{"title":"领导和创新。共识管理如何阻碍真正的创新","authors":"William Bains","doi":"10.1016/j.bihy.2009.08.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The consensual basis for selecting research topics works for incremental innovation, but is the enemy of radical breakthroughs. Consensual processes, from the ‘European Year of Creativity and Innovation’ to peer review, should be supplemented by the leadership of those with the courage to back the extremes. Such leadership requires support from the very top of scientific management and funding, in academia and industry.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":87894,"journal":{"name":"Bioscience hypotheses","volume":"2 5","pages":"Pages 277-281"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.bihy.2009.08.002","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leadership and innovation. How consensus management blocks genuine innovation\",\"authors\":\"William Bains\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bihy.2009.08.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The consensual basis for selecting research topics works for incremental innovation, but is the enemy of radical breakthroughs. Consensual processes, from the ‘European Year of Creativity and Innovation’ to peer review, should be supplemented by the leadership of those with the courage to back the extremes. Such leadership requires support from the very top of scientific management and funding, in academia and industry.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioscience hypotheses\",\"volume\":\"2 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 277-281\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.bihy.2009.08.002\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioscience hypotheses\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756239209001451\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioscience hypotheses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756239209001451","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Leadership and innovation. How consensus management blocks genuine innovation
The consensual basis for selecting research topics works for incremental innovation, but is the enemy of radical breakthroughs. Consensual processes, from the ‘European Year of Creativity and Innovation’ to peer review, should be supplemented by the leadership of those with the courage to back the extremes. Such leadership requires support from the very top of scientific management and funding, in academia and industry.