ISSUE #4

ISSUE #4 “It is always an individual who is the impetus for innovation; the details may be worked out by a team, but true innovation results from the enterprise and unique perception of an individual.”

While organizations are more frequently given credit for innovative ideas – the reputation and brand of the organization being of more importance in the public eye than the name of an individual – it is actually the individual who is the impetus of innovation.

This is an easily-accepted claim – we know that “Apple” is not an innovative and thinking entity, but rather a company made up of individuals with their own unique perceptions and ideas. A less-easily accepted claim (the one I am making), however, is that it is too narrow to attribute innovation absolutely to the individual; that the impetus for innovation is found elsewhere. For this to be accepted, one must consider the definition of “impetus” in the context of inspirational systems of thought.

By definition, “impetus” is the force or energy with which a body moves. It is the cause in cause and effect examples: the discovery of gold-rich hills in California was the impetus for massive settlement of the west in the late 1800s; the exploitation of children for labor was the impetus for certain manufacturing and world trade reforms by the government; the annoyance of having numerous gadgets was the impetus for Apple to create the iPhone. In each of these examples, it is easy to take a single step back and attribute the change that takes place to an individual. Taking a second step back is much more difficult. 

For the California gold rush, we can say that the massive settlement of the west in the late 1800s was the result of individual men and women wanting the chance to become rich, and to become rich quick. They decided, on their own and in most cases quite apart from the people they settled near, to head west. The first step back, then, is to say that the individual was the impetus for massive settlement. The second step back, however, moves the impetus to an inspirational system of thought – and that is, that having money is important. It is common for an economic society such as ours to value money. The importance of having money is therefore the driving force and inspiration in our attempts to get it!

For child labor, we can say that certain manufacturing and trade reforms were the result of the exploitation of children for labor. The government, advised by men and women who monitor those companies exporting and exploiting jobs and the countries to which the jobs are given, decided – based on that advice – reforms were needed. The first step back, then, is to say that the individuals monitoring and advising were the impetus for the reform. The second step back moves the impetus for reform to the inspirational system of thought that ours’ is a moral society. In Western thought, it is immoral to subject children to prolonged and harsh conditions of any kind – especially work-related. Thus, our ideal of a moral society is the driving force for certain manufacturing and trade reforms.

And finally, for the iPhone, we can say that the annoyance of numerous gadgets was the impetus for Apple (remember…the company made up of individuals with their own unique perceptions and ideas, NOT the thinking entity!) to create the iPhone. Someone might have been having a particularly-frustrating day when he or she bumped against a table, pressing PDA into cell-phone, cracking the screens of both, then shouting “EUREKA!” at the thought of combining the two into one gadget. The first step back is the initial claim, that it is “always an individual who is the impetus for innovation.” The second step back moves the impetus for innovation from the individual to the inspirational system of thought that bigger (now smaller), newer, sleeker, faster, shinier, and cheaper are all better. 

In short, short of saying that innovation is the impetus for innovation, it is the inspiration of the system of thought that we must be on the cutting-edge that is the impetus for innovation. True, an individual may have a “Eureka!” moment – the details of which may indeed be worked out by a team – that results in some innovation like the iPhone, but the impetus for that innovation comes from elsewhere.

Of course, all systems of thought have started with someone…