Where brainstorming and introversion intersect

In the movie Dead Poets’ Society the teacher, played by Robin Williams, captivates and inspires his students with his confidence in their potential to make a difference:

You will learn to think for yourself…words and ideas can change the world.

This resonates with the emerging consensus on the limitation of group brainstorming – the danger of groupthink.

As the classroom scene unfolds, Williams tells his students to tear out a page from a textbook. The particular content focuses on analyzing poetry mechanistically which flies in the face of thinking for yourself.

The reactions of different students are hilarious. Some immediately rise to the challenge tearing out pages as Williams goads them on. Others hesitate briefly such as one student who after encouragement from his fellow classmates carefully uses a ruler to rid the textbook of the offending passage. We witness thinking for yourself in action and the different thinking styles that go with it.

The careful student is likely an introvert who needs some time to check out the merit of the action in his mind before jumping in. This isn’t brainstorming but it highlights the importance by the teacher and by the different student reactions that thinking for yourself is a sacred part of our identity.

Susan Cain in her book The Power of the Introvert in a World that Can’t Stop Talking underscores the contribution of thinking for yourself, extroverts included. People are generally more creative when they have some quiet time and freedom from interruption to let their minds search for new ideas and connections. This mind wandering gets below the surface noise of our conscious minds to enable imaginative work to be done.

Introverts thrive on quiet time to think first. A number of recent studies by researchers in neuroscience and psychology now point to the importance of this quiet time as a must for better brainstorming by any mix of people. The result is more and better quality novel ideas at the outset of the creative journey and as the process unfolds with a group or team. Team leaders and managers take note: build in this structured time for members of the group!

Electronic brainstorming tends to offset the problem of group think in real time. This may be due to the advantage of solitude in the midst of a group adventure. Crowdsourcing in large groups and teams that collaborate remotely seem to channel brainstorming well.

Taking a page from the preference of introverts as a start point, no matter the medium the principle of thinking for yourself is a useful guide for improving brainstorming. As Robin Williams says so beautifully in the movie, “The powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?”

Does fact-free leadership have to be a common fact of life?

I am a scientist at heart. Being curious all my life, I have pondered big questions and small. For example, if the universe did not exist, would there be nothing? But, what is nothing? Stephen Hawking and many other physicists have enlightened me somewhat but the nature of the universe still seems highly mysterious to me.

OK. That’s a little deep. Nevertheless, I get pretty riled up if it’s obvious that our leaders, particularly those in the political realm, fail to be like a scientist exploring all relevant facets of a situation.

For example, I watched an interview of Lawrence Martin recently about his book Harperland. He could hardly contain his exasperation at the extent to which under Stephen Harper’s leadership facts in any realm are routinely ignored, unless they align with his view. The foundation of Martin’s training in journalism is to seek the truth as it is currently understood and verify with multiple sources. Although knowledge is always in flux, looking for the best of what we know is a fairly good strategy for anyone, including those in leadership and management positions. Otherwise we risk going down pathways that can come back to haunt us.

Lawrence’s bottom line is that democracy is weakened when our political leaders do not pay attention to evidence when shaping policy and strategy. Since organizations in which we work are of necessity becoming more democratic in order to manage risk, innovate and survive, “fact-free” leadership at the political level let alone in an organization can cause unnecessary problems. Not being democratic in approach as a leader seems odd and out of synch with the prevailing view that leaders and managers benefit from being “adaptive” in light of “swampy” problems.

Much has been written on the role of personal bias in decision-making. It plagues us all and is particularly dangerous in organizations as numerous management researchers have documented. While we have some companies that are hundreds of years old, such as The Bay, Stora and Twinings, most fail in 50 years or less (Aries de Geus, The Living Company). Poor decision making is at the root of most failures.

Our cultural upbringing, education and experiences over time all conspire to blind us. To make good decisions requires hard work and time usually though teamwork. As we perpetually live in time-constrained environments and are faced with a vast universe of conflicting knowledge, it is easier to fall back on conventional wisdom until something disrupts it.

So, how do we test conventional wisdom before it boxes us in? How can we challenge our biases when we are not even sure what they are?

Richard Neustadt and Ernest May in their classic book, The Uses of History for Decision Makers offer a methodology:

1. What do you know?

2. What is unknown?

3. What are you presuming?

4. What is the situation like (from past history)?

5. How does the situation differ from others in the past?

6. What is the action supposed to accomplish?

After studying decisions both good and bad made by American Presidents in the 20th century, Neustadt and May concluded that past conditions can offer clues to future possibilities. Look back to look ahead, so to speak. A little bit of critical thinking can go a long way towards better decision making.

The ability to do critical thinking and problem-solving is one of the seven basic skills most often cited by educators for students to succeed in the knowledge economy according to Tony Wagner, a Harvard-based education expert and author of The Global Achievement Gap. Two others are collaborating across networks and curiosity with imagination. These apply equally well to the desired skills for people in the workplace especially for managers and leaders.

Fact-filled leadership with imagination will certainly help fill the global achievement gap. Einstein was right when he said that “the formulation of a problem is often more essential than the solution”. But this cannot happen without an open mind which counterbalances “fact-free” leadership.

It turns out that such openness can enlighten us, educate us and, as a consequence, change our minds. Such a journey is transformative or in Nelson Mandela’s words, “Education is the most powerful weapon with which you can change the world”. It is also a daily endeavour.

Antidotes to Uncertainty: Adapt and Innovate

Financial history is a roller-coaster ride of ups and downs, bubbles and bursts, manias and panics, shocks and crashes.

---Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money

We are learning from our current worldwide financial crisis that the assessment of risk and uncertainty are two different concepts, two different thinking modes. Risk relates more to what we already know projected onto a number of future scenarios. As Niall Ferguson explains, risk is measureable uncertainty. That leaves real uncertainty as unmeasureable and thus as unknowable. Ferguson quotes John Maynard Keynes from his 1937 book General Theory: “There is no scientific basis upon which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know.” If only more of us were Ph.D. trained mathematicians!

Because surprises do happen despite our best efforts, leaders are in a bind. If the “long view” generated through strategic and scenario planning is limited (yet still relevant for mitigating risk), what can a leader do to off set disaster (uncertainty)? Darwin long ago gave us hints—adapt to our environment or perish. “The wild rewards the capable, adaptable and instinctive” explains Gino Ferri, professor at Laurentian University author of The Psychology of Wilderness Survival.

Anyone who has taken survival training knows that adapting is no easy matter. It’s down right scary. Leaders need some help!

Given the difficulty of figuring our how to adapt, one predominant message for leaders is to surround ourselves with great people who are diverse in expertise and who do not necessarily share our point-of-view. If “a team of rivals” worked well for Abraham Lincoln, as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin contends, then it should work now. This means reaching out to one’s broader network and replicating the “team of rivals” at other key nodes.

A second important message is to set up an environment for innovation. But, people can’t innovate well in an environment of fear. With daily job losses everywhere in the world, it’s hard not to feel anxious. The “team of rivals” approach fits well with setting the stage for novelty in thinking according to creativity researchers. The depth and breadth of knowledge elements available with minds from different disciplines and experiences increase the opportunity for unusual possibilities from which to choose---for real innovations. They suggest, in addition, that leaders consciously develop a positive emotional environment of surviving and thriving despite uncertainty to foster the creative spirit.

According to Teresa Amabile and others, there are spin-off bonuses to an emotionally positive work environment. The effect lasts for days. If the leader works at stoking the fires of hope and possibility, the positive feelings can last indefinitely, as well-documented in current brain research. These are greatly assisted by the joy individuals feel when generating ideas. It seems our brains and our beings thrive in such environments.

There is ample evidence from the history of long-lived organizations that adapting and innovating are central to survival. This is encouraging for all leaders grappling with the chaos we are facing.

Arie de Geus’s template for survival in a turbulent business environment provides further guidance. In his study of long-lived organizations (The Living Company), some more than 400 years old, he found four “habits”:

1. Sensitivity to the environment (learning and adapting)
2. Cohesion and identity (building a community with a cause)
3. Tolerance (ability to build constructive relationships with other entities within and outside itself)
4. Conservative financing (ability to govern its own growth and evolution effectively)

If, as Ferguson observes from his study of the history of money, that booms and busts are products, at root, of our emotional volatility, then, the lessons from surviving the “wild” can temper such ups and downs in our favour. This takes leadership of the right kind. Not greed. Not self interest. Not every “man” for himself. Instead, it heralds leadership which trumpets teamwork, respect for each other, including divergent views, and the certainty that together we can adapt, innovate, survive and prosper.