Employees who achieve exceptionally high levels of success at work are less likely to see their next ideas implemented, according to new research from King’s Business School.
The study, conducted with colleagues at the University of Liverpool Management School, the University of Hohenheim and the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, and published in the academic journal Research Policy, found that extreme success can hinder the implementation of new ideas.
The researchers reasoned that very high success may inflate an individual’s self-confidence or social status, leading to reduced collaboration and less willingness to work as part of a team. Two supplementary experiments supported the findings by showing that people who had achieved outstanding success were more likely to work alone and viewed their social status as higher.
Why top performance might reduce fresh thinking
The research argues that success can disrupt the collaborative dynamics that drive innovation. When a high performer is seen as the expert or singular problem-solver, it may alter their relationships with peers and their role in team-based idea generation.
 |
Get our essential daily HR news and updates. |
As Professor Oguz A. Acar, professor of marketing and innovation at King’s Business School, observed: “Top performers must not be isolated, their success can inadvertently become a barrier to collaboration, which in turn undermines long‐term innovation.”
“For business schools and corporate innovation programmes, this result is a wake-up call. Top performers must not be isolated, their success can inadvertently become a barrier to collaboration, which in turn undermines long-term innovation.”
He added that what matters was “not just that you succeed, but how you succeed. Organisations need to recognise that high achievers may require additional support to stay connected and creative”.
Another contributor, Selina L. Lehmann, from the University of Hohenheim, noted that the mechanisms at play — reduced team-based idea development and inflated perceived social status — were clear levers for managerial intervention.
“We previously assumed success is always good for innovation,” she said. “Our findings challenge that: when someone hits a very high peak, later performance may drop because collaborators disappear and self‐perception changes.
“The mechanisms we identified, reduced team‐based idea development and inflated perceived social status, point to very concrete levers for managers seeking to maintain a high‐innovation pipeline.”
In practice this can mean that individuals who have achieved, for example, major project successes or awards, may find themselves working more in isolation or being perceived as less accessible by colleagues. Over time it can diminish the flow of ideas, reduce peer input and weaken the innovation pipeline.
‘Integration with teams’
The authors suggest that organisations that rely on employee innovation platforms or idea programmes should not only recognise achievements but also ensure that top performers remain integrated with their teams.
Some of the prescribed actions include structuring teams so that high performers rotate into and out of collaborative innovation groups, implementing peer-review or co-creation processes that keep individuals connected, and revising incentive systems to reward not just the singular outcome but the collaborative process and diversity of contributions.
HR functions may need to monitor indicators of isolation among high achievers — such as reduced team meeting attendance, less peer-to-peer input or declining involvement in ideation sessions — and intervene through coaching or team engagement strategies. This is particularly relevant in innovation-centric sectors where sustained idea generation is itself a competitive asset.
Rethinking the success-innovation link
The findings challenge conventional wisdom that success always leads to more success. While achievement remains valuable, the researchers emphasise that how success is managed and how top performers are supported matters just as much. If high performance leads to detachment or status elevation that cuts off peer input, an organisation may inadvertently reduce its capacity for future creativity.
Observers say that from an HR perspective, it means balancing individual recognition with team connectivity, and promoting a culture where innovation arises not simply from high performers working alone, but from them engaging with others, seeking feedback and building collectively.
In doing so organisations can ensure that impressive individual performance does not become a bottleneck but remains part of a dynamic, inclusive innovation ecosystem. High achievers can then serve as catalysts for ideas rather than islands of expertise.
