Despite our best intentions, we don’t get along with our work colleagues all the time. Differences in values, beliefs, objectives, priorities, and goals are inevitable in the workplace (and in life). And that’s ok. Dissent can be a healthy dynamic.

Take Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her chief antagonist on the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia. Despite being deeply ideologically opposed, they maintained a robust relationship, tempered with humour and respect. Importantly, both maintained the wider perspective of the importance of The Constitution to American society and recognised that rigorous debate would only serve it.

What Ginsberg and Scalia managed to do best, though, was negotiate their polarised views, and not allow them to become a roadblock to reaching their goals as a collective. As leaders, we can learn much from, not only their relational dynamics, but also their respectful etiquette. Justice Scalia’s son made this remark about them:

The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.

This is a very grounding perspective to take into situations when conflict is brewing. Often, when we sit in oppositional viewpoints, we don’t look for either common ground or validity in the other perspective. And this increases the size of the divide between us and the likelihood of ever crossing it. Justices Ginsberg and Scalia, are the brightest example of how to build a strong and resilient bridge across the divide that will weather even the most ferocious storms.

Of course, both judges graduated from an education system that taught them to relish debate and differing viewpoints. Not everyone receives that kind of training or opportunity. For many of us, an oppositional viewpoint can be seen as an attack and a signal to stand our ground. This is when we (individuals, teams, and organisations) become stuck. Stalemates diminish our ability to connect and to innovate.

So, it can be helpful to reflect upon the keys to the judges success, and consider how we might apply them in our own working lives.

• Respect for self and others —This might seem an empty phrase, but it is actually the building block to every relational aspect of our work and personal lives. Without due regard for both ourselves and the opinions, needs, and beliefs of others, we become locked into a narrow mindset that suffocates our thinking.
• Wanting to get it right, not ‘be’ right — It has been a long-term practice of leaders to sit in the “expert mindset.” It is a comfortable, self-assured space that frames all our thinking through the lens of “we know best.” And while some occasions require decision-making based on a specific skill set, often we are best served by thinking past what we know and considering what our collective knows.
• Being in service of a purpose greater than ourselves and our agenda — In some ways, this is THE grounding principle of the successful mediation of ideas. While we only serve ourselves and our own ambitions, it will be impossible to see the value of oppositional thinking.
• Don’t underestimate the power of civility — those who knew Bader Ginsberg described her as “the essence of grace, civility, and dignity”. She was determined to remain collegial in the face of conflict. In leadership today, we often advocate for courageous conversations, radical candour, and speaking truth to power. What is sometimes omitted in that discussion is “how” we do that. Think of civility as the railings of the bridge-over-conflict.

And when the going gets tough, remember RBG’s famous words… “We are different; we are one.”

While employers have always been important educators — particularly through ‘on the job training’ and, secondarily, through formal learning initiatives — we have traditionally thought of the workplace as where we apply learning that has been obtained elsewhere. Whether it’s from vocational training or university study, learning occurs outside ‘work’. However, this paradigm isn’t going to serve either employers or employees in the future.

A Ramping Future

In our contemporary technological context — one of furious change — our way of thinking about work must change as well. Employers need to become formal educators, or they will face the consequences of brain drain and the wage war. Skills are becoming obsolete within 5 years. While this is particularly dire for employers operating in the tech and sustainability spaces, increasingly these two domains permeate our lives. Australia’s tech sector has grown by 80% in the past five years. The war for talent in these areas is fierce and likely to intensify. The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) analysis shows the vast majority of the fastest growing jobs falling into these areas.

In order to meet this need for talent and skills, employers have to be willing to take on the role of educators. While this idea (increasing L&D budgets) might strike fear into the heart of CFOs everywhere, the WEF’s cost-benefit analysis of reskilling has found that reskilling ultimately financially benefits companies. Companies as large as Amazon have committed significant sums to reskilling their workers. There’s money to be made — as well as people to be enabled — in this next era of work.

Opening up the Classroom

So, how should we be thinking about this shift into a greater formal education role for organisations?

1. Be a leader

Explicitly leading this change is a real opportunity for employers. There’s a lot of lip service out there about organisations wanting to invest in the development of their people. However, when it comes to funding employee training, trying to get approvals and satisfy policies is often deprioritised. Organisations that partner with providers directly offering relevant training in critical areas, such as AI and machine learning, sustainability, data analysis and cyber security, are going to be leading the way. The organisation that has the gold-standard training program will be the gold-standard employer.

2. Balance the interests of the market and people

We want our training programs to engage and empower people in their development. But these learning initiatives also need to be connected to what is going to make people employable and successful in this emerging future. So, take an informed and rigorous look at your industry and the pressure/transformation points. Ask yourself:

• Where will skills be required?
• What value can only humans bring?
• How can you serve your people and a brighter future for the organisation and society more broadly?

Balance these interests in a way that finds win-wins.

3. Preskilling won’t cover everything, but it will put you way ahead of the rest

There’s a lot of talk about pre-skilling at the moment. Understandably organisations are wary about focusing too much on skills that may not be required and team members who might just be tempted to take those skills elsewhere. However, pre-skilling can be a powerful way of raising institutional knowledge and getting people thinking about critical knowledge areas.

4. Connect the dots between your training program and performance

Inbuild metrics that allow you to understand the ROI of these training programs. Often, you can look directly at performance on technical capabilities. This will help you continue to iterate on the programs and allow you to make the business case for why they are so important.

And, in the end, don’t take our word for it. Ask your team members! See what they say about the importance of formal training to their engagement and retention. There’s no doubt you will see a resounding response.

A decade ago, when Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms began talking about New Power, it was a jump across a chasm from command-and-control management to much more distributed, horizontal leadership styles. Power, they declared, was no longer something to be hoarded but an energy built upon collaboration and diversity.

But now, as AI technology makes its quantum leap, we are faced with another recalibration of power relations. And Heinemann and Timms are again exploring who the decision-makers are and how that is unraveling. They are dubbing our current digital slipstream the Age of Auto-sapience, where algorithms are more human than humans, and AI is displaying characteristics that are agentic (they act), adaptive (they adapt), amiable (they befriend), and arcane (they are mystifying). They say our experience of power is changing again.

The point of personifying these new generative technologies is to get to know them in a less abstract way. This is a useful activity if we’re to better understand and have agency in our future. Heimans and Timms believe that as AI synthesises and curates more and more of our lives, power will be recentralised and channelled through a “cognitive funnel.” This contraction of power means that we will actively have to pursue a diversity of viewpoints to counter its naturally restricting contours.

On the other hand, the increase in individual creators and start-ups may be set to explode as AI continues to make it easier to design and build businesses. And though this provides a great opportunity, it comes with the caveat that the people most likely to benefit from this surge will be Big Tech.

The area of governance could also field a massive change as governments become comfortable with the reliability and suitability of generative AI. There will possibly be a shift to enabling AI to “run” the world’s bureaucracies as they “synthesize stakeholder preferences” and “model impacts of complex policy decisions.”

The question is, how will we manage the impact on humanity?

Leading in a Generative Power World

Whatever the exact trajectory of AI might be, it’s time to consider what it means to lead in this environment. Who do we need to be in the auto-sapient era, and what kind of leadership stretch will that entail?

Heimans and Timms see the emergence of a two-pronged skillset. Leaders will have to be able to successfully manage the technological benefits (and challenges) while continuing to champion the value of human attributes and actions. In other words, we have to be more tech-wise, yet more human-centric than we’ve ever been.

To this end, they suggest amping the following:

Make friends with AI — leaders should treat generative AI more as a co-worker than a tool. This includes being perceptive enough to doubt them as well as appreciate them.

Champion the tribe — not a specific tribe; the human tribe. How can we create better and more valuable experiences for ourselves now that we are freed of certain roles and responsibilities? Creative output may become the next popular currency as we have time to ideate and explore the human factor.

Acknowledge the tension — between AI efficiency and a pro-human approach. Where will you land in this tug-of-war and how will you manage it?

Heimans and Timms also issue a final warning. If we treat new generative AI systems as actors, not tools, we are more likely to be energetically involved in the policies and decisions made in this space. If we don’t, the future of the human race could sit entirely in the hands of the technologists.

And is that what we want?

Firstly, we should define what we mean... critical thinking is a complex process that demands high-order reasoning processes to achieve a desired outcome. Its skill lies in assessing and analysing a range of information and inputs.

Yet the primer to that process falls into another realm entirely—creative thinking. This can be much more elusive to explain, but generally speaking, it means having the ability to generate novel associations that are adaptive in some way (Ward, Thompson‐Lake, Ely, & Kaminski, 2008).

While creative thinking benefits from a divergence of ideas, critical thinking is analyzing and evaluating a range of inputs that converge on a decision or action. So when we generate ideas, it is a process of making connections, and when we solve, we focus through comparison.

It’s the synergy of these two acts — creative and critical — that enables truly effective thinking.

Studies on the overlapping nature of these dual “thinking” processes found that:

• creative and critical thinking play complementary roles in problem-solving
• creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving are the main cognitive competencies for the 21st century
• creativity and critical thinking are key ingredients for innovation
• creative and critical thinking need to be stimulated for better learning contexts

One particular learning model used to explain the connection between the two, shows it unfolding in four phases that may be cyclical or linear, sequential or concurrent.

The creative thinking phases are:

Inquiring — this is where we ask questions and start processing what we’re hearing and observing

• Is this credible? Is it factual or a value claim?
• What are the assumptions and biases related to this?
• How can I get more understanding or clarity?

Generating — this is where we start to spark connections, look for reframes, and begin to act

• How can this idea be expanded upon?
• How do I activate this idea?

The critical thinking phases are:

Analysing — this is where we interpret, apply rationale, provide reasons, and evaluate outcomes

• What is it that I am creating or developing?
• What is the information I require?
• In what ways can I interpret the data?

Reflecting — this is where we think about what we are thinking and transfer wisdom to others

• How is my critical thinking leading me to a higher plane of understanding?
• How is this knowledge useful? Who is it useful to?

Another way to understand the continuum between critical and creative thinking is to consider the movement from one to the other.

Perhaps the most encapsulating explanation of their interdependency, though, is as Dr. Linda Elder explains it:

if all you can do is think critically, without creating solutions, then you’re not going to succeed in the process of “thinking.” If all you do is think creatively, then you may create something novel, but not significant.

So, when you’re seeking solutions to complex problems in the workplace, consider whether you have committed just as strongly to the creative process that will bring the best and most diverse ideas. And once the creative thinking phase has flourished, look to apply the rigor of critical thinking. This interdependent weave of ways of thinking will yield the highest results.

Critical thinking is a superpower. It has allowed humans to reason rationally and rigorously to uncover some incredible insights— ultimately, changing the face of our world. But in order to unlock this superpower, we need to overcome our kryptonite: cognitive biases.

Over many years psychologists have identified certain ‘tendencies’ in human thinking patterns that can sway us away from being fair and balanced in how we think. Instead, we reason in ways that make us feel good, are partial to proximity and salience, and that try to avoid effort.

As leaders, being able to understand our thinking better (and where we could grow), allows us to show up better and make more of a positive impact. So, examining the role of cognitive biases in our thinking is critical to critical thinking. The big question is: where are we letting ourselves be swayed one way or another, even when we aren’t realising it?

Let’s look at 4 of the most common biases that come up, where we often see them become problematic for leaders, and how we can work to navigate them.

1. Similarity bias

We are biased towards people who are similar to us. This is a fairly well-known bias, which likely dates back to more tribal ways of living. We can often be drawn to, and build relationships more freely with, those who are similar to us in appearance, culture, and experience. The result: a lack of inclusivity and narrower thinking.

Where we see it: Hiring and networking activities

How to navigate it: Deliberately seeking out diverse opinions and people

2. Expediency Bias

We prefer the course of action which is quickest. Most of us know this bias from becoming frustrated with conversations or discussions that seem to endlessly consider the approach rather than getting to an outcome. Unfortunately, this desire means we can miss important preliminary steps to getting the best solution.

Where we see it: Jumping to solution-thinking when faced with a problem

How to navigate it: Set a time period for framing up and sitting in the problem before generating solutions

3. Confirmation Bias

We seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs or thoughts. Being wrong is distressing. As open as we might be to different ideas, we all feel that pang of discomfort when we are proved incorrect. The consequence of this bias is a desire to seek information that supports us (and ignore what doesn’t).

Where we see it: Failure to surface different views or account for alternative perspectives

How to navigate it: Consider at least three other explanations or perspectives in addition to your favoured option

4. Safety / Loss Aversion Bias

We are more concerned about losing what we have than an equivalent potential gain. Humans are programmed to avoid loss at any cost — even when that calculation isn’t serving them. We feel losses much more painfully than corresponding gains.

Where we see it: Pursuing work or a project under the sunk cost fallacy

How to navigate it: Periodically weigh up opportunity costs in your efforts for a particular task

It’s not uncommon for leaders to tend towards some biases more than others, depending on their past experiences or personal characteristics. As we come to better know ourselves and where these biases might creep in, we can set some guardrails — like those above — to help us hold them out.

For a long time, the myth of the lone creative genius has prevailed in our thinking about creativity. You know the type — the Artist — a Van Gogh, Warhol or Abramovic. Those special souls who seem to be operating on another plane.

However, interest in creativity — and consequently creativity research — has become a significant focus in recent years, particularly in organisational studies. The innovative imperative driven by disruptors like Uber and Airbnb means we want — even need — creativity in business. As the saying goes: innovate or die.

So, what is coming out of this flourishing field of creativity research? Is the creative genius being proven as our saviour? Or can you harness the power of creativity, and innovation, without having to find the next great entrepreneur?

Wither Creativity?

There are a number of different areas in which this body of work has explored, with some compelling insights for leaders and L&D practitioners. For example, there is research on what types of leadership encourage creativity, methods, and motivators for idea generation, and the major socio-psychological factors impacting creativity in groups.

Perhaps the most intriguing line of inquiry that has opened up in this space recently is what is called distributed creativity. Based on the field of distributed cognition — the idea that thinking occurs across a system rather than only within individual humans making up a system — distributed creativity sees creativity as the emergent property of a system.

This is a significant shift in the way we might think about creativity. No longer the purview of single individuals, we can think of creativity as arising in well-designed and powered systems. And this isn’t just across a range of people — within this view, creativity is distributed across the environment and the objects within it too.

Emergent Creativity

Emergence is a powerful concept for thinking about living systems. Emergence is where a complex system or entity exhibits characteristics beyond that of its parts. This means that the characteristic is unique to the unification or bringing together of the components.

The value of examining creativity through this lens of emergence and systems is that we take a more holistic view of what is contributing to the desired effect. Rather than focusing solely on individual people, we can take into account all the different elements that go into surfacing our creative thinking.

And really, this makes sense. Think about the apple falling on Newtown’s head, or Archimedes in his bath, or the Wright Brothers and birds, or Darwin’s travels on the Beagle. What all these brilliant ideas have in common is an interaction with the environment — not just a thinker in isolation.

So, starting from the premise that creativity is distributed between people, the environment, objects, and across time, what is your organisation’s creative process (or creative system)?

Fashioning a Creative System

This idea is not completely new in many industries. Creative environments and objects have become a mainstay for startups and design and tech companies. For example, Google — one of the most innovative companies in the world — is famous for its work environments, memorialised in accounts like: “Next to the recently expanded Lego play station, employees can scurry up a ladder that connects the fourth and fifth floors, where a fiendishly challenging scavenger hunt was in progress.” And while we might be tempted to dismiss this as the frivolities of moneyed tech bros, it isn’t completely without merit.

If we accept that creativity is emergent from a system, we need to take a much broader approach to how we cultivate creativity across each of the dimensions of the system. Consider the following questions:

Who are the people in your system?

While creativity may be distributed, the human nodes in this system are of critical importance. Do you attain cognitive diversity with the people that make up your team?

Consider your hiring practices and how you encourage different and challenging thinking and learning and development activities.

How do people interact?

What are the rituals and structures that promote creativity?

We know too much structure can stifle creativity, but a certain amount can promote the conditions of divergent thinking. How do you run or facilitate a brainstorming session? Is there the necessary psychological safety within the team for people to feel comfortable offering their ideas?

What is your environment?

How does the environment of your team or organisation feed into this creative process? Do you immerse in green spaces when there is an opportunity? Is the environment vibrant or exciting, or is it dull? In fact, we know that environment has an outsized influence on a whole range of factors for teams — it’s not just a nice add-on.

What artifacts are surrounding you?

Do the objects around you stimulate thinking and creative connections? Do you bring in games, tools, and/or technology to encourage creativity? What story do the artifacts around you tell about the workplace and creative potential?

By shifting to a distributed creativity view, we are able to perceive all the different places in which creativity can be uplifted for our teams and organisations. The result: happier, more creative people and transformative ideas.

“I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me.” Einstein

Eureka! We’ve all heard the story of the magic moment when an idea comes to someone in a shower. A problem that has been playing on your mind all week suddenly finds its solution at the most unexpected time. Where did it come from? Did you even think about the problem once since the day it came up? What is this magical process? Are you secretly a genius?

Fickle Creativity

We’ve been chasing the root of creativity for as long as humans have had ideas. Cultures (and organisations!) with high creativity have driven the world forward in countless different ways. Undoubtedly, this capability seems to move across the boundaries of our conscious and subconscious. Our dreams present wild flights of fancy. Ideas seem to “pop out” of nowhere. Bizarre practices often stimulate the creative muscle.

And there are adherents for every different type of creative process. David Lynch, the famous American film director who made Mulholland Drive, spends half an hour in transcendental meditation. Yoshiro Nakamatsu, one of the most prolific patent holders in the world, would dive underwater until a flash of genius struck him at the very end of his breath. And that’s not even to start with someone like Vincent Van Gogh.

So, is it all just wild creatives practicing idiosyncratic methods? Do you have to be one of these people and consecrate your life to the creative way?

The Creative Break

Creativity research is passing through a period of significant advancement. We are able to draw on a range of evidence explaining our case of the solution popping out of nowhere. In the research on creativity, this is the result of what’s called an “incubation period” and it appears to improve our creative thinking. Researchers have proposed that our unconscious mind does in fact keep working on a problem after being exposed to it and, sometimes, it will continue to work until an answer surfaces.

Typically, studies will give participants a problem to solve and then apply either a short or long incubation period by way of a distractive task. Participants will be immediately diverted onto this task taking them away from the problem in question. Those who have this incubation period perform better than those left to just solve the problem straight away.

What’s more, mind wandering has been identified as an important part of this process. Mind wandering occurs when we free associate different ideas without limiting the breadth of our thoughts. The more divergent and interesting the mind wandering, often the better ideas that come about afterwards. Fundamentally, this process involves the recombining of different stimuli and stretching the brain in diverse ways.

Putting it into Practice

While this may be all well and good, is it practical or useful as an innovation practice in the workplace? Absolutely! Try the following as you work to integrate the power of the incubation period into your workplace:

Work on creative problems across multiple sessions

Often organisations will try and get a problem solved in a one-off brainstorming session. However, what the incubation period tells us is this will not result in the most creative thinking. We need time for our unconscious to dig into the problem. Structure your creative thinking process across a short incubation period with multiple sessions.

Try: staggering your ideation sessions across the week.

Make the problem (or solution) exciting

The problem needs to be such that it excites some interest in your team, otherwise it is likely to drop off the conscious AND unconscious radar. Try and tap into the intrinsic motivations of your team. Why should there care about solving this problem? How might it help people? What exciting next step could it unlock for your team or organisation?

Try: get clear on the purpose of this innovation and the ‘Why’ for your team.

Provide diverse mind stimulations/wandering

For divergent thinking, mind wandering has been identified as a critical part of recombining thoughts and finding creative inspiration. By providing your team with fresh and interesting stimulus, you can encourage this type of thinking.

Try: send out visual stimuli in an email or explore an art gallery with your team.

Creativity is both a skill and a practice. There are simple things you can do to enhance this practice for yourself and your teams and, in turn, reap the benefits of greater innovation and more powerful problem solving

In recent years, attitudes to creativity and its importance to organisations have evolved. It no longer sits outside business as an optional plug-in, but is a more integrated and valued part of what good looks like. Workplaces that genuinely embrace its value, and work to instill the principles of creativity, are the ones that are successfully nurturing more innovative cultures.

As a group of “creatives” working in the area of regenerative organisational systems and leadership development, we have an abundant store of practical tips to help others unlock their creative practice. It’s our jam — getting in a room and enabling teams to spark ideas and push limits to current thinking.

However, building a creative culture doesn’t just spring from choreographed moments of creative play. The scene needs to be set well beforehand, and this means first instilling and upholding the principles that lay the foundations for creativity.

To get an understanding of what these principles could or should be, we need to start by getting clear on what creativity is. Of the many definitions that exist, here are a few ways that we like to think about creativity:

Creativity is typically defined as the ability to generate novel associations that are adaptive in some way (Ward, Thompson‐Lake, Ely, & Kaminski, 2008).

Creativity is not predominantly something that can be “forced” through creativity “techniques” (Cook, 1998).

Creativity is often achieved from a combination of conscious and subconscious information processing (Huber, 1998).

Creativity is essential to human progress (Hennessey, & Amabile, 2010).

Creativity is more than intelligence (Piers, Daniels, & Quackenbush, J.1960).

The variety of definitions shows the complex and ephemeral nature of the concept. Imagine trying to cup water in your hands — for a while, you can see, feel, and know it, but then, inevitably, no matter how hard you squeeze your fingers together, it seeps away and eventually you have to fill your hands all over again. The water is your creativity, and it needs certain beliefs and conditions in place to replenish.

Principles of Creativity

Principles are fundamental truths that underpin what we believe about a concept. They guide all the decisions we make relating to this concept being both the foundation for how we think about it, and the compass for where that might take us.

For example, we could say creativity is built on these three principles:

• Giving attention — we need to focus on some ‘thing’
• Providing escape — we need to ‘escape’ the way we might have thought about some-‘thing’ before
• Allowing movement — we need to explore and connect our thoughts

Or we can equally say that a culture of creativity requires:

• Inclusivity — psychological safety and a sense of belonging feed the imagination
• Access to diverse ideas — challenging our thinking is paramount
• A curious and learning mindset — curiosity and ideas go hand in glove
• Fallow time — the subconscious needs time to percolate and digest

If you are seeking to enhance your creative culture then begin with principles like these to guide your decisions and actions.

The Physical ‘Creative’ Environment

And, while upholding key principles is key to building a robustly-creative team culture, there are other ways we can support this endeavour. Research shows us that our physical environment can be another important unlock to nurturing creative minds. When people are stimulated by their environment or connected to nature through posters or windows, they perform better creatively than those who don’t have those stimuli. So, if you want your team to be more innovative and charged with fresh ideas, look at the places you’re asking them to perform in. Can they be improved?

The Myths around Creativity

Lastly, there are many myths surrounding creativity. The most common one is that creativity is a talent with which only a few people are gifted — when in fact, creativity is a muscle that can be strengthened and toned.

There is also a myth that tells us that creativity is primarily an individual experience. When in fact, creativity can be distributed and is emergent in groups given the right conditions.

A third myth implies that creativity is inherently positive (i.e., all publicity is good publicity). However, there now exists a research area around the theory of malevolent creativity.

Malevolent creativity is defined as creativity that is deliberately planned to damage others (Cropley et al., 2014)... research on malevolent creativity not only contributes to people’s comprehensive understanding of creativity but, more importantly, warns people that creativity driven by malicious purposes may cause great harm to individuals and society.

Though this kind of creativity is generally associated with criminal masterminds and villains, the fact is that all of us are as capable of it as we are of ‘benevolent’ creativity. Within workplaces, this is rarely talked about. So, keep in mind that encouraging your team’s creative ideas and impulses in an organisationally (and morally)-productive direction is as important as providing the right environment for creativity to flourish in the first place.

What do an expert in wound healing, a leading veterinary surgeon and a specialist in theatrical makeup have in common? Together they were able to produce a breakthrough product intended to prevent infections associated with surgery for the company 3M. This is not an isolated occurrence. Companies are coming alive to the power of bringing together these types of disparate thinkers, to achieve incredible results.

And it’s certainly a timely development.

Our teams need to be able to do more than ever. The expanding array of core capabilities (think: influencing, analysing data, prioritisation, strong written drafting, storytelling, adapting to change) means that having a diverse range of thinking styles is critical. Here we are talking not specifically about diversity of characteristics (although that is related), but a concept called cognitive diversity.

Thinking… Differently

Fundamentally, do people think differently? Well, the short answer is yes. We know that each of us thinks differently due to a range of physical, cultural and historical factors, which have shaped the way we see the world. However, if we then apply that thinking to a productive task, the question becomes: do these differences in thinking manifest in different types of intelligence?

In Howard Gardner’s 1983 classic text Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, he identified eight types (later adding a ninth) of intelligence. These were:

• Musical
• Visual-spatial
• Linguistic
• Logical-mathematical
• Bodily-kinesthetic
• Interpersonal
• Intrapersonal
• Naturalistic (later added)

Since its publication, there has been a lot of debate over the idea of multiple intelligences. While there is strong reliable evidence for a general intelligence factor (‘g’) - as measured in IQ tests - we have limited empirical evidence measuring other types of intelligence.

However, we also all know people who are good at specific areas of life: like music, words or sport. Is this another form of intelligence? Or is it the application of general intelligence to a specific area? What other ‘intelligence’ factors might be going on here? We are yet to be able to clearly separate out and measure the broad range of human intellectual capabilities.

Celebrating Diverse Thinking

Having said that, there seems to be value in continuing to explore this area. Many argue that it is reductive to limit our thinking about intelligence to just a single factor measuring predominantly reasoning and problem-solving skills. Moreover, it’s clear that certain people excel in certain types of thinking. The concept of emotional intelligence (EI), for example, has been a useful tool in organisational studies and has accrued a reasonable amount of evidential support (with meta-analysis demonstrating the importance of EI to a range of positive career-related outcomes). Similarly, somatic intelligence - as a measure to the degree to which we understand the signs, presentations and experiences of our body - is receiving increased attention with the ‘return to the body’.

We all know people who are particularly creative or organised or relational. However, our natural tendency can be to seek out and collaborate with those who are similar to us though. Leaning into diversity can have immense potential. Cognitively diverse teams solve problems faster and have greater collective intelligence (up to a certain point of diversity).

Issues often arise when we fail to recognise the value in different ways of thinking. We might employ tunnel vision on thinking styles and only value that which provides task efficiency in a very narrow field. A team that has that efficiency, but also people who are strong influencers, collaborators, innovators and visionaries, will always be more effective.

There’s a real opportunity to observe ourselves and notice how we might feel threatened by different ways of thinking or instinctively try to shut it down. Rather than reacting straight away when someone moves into ideation or introduces an idea you see as a bit out there, take a moment to entertain the thought: what’s the worst that could happen here? Is there a better way we could be doing this?

Leaning into our Intellectual Potential

So, what does this all mean for the teams we work in? Here are some suggestions:

1. Hire for diverse thinkers

The more variety in the intelligence of your team, the less you need to search this out externally. We know that diversity of thought is a powerful predictor of innovation — provided people are put into the right team environment. The first step as a leader is getting the right people in the door (and at the table!). Think about your current team and where the opportunities are for bringing in different strands of thought and “intelligences”. As part of your succession planning, it can be useful to map out what skills, abilities and characteristics your team composition currently addresses (or doesn’t) — and then when someone moves on, you’ll be ready to bring the right person in.

2. Welcome diversity

It’s not uncommon for organisations to pay lip service to the idea of cognitive diversity but then once diverse thinkers come into the organisation, they find themselves being stonewalled or blocked. That’s why it is critical to be really overt around inclusive practices — having a workplace where people are saying, appreciating and actually believing that diversity of thought is important. Bring this message to the forefront and introduce rituals and practices to support it. For example, encourage team members to go and find someone who they know, or suspect, will disagree with their idea to provide a conflicting perspective. This will help them test their proposition and is a highly effective way of avoiding the perils of groupthink.

3. Celebrate your strengths

Bring the team together to explore each other’s strengths and capabilities. This can be done through using assessment tools — such as the CliftonStrengths finder — or simply just a facilitated discussion where people identify and share their strengths. Not only does this highlight for each other where our multiple intelligences lie but it builds a sense of trust and cohesion.

4. Articulate your needs

Of course, with different thinking, comes… well different thinking. And that can inevitably lead to conflict. While having some degree of creative tension is important, we need to be able to articulate what our boundaries and needs are in the workplace. Get people used to talking about this openly and clearly. One helpful way to do this is by drawing up a social contract. For example, your team might make a clear distinction between task and person conflict: i.e. that the team commits to rigorously engaging in debate on tasks or ideas but refuses to engage in personal conflict during the conversation.

The reality is that it’s very rare to have a single team member who can do ‘everything’, given the expanding array of generalist skills needed in organisations today. Leaning into a diverse and multiple ways of thinking will mean your team can deliver across the board.

To remain relevant, competitive, and buoyant, organisations need to change the frequency of their actions into increasingly shorter cycles. This perpetual change demands new processes, systems and behaviours that can be challenging for workers. They may experience a sense of threat — anger, resentment, or despondency as they transition through change. Of the many conversations that occur during these periods, leaders often ask — How can I take the emotion out of it?

The short answer is — we can’t. Emotions are part of the human condition. We can no sooner ‘take them out’ as we can remove the blood from our bodies. What we can do is increase our level of awareness of how our minds and bodies respond to rewards and dangers and develop our capacity to make effective decisions in the moment.

What is Somatic Intelligence?

Think about a time when you’ve been challenged or received some difficult feedback at work — it’s not likely to be a comfortable memory. Perhaps you can remember a churning stomach, a hot flush, tense muscles, or shakiness from pumping adrenalin. Conversely, there may be times when you’ve been required to give difficult direction or feedback, which gave you similar feelings.

This state of heightened emotion is our body warning us there’s danger. In terms of evolutionary survival, it makes sense — up against a crocodile or snake, quick defensive action is crucial — but sitting in a work meeting, it can be more of a hindrance than a help. Running away or going on the attack with our colleagues is generally not productive. The good news is we can use our somatic intelligence to tune in to the physical cues our body is offering and gain deeper insight into the situation.

Somatic Intelligence is an awareness of how your body responds to stimulus and the ability to use that awareness to cope with challenges. An individual who develops their somatic intelligence increases their ability to recognise and tolerate strong emotions and make conscious choices about how they will respond to and manage those emotions.

How do we build our somatic intelligence?

1. Tune in to the physical cues

The first step to increasing somatic intelligence is to learn to tune in to our body’s physiological reactions to threat. This is more difficult than just thinking or talking about it. The foundations of somatic responses begin when we are very young and form habitual patterns that lie beneath our consciousness. Recent research has established that stressful and traumatic events can even change the epigenetic signatures in our DNA, meaning that body and emotion are deeply integrated and deserving of our attention.

When we feel the physical cues, we need to STOP! Pay attention to the sensations and understand that this is a significant moment, where a choice can be made that will impact our relationships. It’s a skill that comes with practice and may initially happen only in retrospect.

2. Understand our habitual responses

The second step is to begin to open these habitual responses up to examination, so they can be understood and managed. Our responses whether they be defense, attack, or submission, are established when we are young and may have served us in the past to protect ourselves or our loved ones or to avoid violence or aggression. The question now is: have they outlived their usefulness?

Ask yourself: why am I feeling this way? What is going on for me? Why am I reacting this way when others may not? Where is the root of this feeling?

3. Let go of emotions that are no longer serving you

Early emotional learning changes the physical structures of our brain, becoming hard-wired neural pathways that are highly resistant to change. This means that retraining ourselves is about creating new neural pathways, and that means engaging the body as well as the brain during the process of new learning. New pathways are developed through doing.

Actively manipulating our bodily sensations involves mindfulness, breath exercises, muscle relaxation, and movement exercises such as yoga and dance. These body-based practices allow us to learn how to calm the mind and body, while giving us a sense of safety and control. On a physiological level, deep breathing and movement reduce cortisone and adrenaline in the system, allowing our ‘fight or flight’ response to subside.

4. Practice your somatic skills

The final step is to put these new somatic skills into practice, so they become actions and habits, not just good ideas. It is important that they’re practiced in situations that have meaning to us. Imagine holding a picture of a spider versus holding the spider itself — it’s likely that your body will have quite different responses. This step therefore is about systematically and repetitively putting ourselves into challenging situations (real or role-played) and consciously engaging our somatic skills to effectively manage our stress responses to remain positive and productive. It is important that we continue to feel safe, so engaging outside support is also an important feature.

Leading with Somatic Intelligence

When leaders develop their somatic intelligence, they can more clearly identify when others are in threat and reacting in ways that may not be effective. In these moments, leaders can acknowledge the emotions and build psychological safety, calming their team member, so that emotions don’t hijack the task at hand. Rather than ‘taking the emotion out of it’, we consciously raise our emotional awareness.

The “centeredness” achieved through somatic intelligence enhances our ability to manage stress, maintain strategic focus, and improve interpersonal relationships. We’re then better able to tolerate and transform stressful thoughts, rather than simply reacting or becoming overwhelmed. Ultimately, problems and challenges can be reframed as opportunities for growth.

References

Blake, Amanda. (2009). Developing Somatic Intelligence: Leadership and the Neurobiology of Embodied Learning. embright. https://embright.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Developing-Somatic-Intelligence-NLJ10x.pdfhttps://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ftra0000574

Mandolesi, Laura, Arianna Polverino, Simone Montuori, Francesca Foti, Giampaolo Ferraioli, Pierpaolo Sorrentino, and Giuseppe Sorrentino. (2018). Effects of physical exercise on cognitive functioning and wellbeing: Biological and psychological benefits. PubMed Central (PMC). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934999/

Miller, O., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Bruenig, D., & Mehta, D. (n.d.). DNA methylation of NR3C1 and FKBP5 is associated with posttraumatic stress disorder, posttraumatic growth, and resilience. APA PsycNet. https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ftra0000574

Noontil, A. (1994). The body is the barometer of the soul so be your own doctor II: We are an endangered species: Source your power, be committed, beingness illuminates determination, life is a never-ending experience.

Schwartz, Tony and Pines, Emily. (2020, March 23). Coping with fatigue, fear, and panic during a crisis. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/03/coping-with-fatigue-fear-and-panic-during-a-crisis?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=dailyalert_not_activesubs&referral=00563&deliveryName=DM73690

What is somatic intelligence? (2019, February 20). Healthy UNH. https://www.unh.edu/healthyunh/blog/psychological-health/2019/02/what-somatic-intelligence