Paying Inventors More Doesn't Always Lead to Better Ideas
Why It Matters
Companies and governments often use financial rewards to encourage innovation. But new research shows that the same incentives can produce very different outcomes depending on who receives them and whom they work with.
Key Takeaways
- Financial rewards can increase the number of patents produced while reducing their originality and quality.
- Specialist inventors respond differently from generalists, prioritising more inventive breakthroughs over patent volume.
- Mixed teams of specialists and generalists tend to produce more inventive outcomes because specialists influence how their teammates approach innovation.
More Patents, But Not Better Ones
Many organisations reward inventors for creating patentable ideas. The logic seems straightforward: if people are paid more for innovation, they will innovate more.
However, innovation has two dimensions. One is quantity: the number of patents produced. The other is quality: how novel, inventive and impactful those patents are. The two do not always move together.
The researchers examined what happened after China introduced a policy requiring state-owned enterprises to financially reward employee inventors for patented inventions. Analysing data from 1,742 inventors across 216 listed firms, they found that rewards generally increased patent output. Yet much of this increase came from less inventive patents rather than groundbreaking innovations.
Inventors appeared to shift their efforts towards ideas that were easier and faster to patent, boosting productivity while reducing inventiveness.
Why Specialists React Differently
Not all inventors responded in the same way.
The study distinguishes between generalists, who work across multiple technology areas, and specialists, who possess deep expertise in a specific field. While both groups received the same financial incentives, their reactions differed markedly.
Generalists tended to pursue more patents overall, focusing on outputs that maximised financial rewards. Specialists, by contrast, produced fewer patents but generated more inventive ones.
The researchers argue that this difference stems from professional identity. Specialists often belong to close-knit technical communities where reputation is built on producing high-quality, original work. As a result, they face stronger social expectations to maintain high standards of inventiveness.
Even when financial incentives encourage quantity, specialists remain motivated to pursue more challenging and innovative ideas because doing otherwise could undermine their standing among peers.
The Surprising Power of Team Dynamics
The study also found that team composition matters.
Innovation is rarely a solo activity. Many patents emerge from teams that combine different types of expertise. When generalists worked only with other generalists, they tended to follow the same pattern of prioritising patent volume over inventiveness.
However, when generalists worked alongside specialists, their behaviour changed.
Specialists appeared to influence team norms and expectations, encouraging colleagues to focus on more inventive solutions. As a result, generalists in mixed teams produced fewer patents but generated ideas with greater inventiveness.
This finding suggests that innovation outcomes are shaped not only by incentives and individual capabilities, but also by the social environment in which inventors work. The people sitting around the table may matter as much as the rewards being offered.
Business Implications
For business leaders, the findings highlight an important limitation of incentive schemes.
Reward systems designed around patent counts or easily measurable outputs may unintentionally encourage employees to prioritise quantity over quality. Organisations seeking breakthrough innovation should therefore consider whether their incentives align with the type of innovation they actually want.
The research also suggests that workforce composition matters. Specialists bring more than technical expertise; they can help establish norms that encourage deeper and more inventive thinking across teams.
Rather than relying solely on financial rewards, organisations may achieve better innovation outcomes by combining carefully designed incentives with teams that balance specialist depth and generalist breadth.
Ultimately, innovation is not driven by money alone. Professional identity, peer expectations and team dynamics can all shape whether inventors pursue more ideas, or better ones.
Authors and sources
Authors: Wenlong He (Renmin University of China), Dan Prud’homme (Florida International University), Nianchen Han (Nanyang Technological University), Kenneth G. Huang (National University of Singapore)
Original Article: Journal of Management
--
For more research, click here to return to NBS Knowledge Lab.
