Jeremy Suisted
The past few months has been full of analysing screeds of data and writing pages of explanation for my thesis on innovation and leadership. All up, I interviewed over 30 leaders and explored survey data from hundreds of participants from a range of organisations. I'll share some of the findings over the next few weeks - but I want to start by discussing one of the most startling results I uncovered.
Across all the participant surveys, there was a constant statement that received one of the lowest rankings - hand's down. It did not matter whether this was a small, medium or large business, or a suburban church; this statement was always present in the three lowest data points.
"I believe I am creative."
Three simple words, yet every participant ranked themselves very lowly - often aligning themselves with the response "Never". Fascinatingly, many of the participant described their organisation as highly creative - even their team as excellent at innovation - yet they all stated that they were not creative.
What became even more interesting was how this perspective was described in the interviews. Again, almost all of the interviewees would happily talk about other people's creative moments but struggled to do the same with their own narrative. When I would challenge them on this, and ask them to think deeper - two postures would emerge. Interestingly, these postures would then become indicators to me of the stories they would then share - and how these people functioned as innovators.
The first group are the Specialists. They know what they are - and what they are not. They've specialised in a certain domain and are fixed in that perspective. Like a sprinter poised in the running blocks, they know the task ahead of them and they know how to do it. But - like a sprinter suddenly asked to shoot a freethrow - the thought of creativity and innovation seems alien to them. It is not what they are naturally good at. Instead, they would prefer to focus on what they know, and leave innovation to those "who are creative".
Unfortunately, this posture is built on a lie. All of the participants thought that they were not creative. Yet the Specialists see this as a fixed end point. A blind person cannot see, a fish cannot live outside of water, a non-creative cannot create. They were happy to point out the creative successes of others, but they struggled to imagine themselves as being innovative. It was so foreign that it appeared as an alien trait.
The second group are the Decathletes.These people similarly perceived themselves as not creative, but very quickly saw this as a skill that they could develop. Currently, they might have been strong at analytics, programming, music, fundraising or training - but they saw that just as they had learnt the necessary skills to excel in these areas, so they could learn to become more innovative.
This group's posture is fascinating because it is so hard to pin down. They are excited about the future, they look back to the past - they review, reflect and then plan. Like a multi-athlete, they celebrate and play to their strengths, but also seek to build up their weaknesses. This group has an agile posture, and is open to the fact that although they may not currently perceive themselves as creative - that is a great place to start!
The energy in the room was invigorating when a Decathlete started reflecting on their creativity and seeing ways of improving their innovative potential. Talking to the Specialist, however, eventually became a draining experience. Their fixed mindset could not see themselves as growing in innovative ability, and were resigned to the belief that innovation was not for them.
These participants had a range of skills, with some low-level employees posturing themselves like Decathletes, and some very senior leaders of large organisations appearing as Specialists. The only difference was their mindset. For one, innovation could be practiced, learnt and developed. For the other, it was a static gift that they had not received.
As you finish this post, I encourage you to answer - "Am I creative?" Do you see yourself as creative, or not. And - is that a starting point for you? Or is it the end?
Across all the participant surveys, there was a constant statement that received one of the lowest rankings - hand's down. It did not matter whether this was a small, medium or large business, or a suburban church; this statement was always present in the three lowest data points.
"I believe I am creative."
Three simple words, yet every participant ranked themselves very lowly - often aligning themselves with the response "Never". Fascinatingly, many of the participant described their organisation as highly creative - even their team as excellent at innovation - yet they all stated that they were not creative.
What became even more interesting was how this perspective was described in the interviews. Again, almost all of the interviewees would happily talk about other people's creative moments but struggled to do the same with their own narrative. When I would challenge them on this, and ask them to think deeper - two postures would emerge. Interestingly, these postures would then become indicators to me of the stories they would then share - and how these people functioned as innovators.
The first group are the Specialists. They know what they are - and what they are not. They've specialised in a certain domain and are fixed in that perspective. Like a sprinter poised in the running blocks, they know the task ahead of them and they know how to do it. But - like a sprinter suddenly asked to shoot a freethrow - the thought of creativity and innovation seems alien to them. It is not what they are naturally good at. Instead, they would prefer to focus on what they know, and leave innovation to those "who are creative".
Unfortunately, this posture is built on a lie. All of the participants thought that they were not creative. Yet the Specialists see this as a fixed end point. A blind person cannot see, a fish cannot live outside of water, a non-creative cannot create. They were happy to point out the creative successes of others, but they struggled to imagine themselves as being innovative. It was so foreign that it appeared as an alien trait.
The second group are the Decathletes.These people similarly perceived themselves as not creative, but very quickly saw this as a skill that they could develop. Currently, they might have been strong at analytics, programming, music, fundraising or training - but they saw that just as they had learnt the necessary skills to excel in these areas, so they could learn to become more innovative.
This group's posture is fascinating because it is so hard to pin down. They are excited about the future, they look back to the past - they review, reflect and then plan. Like a multi-athlete, they celebrate and play to their strengths, but also seek to build up their weaknesses. This group has an agile posture, and is open to the fact that although they may not currently perceive themselves as creative - that is a great place to start!
The energy in the room was invigorating when a Decathlete started reflecting on their creativity and seeing ways of improving their innovative potential. Talking to the Specialist, however, eventually became a draining experience. Their fixed mindset could not see themselves as growing in innovative ability, and were resigned to the belief that innovation was not for them.
These participants had a range of skills, with some low-level employees posturing themselves like Decathletes, and some very senior leaders of large organisations appearing as Specialists. The only difference was their mindset. For one, innovation could be practiced, learnt and developed. For the other, it was a static gift that they had not received.
As you finish this post, I encourage you to answer - "Am I creative?" Do you see yourself as creative, or not. And - is that a starting point for you? Or is it the end?