Key Takeaways: Adam Grant on Open Feedback for HR

The HR Virtual Summit 2018 was a complete success: over 30,000 participants took advantage of the many hours of training and lectures on forward-looking topics. Brenton Williamson from IceHrm, one of the keynote speakers at this record-breaking conference, spoke with Adam Grant, Professor of Organizational Psychology at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and author of "Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success" and "Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World." They discussed various ways in which HR departments can foster original thinking within their organizations and benefit from it. Below are some excerpts from this session, shortened and edited for easier readability.

Brenton Williamson: What is an original? What's behind it?

Adam Grant: I've never considered myself creative. I think very linearly. I like to do things according to plan and usually educate myself on proven approaches from the past before I undertake something. I believe this has greatly limited my ability to come up with novel solutions to problems and fresh ideas.

I believe that in a way, "Originals" was my attempt to make up for that and to say, "You don't have to have a flash of genius every day to be original." Creativity means developing new and useful ideas. For me, originality is someone who takes the initiative to put these ideas into action. So you don't always have to be the source of these ideas. It can mean collaborating with someone who is truly creative and being brilliant at implementing them yourself or having a good sense of which ideas should be pursued at all. In a way, I would say: even if you are not creative, it is not too late.

The Difference Between Originality and Creativity

Williamson: What is the difference between originality and creativity? You already mentioned it, but could you please explain the difference in a bit more detail?

Grant: Creativity is primarily about coming up with ideas. It's about developing alternatives that advance the desired goal in a new way. Originality comes into play where creativity ends. Let's say you or someone else has an idea. How do you know if it's a good one? We constantly see people betting on bad ideas. I think there's a long list of such failures, especially in the entertainment industry. Think of a bad movie you've ever seen.

But we also constantly see good ideas being rejected. Star Wars and E.T. were both originally turned down; the studios that had a chance didn't take it. Larry and Sergei tried to sell Google early on for about a million dollars, but the potential buyer passed. And Blockbuster – they had the chance to buy Netflix. Well.

The selection of ideas is the first step toward originality: recognizing which of your own ideas have potential and which ideas of others are worth pursuing further. After that, it’s about representing these ideas effectively, making yourself heard, forming coalitions, and putting them into action. In my opinion, originality unfolds precisely there.

Williamson: It’s about taking the next step after creativity and putting it into practice.

Grant: That’s exactly what I should have said. (laughs)

The Value of Original Thinkers

Williamson: Almost everyone here is in some role to find out: 'How can I improve my company and take it to the next level?' So my question is: What value do original thinkers bring to a company?

Grant: The value of original thinkers lies in driving innovation and change. All too often, companies remain stuck in the status quo. Most of the companies I work with across industries are very focused on conformity. They have established practices and principles, and the way people are evaluated, promoted, and rewarded is essentially based on conformity. I consider that dangerous.

I think this is a sure way to fall into groupthink. Everyone pulls together and is enthusiastic about their agreement, but no one questions whether it is even the right way.

Original thinkers, on the other hand, shake up the status quo. They challenge us to think differently. They force us to question assumptions we have taken for granted but need to be reconsidered. And they create cultures where no one is satisfied with the status quo.

This is the sentence I least like to hear in a company: 'We've always done it this way!' First of all, who told you that this is a good method? Secondly, who told you that it will still be good today? And thirdly, why would anyone just want to repeat past successes instead of building on them and improving them?

Williamson: You miss the chance for development and thus the opportunity to improve and make progress.

Cultural Fit vs. Cultural Contribution

I would like to hear concrete examples of original thinkers or organizations that promote original thinking, and how this has contributed to the growth or progress of their organization.

Grant: One of my favorite examples is IDEO, one of the most innovative design firms in the world. They began early on emphasizing that they look for people with exceptional skills, including many who have the potential to become stars in the future. Above all, however, they focus on cultural fit. Because if someone does not fit the company culture, it is difficult for them to contribute. When cultural fit is clearly defined, it is possible to attract and retain exceptional talent in the long term, because they ask themselves: 'Where else would I want to work? Here I can live my values.' This makes them highly motivated because they feel at home here.

If you look at the data, there is a study that I really value, which examined over 200 startups in Silicon Valley over a period of one and a half decades. Those who place a high value on cultural fit are more successful. They fail less often and have significantly higher chances of going public.

One might say, “Okay, great, cultural fit is the key to success.” But when you observe the companies after they go public, the growth of those who place a high value on cultural fit slows down when looking at metrics like annual market capitalization. Since they are looking for employees who fit the company culture, they reduce cultural diversity.

There is a great study by Lauren Rivera at Northwestern University. She visited consulting firms, investment banks, law firms, and many other companies in the service sector and examined what people pay attention to when assessing cultural fit. So if we were sitting down in a job interview, how would I determine if you fit the company culture? My answer to that is: "What do you have in common with me?"

Many people value similarity; you fit the culture if you are just like me, not if you are different. That destroys the diversity of thought.

IDEO asked: 'What if we gave up cultural fit and instead focused on cultural contribution?' Instead of asking when hiring new employees or selecting leaders, 'Does this person fit the culture?', we should ask, 'Can this person enrich the culture by bringing something that is missing?' Then the likelihood of valuing diversity rather than suppressing it is much higher.

IDEO proceeded in the following way, among other things: "We need more diversity in our team. We are experts in Design Thinking and have made a name for ourselves with it. But we are increasingly being tasked with unusual projects." For example, they were called into a supermarket to redesign a shopping cart. Their designers are good at this, but they don't know much about supermarkets or shopping carts—other than the knowledge that an ordinary customer would have.

So they asked themselves: "Who understands a foreign world and can interpret it?" That's exactly what anthropologists do professionally. So they created a new job title: anthropologist. They hired people with this background, three or four. Soon it was said: "Wow, this is fantastic! We should only hire anthropologists!" But then they realized that they had fallen into the same trap as before.  

So whenever they feel that someone is contributing something new to the culture, they know it's time again to ask: "What does the culture still lack? How can we enrich it?"

When I was working on a project at Google a few years ago, one sentence from Larry Page particularly stuck with me: "We don't want to become a cultural museum. We don't want to figure out what has worked in our culture in the past, freeze it, and treat it like a relic that needs to be preserved. We want to continuously change and evolve our culture."

Hiring and Onboarding for Diversity

Williamson: That seems like a trap that's easy to fall into because it works. You hire people who are similar to you, it feels good, collaboration runs smoothly, and you have a lot of fun. What can HR do to make leaders realize: 'Hey, we need to pause for a moment and think about who else can contribute, not just our friends?'

Grant: Three answers come to mind for this question. First, you can already find out during the job interview. One of my favorite questions at the end of an interview is: 'You have just gone through our application process. How would you change it? What would you improve, what doesn’t work?' You immediately get insight into whether the person is willing to question the status quo. You also see how they present it. This creates a positive starting point where the person feels that they can contribute their ideas here and are truly being heard.

Secondly, there is a really interesting study by Brandon Stotts (at a technology company) on onboarding new employees that he conducted a few years ago. He randomly divided the new employees into three different groups.

One group served as the control group and went through the usual onboarding program. The second group was meant to develop a sense of pride in the company. Many companies do it this way to say, 'Let's talk about our values and ways of working. We want to help you understand how we operate so that you can become part of our team.'

And then there was a third group that asked: What if we do it the other way around? What if we help you think about the contribution you can make? We ask you about your strengths and encourage you to bring them in?

This third group had significantly lower turnover. In addition, they achieved significantly higher customer satisfaction scores over the next six months. When you onboard new employees and tell them, 'We value your unique contribution,' you signal to them from day one that their ideas are appreciated.

I have worked with some organizations that said, 'Let's formalize this – we will conduct all exit interviews in the HR department.' What if we flipped it and held entry interviews, where in the first week we ask the questions we would normally ask upon someone leaving?

• Why are you here?  
• What goals do you have for the next five years?  
• What do you like about the company culture?  
• What would you improve?

The great thing about this conversation during onboarding is that it is much less awkward than if you have it only after three years of working at the company: 'By the way, I know I’ve never asked you this before, but what would you have liked to change in the past three years?'

It is more advantageous to have the conversation right from the start, because new employees are in an ideal position: they observe the company culture and have direct access to it, but are not yet fully influenced by it. Therefore, they can view things more clearly and objectively. I welcome it when such onboarding conversations are introduced whenever possible.

Williamson: What responsibility do you think the organization has in the first phase – to learn from new employees, to take it on, or to benefit from them? After all, these new employees will probably adapt to the status quo. So how can the first weeks or months be used optimally?

Grant: It is important to understand that new employees do not yet know how to perform their tasks at the beginning of their employment. They are trying to quickly get oriented and acquire the necessary knowledge, required skills, and relevant contacts to be able to work effectively.

While they are moving along the learning curve, they may feel that they have somewhat understood their tasks, but they are not there yet and need time to reach their goal. Every organization has the responsibility to ensure that employees feel valued and can contribute in the meantime.

One simple way to achieve this is, as one organization put it, to treat employees like culture detectives. Their task in the first month, besides learning their duties, is to get to know their colleagues and ask them what they think is going well in the company culture and what needs to be improved. If they had the responsibility, what would be the biggest change they would make to the culture? With this information, they can be our eyes and ears and report back at the end of the first month.

• What have you learned about the culture?
• What surprised you?
• What changes have you heard about repeatedly?

When people are given the opportunity to express themselves in this way, they are given the chance to help shape the culture.

What the HR Department Can Contribute to Changing Corporate Culture

Grant: One of my biggest frustrations when working with companies is when employees say, "I’m at the very bottom of a large hierarchy. I can’t change the culture. That’s up to the leaders." And yes, it’s true that leaders have a disproportionate impact on culture.

But what exactly is culture? Culture is the sum of the values you uphold and live by. It’s about the principles you consider important and express through your priorities and attention. Ultimately, culture is what we do every day, even when no one is watching. If you understand this and want to change the culture, you only need to change your own behavior and inspire others to support the desired change.

It sounds a bit like Gandhi to say, 'Be the change you wish to see in the world,' but I think it's a good way to start conversations about a cultural shift.

Williamson: One of the most common questions from HR managers is: What if culture and values are not a priority for management?

Grant: Leaders may understand the importance of culture, but not the change they are advocating for.

Find the positive examples. Even if you think your leaders haven’t understood it, there are probably some who understand it a bit better than most of their colleagues. Your opportunity is to approach these people and say, “I see that you have initiated a cultural change. I would like to know how you managed that.” Or even better: Find an area in your company where the changes you are aiming for have already been implemented. Your task is to ask these people for advice. “I would like to adopt or expand some of your adjustments. I know you have been very successful with them. How did you manage that, and what tips can you give me?”

There are numerous studies by Katie Liljenquist and her colleagues showing that we love being asked for advice. It is one of the most underestimated ways to influence others. An old saying goes that we all admire the wisdom of those who ask us for advice. The advisor is pleased that their opinion is respected and has to put themselves in the shoes of the seeker and consider: 'What would I do if I were in your place?' As a result, they are much more willing to offer good suggestions or to advocate for you and support you in putting them into practice.

The first thing I often recommend to people who want to initiate change from the bottom up or from the middle is the following:

Look around in your company. Find the people who have demonstrably questioned the status quo and driven change. Seek their advice. After four or five such conversations, you may have a team of supporters who back you.

Williamson: They promote the positive aspects rather than focusing on the negative aspects of those who are not yet convinced.

Grant: Very often there are employees who are already building on these successes and further increasing the value they create for the company.

The Importance of Open Feedback

Grant: It’s frustrating how often I come into organizations and see that this topic is overstated. Some leaders think, 'We only want employees to be positive.' And of course, when you want to drive change, especially in the cultural area, you want employees to be enthusiastic, optimistic, inspired, and hopeful. But often the best catalyst for change is a problem that needs to be solved, and I think it’s made unnecessarily difficult for many leaders to address issues.

The audience can fill in the blanks: Don’t bring me ______, bring me ______. Normally, people say: "Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions." Did all these people have the same boss?

I understand why leaders say this. I think they want to encourage employees to think constructively, not complain. But I consider this philosophy dangerous. If employees only speak up when they have a solution, you may never hear about the biggest problems, which are too complex for a single person to solve. I think it’s great when organizations allow problems to be raised openly. What if you turned the suggestion box into a problem box? If you see something that isn’t working, you can say, "I think this is a problem."

I have been thinking about the difference between whining and raising issues. The key is to create a channel through which people can communicate the problems they see. It's not about venting, but about enabling people to be open and say, 'I see a problem here.'

It's about creating psychological safety so that people can say, 'If I think the emperor is not wearing any clothes, I can say so without immediately becoming the tailor. I care about this problem, I am willing to think about it. I don't know if I can solve it, but I want to make sure I take some action to address it.'

How to Avoid Cognitive Entrenchment

Williamson: We have talked about diverse thinking and its benefits for a company. Is there a risk of taking this principle too far? Can diverse thinking be encouraged to such an extent that no goals can be achieved?

Grant: I’m looking forward to seeing that. I haven’t come across a workplace where this problem exists. Barry Schwartz and I wrote a study a few years ago in which we analyzed numerous pieces of evidence showing that almost any virtue in life can be taken too far. I have written about how one can be too generous and become so selfless that one either burns out because one is doing other people's work and has no time or energy left for one's own, or one is exploited by selfish takers and burns out, so that one lacks the strength to help others.

We observe this in many areas. Those who immerse themselves too deeply in a subject, who are experts in a field, are actually less effective when changes occur in that area. For example, there is evidence that experienced bridge players perform worse when the rules are changed because they are so accustomed to a certain approach that adjusting becomes difficult for them. Or experienced accountants have more difficulties when a new tax law is introduced, while beginners say, 'I don’t know the law anyway,' and internalize it.

In psychology, we call this cognitive fixation. One remains stuck in a particular way of thinking or approach and can’t find a way out. This argument can also be applied to diversity. Too many different ways of thinking can make coordination difficult. The participants may be working in different directions and achieve nothing together. The whole is then less than the sum of its parts.

For me, this is an illusion. Such a thing does not exist.

Williamson: (laughs) At the moment, we don’t need to worry about that.

Grant: Most organizations lack diversity in thinking.

Studies suggest that heterogeneous groups, on average, perform worse at problem-solving than homogeneous groups. They face greater difficulties because they don’t always speak the same language, don’t always understand each other, and feel more uncomfortable.

And yet they often come up with better ideas, partly due to the discomfort they feel. We know that people prepare better and make more effort to communicate their ideas so that they are understandable to different audiences in an uncomfortable situation. The result is participants who prepare more carefully for the meeting and also engage more actively in it.

The opposite is true for homogeneous groups. Everything runs smoothly, people feel familiar with each other, like each other, get along well, it is pleasant, and they believe they have done a good job. But this sense of well-being does not motivate us to prepare or think unconventionally. As soon as diversity is introduced, it is precisely this discomfort, which one may feel, that contributes to creativity.

Mindset for Diversity in Thinking

Williamson: How can HR support leaders in paying attention to diversity in thinking?

Grant: I have worked with many HR departments that want to take a more scientific approach to hiring. Once they have identified indicators for job performance or promotion to leadership positions, they want to hire based on these criteria. However, there is a risk of repeatedly hiring the same employees who are already performing exceptionally well. While this may be good for individual performance, it is not necessarily beneficial for the company's ability to innovate and adapt to change.

One thing I particularly appreciate: read a résumé from the bottom up. Often, you discover originality at the very end, where applicants talk about their interests and skills. It becomes clear that it is not the sheer amount of experience, but the diversity of experiences acquired that is one of the best indicators of a willingness to challenge the status quo.

Have you worked in multiple countries? Do you speak several languages? Have you cultivated skills and hobbies that go far beyond your actual professional field? One of my best sales employees was a mathematics student who built robots but viewed the sales process from a completely different perspective. Another of my best employees was an ultimate frisbee coach who also worked as a magician on the side. I think you should always try to look for such diverse experiences whenever possible.

During the job interview, make sure that candidates have the opportunity to ask questions. Turn the tables and let yourself be asked a few questions as well. Observe which questions are asked. This will give you insight into the person's curiosity and initiative. It also provides a clue as to whether they are willing to question sensitive topics within the company – something that is important to me when selecting personnel.

If you truly care about creativity, one of the best indicators of creative thinking is not only the quality but also the quantity of your ideas. Highly creative people in all fields – you can see it with inventors, artists, musicians, and writers – have more bad ideas than their peers. This is simply because they have more ideas. By increasing the number of options, they create more variety and have a greater chance of discovering something truly original.

In a job interview, you can ask candidates to come up with as many ideas as possible and observe how far they get with unconventional approaches. Also, give them the opportunity to prepare. Most tests under pressure in a 60-minute interview do not provide any insight into how originality actually arises. Therefore, give the candidates a week of preparation and let them know that you will ask them to develop solutions for a specific problem, and then evaluate the number and quality of their solutions.

Adam Grant’s insights provide a clear directive for HR: move beyond mere conformity and actively engineer a culture that values originality, diverse thinking, and candid feedback. The shift from "cultural fit" to "cultural contribution" is a strategic imperative for long-term innovation. IceHrm directly supports the execution of these strategic principles by facilitating structured, continuous feedback necessary for fostering this open culture. Its Performance Management and Onboarding modules can be adapted to formalize the "entry interview" process and track goals related to "cultural contribution." Furthermore, by providing secure and easy-to-use channels for feedback and communication, IceHrm helps HR create the psychological safety Grant emphasizes, ensuring that employees feel comfortable raising complex "problems"—not just solutions—allowing the organization to proactively drive change and avoid cognitive entrenchment.