The Psychology of Innovation - Part 2
A Note to the Reader
If you are expecting the research to show that one personality type is better at innovation than another, that’s not the way this story goes. Jung’s theory and subsequent work done by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs is based on normal, healthy behavior with each type equally valuable. Research shows that all types are capable of innovation and contribute to the innovation process.
Does this mean that there is only one type of innovation that you should do? Absolutely not. Everyone can contribute to every kind of innovation. The intent of this post is to provide a new context for anyone who thinks they are not innovative and for leaders to see everyone around them as having the potential to innovate.
Type and Innovation
In 2005, two friends discovered their mutual idea that personality and innovation are related and began a research project together to test their hypothesis. Damian Killen was managing director and founder of an international human resources consultancy with extensive experience using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®. Gareth Williams ran an IT consulting company in the UK, leading innovation and teaching best practices. Their findings were published in 2009 by CPP, Inc. in a guidebook called, Introduction to Type® and Innovation.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument was developed as a self-assessment to give individuals insights into their innate preferences and make Jung’s theories more accessible and applicable to everyday life. It has been used for decades in personal and professional growth and development as a tool to increase self-awareness. It is the most frequently used personality assessment in the world with more than 70 years of research to help establish the reliability, validity, and popularity.
Killen and Williams conducted a study of 500 people from around the globe using the MBTI® and data collected in workshops. Their goal was to discover the link between personality and innovation and highlight how each of the different types are critical to the innovation process.
To guide the research, Killen and Williams defined innovation as the implementation of ideas, believing that ideas were only innovative when being put to use. They wanted to explore all aspects of the innovation process, from idea generation to idea implementation. Their results showed that the Sensing/Intuition and Judging/Perceiving preferences were most relevant in understanding our attitudes toward innovation. Sensing-Intuition has to do with the ideas, and Judging-Perceiving relate to the implementation. We can all be successful and add value to every aspect and every type of innovation, but we may naturally be drawn to certain types of innovation, and we may naturally bring strengths to certain aspects of implementation.
We know that people with a preference for Sensing are drawn toward details, specifics, and incremental understanding. People with a preference for Intuition are drawn toward the big picture, patterns, and original ideas. The Sensing behavior of building things incrementally based on experience is about adapting current realities. The Intuitive behavior to create the big picture from scratch based on hunches and by discovering underlying patterns is about seeking originality. Even though we all demonstrate both interests and behaviors, one may be more natural and take less energy. Put simply, we may find some categories of ideas more intriguing.
Judging and Perceiving tendencies influence implementation and how we move through the innovation process. People with a preference for Judging contribute their desire for order and closure while those with a preference for Perceiving add value by keeping options open and seeing what emerges. The Judging function influences the Sensing function by emphasizing the need for completion and influences the Intuition function by encouraging that choices be made. SJs trust their memories of past experiences to predict what will work and what will not. SPs look to outside ideas to find ways of refining current realities. Intuitive Judgers tend to filter ideas and alternatives internally before suggesting one. Intuitive Perceivers are more likely to express ideas out loud to the world as future possibilities.
Four Types of Innovation
Killen and Williams described four categories of ideas to explain the link between personality preferences and the types of innovation we are drawn to:
Efficiency - Doing the Right Things the Right Way
SJs are drawn to innovative ideas that will improve effectiveness and lead to greater efficiencies. They tend to compare and contrast experiences with past results, notice discrepancies and work to avoid past mistakes, and build incrementally on what already exists. They tend to be masterful at understanding and managing costs. Sensing Judgers contribute to exploitation of current capabilities.
Refining – Doing Things Better
SPs are drawn toward refining current realities, which may involve not doing something. They are great at grooming product and project portfolios and gleaning relevant information from the market. They may be most interested in contributing the color, shape, or tagline that has a product or service stand out and increase market share. Sensing Perceivers contribute to exploitation of current capabilities.
Adopting – Doing Things Others Are Doing
Intuitive Judgers like to borrow ideas from the outside, adopting what can be applied, and innovating accordingly. They are great at bringing disparate ideas together in a new way. Intuitive Judgers notice patterns and form hypotheses, driving and fostering experimentation behaviors. They synthesize information and align outcomes, collecting and connecting ideas from various settings and understanding strategies. Intuitive Judgers contribute to exploration.
Different – Doing Things No One Else Is Doing
Intuitive Perceivers are drawn toward original ideas that are different from what already exists, interpreting current situations to find meaning and new ideas. They seek to highlight emerging potential with people or concepts and like to generate possibilities for exploration.
See Yourself as an Innovator
Even though everyone can be effective innovators in all categories, there may be one or more types of innovation that interest you, come naturally to you, and energize you. Each type of innovation is valuable to every organization as organizations work to exploit what they already do well and explore new opportunities to ensure relevance.
For an organization to innovate effectively and consistently, it must follow processes. We will explore innovation processes and best practices throughout this book. For now, let’s consider how personality preferences impact general activities in the innovation process as described by Killen and Williams. Certain preferences lend themselves to divergent thinking, being open to alternatives and temporarily suppressing critiques. Some preferences contribute to evaluating choices and narrowing down alternatives to take forward into experimentation. Some preferences are energized by managing an agreed-upon solution through iterations. Killen and Williams found that the contrast between the desire to achieve closure (J) and keeping options open (P) makes us more comfortable, and adding value, in particular phases of innovation.
● Sensing Perceivers want to simplify and add value to developing a Point of View or defining a problem. They are likely to want to stay in this phase until an accurate problem definition is achieved to avoid wasting time later.
● Intuitive Perceivers enjoy idea generation and like to explore alternatives. They thrive in the divergent thinking phases of innovation.
● Intuitive Judgers align ideas to needs and are content when at least one idea is chosen to act on. They add value to convergent phases of innovation.
● Sensing Judgers strive to realize practical outcomes, making things happen and adding value to delivery phases.
The Case for Cognitively Diverse Teams
Killen and Williams’ research helps us consider the practical application of personality theory. The results demonstrate that innate preferences explain why some people are drawn to certain types of innovation and are more comfortable in certain phases of the innovation process. Innovation benefits from different ways of discovering ideas and different strengths during different phases.
Sensing and Intuition preferences create a natural and valuable tension between present realities and future possibilities. Collaboration that involves both benefits from the creativity and healthy debate derived from this tension. Judging and Perceiving preferences create a natural tension between making decisions and keeping options open. Including both on teams prevents rushing through the innovation process too quickly and missing opportunities and supports making forward progress and getting things done.
Personality theory also supports the case for cross-functional teams. We can imagine that innate preferences would cause individuals to gravitate toward certain roles and careers and research supports this. When we bring together cross-functional teams for ideation or implementation, we may also be gathering cognitively diverse teams that represent a variety of personality preferences. Cross-functional resources bring experiences and expertise from many different realms, and they have institutional knowledge and relationships to contribute to the innovation process. Everyone adds value to the innovation process by learning and observing, but the ways they learn and the observations they make might be different, yielding richer results.
Should we be forming teams based on personality type? It’s impractical to do this in organizations and we don’t advocate assigning roles or work assignments based on type. Assemble teams based on a variety of experience and functions with the goal of healthy debate and a wide range of input. The MBTI is a tool for self-awareness and appreciating the differences between ourselves and others. That said, one Stanford professor did test the idea of forming teams using the MBTI. In 2009, Doug Wilde, a professor at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford used type to form and organize effective student design teams. He published the experience in a book called, Teamology: Construction and Organization of Effective Teams. Results were measured in the percentage of Stanford teams that were awarded national prizes by the Lincoln Foundation. Before Teamology, 27% of student teams won a national prize. After 9 years of Teamology, the percentage was 73%.
What does this mean to you as an innovation leader? Assemble diverse, cross-functional teams and facilitate them in a way that plays to the strengths of individuals. For example, if you really need to narrow things down and choose an idea to prototype, ask someone with those strengths to lead the meeting. If you need to assess risks as you prepare for a launch, empower someone who is good at cataloguing past successes and failures and articulating mistakes to avoid. Differences can also be a source of frustration and dysfunction for teams, primarily when team members don’t know and understand each other. Processes and activities that promote relationship-building will enhance team dynamics.
Which strengths do you bring to the process and how will you avoid having teams stagnate in your comfort zones? Who will you include to bring complementary strengths to your work?
Organizations are expected to be innovative in all ways and at all times to establish a pattern of consistent delivery of quality innovations. This means being good at efficiency, refining, adapting and different initiatives all at once. Organizations that want to establish a culture of innovation put together teams comprising individuals with diverse strengths so that the teams can meet all the needs of innovation: idea generation, experimentation, iteration, and implementation to discover, create, extract and deliver value.
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).
Killen, Damian, and Williams, Gareth (2009). Introduction to Type® and Innovation.
CPP Announces MBTI Introduction to Type and Innovation Booklet (themyersbriggs.com)
Wilde, Douglass J. (2009). Teamology: The Construction and Organization of Effective Teams. London: Springer. ISBN 978-1-84800-387-3.