It is easy to welcome innovation and accept new ideas. What most people find difficult, however, is accepting the way these new ideas are put into practice.
The writer of the issue connotates an ironic phenomenon: though innovation is required in our era and eulogized by most people, application of it is clannished vehemently because of the fear of failure and the possibility of obtained possession and tradition impairing. The author grasps the paradox psychology of most people and pertinently reveals a universal mentality.
As is known that innovation may bring big progress and result in even a revolutionary transition of a society: the elevated efficiency of work, the ameliorated life, the enticing fruit of new technology and so on. Following with innovation of the second industrial revolution, great changes took place and immediately a renewed world unfolded before us with the application of its fruits. Seeing unimaginable profits and the magic power, who (including the society and government) can suppress their agitating desire to restrict development of innovation?
Unfortunately, innovation doesn't always follow the people's will and always acts like an uncontroled horse running in the plain. Worrying about the side-effect, people have to hold their desire back but admire those who are brave enough to taste crabs for the first time. Not everyone possesses the same courage as Biil Gate's, who dare invest on a fresh field and give up the chance of studying in Harvard University, which is the dream of most aggressive young people. Often, pondering what they have already possessed with what they might get from innovation, most people prefer the former to the latter, even content to sacrifice the latter to ensure the integer of the former. For example, a department may enroll those who are not very deft in the work but behave complaisant before higher-ups and deny to those who stick to their innovational opinion obstinately. After all, it is required more to cooperate with others harmoniously and conform to the traditional rules nowadays than to creat a new law according to individual penchant, in any company and corporation.
Maybe, some one argues that, how to cultivate innovation if personality should abdicate to interests of collective? Does the statement above alludes that employees should do nothing but keep silent and follow what the higher-ups dictated, strangling their inspiration to accord to the criterion today? No doubt, such supposition is rediculous. I mean that employees should try to approach their original though to tenet of the collective, not attempt to disobey the existed norm, respect suggestion and supposition of others and circumspect the innovation and then discuss with all the members in the company. That is, responsibility should be taken before the innovation is applied to practice.
Of course, many people don't have the ability that controling their compulsion of carrying their innovation into application. It doesn't lack of people who dare not apply innovation, and people who hold innovational thought are not scarc either, however,those who possess both of the two abilities and are lucky enough to encounter a proper opportunity to release their innovation is very few. The seperation of spirit of application and creation of innovation is the root of the the strange phenomenon, that innovation and new ideas are here and there while the acceptance and combination of them with application is too little to be heard.