Don’t Fail Like Edison Did
Tales of successful innovation are told – as good stories ought to be – in linear fashion, with the focus on a single triumphant hero. For example: Edison realized the potential for creating light with electricity, tested a wide variety of light-bulb filaments, and finally came up with one that worked well.
The implication is that innovation proceeds in a neat, orderly progression, from our hero recognizing the need, to testing solutions, and finally, rolling out the best one and smiling all the way to the bank.
Not so fast! The reality of innovation is very different from the historical depiction of it. Innovation is messy and wasteful, and it rarely moves in a straight line from problem to solution. The history of the light-bulb illustrates the gap between how we like to recall innovation, and how it really happens.
While Edison and his lab played an important role by contributing a design that made it into commercial use for a time, the fact is that Edison did not invent either the modern incandescent or fluorescent bulbs. Edison’s light bulb design, a thin piece of carbon in a vacuum, is not in use today. Our bulbs are either based on the tungsten filament patented by Willis R. Whitney in 1903, or the mercury vapor light patented by Peter Cooper Hewitt in 1901. Edison is not the father of modern light-bulbs, he is more like a first cousin twice removed.
[wcm_restrict]Edison and his contemporaries were inspired by the work of Humphry Davy, an English scientist who, in 1800, showed that a piece of carbon would glow when electricity was sent through it. If anyone was truly at the beginning of the invention of the light-bulb, it was Humphry, but history does not remember it that way – probably because his invention just happened to be called the ‘electric arc,’ which does not have anything in common with our modern names for electric lights.
If we don’t use Edison’s light bulb design, did we even need Thomas Edison? Yes and no. We needed lots of inventors, creating choices and giving society opportunities to gain experience through real-world applications over a long period of time. And we needed the cross-pollination of ideas between these many inventors.
Edison is, of course, also credited with electrifying our modern world. This is as much of a myth as the light-bulb story. Yes, Edison’s firm did win early contracts to set up electric grids in various cities, but his direct current (DC) system proved far less efficient than Nicola Tesla’s alternating current (AC). Westinghouse and other contractors relied on Tesla’s AC patents to displace Edison’s system and electrify the nation. Edison found himself on a side branch of both the light-bulb and the electric grid.
Perhaps the smartest thing Edison did was to help build General Electric – which incorporated Edison’s initial firm along with others through mergers. General Electric was a great investment because it took a plural approach to light bulbs, using any and all good designs and patents to produce successful bulbs for commercial use. It hardly mattered that it did not commercialize Edison’s filament. The point was to produce something that would sell well.
Edison is a brilliantly famous inventor. However, often the less-luminary innovators are more likely to collaborate and cross-pollinate, and therefore to find their way to the central stream of innovation as it evolves in its messy, multi-faceted way.
For my money, I’d rather model my efforts on inventors nobody recalls today, but whose patents proved to be the ones society built upon. They got to see their royalties grow exponentially. I’d rather bet on growing royalties than a growing reputation. However, it might just be possible to get the credit and the profits by remembering that everything you learned about famous inventors is a myth, and by following three simple rules of real-world innovation:
1. Don’t stop after your first design is done. Develop (and if possible, patent) multiple designs. There is always a pack of candidates, so no single approach is all that likely to emerge as the hands-down winner. Improve your odds by taking more than one approach. When it comes to innovation, the old adage about eggs definitely applies: Don’t put them all in one basket. A plural strategy works best.
2. Coin a catchy name or term. Branding is really the key to getting credit in most cases. If you insist on giving your invention a complex or technical name, know this: History is not all that likely to give you the credit you may feel you deserve. So talk to a branding or naming expert if you can’t come up with something catchy yourself. The person whose name sticks to an innovation is almost always the one who gets the credit.
3. Collaborate. Don’t fall prey to the myth that innovations arise from the lone genius working in isolation. In fact, it takes many creative people, approaching from different directions, to break through all the mental and practical barriers and bring something new to its full fruition. If you reach out to share ideas and learn from others, you are more likely to find and work on the main trunk, rather than be relegated to a side branch as the innovation grows and develops.
In reality, innovation is a messy process with redundancy and variations on themes. It’s impossible to predict which design will emerge as the main commercial success. Even recognition is not enough to insure ultimate success. Model your approach on the reality of how innovation occurs, not the neat, heroic version in our history books.[/wcm_restrict][wcm_nonmember]
Hi there! This article is available for free. Login or register as a StrategyDriven Personal Business Advisor Self-Guided Client by:
[reveal_quick_checkout id=”25489″ checkout_text=”Subscribing to the Self Guided Program – It’s Free!”]
[/wcm_nonmember]
About the Author
Alex Hiam (www.alexhiam.com) is the author of more than 20 popular books on business, including Business Innovation For Dummies
Standards and expectations define how work is to be performed; providing guidance for the consistent, efficient, value-based execution of tasks. At the outset, developing a comprehensive set of performance standards often appears to be an overwhelming and daunting task as employees within even the ‘least complex’ organizations perform countless different activities every day. However, it is not intended that performance standards be developed for every conceivable activity. Rather, standards should be formulated for those activities reflecting organizational values, implementing corporate strategy, and presenting significant risk. The documented basis behind this finite set of standards provides the guidance needed for employees to make rational judgments about the conduct of less significant activities.[wcm_restrict plans=”53506, 25542, 25653″]
Note that two factors helped to define the level of standard rigidity applied; organizational level and work environment and job function. In the case of organizational level, the higher the position within the organization the less prescriptive job tasks tend to become. While activities such as strategy development, personnel mentoring, and priority setting, are often assigned general guidelines, the expectations surrounding these activities do not lend themselves to the same high level of definition that can be assigned to more production oriented work. Likewise, the more creative the work environment or job function the less rigid performance standards and expectations tend to be.
As variability goes, so does consistency. Thus, the more variable employee behavior becomes, the less predictable the resulting outcomes. Consider the relationship between behavioral variability and results highlighted by Figure 2, Behavior Driven Results Variability. Low behavioral variability, associated with more rigid standards, results in greater performance consistency between employees which in turn results in more similar outcomes. Less rigid standards tend to encourage greater application of individual judgment and initiative resulting in greater variability in resulting outcomes.
It is important to note that no outcome on the Results Spectrum should be viewed as ‘bad.’ In some instances, allowing something to fail before taking action is an acceptable management practice. Likewise, not all activities need to be of the highest quality.
Recently, a client called to ask for help: she wanted her franchisees to add Buying Facilitation® to their sales skills so they could close more sales.
Sharon Drew Morgen is founder of Morgen Facilitations, Inc. (
and the new book 
. She lives in Austin, Texas.
“You will never find time for anything. If you want time you must make it.”
StrategyDriven Podcasts focus on the tools and techniques executives and managers can use to improve their organization’s alignment and accountability to ultimately achieve superior results. These podcasts elaborate on the best practice and warning flag articles on the StrategyDriven website.
and President of At Ease, shares with us her insights and illustrative examples regarding:
Ann Marie Sabath, author of