Seven research studies reveal the people, incentives, and environments that create innovation.

Tolerating failure. To foster a creative environment, you must make yourself comfortable with failure. A 2009 study demonstrates the impact of incentivizing experimentation among life scientists. When funded by a more permissive, long-term-minded grant, scientists achieved breakthrough innovations at much higher rates than peers receiving stricter grants.

The novice can often find solutions to which the expert is blind. A 2014 paper suggests that’s more than just rhetoric. When prompted to develop novel ideas, the study found that those with the least overlapping expertise were most ingenious.

Those that position themselves near “structural holes,” gaps in an organization’s network, tend to be especially creative. By connecting disparate groups, these “brokers” become sources of ingenuity.

An analysis of 11,000 research scientists found a connection between creative output and the reasons individuals chose their current role. Those that optimized for salary or job security were less innovative than scientists motivated by independence or the desire for an intellectual challenge.

To build a creative environment, incentivize long-term thinking and experimentation. Making room for failure opens the door to much greater success.

Interestingly, the greater the distance the participant had from the target problem, the more novel their ideas.

Novelty does come at a cost, however. Though outsiders’ solutions might be more creative, experts found them less immediately useful.

“The ground zero of innovation was not at the microscope. It was at the conference table.”

In his 1995 study, “How Scientists Really Reason,” Dunbar highlights how prompting a colleague to reframe their work at a different “level” can unlock new reasoning

those with lower network constraint scores were more likely to receive positive performance reviews, promotions, and higher salaries. Though traditional corporate cultures often overly encourage operators to focus on narrow execution, brokers are the ones that reap the rewards.

effort and innovative production were much more correlated with intrinsic motivators. R&D scientists who chose their positions because they provided more independence and fulfilled their curiosity worked more hours and had more patents to show for it.

First, innovators are not born at the frontier of knowledge; rather, they must initially undertake significant education. Second, the frontier of knowledge shifts over time.