What Really Drives Innovation and Who Gets Left Behind: Unpacking the Innovator Inventor Gap and Inclusive Innovation

This podcast episode features Jillian Grenan from UC Berkeley's HA School of Business, who delves into the often-opaque process of innovation within high-tech firms, particularly focusing on the "innovator inventor gap." Contrary to popular academic belief, the internal innovation process is revealed to be highly competitive rather than collaborative, with many promising ideas being rejected due to the high costs associated with intellectual property protection. A significant finding is the disparity in patenting rates: while women constitute roughly 30% of the STEM workforce, they account for only 12-13% of patent applications, highlighting a systemic issue where potential innovators are not translating their problem-solving abilities into formal inventions.

The research, conducted through the Diversity Pilots Initiative, identifies three primary barriers to inclusive innovation. Foremost among these are management practices, which include managers failing to assign women to projects likely to yield patentable inventions, inadequate information flow to female employees, and a perceived lack of integrity where speaking out against bias can lead to retaliation rather than resolution. Following management practices, motivation and firm culture are also critical factors. The study uncovers a complex interplay of motivations, where individuals are simultaneously driven by pecuniary incentives (money) and pro-social motivations (the greater good), with minorities and women showing a stronger inclination towards both.

Practical insights suggest that firms should re-evaluate their idea submission processes, potentially shifting from an "opt-in" to an "opt-out" default to encourage broader participation, especially from underrepresented groups who may be less likely to self-promote. Managers are urged to actively remove barriers, ensure equitable project allocation, and foster environments of integrity and open information exchange. Recognizing and leveraging the pro-social motivations of diverse inventors is also crucial, as women and minorities often innovate in areas that serve specific, often underserved, communities like women's health or niche consumer products.

The broader implications of this research underscore the societal cost of an uninclusive innovation ecosystem. When a significant portion of the population is excluded from the formal innovation process, society misses out on inventions that could address a wider range of problems and benefit a more diverse populace. The episode advocates for a shift towards "pro-social inventions" that benefit everyone, contrasting them with innovations primarily designed to line the pockets of a few. By understanding and addressing the systemic barriers, firms and society can foster an environment where collective knowledge is shared, and a more diverse group of problem-solvers can contribute to life-changing innovations, ultimately leading to a more equitable and prosperous future.

We know women they invent in areas that often serve women. So things like women's health which is underststudied relative to other areas.

Intellectual property is really fully encompassing of those sets of tools that they can use to help them protect uh ideas within their firms and sort of help eventually you know sell products that are better and help improve the economy and everybody.

What we ended up learning is actually it is not collaborative. It's actually a lot more competitive that ideas that get submitted actually get rejected where I think a lot of us think that good ideas should go forward but it's expensive right to protect intellectual property.

If it's a competitive process where you do have to opt in, maybe solutions should be different, maybe it shouldn't be optin, maybe the default should be opt out.

We know in the US the STEM workforce is roughly 30% female, but if you look at the number of patent applications that are female, it's only around 12 to 13%. So much lower. And so that was really what drove us. We call this the innovator inventor gap.

That's the number one factor preventing it. They're not managers are not allocating women to projects that are likely to yield patentable inventions.

It's this weird thing because we have this simultaneously people are saying I'm really motivated by money but they're simultaneously saying I'm motivated by the greater good.

I love this idea that you could have these pro-social inventions coming out that maybe are different and then these really private monetarily positive um inventions that firms can make a lot of money off of.