organization forward into a better future.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on all of this!  If you have something to add, or have come up with solutions that weren’t mentioned, leave a comment below or let’s start a dialogue on social media.

If you find this stuff interesting, check out my previous article on how many of these same biases can hijack our hiring processes as well.

Thanks for being here,

-Dan