Organizations Are Spending Big on Innovation Programs That Simply Do Not Work — A Dutch Researcher Explains Why
Nijmegen, Saturday, 6 June 2026.
Radboud University researcher Simone Ritter warns that as AI takes over routine thinking, human creativity is now an organization’s most valuable asset — yet most innovation budgets are being wasted on methods that deliver nothing.
The Researcher Sounding the Alarm
Simone Ritter, an associate professor of innovation at the Faculty of Management Sciences at Radboud University Nijmegen, is delivering a pointed message to organizations across the Netherlands and beyond: the money being spent on creativity and innovation programs is, in many cases, being systematically wasted [1]. Ritter, who studied architecture in Karlsruhe before completing her doctorate in the psychology of creativity at Radboud University in 2012, has spent years examining how individuals and organizations develop — or fail to develop — genuine innovation capacity [1]. Her conclusion is both stark and urgent: ‘I see that organizations often spend a lot of money, time, and resources on methods to stimulate creative thinking and innovation capacity that simply do not work,’ she stated in a recent interview published by Radboud University [1]. The warning arrives at a moment when Dutch businesses, public institutions, and educational bodies are pouring resources into AI adoption and organizational transformation programs, often without the foundational human capabilities to make those investments pay off [1][8].
Highway Thinking: The Hidden Enemy of Innovation
At the core of Ritter’s argument is a concept she calls ‘highway thinking’ — a routinized, autopilot mode of cognition that organizations unconsciously reinforce, even while claiming to pursue innovation [1]. Much like a driver who navigates a familiar motorway without conscious thought, employees and leaders fall into predictable mental patterns that foreclose the kind of open, curious, and genuinely creative thinking that real innovation demands. ‘We must look, think, and act differently. Not routinely, but creatively,’ Ritter said. ‘Organizations must also create a culture in which creative thinking and innovation capacity are central’ [1]. The problem, she argues, is structural: the very workshops, brainstorming sessions, and ideation frameworks that organizations invest in are often designed in ways that reinforce, rather than disrupt, these entrenched cognitive highways [1]. The classic brainstorming session — a staple of corporate innovation culture for decades [GPT] — is cited by Ritter as a prime example of a widely used but fundamentally ineffective method [1].
AI Is Not the Answer — It Is the Accelerant
The arrival of artificial intelligence has sharpened Ritter’s concerns considerably. Rather than viewing AI as a solution to the innovation deficit, she frames it as a force that makes genuine human creativity more urgent — and more fragile — than ever before [1]. Her reasoning is rooted in how large language models actually function: ‘AI language models move in the statistical middle of everything that has been said and written. As a result, they are predictable. In other words: if you use AI in a standard way, you breed mediocrity,’ she explained [1]. The implication for organizations is significant. Deploying AI tools without first building authentic human creative capacity risks producing outputs that are competent but undifferentiated — precisely the opposite of what innovation requires [1]. This concern is not limited to academic circles. At a recent top congress in the Dutch healthcare sector, management thinker Fons Trompenaars similarly observed that AI in complex organizational settings is ‘not just a technical question’ but a series of ‘human, organizational, and societal dilemmas,’ requiring professionals who can reconcile competing values rather than simply automate existing processes [3].
Smart Use Versus Standard Use: A Critical Distinction
Ritter is not opposed to AI — far from it. Her argument draws a sharp and consequential line between passive, default use of AI tools and what she terms ‘smart’ use, in which humans actively challenge the technology through deliberate prompting and critical engagement [1]. ‘If you use AI smartly and actively challenge it with good prompts, it can enrich our thinking and break open existing frameworks. Then it can accelerate our own creative process. But not take it over. We are the master, technology the support,’ she stated [1]. This distinction has practical implications for how organizations should be training their people. Rather than treating AI literacy as a purely technical skill — learning which tools to use and how to operate them — Ritter’s framework suggests that the more valuable competency is developing the human judgment, curiosity, and critical thinking required to drive AI toward genuinely novel outcomes [1]. This perspective is gaining traction in adjacent professional domains: Brenda Bastiaensen, a partner at Dutch advisory firm Sprenkels responsible for the Data & AI knowledge domain since November 2025, has similarly argued that effective AI deployment is not about which tool is most innovative, but about ‘thoroughly understanding the organization’s challenge and offering the most relevant solution’ [5].
A Book, a Framework, and a Call to Action
Ritter is translating her research into a practical resource for organizations grappling with these questions. In June 2026, she and co-author Wendy Kwaks are publishing a book titled Innovatiemindset. Wanneer harder rennen niet meer werkt (Innovation Mindset. When Running Harder No Longer Works), which lays out the psychological building blocks of an innovation mindset for both individuals and organizations, combining scientific rigour with practical application [1]. The book’s central metaphor is telling: in an era of accelerating technological change, the instinct to simply work harder — to run faster on the same track — is not only ineffective but potentially counterproductive. ‘With the innovation mindset, I want to throw people a lifeline,’ Ritter said, warning that in a rapidly changing, technology-driven world, ‘we risk drowning’ [1]. Her framework emphasizes three interconnected shifts: looking differently — remaining open and curious; thinking differently — combining creative and critical cognition; and acting differently — being willing to experiment rather than defaulting to established routines [1]. The message has resonated in Dutch professional networks, with practitioners in fields ranging from HR to healthcare echoing Ritter’s core contention that human qualities are the differentiating factor in an AI-augmented landscape [3][6][8].
The Broader Dutch Context: HR, Healthcare, and the Human Premium
Ritter’s findings land in a Dutch organizational landscape that is actively wrestling with the implications of AI adoption across multiple sectors. A roundtable discussion on HR and AI — attended before 24 May 2026 by professionals from organizations including Defensie, Radboud University, the Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Boskalis, housing corporations, the Dutch Association of Insurers, and the NPDI — surfaced a conclusion that directly mirrors Ritter’s research: technological innovation is moving faster than the change capacity of organizations, and HR must take a strategic role in shaping the future of work [8]. The insights from that roundtable are scheduled to be shared at the HR Festival on 30 June 2026 in Doorn [8]. Meanwhile, in the Dutch MBO (vocational education) sector, the Consortium voor Innovatie is actively running facilitator training programs designed to make organizational meetings more effective, interactive, and creative — acknowledging, in practice, that the design of collaborative processes matters enormously [7]. A two-day facilitator training took place on 2 and 3 June 2026 at the Internationale School voor Wijsbegeerte in Leusden, with further sessions planned for November 2026, including a specialized edition focused on facilitating the creative process and creative problem-solving at the PopUp Innovatiehuis in Ospel [7]. At the intersection of data strategy and organizational leadership, Sprenkels partner Brenda Bastiaensen has advocated since November 2025 for the use of ‘data translators’ — professionals who bridge the gap between technical experts such as actuaries and data scientists, and senior management — as a means of ensuring that data and AI investments translate into strategic value rather than a proliferation of unused dashboards [5]. The common thread running through all of these developments is the one that Ritter has spent her career documenting: technology does not generate innovation on its own. The human mindset — curious, creative, and willing to act — remains the indispensable ingredient [1][3][5][7][8].