The Psychology of Innovation - Part 1
Are you ever afraid that you don’t have what it takes to be an innovator?
The pressure to innovate is pervasive. It’s the buzzword that just won’t quit. Innovators are celebrated as people who have been gifted with a mythical combination of genius and nerve that sets them apart.
It’s easy to fall into this trap. Instead, let’s apply research from the field of psychology to gain a broader understanding of types of innovation and see ourselves and others as innovative.
What does psychology tell us about being innovative? If we think of psychology as the study of the mind, it makes sense that it overlaps with neuroscience as the study of the brain. Theories from psychology have been applied to individual and organizational development through self-assessments and other tools to enable self-awareness and enhance interactions. This has led to a large body of data and research. Research into the relationship between personality and innovation gives us another avenue toward self-awareness and seeing ourselves as innovators.
It isn’t necessary to accept the theories to discover something new about yourself or others. Personality assessments lead to self-awareness and enhance self-management, making us better team members and team leaders, better organization members and organization leaders.
Personality Theory
The research we will explore is based on the work of Carl Jung first published in 1921 in his book Psychological Types. Prior to the birth of neuroscience and our ability to study the brain, psychologists emphasized the importance of the unconscious in relation to personality. We think of personality as the core of who we are, the innate ways we think, feel, and act on most occasions, and characteristics that are enduring and trans-situational.
Jung theorized that we have inborn predispositions for doing things a certain way, almost like the default settings on a device when you first take it out of the box. These inborn predispositions give us a preferred way we take in information and reach conclusions about that information. Other innate preferences relate to what energizes us, where we focus our attention, and how we like the world around us to be structured (or not). Jung’s theory addresses healthy human behavior, with no single personality preference better than another.
To illustrate what we mean by a preference, take a moment to find a pen and sign your name, just like you would on a contract.
Now…
Put the pen in the opposite hand and sign your name again. How did it feel to sign your name the second time? Most people describe the second experience as awkward, difficult, and slow. When you were invited to sign your name the first time, did you stop to think about which hand you would use? No. We use a preferred hand for writing, and we do it naturally without thinking. This gives us an idea of what we mean by a preference. We have innate preferences, like default settings, that we use without thinking. They come naturally, we do them with the most ease, and they take the least energy.
If it became necessary to sign your name with your non-preferred hand, could you? Of course, you could. You could even practice and become good at it. When thinking of opposite preferences, remember that we can all use both. One is innate, comes naturally to us, and we tend to use it the most which takes less mental energy and makes it well-developed.
What we pay attention to and what energizes us
The preferences for Extraversion or Introversion can be thought of as what gets our attention and energizes us. Those with a preference for Extraversion are drawn to the people, activities and things going on around them. They are energized by interacting with others and are more likely to be described as sociable and expressive. Their preferred mode of communication is talking, and they work out ideas by talking them through, often observed “thinking out loud”. People who prefer Extraversion have a wide range of interests and learn best by doing or discussing.
Those who prefer Introversion are drawn to their inner world of thought and reflection. They are energized by having time to think and are more likely to be described as private and contained. People who prefer Introversion work out ideas by thinking them through and communicate best in writing. They may have fewer interests but like to go deep, understanding subjects by peeling back all the layers. They learn best through reflection and mental “practice”, often rehearsing something in their mind before doing it physically.
Stereotypes have led to common misconceptions about extraversion and introversion. For example, there is a stereotype that introverts struggle to carry on a conversation. While it’s true that extraverts can more easily converse with people they don’t know and about topics that are new to them, introverts love to talk to people they are close to or about subjects they know well. There is also a common misconception about spending time alone. Both extraverts and introverts value time on their own, the difference is in the amount of time. For example, when this was a topic in a high school leadership class, one student said she was unsure of her preference because she sometimes wanted time alone. When asked how much time, she said, “if I get home from a school event, I like to have at least a half hour on my own before I go out with friends.” Next, a student with a preference for introversion was asked how much time she liked to spend alone. She said, “during our last school break my parents were both traveling for work, and I had the whole house to myself for a week. At the end of the fourth day, I reached out to a friend to get together.”
Again, we are all capable of extraverted and introverted behaviors, but one comes more naturally and energizes us. In general, about half of us prefer introversion and half prefer extraversion. This may seem surprising if you live in a society where the culture emphasizes one set of behaviors more than the other. Think of Japanese culture as valuing the behaviors more associated with introversion and U.S. culture valuing the behaviors more associated with extraversion, especially with the advent of social media.
How we take in information
The opposite preferences for how we take in information are referred to as Sensing and Intuition. We can think of this as “the information we like and trust first”. Some of us like and trust details that build toward a conclusion and some of us like to start with the big picture. Those with the Sensing preference focus on what is real and actual, preferring details they can take in with their five senses. They tend to remember specifics, often in sequence or chronological order. People who prefer Sensing build carefully toward conclusions and understand theories through practical application. They may also value accuracy and precision over round numbers or generalizations.
Those who prefer Intuition focus on the patterns and meanings in data. They remember specifics when they relate to a pattern. They tend to move quickly toward conclusions and follow hunches, often struggling to explain why they think something, they “just know”. Their motto is “trust me”. Comfortable in the world of theories and ideas, those with a preference for Intuition are often focused on the future while those who prefer Sensing tend to be grounded in the present. Their motto is, “prove it”.
How this shows up in the workplace can be both frustrating and amusing. Imagine you run into a senior leader in the hallway during a significant business interruption and they ask you for an explanation. You might begin by saying something like, “John was on duty at midnight and received a Level 1 alert from the distribution system about an error in labeling…” The senior leader might wave her hands and stop you, saying, “Just give me the thirty-thousand-foot view, tell me how many customers are affected, if you have the resources you need, and how long you think we might be impacted?” This leader prefers to hear the big picture first and may then ask for details.
On the other hand, if you begin by saying, “All the customers in the Northwest region are impacted and we’ve communicated an expected delay in their deliveries…”, the leader might stop you and say, “Wait, start at the beginning and tell me exactly what happened.” The leader likes and trusts details first and prefers to build to a conclusion.
A scenario relevant to innovation occurs when someone with a preference for Intuition is formulating an idea. They are quite comfortable working with assumptions to deal with complexity and may say things like, “if we assume X, and operate on the assumption that Z takes care of Y, it goes through this Black Box process and now we can leverage our core capabilities to…” The Sensing team members are mentally screaming, “it won’t work!” during this dialogue. They are thinking, “you might as well be speaking Martian because nothing you’re saying matters if you’re basing it on assumptions and not dealing with reality.”
More of us prefer Sensing than Intuition, with 73.3% liking and trusting details first and 26.7% preferring to start with the big picture. We all do both, with an inborn preferred way of gathering information. Sensors reach conclusions and support them with details; intuitives are uncanny at remembering details that fit a pattern or meaning.
How we make decisions
The next pair of opposites is about our innate preference for how we make decisions. These are referred to as Thinking and Feeling. This is a good time to mention that it’s best to resist misinterpreting the labels by ascribing their common meaning. This doesn’t mean that people with a preference for Thinking don’t have feelings and people with a preference for Feeling are not good at thinking.
Those with a preference for Thinking are often described as analytical, preferring facts and data. They like cause-and-effect reasoning and solving problems with logic. When they are in a situation that requires a decision, they prefer to step back to get an objective view. They may even use these words, saying, “let’s take a step back” or “let’s look at this objectively”. They strive for standards or guidelines that can be applied in similar situations.
Those who prefer Feeling use empathy in decision-making. They like to imagine being in the shoes of everyone involved. Decisions are guided by personal and social values, assessing the impact on people. They strive for harmony, understanding, and positive interactions, wanting to ensure that all relationships remain intact.
Thinkers and Feelers both want decisions to be fair, but they interpret the word differently. Those with a preference for Thinking want everyone treated equally while those with a preference for Feeling want everyone treated as an individual. This might show up in the workplace when groups make decisions. Everyone agrees they, “just want to be fair”, and confusion ensues when some are advocating for decisions that seem like the opposite of fair to others.
We are all capable of using both approaches in making decisions, but one comes more naturally to us and is our “go to” without thinking, like not stopping to think which hand you will use to sign your name. Using the opposite approach for decision-making may take more mental energy or be less practiced initially. Slightly more of us are Feelers (59.8%) than Thinkers (40.2%).
How we prefer the world around us to be
The last pair of preferences are about how we want the world around us to be structured or organized. These preferences are called Judging and Perceiving. Again, resist thinking of the usual meaning of the words. Judging does not mean judgmental, and Perceiving does not mean perceptive. Those who prefer Judging like their lives to be scheduled and organized. They are methodical in their approach and comfortable with systems thinking. They like to have things decided and make both short and long-term plans. They think of a plan as, “here’s how this is going to go”. Their goal is to avoid last-minute stress.
Those who prefer Perceiving like to keep their options open. They are more spontaneous and casual. They are flexible, adapting and changing course easily. They think of a plan as, “these things might happen,” or even, “what plan?” They are pressure-prompted and find last-minute stress to be energizing.
It’s useful here to say again that we all do both. Most of us live our lives with others, in organizations, communities and homes, and benefit from schedules and conventions that coordinate what will happen when. We might say that much of life requires Perceivers to adapt to the way the Judgers prefer the world to be. Given that plans often go awry, Judgers develop their opposite preference by learning from Perceivers.
This shows up in the workplace in obvious ways. People who prefer Judging do their best work early in a project. They work the plan or create one if it doesn’t exist. They break down their work into interim steps and schedule their time to accomplish each task. They are likely to finish their work early because their goal is to avoid last-minute stress.
People who prefer Perceiving do their best work at or near the deadline. They are energized by the last-minute pressure. They easily absorb any changes that occurred. They have been exploring options, essentially working on the assignment, but they produce all the deliverables at the deadline. This makes Judgers uneasy, and they often respond by giving Perceivers false deadlines. It doesn’t work. Perceivers can always tell.
Innovation leaders can see that some of team members are doing their best work at different times than others. While some are “in the zone”, others are not yet near it. This makes collaboration challenging when tasks are interdependent. This is one of the reasons that teams benefit from gaining an understanding of preferences to better understand each other and improve their interactions and results. In general, Judgers and Perceivers are closer to being evenly distributed, with 54.1% preferring Judging and 45.9% preferring Perceiving
Part 2
Now that we have reviewed the theory and the four pairs of innate preferences, let’s look at research on personality and innovation in Part 2.
References
Jung, Carl G. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01813-8.
https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.htm The estimated frequency table was compiled from a variety of MBTI® results from 1972 through 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; The Myers-Briggs Company; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI).