We here at Portigal are diverse practitioners, particularly when it comes to the polarizing spectrum of introversion and extroversion. Many a delicious dinner have been sprinkled with questions about how our preferences impact our practice. Steve, who identifies as more of an introvert, was interviewed by Gerry Gaffney for his User Experience podcast late last year and discussed the context of interviewing as a place where this gets manifested and managed. This topic is not new, but some recent articles remind me how important it is for innovation efforts that we acknowledge the valuable differences between those who draw energy from within and those (like me) who draw energy from the people around them.
The Rise of the New Groupthink [NYtimes] – Collaboration is the new black and, not surprisingly, it is not without its discontents. The author cites a range of studies (and Steve Wozniak as an exemplar) for why uninterrupted alone time is necessary and brainstorming in groups is not as effective as solo ideation. It doesn’t take loads of creativity to cherry-pick studies and successful individuals that support your case, in fact I think that’s called confirmation bias. Most disappointing is the characterization of collaboration as Groupthink which implies assembled individuals are stifled creatively and unable to reach their maximum creative frequency of Flow. Rather than supporting the case that collaboration isn’t worthwhile, I see a need for better communication, alignment, and understanding of diversity by the individuals that make up the group. A gifted facilitator, dedicated to stewarding collaborative creative processes and balancing different ideation styles, may offer a valuable remedy for this divergent diagnosis.
One explanation for these findings is that introverts are comfortable working alone — and solitude is a catalyst to innovation. As the influential psychologist Hans Eysenck observed, introversion fosters creativity by “concentrating the mind on the tasks in hand, and preventing the dissipation of energy on social and sexual matters unrelated to work.” In other words, a person sitting quietly under a tree in the backyard, while everyone else is clinking glasses on the patio, is more likely to have an apple land on his head. (Newton was one of the world’s great introverts: William Wordsworth described him as “A mind for ever/ Voyaging through strange seas of Thought, alone.”)
Woz on Creativity: Work Alone [brainpickings] – My favorite source of cognitive candy offered a lovely, gentle rebuttal to the above article. It suggests, as do I, that creativity benefits from collaboration because fantastic things happen when ideas bang against each other. Neuroscientists tell us that new ideas are born of cognitive dissonance (when the brain struggles to hold two seemingly contrary concepts in the mind at the same time). This process has various monickers (forced connections, ideas having sex). In my experience it is guaranteed to produce innovative thinking and often works best when those two dissimilar ideas come from different people.
This, of course, should be ingested with caution — when taken out of context, it could easily become a distorted extreme. As Steven Johnson argues in Where Good Ideas Come From, innovation happens when ideas collide with one another, which can’t happen in isolation — an environment conducive to such collisions is essential for combinatorial creativity.
Federal Buzz: Does the government need more extroverts? [The Washington Post] – If you don’t have time for an in-depth study of the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) then this article offers a quick little lesson in some key distinctions between introverts and extroverts, as well as why there can be confusion and cases of mistaken identities. The article is a response to the argument that the government must hire more extroverts if it has any hope of fostering innovation. Plenty of voices chime in to dispel myths of introversion vs. extroversion and illuminate the challenges of employee retention within a work culture that neither nurtures nor rewards innovative contributions.
Several [introverts] also professed to being mistaken for extroverts because any personality type can exhibit the qualities of a good leader. Explained Kenneth Wells, an employee with the Navy, “I have been in positions where I had to act like an extrovert and make decisions quickly and decisively. Just remember that person who you think is an extrovert may be an introvert. All he or she wants is to get the job done, and then spend a little alone time to recharge and work on the next assignment.”
Stockholm’s School Without Classrooms [Architizer] – The Swedish Free School Organization Vittra is innovating the learning landscape with a new school designed to inspire creativity and community. The interior architecture is reminiscent of design studios (which are criticized in the above Groupthink article for lacking personal spaces). I, for one, drool at the thought of my son getting to attend a school designed to promote openness and interaction. Of course, my son is an extrovert like me so he would likely flourish in a school without walls. How is this kind of open environment experienced by a more introverted child? How do the teachers nurture and honor diverse creative kids in this context? I acknowledge my own confirmation bias here in suggesting that the teacher-as-facilitator seems like a viable anecdote for ensuring the students learn to stretch and shine, both alone and together.
The principles of the Vittra School revolve around the breakdown of physical and metaphorical class divisions as a fundamental step to promoting intellectual curiosity, self-confidence, and communally responsible behavior. Therefore, in Vittra’s custom-built Stockholm location, spaces are only loosely defined by permeable borders and large, abstract landmarks. As the architects explained, “instead of classical divisions with chairs and tables, a giant iceberg for example serves as cinema, platform, and room for relaxation, and sets the frame for many different types of learning,” while “flexible laboratories make it possible to work hands-on with themes and projects.”
Tags: classroom, cognitive dissonance, collaboration, combinatorial creativity, confirmation bias, extrovert, flow, forced connection, government, groupthink, ideation, innovation, introvert, MBTI, school, Vittra, work culture
I’ve led a number of ideation sessions and sometimes the breakout teams prefer to do personal, quiet, individualized ideation before coming back together. One of my facilitation goals is to instill excitement about the divergence that I think needs collaboration, so this always makes me nervous as the Very First Thing They Do, but I am sure you could convince me that alternating in close proximity (both time and distance) between individual and group would be maybe the most effective.
Comment by Steve Portigal 01.19.12 @ 12:42 pmYES! I always try to sequence ideation to proceed from the individual to the collective (and sometimes back again). It honors the ideas that everyone brings with them and it serves most people’s desire to play with their own ideas before doing public idea sharing and building. As a facilitator this is about balancing the objectives of the session with the needs of the individuals (and the group).
Comment by Tamara Christensen 01.19.12 @ 12:56 pmThe question begs how to enable an innovative spirit and energy to endure within the corporate environment that is tuned for efficient processing rather than creative production, , . . .?
Contributing to or hosting a single ‘event’ and demonstrating the process does not ensure that it will be remembered, acted on, and supported or it’s nourishment provided for!
Comment by Dale Raymond 01.19.12 @ 3:40 pmWith experience on both sides of the fence, I believe the requirements for ‘environment’ and committed support by the C-suite is critical to growth-
-D
Hi Dale! Such a challenging question and valuable point. Supporting innovation and nurturing a creative culture requires ‘risk affection’ (embracing failure and learning from it, prototyping, playing with possibilities, asking What Might Be All The Ways?, etc.) yet most corporations operate within a ‘risk aversion’ paradigm (as they should of course for certain decisions).
Comment by Tamara Christensen 01.20.12 @ 9:20 amWithout C-suite understanding and enthusiasm, it’s too easy for bold innovation efforts to lose momentum and fizzle. Any anecdotes from the frontlines about how to engage those folks at the top?
I just visited a design team in a corporate HQ yesterday, we walked by the plastic sheeting hanging over the soon-to-be-built collaborative design studio environment. It reminded me how often I’ve seen that; a renewed interest from high up leads to money spend on environment and architecture to enable the kind of culture change and process that’s required.
But to your point, I wonder how engaging the C-suite in signing checks for a known quantity (“build out a studio”) is different than other types of engagement or buy-in that we’d be seeking.
Comment by Steve Portigal 01.20.12 @ 9:44 amSome responses to the NYT Groupthink piece are at https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/the-key-to-creativity-solitude-or-teams.html
Comment by Steve Portigal 01.20.12 @ 6:30 pmBefore seeing the NYT GroupThink posting, I was mentally working my way through the validity of the fundamentals in the Socratic method. Though to be effective, it requires respect, consideration, and the willingness to be honest and objective, . . . Design wants Truth!
And collaboration needs more than architecture, just as creativity requires more than a problem.
I’ve been considering Dr-T’s initial examination of the intro-extrovert influences on the design process. I think that most of us deal with the realities of working within a corporate structure, or trying to influence an enterprise. These environments are focused more on processing efficiency, or entrenched platforms and systems, or a technology bias, than on attempting to break out of that comfortable efficiency into areas of murky mystery that require curiosity and a bit of courage to explore.
Many of these environments are less open to the softer, more subjective qualities that drive a customer’s experience with a product or service.
Survivability of either an introvert or an extrovert in those environments, with creativity intact, is the challenge. Remaining effective and engaged can be difficult for either personality type. Bruising is cumulative-
Comment by Dale Raymond 01.21.12 @ 9:04 am