In the 1970s, researchers at Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center developed the graphical user interface and advanced the use of the computer mouse. They were revolutionary, but Xerox, then a powerhouse in photocopying, didn’t see it. The ideas didn’t align with the company’s core business model, so they were quietly shelved. Meanwhile, Apple took note. And the rest is history.
This story isn’t an anomaly. It’s a pattern. In fact, it’s one of the most persistent, and costly, dynamics in corporate leadership: radical ideas are often discarded not because they lack value, but because they don’t fit. They defy the frameworks leaders use to make decisions.
According to a 2025 MIT Sloan Management Review article, this hesitation isn’t simply strategic caution. It’s cognitive. Managers, especially those operating within specialized silos, are less likely to recognize the value of highly novel ideas. These concepts often look risky, impractical, or irrelevant to established workflows. Ironically, their very originality becomes the reason they’re overlooked.
But here’s the insight that truly matters: it’s not just the idea that determines whether it lives or dies. It’s the network of the person evaluating it.
The MIT research makes a compelling case: managers with broader, more diverse internal networks are significantly more likely to spot and support breakthrough thinking. Those exposed to different functions, disciplines, or demographic backgrounds are more open to novelty because they’re less anchored to a single mental model. In short, innovation isn’t just about what you know. It’s about who you talk to.
The data supports it across three studies. Whether in controlled experiments or multinational companies, one pattern holds: the more expansive a manager’s network, the more receptive they are to original ideas.
The takeaway? Innovation isn’t simply a function of creativity, it’s alao a function of receptivity. The most forward-thinking companies aren’t just hiring brilliant minds. They’re building the conditions that allow those minds to be heard.
Interestingly, the research also points to another layer: employees who are themselves well-connected within an organization are more likely to have their ideas taken seriously. When someone holds informal influence, when others know them, seek their input, or trust their judgment, managers are more inclined to see their suggestions as viable.
This has real implications for how organizations structure their teams. Innovation doesn’t thrive in isolation. It emerges in ecosystems, places where people are encouraged to exchange and challenge thinking across boundaries.
At Unilever, cross-functional “agile pods” bring together marketing, R&D, and commercial teams to accelerate innovation cycles. By placing people with distinct expertise in close collaboration, the company increases its ability to recognize and act on unconventional ideas. These teams were central to launching their sustainable product lines, which may not have emerged through traditional channels.
At Airbus, internal mobility and job rotation programs are embedded in leadership development. Engineers regularly cycle through different functions—from manufacturing to procurement to digital innovation—which builds broader organizational awareness and cross-pollinates problem-solving approaches.
Even in fashion, companies like Burberry have shifted towards cross-functional creative councils, bringing together merchandising, tech, and sustainability leads to make long-term product strategy decisions. In an industry known for legacy silos, this structure is helping support innovation across heritage and digital.
The common thread? These companies are creating cultures where a bold idea, however unfamiliar at first, has room to breathe, evolve, and be seen for what it could become.
In today’s environment, where change moves faster than strategy decks, the ability to recognize untapped value isn’t a soft skill. It’s an edge. Companies don’t just need inventors. They need interpreters. Leaders who can see not only what an idea is, but what it could be.
This reframes what we mean when we talk about innovation. It’s not just about brainstorming in open-plan offices or creating hackathon budgets. It’s about building conditions where good ideas don’t get filtered out before they ever get a chance to be tested.
Because as the MIT research makes clear, the future belongs not just to those who generate new ideas, but to those who recognize them before they become obvious.
Sources:
