RSA Replay: How Non-Conformists Change the World

Overview

Adam Grant, speaking at the RSA as part of the “RSA Originals” series, argues that the central challenge for “original” (non-conforming) people is not generating ideas, but getting them recognized, supported, and acted on after the initial creativity.

---

Why people with good ideas stay silent

Grant begins with a personal story about trying to challenge a manager and being threatened with termination if he spoke up again. He uses this to frame a broader pattern:

• Data suggests most people (about 85%) don’t speak up with bold ideas because fear and self-doubt are common.
• Even when people do speak up, they often do so ineffectively, and their ideas get shut down.

---

Three lessons for turning creativity into impact (“what happens after creativity”)

1) Be balanced and strategically candid about flaws

Grant describes entrepreneur Rufus Grissom, whose pitch begins by listing reasons investors shouldn’t invest. While it violates the usual “pitch to win approval” norm, it works because:

• It signals honesty
• It invites collaborative problem-solving
• It makes it harder for investors to dismiss the idea after their first objections

Takeaway for speakers: Don’t only argue that something is unfair or obviously correct—acknowledge key risks and explain why, despite them, the idea is still worth considering.

---

2) Be a “tempered radical”

Grant argues that originality often requires radical proposals, but radicalism can make others fail to appreciate the idea.

He uses Meredith Perry / uBeam (wireless power) to show how original thinkers may need to frame end goals in a more palatable way to secure collaborators:

• Instead of pitching “wireless power” as an impossible dream to physicists/engineers,
• Perry pitched a specific, buildable component: a transducer.

---

3) Make the unfamiliar familiar—connect to what people already understand

Grant explains that people often underestimate what others will understand when an idea is heard for the first time.

• Using a Stanford study metaphor about song recognition (tapping rhythms), he argues what’s obvious to the “author” is hard for others to perceive without repetition and practice.
• Practical implication: if an idea is rejected, don’t assume “no” means “never.” Revisit it with improved framing.

He illustrates this with Disney’s early development of The Lion King:

• A rejected premise (“Bambi in Africa with lions”) became persuasive when reframed as “Hamlet with lions,” giving audiences a mental model for plot and themes.

---

Finding allies: why the best supporters aren’t always the people who agree with you

Grant emphasizes that original ideas require coalition-building, but:

• “Common goals” can sometimes divide people (e.g., ideological mismatch, “purity tests”).

Instead, alliances form more effectively around shared methods and overlapping ways of organizing and taking action.

He also presents a structured model of allies based on research on:

• givers vs. takers
• personality differences

Key dynamics include:

• Agreeable people: may support you in conversation but often avoid conflict and won’t “go to bat.”
• Agreeable takers: may be friendly but not truly supportive (“fakers”).
• Disagreeable givers: gruff and critical but often genuinely caring—these are frequently the best advocates. They:
  • challenge you as “devil’s advocates”
  • support you once they’re convinced

Recommendation: explicitly value “critical friends,” and note they can become easier to trust once their underlying intentions are understood.

---

Organizational and managerial implications: reduce false negatives in evaluation

In Q&A, Grant addresses managers who reject good ideas. He cites research comparing perspectives:

• Creators can be overconfident (too positive).
• Managers can be too harsh, focusing on failure modes (too negative).
• Peer creators/other performers evaluate more accurately because they understand novelty while having enough distance.

He suggests a simple technique to improve managers’ judgments:

• Spend a few minutes brainstorming your own ideas before evaluating others’.
• This primes openness and reduces overly negative filtering.

---

Power, disempowerment, and status-quo emotional coping

Grant explores why people at the bottom or middle of organizations may avoid pushing for change:

• System justification research suggests disadvantaged people may support the status quo because acknowledging injustice is emotionally painful—emotionally protective, but creatively limiting.
• He recommends reframing regret:
  • People regret omission (standing still) more than commission (taking risks).
• He also suggests destabilizing the status quo first:
  • build dissatisfaction with the present before pitching a future vision, so people feel ready to imagine change.

---

Gender and originality: a double bind

Grant discusses evidence that women face a double bind when championing original ideas:

• Men who speak up are rewarded and celebrated.
• Women who speak up with the same ideas are more likely to be dismissed, ignored, or judged as aggressive.

He recommends tactics that reduce threat:

• emphasize that suggestions serve the group
• build a track record of being a “giver”
• especially with men, ask for advice to influence without triggering the same defensiveness

He also supports initiatives like the Op-Ed Project to increase women’s visibility as public intellectuals.

---

Practical advice beyond the corporate world

Parenting

Grant applies his themes to parenting:

• Praise identity (e.g., “you are a helper,” “you are creative,” “you’re a non-conformist”) rather than only praising behaviors, because children internalize identity.
• Emphasize appropriate guilt (disappointment/guilt rather than shame) to sustain moral motivation and speaking up.

Politics

On politics, Grant argues candidates need optimal distinctiveness:

• enough conformity to appear aligned with voters’ values
• enough difference to avoid looking like a puppet
• too much nonconformity violates voters’ values; too much conformity reads as compliance

---

Presenters / contributors

• Natalie Nichols — Director of Global, RSA (event host)
• Adam Grant — Professor of Management and Psychology, Wharton; author of Originals (main speaker)
• Rufus Grissom — entrepreneur example (Babel parenting website)
• Meredith Perry — entrepreneur example (uBeam wireless power)
• Judith White — researcher referenced (vegans vs. vegetarians study)
• Elliot Aronson (referred to as Elliot Erickson in the subtitles) — researcher referenced (turning enemies into advocates)
• Stanford researchers — study referenced on song recognition/tapping
• Justin Berg — researcher referenced (circus artists vs. managers evaluating creativity)
• John Jost — political psychologist referenced (system justification)
• Freud — referenced on group dynamics (“narcissism of small differences”)
• Elliot (Elliot Aronson referenced) and other scholars cited throughout
• Cheryl Sandberg — referenced (gender/public intellectual framing)
• Uma / other audience participants — asked questions (names not fully legible from subtitles; one appears as AMA Marston, plus fellows such as Roxanne and Matthew)