The Right Stuff – A Look Inside Innovative Teams

In other words, those rated as NT were found to be far more innovative in their accomplishments than others with a different MBTI profile. Not only at Dow Chemical, but the NT personality type was also prevalent among innovators at other manufacturing companies (e.g., BASF, Electrolux, and Stevens & Swogger) where Dr. DeArmitt had direct experience.

StrengthFinders™

StrengthFinders™ is a survey tool that measures the presence of 34 talent themes (strengths) in how individuals respond to situational questions. To build and validate this tool, Gallup surveyed over 1.7 professionals on approximately 177 questions. The talents measured reflect on one’s naturally recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior within the context of career settings. The more dominant the theme, the greater its impact on that person’s behavior and job performance, according to Gallup.

It is relatively straightforward to apply these talent themes to the front-, middle, and back-end phases of innovation. For instance, take Empathy, Ideation, and Deliberative. Each of these themes align to specific phases in the innovation process. Someone with a strength in Empathy, for example, is thought to be especially in tune with the emotions of others. This type of individual aligns to the front-end phase of innovation, perhaps as part of a Design Thinking focus, where sensing skills are needed to perceive customer needs, frustrations, and desires.

Similar arguments can be made for those with Ideation and Deliberative strengths with respect to the middle and back-end phases, respectively. It would be counterproductive to assign someone with dominant Deliberative strengths – where the talent is working with clear requirements and detailed workplans – to the front-end of innovation where ambiguity is the norm.

Let those with a Deliberative mindset build products, let the Ideation type collaborate on the best ideas to pursue, and let those with Empathetic strengths focus on perceiving customer needs and problem definition. This is one way of using talent themes to align the right individuals with appropriate strengths to specific roles to maximize potential.

Whereas there should be a direct correlation between one’s dominant strength(s) and the role they are assigned, some talents apply to more than one role. For instance, someone highly skilled at connecting with others (Empathy) on the front-end of innovation can also interpret customer feedback from prototype demonstrations on the back-end phase. The same goes for the middle and back-end phases where other dominant talents apply across multiple roles.

Innovation Styles®

Innovation Styles® take an introspective view into various ways we think innovatively. “We are all unique individuals. Each one of us has different habits, talents, knowledge, values, interests, and ways of expressing ourselves … we approach innovation and change in different ways,” according to William C. Miller, cofounder of Values Centered Innovation® and former head of the Innovation Management Program at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI International).

The premise is that every person has the potential for being innovative, but with varying styles and preferences. Each of the four dimensions that make up Innovation Styles® is like a language of innovative thinking; we may have a preferred “mother tongue” yet we can be skillful in using all four at various times. Whereas some of us prefer “Visioning” where we look for a bold, ideal future state and and imagine “what if” possibilities, others prefer “Experimenting” we look for novel yet practical combinations that can be tested and refined.

As applied to teams, it takes a blend of styles across all phases of innovation to come together as an integrated unit, to be able to think and work together as one team when tackling challenges. Clearly Amazon’s Echo team had a blended mix of Innovation StylesÒ among its many participants that combined visionary thinking with exploration, experimentation, and development. This concept of blended Innovation StylesÒ is depicted as a compass, with each style approaching a challenge from a different direction to stimulate innovative thinking:

What is shown above are very different ways we go about thinking and acting based on our Innovation StyleÒ preference. All four styles depicted are required to round out the team in talent, knowledge, and abilities to innovate, according to William Miller. Teams should have the right blend of styles so that collective strengths are fully leveraged when examining the right questions, options, and actions.

One advantage of the Innovation Styles® is that you don’t have to know each person’s style profile before assembling the team. You can find out their preferred “languages” of innovation afterwards and then give them training to develop their skills versatility to utilize all four languages/styles in their teamwork. While Steve Jobs was a genius at visualizing the future, it took other styles across a talented team to transform the iPhone from fantasy to reality.

A project team balanced among all four Innovation StylesÒ is well positioned to have thought through many of the important questions associated with selecting the right problem area, best idea(s), and preferred method to validate results. The goal is to bring out the best in each member’s ability to challenge thinking, offer suggestions, agree on approach, and execute tasks. Doing so can enable a wide range of talents and inquisitive minds. It can contribute to forging strong relationships, mutual respect, and a deeper appreciation of how the various styles come together across the entire team.

Discussion

Three different approaches are summarized above that attempt to measure innovative talent, tendencies, and behaviors among individuals. They bring up a nature versus nurture debate as to what makes us truly innovative. One may wonder, is our ability to innovate based primarily on innate qualities, such as IQ, the ability to think differently, or being uniquely creative? Or can virtually anyone innovate in varying degrees, where the right environment can nurture and refine capabilities?

Take the famous entrepreneur Elon Musk, for instance. Is he a one-of-a-kind innovator due to his ancestral gene pool or did he evolve in ways that made him what he is today? The correct answer is likely a combination of both factors, i.e., the innate capacity to be extraordinary as well as being able to strengthen abilities over time.

In either case, the motive for writing this paper was to give attention to how the human element — people with specific talents, styles, and preferences — can be employed more effectively to achieve greater success in innovation. Strengthening the human element at the individual and team level should make a profound difference, for it takes the “right stuff” among many to solve customer problems with great, creative, and novel ideas, and to delight customers whereby your products are preferred over the competition.

The reader is offered the following takeaway points to consider. Apply them to how your company goes about recruiting, selecting, and engaging the appropriate individuals to innovate. Equally important is how teams get formed with the right balance of complementary strengths. You are left to decide which of these points to potentially bring into your workplace. Consider:

• How certain individuals with the right traits should be given preference over others when pursuing innovation.
  • Leadership should give preference to those with an MBTI rating of “NT” among other key variables when recruiting, hiring, and assigning individuals to innovation teams
• How an individual’s talent strengths should be factored into how innovation roles get staffed.
  • Leadership should apply a tool like StrengthFinders™ on various workgroups to understand particular strengths at the employee level
  • Of the 34 different talent themes, identify those that are relevant to being innovative
  • Consider the employee’s dominant talents when staffing projects roles
• How Innovation StylesÒ at the individual level need to be factored into how teams are formed, to ensure that the right questions, thinking, and action occurs among participants.
  • Leadership needs to understand what stimulates the individual’s innovative thinking process, how s/he goes about pursuing innovation
  • Team composition should be balanced in Innovation StyleÒ (i.e., Visioning, Exploring, Experimenting, and Modifying) across the entire innovation process

Further research is needed to substantiate these summary points. Part 2 on this topic will go into more detail and expand the scope of discussion on strengthening the people aspect of innovation.

It is a pleasure to share these thoughts on what it takes to innovate, and hope that it is of value to you and your organization. I welcome all likes and comments on the article.

Other Related Readings on Innovation Strategy:

• Is My Company Mature Enough to Innovate
• Getting My Company into a Creative Groove
• Finding Your Creative Groove
• Getting Back into Your Creative Groove
• Whose Job is it to Make Us Innovate
• Why Innovation Fails
• The Virtuous Cycle to Innovation