Why is it that we usually use the word ‘originality’ to describe a trait of character, rather than work product? Isn’t originality the essence of innovation?
Originality always mattered to me, but I’m not sure many people think that way. I believe the reason behind this is that it’s much harder to spread the word about something original, in contrast to things we’ve seen before.
This isn’t a choice between inventing or recombining existing things. Ultimately, innovation happens just as often as a result of interesting new combinations as from ‘classic’ invention. Both outcomes can be original. My issue is, people shy away from originality irrespective of how it came to be. At the core, originality has a distribution problem.
Having an idea that could change things is a bit like believing the world is round when everyone else is certain of its flatness. Or being the first to try your luck at setting a fashion trend. Often, hindsight seems to reveal the story of why certain original moves fruited in innovations, but usually, that’s an illusion fuelling the thriving market for how-to innovation books.
Also Read: Without trust, there is no progress: the insight that defined my work life
Just like works on personal development, they provide helpful tools and resources to acquire new skills, but they don’t make an inch of difference without the reader taking action. Which brings us back to the widespread antipathy towards originality.
I think the core reason most people despise originality is that it’s by definition the more complex and difficult choice. It’s the same reason we choose watching TV over hitting the gym and feasting on donuts instead of kale salad.
It’s easy to default to convenient choices, and modern societies more than ever are built to enable lazy shortcut decisions that give us short-term boosts of pleasure. It’s why most people are fine to buy a lottery ticket but only a few try building a successful start-up. I’ve always believed that the human tendency to avoid small difficulties and inconveniences brings us way more suffering in the long run. Those among ourselves who resist the urge to tread the easy path almost always get further in life.
Choosing the path less trodden is always implicitly about embracing (or at least tolerating) a certain amount of originality. Embracing originality beyond just tolerance can lead us even further, but also increases the number of challenges we have to face. Using the lottery ticket analogy, it seems that most people prefer to make very small, low-risk bets towards attaining their dreams.
Those of us who truly embrace originality go all-in on things that express their world view even if it’s an uncommon one. One extreme avoids discomfort and risk, the other avoids a life of insignificance. Most of us, myself included, are found somewhere along this spectrum. We implicitly make this choice with our daily decisions.
In most cases, when life gives us a choice between putting ourselves behind an original idea versus sticking to something already out there, we prefer to assign ourselves to distributing the present (which already has a huge brand and following) over the future (which hasn’t yet much of a brand or following.) This is what I mean by originality having distribution issues.
Personally, I encountered this when I wrote my book, The Trust Economy. At first, I had to confront people who couldn’t fathom the way I looked at trust. And ever since, I have had to find a balance between remaining faithful to my originality and using commonly understood metaphors and arguments to explain my take on The Trust Economy and the nature of trust.
Now, by all means, I don’t claim ownership of any of these ideas (ideas are just ideas, after all) but I have made it a significant portion my life’s work to spread them. Not primarily to make a name for myself, or to claim originality, but to turn an uncommon perspective into a common one.
Why?
Because I believe a world that understands trust the way I do might be able to solve mounting global issues we haven’t been able to properly address. Originality may have a distribution problem at first, but those who persist in establishing an uncommon perspective, idea or businesses may ultimately have a real impact on our world.
Perhaps you disagree with my views, and that’s perfectly fine. I’m not here to convince you to think like I do (okay, perhaps a little) – rather, I encourage you to have faith in original or uncommon thoughts and ideas you believe may have a positive impact on the world.
Also Read: 7 reasons why profitability is for losers
Note how I deliberately use ‘uncommon’ and ‘original’ interchangeably. Originality is hardly ever absolute, and almost always impossible to prove. More than one engineer is to be credited with inventing internal combustion engines, and all of their contributions are original.
Many of us have the same ‘original’ ideas, but the world benefits most when we can turn them into something to be shared with others. In order to make the uncommon common, we must trust that it’s worth spreading.
So, don’t fret it you have a unique idea to share with the world, and get copied doing it. As Coco Chanel put it, ‘imitation is the greatest form of flattery.’ It’s ok to be original and to be flattered.
–
Editor’s note: e27 publishes relevant guest contributions from the community. Share your honest opinions and expert knowledge by submitting your content here.
Join our e27 Telegram group here, or our e27 contributor Facebook page here.
Image Credit: Unsplash
The post Originality has a distribution problem appeared first on e27.