Curiosity about a problem is at the heart of innovation. What is the unfilled need? What’s possible that we haven’t tried? But there’s another type of curiosity that’s just as important: curiosity about the perspectives of others. What are they seeing that I may be missing? What contributes to their perspective?
Popular mythology frequently depicts innovation as the product of solo genius. However, innovators are often collaborators, not loners. The Wright Brothers not only had each other, but were part of a loose network obsessed with powered flight. BTS research about the quality of successful leaders of innovation showed they weren’t themselves likely to be innovators, but were successful in managing the interactions of others, of holding the tension long enough for better ideas to emerge.
This productive and healthy clash of ideas—constructive conflict—can be tricky. Effective team leaders realize the necessity of a psychologically safe team culture where members can contribute without concern for repercussions, a condition explored previously as supporting brave conversations.
Even in psychologically safe environments, not all constructive engagement will yield a productive outcome. The catalyst for making productive progress in the conversation and being able to innovate a useful amalgam from diverse perspectives lies in adopting a mindset of receptiveness.
Mindsets are expressed in behaviors, and conversational receptiveness is expressing a willingness to engage with opposing views. Julia Minson from Harvard’s Kennedy School describes “constructive disagreement” as “any disagreement that increases the parties’ willingness to speak to each other again.” For innovation, this willingness to continue engaging is the crucial point because it’s how differing perspectives get explored more deeply and can be uniquely recombined to innovate.
Why does this matter for innovation? Research on team cognition shows that diversity of thought is a precursor to creativity and problem solving. But diverse inputs don’t generate value unless they are heard, processed and integrated—processes that rely on receptive discourse.
What difference does receptiveness make in outcomes? Research on the business impact of taking a receptive stance revealed startling findings. In one of the most contentious environments—negotiation—adopting a receptive approach improved outcomes by 60 percent. If you are concerned that receptiveness is a one-way street, further research showed that when you demonstrate receptiveness to another party’s viewpoint, they are 30 percent more likely to be receptive in return.
What does receptiveness look like in practice? Research by Minson, Michael Yeomans and others points to a Receptiveness Recipe, ingredients that help move from infighting to innovation. These ingredients include acknowledging the other person’s point of view, hedging claims rather than seeking to persuade, asking lots of open questions and identifying and building on areas of agreement.
How do we put this into practice? Leaders seeking to foster innovation can get fast traction by:
- Modeling and coaching for language that signals engagement and openness
- Reframe debate as joint sensemaking and exploration to help the team discover and innovate, rather than a contest for who has the best idea
- Reflect with the team on their experience and capture learnings that emerge from receptive dialogue
Innovation doesn’t happen in isolation, it happens in conversation.
