What questions do companies ask if they genuinely want to be innovative?

Being genuinely innovative starts with a question: What do we actually see?

Innovation tends to become visible once something new has already emerged. That can obscure an earlier part of the process: organisations first have to recognise that something is no longer working as expected, or that a new opportunity is emerging. That sounds trivial. It is not.

Companies depend on reducing complexity. They work with metrics, categories, responsibilities and experience. All of these make efficient action possible. At the same time, they influence what receives attention and how observations are interpreted. Research on problem framing treats this allocation of attention as part of problem solving itself: even before causes are explained or solutions explored, the framing of a problem influences which symptoms and information are considered relevant.

Anyone who genuinely wants to be innovative should therefore ask:

• Which developments are we overestimating because everyone is currently talking about them?
• Which changes are we underestimating because they do not fit our existing categories?
• Which observations have we been treating as isolated incidents for years?
• Which assumptions about our market or customers have we not revisited for a long time?
• What information would seriously challenge our current understanding of the problem?

Uncomfortable, perhaps. But the aim cannot be to treat every deviation as a revolutionary signal. Organisations need filters. Innovation capability is reflected instead in the ability to distinguish noise from a deviation that indicates that the existing model of reality may no longer be sufficient.

Innovation management does not begin with solutions, but with the problem

Imagine a company notices that the usage of its customer app is falling significantly short of expectations. One possible innovation question would be: How can we increase usage of the app? That sounds reasonable. Yet the question already contains an assumption: the app is still supposed to be the solution.

Other questions would open up a different search space: Why is the app apparently not relevant enough in our customers’ everyday lives? Or: What problem are people currently solving in another way? Or, more fundamentally: Why are we assuming that an app is the right solution to this problem in the first place? None of these questions is inherently better. Each, however, leads to different information and different potential solutions.

Good innovation management therefore does more than organise ideation and implementation. It must also create room to reconsider how the problem itself has been defined. That includes questions such as:

• Are we working on the right problem?
• Who originally defined the problem?
• Which solution is already implicitly built into the way we have phrased the question?
• From whose perspective is this a problem at all?
• Which perspective is missing from our description?
• What insight would force us to redefine the problem?

Methods such as Design Thinking can be useful here. They can structure changes of perspective, exploration and iteration. What they cannot do is guarantee either a relevant understanding of the problem or successful innovation. A method can improve the conditions for insight. It cannot do the organisation’s thinking for it.

Innovation capability is revealed by what happens to different perspectives

This brings us to one of the more popular hopes in discussions about innovation: diversity. Different professional backgrounds, experiences and ways of thinking can give teams access to different information and interpretations. That does not automatically result in a better solution. Research on team innovation distinguishes, among other things, between perspectives focused on knowledge integration and those focused on team climate. What matters, therefore, is not simply which differences are present, but what teams do with them.

Research on functionally diverse teams, for example, highlights the importance of what is known as information elaboration. Information has to be exchanged, discussed and integrated if the breadth of knowledge available within a team is to be translated into solutions to complex problems. Research on diversity also identifies both positive and negative effects, as well as important moderating factors. For an organisation’s innovation capability, different questions are therefore more revealing:

• Which perspectives are missing from our understanding of this problem?
• What relevant knowledge already exists within the organisation but does not reach the people making the decisions?
• Who needs to think together but currently does not?
• Where do we lose information between specialist functions, IT, sales, research, production or leadership?
• Which forms of knowledge are particularly difficult to communicate in our usual meetings?
• Which observations are repeatedly misunderstood?
• Do people first have to translate their thinking into the majority’s logic before it is taken seriously?
• How do we distinguish productive friction from conflict that merely consumes energy?

Neurodiversity can be understood more usefully in this context than through blanket claims about creativity. Not every neurodivergent person is particularly creative. Not every unusual perception is relevant to a particular problem. What matters is whether an organisation can make use of differences in perception and information processing where those differences provide additional insight. Put differently: Can our system process different forms of insight?

To foster innovation, organisations also need to process disagreement

This is where psychological safety becomes relevant. Among other things, it describes whether people can take interpersonal risks without expecting negative social consequences: admitting uncertainty, asking questions, pointing out an error or challenging a widely held view. Research links psychological safety with information sharing, team learning and, under certain conditions, creativity and innovative behaviour. But “people are allowed to say something” and “an organisation can make use of what they say” are two different capabilities.

Imagine a project meeting. One employee says: “I think we are solving the wrong problem.” Perhaps nobody objects to her saying so. Perhaps the manager even explicitly thanks her for raising it. And then what? Who is allowed to reopen the original decision? Is time available to investigate it? What evidence would be required? What happens if a substantial proportion of the budget has already been committed? Who might lose status if the criticism turns out to be correct?

Anyone who wants to foster innovation therefore needs to ask further questions. Can people challenge established assumptions? What happens to their objection afterwards? How do we treat information that conflicts with a decision we have already made? Are early warnings investigated or interpreted as negativity? Can we reopen decisions without paralysing every project? What happens to someone whose well-founded warning later turns out to have been wrong?

Psychological safety can be one of the conditions that allow information to become visible. It does not replace the structures through which that information is subsequently processed.

Innovation culture becomes visible when ideas are selected

Most companies can deal with a good idea when it is obviously good. Things become more interesting when the value of an idea is still uncertain. Innovation almost inevitably involves uncertainty. The more novel an opportunity is, the fewer established reference points are available for evaluating it. At the same time, organisations have to allocate resources and cannot pursue every idea. This is where innovation culture becomes very concrete.

Research on idea selection shows that selection processes can themselves produce systematic errors. Organisations can select weak ideas, but they can also reject ideas with significant potential. Research into responses to novelty also suggests that groups can develop a bias against unusual ideas when their value is difficult to incorporate into a shared understanding. That does not mean unusual ideas are inherently better. It means that novelty and quality are not the same thing and create different evaluation problems.

Companies can therefore ask: What evidence can an early-stage idea realistically provide? Are we evaluating an unfinished thought according to the criteria we would apply to a finished solution? Which ideas are particularly easy for our decision-making bodies to understand? Which are particularly difficult? How much uncertainty are we prepared to accept at each stage of development? Which promising opportunities might we be rejecting too early?

The boundary between evaluation and development is particularly interesting. Research on idea evaluation shows that experts do not merely assess ideas. During the evaluation process, they may also develop and reinterpret them. Sometimes, the decisive question is: What do we still need to understand before we can evaluate this idea properly?

The most difficult questions begin after the pilot

Even a good, tested idea is not automatically an innovation in organisational practice. This is one of the points at which conversations about innovation often end too early. Research on implementation treats the adoption of innovations as a multi-stage organisational process. Studies on the assimilation of new technologies, for example, describe a sequence of decisions involving evaluation, adoption and implementation. Classic research on innovation implementation also emphasises the importance of an organisational climate that supports the actual use of an introduced innovation.

This is where innovation becomes uncomfortable. Because suddenly it is no longer only the idea that has to prove itself. The existing organisation is being tested too.

Being genuinely innovative means treating your own organisation as a hypothesis

The official question inside a company might be: How can we become more innovative? The more revealing questions might be: Why do we only recognise relevant ideas after our competitors have implemented them? Why do we employ people with outstanding expertise but make use of only part of what they know? Why do we demand innovation while treating the uncertainty it requires as a disruption? Which of our structures are excellent for our current business and might, for precisely that reason, prevent our next one?

This is the point at which innovation capability separates itself from innovation rhetoric. Being genuinely innovative does not mean questioning every convention. A company could hardly operate reliably if it did. Processes, accumulated experience and standards exist for good reasons. Nor does it mean pursuing every unusual idea or treating every dissenting view as valuable. The more demanding capability lies in making a distinction: Where does our existing logic protect us from unnecessary chaos, and where has it started to prevent insight?

Innovation therefore does not necessarily begin with a customer problem, a creativity workshop or an extraordinary idea. Sometimes it begins with a deviation that somebody notices. With a question nobody has asked before. Or with information that has long existed inside the organisation, but which the existing system is not yet able to recognise, translate or use.

One particularly useful innovation question is therefore: What relevant information might already exist within our organisation today that our current structures do not yet allow us to recognise, understand or use?

Finding a concrete answer to that one does not mean you have created innovation. But you may have discovered where one ought to begin.

---

Monika Wolff works at the intersection of neurodiversity and innovation management. As founder of Flow by Wolff, she designs systems that translate diverse cognitive styles into innovation capacity. Her approach combines psychological safety, structural clarity, and measurable performance impact within innovation processes.