An observation about the article is the frequent mention of risk. What's risk? It's the chance that something will go wrong. If risk is how we formally define it, then a ten million dollar idea with a 90% chance of failure is worth a million. This suggests a potential gap between the innovator's view of their own idea, and its actual value. On the other hand, a dullard who comes up with a million dollar idea that's demonstrably risk free, has delivered equal value.
What happens when the innovator presents the ten million dollar idea to a room full of dullards? After several such episodes in succession, they've persuaded themselves that the dullards hate innovation.
Blaming people for being risk-averse isn't good enough. There has to be something else going on, such as a gap between perceived risk and real risk, that influences both innovators and dullards.
What happens when the innovator presents the ten million dollar idea to a room full of dullards? After several such episodes in succession, they've persuaded themselves that the dullards hate innovation.
Blaming people for being risk-averse isn't good enough. There has to be something else going on, such as a gap between perceived risk and real risk, that influences both innovators and dullards.