www.coursera.

org

Change, Innovation, and Creativity

by Dr. Jack V. Matson, Dr. Kathryn W. Jablokow, Dr. Darrell Velegol

Introduction to Creative DiversityHelp

In this course, were going to explore and explode some dangerous myths about creativity. Theyre dangerous because they keep us from listening to the ideas of others and from really appreciating what other people bring to the table. Were going to take these myths apart and show why they dont make sense. Then, were going to put them back together in a way that does make sense. Are you ready? Lets get started!

Creative Myths and Misconceptions

When I first came to Penn State, I was a pretty traditional engineer. I built robots - big walking machines the size of a bus. I didnt know that creativity was a field of study, and I had never thought much about whether I was creative or not. But I did like to think about thinking to think about ideas and how people have ideas and what they do with those ideas once they have them. I decided to find out more about creativity and to see how it might help me be a better engineer and a better teacher, a better mom, a better person! So, I read about creativity, I went to creativity conferences, and I talked to people who studied creativity. It was fascinating, but as I read and studied, I also became very confused. I was getting mixed messages, and many of those messages didnt make sense. For example: some people to ld me that I couldnt be an engineer AND be creative at the same time. In other words, engineers werent considered creative! That just didnt make sense to me. After all, werent my robots acts of creation? And what about other engineers throughout history, like the Wright brothers and their airplane? Or Grace Hopper, who programmed some of the very first computers? I realized then that there are a lot of myths and misconceptions about creativity. Id like to point out just a few of them here, starting with: Myth #1: Only some people are creative. One of the most dangerous myths about creativity is the notion that only some people are creative. Sometimes youll see people put in different piles according to what they do for a living for example: the so-called creative artists, musicians, and writers in one pile, and the so-called uncreative engineers, accountants, and math teachers in another pile. Why doesnt this make sense? Well, if creativity is bringing something into existence that wasnt there before, then the domain of the idea or the product doesnt matter. I can create something in art or engineering or planting a garden or organizing my closet! Myth #2: Only certain kinds of ideas are creative.

Then theres the myth that only certain kinds of ideas are creative. This myth usually says that an idea has to be revolutionary or radical or out of the box to be creative in other words, that creativity requires you to break the rules in some way. Is that creative? Yes, of course! But what about another kind of creativity anevolutionary , in the box creativity, the kind of creativity that shows up when we dig deeper into a problem, when we discover ways to explain the details of something, and that process leads to new insights? Isnt that creative as well? Absolutely! If we really think about the way change happens, we realize pretty quickly that all kinds of ideas are needed the more evolutionary ones and the more revolutionary ones. And heres the really fascinating part: they are interdependent! In other words, they feed into each other in an alternating pattern that keeps going and going and going Let me give you an example : Youve probably heard of Dmitri Mendeleyev: he was a Russian chemist who designed a bas ic form of the Periodic Table of the Elements. As the story goes, Mendeleyev sat down at his desk with a set of cards. Each card had detailed information on it about the different chemical elements known at the time. Using the data on those cards, he put them into a unique pattern that helped explain how they were related and even predicted where new elements would be! Was this creative? Absolutely in a more revolutionary way. But where did the detailed information on the cards come from? Without it, Mendeleyev couldnt have created his new table in fact, he wouldnt have known that he needed one! His creativity depended on the creativity of other scientists before him people like the Italian chemist, Cannizzaro, who had carefully and meticulously, worked out the details through endless experimentation. This evolutionary creativity was just as important as Mendeleyevs contribution and absolutely necessary for change to happen. Mendeleyevs revolutionary creativity set off a new round of evolutionary creativity that continues today. Scientists are still filling in the gaps in the periodic table that Mendeleyev and others like him created. Someday, we may discover that this periodic table has become obsolete, and a new revolutionary idea will be needed to set us on the right path again! Its an endless alternating pattern of revolution and evolution in creativity and every step is taking us forward! There are many more myths about creativity, like the notion that an idea has to be important or complicated to be really creative. Or the myth that children are creative, but somehow their creativity is stifled in school and lost as they go out into the working world. Well explore these and other myths throughout this course, but right now, I want to introduce you to anew view of creativity that will help us sort things out.

The Creative Diversity Model

Its called the Creative Diversity model , and its a model of creativity that is both broader and richer thanall the myths put together. Its based on the research of important scholars, like Michael Kirton, Robert Sternberg, and Teresa Amabile. Its a view of creativity that is more inclusive and more precise and itmakes sense! Its first four principles go like this: Creative Diversity Principle #1: All people are creative. Everyone, of every age and profession, from birth until death everyone is creative. The source of creativity is inevery individual, whether they are working alone or in a small group or in a large organization. They may have a few ideas or a lot of them; those ideas may be revolutionary or evolutionary, simple or complex. The only people who are not creative are, well dead. Creative Diversity Principle #2: Creativity is diverse. In other words, we recognize that while all people are creative, they are NOT creative in the same way. There are many different versions or flavors of creativity. There isnt just one kind of idea or one approach to solving problems, but many a wide range of possibilities across the human race. So, how do we describe this creative diversity? Creative Diversity Principle #3: Creative diversity is described by four key variables: Given our assumption that creativity is different across individuals, we need a way to describe those differences. Michael Kirton, a British psychologist, has come up with an elegant way to do this. Were going to use four variables: The Four Variables of Creative Diversity: Creative level Creative level is related to your mental capacity . In other words, its related to the size and the shape of the mental bucket you have between your ears and what you have stored in that bucket at any particular time! You are filling up your mental bucket from the moment you are born until the moment you die. We measure creative level using things like intelligence ,aptitude , knowledge, skill , andexperience . So, you may have a special talent for music, or you may have a strong aptitude for math. You may be skilled in drawing, while your friend has experience in computer programming. All these differences will affect your creativity: we tend to be creative in proportion to our creative level. Creative style Creative style is your preferred way of managing and using all the creative level you have acquired. In other words, its your preference for how you go about solving problems and bringing about change. Like other cognitive preferences, you are born with your creative style; it doesnt change over time, although you can do things in ways that dont match up with your style.

Some people have a more structured creative style, while others prefer a less structured approach to change. Its actually measured across a wide spectrum. People with a more structured creative style are more likely to offer evolutionary ideas, while people with a less structured creative style are more likely to offer revolutionary ideas. All of them are creative but in different ways ! Motive Motive is what channels our energy as we move through life. Our creativity is affected by what motivates us and whether that motivation is present. People are motivated by different things, like money, or helping others, or achieving recognition. Depending on what motivates you, youll put more or less energy into what you do, and that will affect your creative contributions. Opportunity Finally, opportunity is the availability of a problem to solve and how we perceive it. Sometimes we have access to an opportunity that others dont, or we recognize a situation as an opportunity when others think it isnt interesting. Those perceptions also affect our creativity and how we think about the environment around us. We have one more principle to go Creative Diversity Principle #4: There is no ideal kind of creativity. In other words, no particular creative level, or creative style, or motive, or view of opportunity is better than any other in general. The kind of creativity thats most appropriate or most effective depends on the situation that is, on the current problem you are trying to solve. Sometimes you need a radical idea but not always. Sometimes youneed an evolutionary idea but not always. Sometimes you need an idea that has elements of both revolutionary and evolutionary thinking! Sometimes you need a certain type of knowledge or skill or talent perhaps at a high level, perhaps at a low level. Motives change depending on the situation, and you may have different opinions about the importance of an opportunity. All of these options lead to change. All of them represent some form of creativity, and in some combination, they represent YOU. Some Action Steps: Over the next week, keep thinking about your own brand or flavor of creativity. Dont ask yourself whether you are creative you are! Instead, ask yourself: What is my creative level my knowledge, skill, and experience? What is my creative style how do I prefer to approach change? What motivates me to solve problems and bring about change? And which opportunities interest and inspire me most? As we move through this course, well keep revisiting these questions and these key variables of creativity. For now, think about how this new view of creativity changes how you think about yourself as a creative individual and how you think of those around you as creative people as well.

Sorting Out Creative Level and Creative StyleHelp

A number of people have asked for some clarification on the difference between creative level and creative style. I must admit, it's difficult to squeeze a lot of depth into a 7 minute video! So, let me see if I can flesh things out a bit here. Basically, creative level is related to your mental capacity - both potential and manifest capacity. Potential capacity (potential level) is measured through things like intelligence (in all it many forms mathematical, linguistic, artistic, spatial, etc.), talent, aptitude, and giftedness, among others. In other words, it's a measure of how much a particular person "can" know, learn, and recall and how quickly and completely they will learn it and recall it. Manifest capacity (manifest level) is what you actually do know at any moment in time, and that can be measured in many ways as well - e.g., knowledge, experience, skills, expertise, etc. Of course, manifest level keeps grow ing from the moment were born until the moment we die with a little loss in there, perhaps, as we grow older!

Our creativity is impacted by all of these types and forms of level, in the sense that we are creative within the capacity we have at the moment. In general, the various forms of creative level are measured on unipolar scales from none or a little to a lot. So, for example, you may have a moderate talent for music, while your friend has a high aptitude for math, and your colleague is mildly gifted in learning languages; these are examples of differences in potential level. Then, you may have a lot of experience and knowledge about hiking in the mountains, while your colleague earned a special certification in the martial arts through years of study, and your friend has certain skills in wookworking; these are examples of differences in manifest level.

Creative style, on the other hand, is independent of creative level (both theoretically and empirically - scholars have tested this in many different ways). Creative style is a stable cognitive preference - a particular way that your brain is "wired" so that it prefers to manage your knowledge and learning and experience and action in certain ways. Interestingly, your creative style (i.e., your cognitive preference) does not change over your lifetime (this has been empirically tested too). We can measure creative style in various ways (just like creative level), and many of those measures have some relation to the amount of structure you prefer in your thinking and actions. In this course, you'll learn about one particular way to measurecreative style (Kirton's A-I spectrum), but there are plenty of others as well (including several parts of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). Note: You CAN behave in ways that don't align with your creative style (i.e., your cognitive preference), but it comes at an extra cost to your brain and to you, so you need extra motive to do so. Finally, creative style is measured on a bipolar spectrum - in other words, on a continuum between two ends/extremes that are different but of equal value in general. And it isn't just the extremes that count; measuring both level and style on a continuum means that every point along the way is important. We don't want to start making "piles" of people!

Putting the two together, we find people of any creative style all along the creative level spectrum, and people of any creative level all along the creative style spectrum! Thats what it means for the two variables to be independent. And that's just part of the creative diversity story ... there is still the diversity of motive and opportunity to think about. I hope this has been helpful ... do let me know!

Creative Diversity and Problem Solving TechniquesHelp

~An excerpt from Creative Diversity, by K. Jablokow (in press)

Introduction
As we move through the stages of a problem solving/creative process, each stage may be carried out at low to high level and using any style. Any technique can be applied in any stage as well. Techniques are specific learned methods that allow us to use our existing cognitive resources (level and style) to best advantage. Techniques do not alter our creative style (which is a fixed preference) or increase potential capacity (which is also stable), but they can help us use what we have in more effective ways through learned coping behavior. This includes the enhancement of level (e.g., gaining better access to existing capacity, building manifest level more quickly), and the simulation of a particular style (for a limited time) that is not your own. Of course, some techniques may also help you make your preferred style of behavior (or any preferred level) more effective, as we shall see below.

Techniques for Enhancing Your Creative Level

Releasing Potential Level Some techniques are intended to release potential capacity, i.e., to help us utilize more of the capacity we were born with or to utilize it more effectively. So, for example, if your idea generation is blocked, you might do something that relaxes you - e.g., take a walk around the block, go driving in your car, take a nap, etc. i.e., something aimed at reducing the fatigue or anxiety that may be impeding the best use of your capacity (rather like helping your computer by restarting it). Or, if you are distracted (say, by too much noise or too many stimuli), you might go find a quiet place to do your work, break things down into small pieces, or do the parts that require the least concentration. These techniques are all examples of things we can do to release additional potential level (from within our existing store); they dont solve the problem you are working on directly, but they may enable you to do so later or more efficiently. Enhancing Manifest Level Enhancing manifest level refers to increasing how much we learn (and retain) and how quickly we learn it, as well as how much of it we recall and how quickly/effectively we recall it. There are many different kinds of techniques aimed at enhancing manifest level. One example is mnemonics, which include acronyms (e.g., ROY G BIV for colors of the rainbow Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet), acrostics (Every Good Boy Does Fine for the G-clef notes on sheet music), and rhymes. For many more examples like these, search the Web using mnemonic devices or mnemonic techniques as keywords . Another example is the group of methods called speed reading techniques; these enable a person to work through more written information in less time, with a higher level of retention. Since techniques aimed at enhancing manifest level improve actual (level) performance, they increase ones prob lem solving effectiveness directly. Summary & Recommendations There are many techniques aimed at enhancing creative level both releasing your existing potential capacity and increasing your manifest resources. Recognizing when these particular techniques are needed (i.e., knowing when the barrier to effective problem solving is a level issue as opposed to a style or motive issue) and being able to choose the technique that will manage the barrier most effectively for you are important skills (of awareness) to acquire and nurture. Begin by taking note of when you are most and least effective at learning and recalling information, i.e., the conditions under which these problem solving functions are supported or impaired, and how often each type of barrier occurs. Then consider your current toolbox of level -enhancing techniques and seek out

additional options to build up your supply. Like any other kind of tool, its far better to have more than you need (and a good variety) before the need arises!

Techniques for Simulating a Different Creative Style

Other techniques are intended to simulate different creative styles, i.e., to help you think/behave in ways that differ from your stable, preferred problem solving style. This occurs through learned coping behavior without permanently altering your underlying cognitive preference. In general, techniques that simulate different creative styles increase your problem solving effectiveness directly by enhancing your behavior in the direction of a particular style for a specific occasion and time period. You will engage in the required coping behavior only as long as the motive to do so is present; once that motive (i.e., perceived reward) is removed, you will return to your preferred style of behavior. How might techniques be evaluated in terms of style? This question has been taken up by a few researchers, but there is still a great deal of work to be done. In general, however, techniques designed to simulate Adaption, for example (i.e., adaptive techniques) are those that add or tighten up structure within some stage of the problem solving process (e.g., preparation, divergence, convergence, validation), while techniques designed to simulate Innovation (i.e., innovative techniques) generally reduce or loosen structure. Using these general principles, Lopez-Mesa, et al. [1] analyzed some standard problem solving techniques (aimed at divergent and convergent operations, in this case) in terms of their creative style orientation and described their results in the context of design and development. The aim of their exercise was to provide designers with a framework for choosing the best technique in any particular situation based on what the current problem of interest requires. In addition to Lopez-Mesas work, Kirton [2] suggests that many of the techniques associated with the quality management literature might be considered more adaptive, while more innovative techniques are often found in the literature devoted to creativity. Why might this be so? It may be that practitioners have assumed that most problems in each of these domains are solved by a preferred method e.g., innovators cause all accidents (in the quality management world) and creativity = innovation (in the creativity world). In fact, both views are narrow and inaccurate. In complex problems (and which ones are not?), it is almost certain that more than one style and level will be needed, with appropriate techniques to aid in the application. Once again (as with level-enhancing techniques), our aim should be to construct a personal toolbox of style-simulating techniques, to learn (and practice) a variety of techniques, and to know when to use each one. Only then can we choose our techniques based on what the problem requires, not (necessarily) on our own personal preference.

References
1.

Lopez-Mesa, et al. (2002). Managing Uncertainty in the Design and Development Process by Appropriate Methods Selection, in Proceedings of the 2002 International Design Conference (DESIGN 2002), Dubrovnik, May 14-17, pp. 1-8. Kirton, M. J. (2011). Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change, London: Routledge

2.

Creative Divergence and ConvergenceHelp

As we discussed in Week 1, there are loads of myths and misconceptions about creativity out there, and some of those myths involve these two terms: divergence (or divergent thinking) and convergence (or convergent thinking). So, were going to do some more myth-busting today (one of my favorite activities!) to set the record straight on these important concepts by viewing them through the lens of Creative Diversity. We think that this new perspective will help you appreciate ideas yours, and those of others in a different way, and hopefully encourage more of them too!

Introduction: Some Definitions

The terms divergent thinking and convergent thinking were originally coined by a psychologist named J. P. Guilford, who was the President of the American Psychological Association and a world-famous expert on creativity. He defined divergence and convergence as two stages of a process that everyone uses: the thinking process.

Guilford defined the terms this way:

Divergent thinking = generating multiple ideas, solutions, or alternatives. Convergent thinking = evaluating and selecting from among those alternatives.

Notice what Guilford didnt say: He didnt say that divergent thinking requires out-of-the-box or radical ideas. And he also didnt say that convergent thinking is narrow or uncreative. Divergent thinking simply means that you come up with more than one idea or option for something, and convergent thinking means that you reduce your collection of ideas to a smaller number of possibilities.

As stages of a process which is a very general way of describing how something is done, Guilford said that divergent thinking and convergent thinking can both be carried out in many different ways in other words, at different creative levels and using different creative styles. There isnt a particular level or style attached to each one and everyone does both.

What about Those Myths?

So, heres the problem. Since Guilfords time, other people have taken divergent thinking and convergent thinking out of their original context and presented them as styles of thinking and

then proposed that some people only use one of them, while other people only use the other! It sounds familiar, doesnt it? Putting people into two piles again piles that dont exist! This is the first myth we want to bust.

Guilford didnt put people into piles and neither will we. After all, how can a person only generate alternatives never choosing between them and ever get anything done? You would spend all day thinking of different ways to get to work, but never go anywhere! And how could someone spend all their time selecting a solution without generating options to choose fr om? Thats like picking your clothes out of an empty closet!

Other people perpetuate another myth that a persons thinking is only divergent if they generate solutions that are radical or breakthrough. Sound familiar again? Youre right its related to the myth that people are only creative if they offer ideas of a radical kind. These two myths often get mixed up together giving us the compound myth that creative people are divergent thinkers, while uncreative people are convergent thinkers. And thats just nonsense!

Busting the Myths with Creative Diversity

Fortunately, we can use two more principles of Creative Diversity to sort this out. Lets begin by going back to Guilfords original meaning of the terms divergent and convergent, whic h leads us to

Creative Diversity Principle #5: Everyone both diverges and converges.

Everyone diverges and converges every day in fact, it happens repeatedly throughout your day. You generate different solutions to a challenge at work, you come up with multiple options for your childs lunchbox, and you think about different driving or walking routes to get home or to the store. From those possibilities, you reduce your options to one or a few and move forward with that selection. If you didnt diverge and converge each day, you would accomplish nothing!

Creative Diversity Principle #6: We each diverge and converge in accordance with our respective creative levels and styles.

Just like creativity in general, our individual creative levels and styles impact the ways in which we diverge and converge in our thinking. In other words, we dont all diverge and converge in the same way! Left to our own preferences and abilities, our divergent and convergent thinking will reflect our individual differences. Lets think about what those differences look like in action:

Creative Level and Divergence/Convergence:

One easy way to think about creative level is to consider how much information we can each manage at one time and how quickly we pick up and recall that information. People with a higher creative level can usually manage a larger amount of information at once, and that information can be more complex or advanced. They are also able to absorb and recall it faster. For example, a child with a high level in mathematics may learn and remember her multiplication tables very quickly. A young college student with a moderate level in languages may pick up two languages readily, but struggle with learning a third. A professional salesman with a low level may be able to remember the names of 10 clients, but not 100. And so on.

So then, what does it look like to diverge at different levels?

Let me illustrate this with an example. Lets say that we want to think divergently as we try to invent a new candy bar. We want to generate multiple options for what that candy bar might be its flavor, its ingredients, its appearance, its packaging, and so on. The higher my creative level, the more possible candy bar solutions I can devise and manipulate at one time and the more quickly I can do so as well. My imagined candy bars are more likely to be more complex and advanced than the candy bars of someone with a lower level than my own. A higher level will also allow me to recall what Ive learned about candy bars more easily and more accurately than someone with a lower level. Of course, if I dont know anything about candy bars, then my high capacity for managing ideas will be limited by this lack of knowledge, but I may still be able to generate ideas based on what I know about other related things say, other sweet snacks like cakes or cookies. Remember that we measure creative level in different ways, including your potential capacity to know and learn, as well as what youve learned already (called your manifest level).

Notice that I havent said anything about the value or the quality of my ideas. Divergent thinking is about generating options, whatever those options may be. So, no matter what kind of ideas you generate no matter how small or large, simple or complex, useful or outrageous, evolutionary or revolutionary in nature you are engaged in divergent thinking.

Now, what does it look like to converge at different levels?

Lets stick with our candy bar example. Convergent thinking is about selecting a smaller number of options based on some criteria, so you can move forward with them. You may even choose just one option. A person with a higher level (i.e., greater intelligence, knowledge, or skill) may use more advanced criteria to choose the ingredients for their candy bar, or they might make the choice of

manufacturing methods with greater precision relative to any constraints on the problem. A person with a lower level may choose simpler alternatives or do a less thorough job of justifying their choices or do a poorer job of meeting any necessary constraints. In the end, convergent thinking is about reducing the number of alternatives, but it doesnt stipulate how that red uction comes about.

Creative Style and Divergence/Convergence:

Now lets talk a bit about creative style and how it impacts our divergent and convergent thinking. As youll remember, there are many ways to measure creative style. In this lesson, well focus on the Adaption-Innovation creative style continuum as one example. According to Michael Kirton, a distinguished British psychologist, a persons creative style falls somewhere along a continuum between strongly adaptive and strongly innovative. (Visit this page from Week 1 for a diagram: https://class.coursera.org/cic-001/wiki/view?page=ex_creativestyle). Most people fall somewhere in the middle, since the distribution of creative style is a Bell curve a normal distribution. Rather than putting people into piles, we use the full spectrum of style by saying that someone is more/less adaptive or more/less innovative than another person. This is more accurate than just saying that someone is an adaptor or an innovator. And remember a person who is more adaptive is just as creative (in general) as a person who is more innovative! Creative style is about HOW you are creative, not WHETHER you are creative.

Whats the impact of creative style on divergent thinking?

People who are more adaptive prefer more structure in their thinking, and they tend to make use of structure to find solutions. When they are given a problem to solve, they are more likely to start with solutions that are known to solve it and work to improve and refine them before they move on to solution paths that are less well known. So, when a more adaptive person uses divergent thinking, they are more systematic about it than their more innovative colleagues. They cover the space of ideas in a more careful and meticulous fashion, focusing more on the details and on continuity between the ideas they generate and the task or problem those ideas are meant to solve.

Thomas Edison is a great example of a more adaptive thinker who did a lot of divergent thinking as part of his inventions. You probably know the story of his search for the best filament for the incandescent light bulb he searched through and tried out 1000s of possibilities! He did this in a careful and systematic way (called a drag hunt), searching the literature for ideas and trying them out one by one. If the space of possible solutions were a map, you would find Edison marking it out with a big grid and checking of the spaces one by one as he explored them!

In contrast, people who are more innovative prefer less structure in their thinking, and they tend to shed structure in order to find solutions. When they are given a problem to solve, they are more

likely to reject solutions that are known to solve it and try to find different paths that havent been explored yet. So, when a more innovative person uses divergent thinking, they are less systematic and more tangential about it than their more adaptive colleagues. They cover the space of ideas in more of a shot-gun fashion, seeming to jump from place to place, looking for clusters and connections, and focusing less on the details of the problem.

Leonardo da Vinci is a great example of a more innovative thinker who did a lot of divergent thinking to support his inventing. Looking at the collection of inventions da Vinci made and imagined helicopters, boats, crossbows, and more you can see that his divergent thinking was much more tangential and might appear haphazard. But for da Vinci, all those tangential connections made sense it was a reflection of how his more innovative brain worked. If da Vinci were exploring the same idea space with Edison, they might drive each other crazy!

Now, what about the impact of creative style on convergent thinking ?

When people of different creative styles think convergently, their different preferences for structure are evident. A more innovative person, for example, is more likely to select ideas based on how unusual they are compared to what is already known, and he or she may be less concerned whether others agree with the selection. A more adaptive person, on the other hand, is more likely to rely on careful reasoning to choose those ideas that seem most likely to succeed based on what is currently available. Neither one of these general approaches is better or worse than the other they are just different each with its own advantages and disadvanta ges.

In closing this piece on creative style, remember that no place on the spectrum is better than any other. Every style of thinking is needed for our species to survive. These patterns are a result of a thinking preference something that is hard-wired into your brain when you are born and which doesnt change throughout your life. But you can learn skills that help you think in different ways when you need to, if youre willing to put in the extra effort to do so. Thats part of what were learning in this course!

Note: In Week 1 of this course, we offered a Creative Style Estimation Exercise in which you can get a general estimate of your creative style through a set of 10 simple questions. If you missed that exercise, you can go back and complete it now. The link to the questions (loaded in Qualtrics) is in our Course email for Week 1; well repeat it again in Week 2.

Closing

As we wrap up our discussion of divergent and convergent thinking, its important to open your mind to the possibilities of someone thinking differently than you do and how valuable that can be. Sometimes we see a person who is more innovative than we are jumping from one idea to another, or we see a person who is more adaptive than we are focusing on the details and we think: How silly! How can he or she get anything done that way? Or we see someone who is at a different creative level either greater or less than our own and we think: Those ideas arent important or they dont make sense. In the context of the right problem, that persons thinking may be just what is needed.

Can you shift your thinking to welcome their input instead of rejecting it? Until next time, thanks for being here with us!

Some Questions to Think About: Think about these questions and write down your answers in your Idea Journal or in a discussion forum or discuss them with a friend or colleague: In learning about divergent and convergent thinking, did you have to unlearn anything first? Think about your own way of working with ideas: do you tend to diverge in a more adaptive (more structured) way or a more innovative (less structured) way? What about converging? What is your creative level and how does that impact the way you diverge and converge? When do you find your preferred way of thinking (both level and style) to be an advantage for you? When is it a disadvantage? How and why?

Paradox of StructureHelp
The Paradox of Structure
~ An excerpt from Creative Diversity , by K. Jablokow

Introduction
In this chapter, we are going to focus on the following things:

Learning how the brain organizes knowledge using concepts Exploring scientific change (and its progression) through concepts and paradigms Examining the relationship between creative (cognitive) style and structure Learning how the Paradox of Structure impacts every problem solving effort

Problem Solving, Creativity, and Concepts

The study of problem solving originated in the field of learning theory , a scholarly domain that is principally laboratory based. Early results from this field include the notion of Stimulus-Response (S-R) bonds as the basic unit of cognitive analysis (from the Behaviorist School), and insight learning (the perceptual reorganization of a problem, resulting in insight) from the Gestalt School. Within both Schools we find the notion of a nugget of knowledge or package of information, composed of an ordered arrangement of chains and patterns (e.g., S-R chains) and which operates as a basic unit of cognition. This nugget of knowledge is called a concept . Gestalt theories brought creativity and problem solving closer together, since both emphasize the cognitive restructuring of concepts as the core activity. Concept is also a key term in early studies on creativity (e.g., those of Guilford [1]), which focused mostly on level in particular, high level or genius). In this case, the complexity and number of concepts being handled was of interest. So, we see the notion of a concept rising as an overlapping element for problem solving, creativity, and learning; now, lets take a closer look at its definition. Concept: An Updated View First, a concept has a boundary that distinguishes what is in the concept (i.e., its content) from what is not. Within the boundary are elements that are stable in number and order that give a consistent meaning to the person holding the concept. If the location of the boundary (plus the content and its order) is agreed upon by more than one person, then the concept can be shared more readily among those individuals, and communication of ideas and more complex collaboration become possible. As a simple example of a concept, consider book: within the boundary of this concept you might include elements like cover, pages, paper, text, pictures, etc., while placing elements like rock, melt, and food outside the boundary. The elements within the boundary have a stable order that gives meaning (e.g., the cover surrounds the collection of pages; text and pictures appear on the pages, etc.). Kelly (an American psychologist) suggested that the minimum amount of content required for a concept is two elements within the boundary, but he also suggested that a well-chosen third element lying immediately outside the boundary is very useful [2]. So, for our

book example, we could place unbound immediately outside the concept boundary to tighten up its location by distinguishing books from rough drafts or newspapers. Note how this concept formation can be used to define creative (cognitive) style : creative (cognitive) style contains (inside the boundary) the elements preferred, stable, manner [of problem solving] as distinct from (outside the boundary) flexible, level/capacity [of behavior]. Then, to manage the seeming impasse between the stable and flexible characteristics, coping behavior is introduced (as another concept). Concepts and Structure Within the notion of a concept, structure is implicit (i.e., boundary, elements with stable number and order, etc.). We need such structure in order to use and communicate concepts, and by doing so, we learn and collaborate. If there is no stable structure - i.e., a concept changes continually then we cant use it as knowledge; it loses its meaning. On the other hand: if the structure never changes, then we wont be able to update our concepts with new information, and our learning will suffer. For example (considering the book concept above): if we are suddenly faced with an on-line book, we must be able to adjust the elements within our concept of book to include electronic pages (as well as paper and binding). So, as we learn and solve problems, we are constantly faced with this trade-off between prediction and flexibility in our thinking: when the structure is tight, we have high predictability, but with fewer options and less flexibility. When the structure is loose, we have high flexibility, but with more options (perhaps more than we can handle) and less predictability. In the end, we need both prediction and flexibility in proper balance for the problem at hand. If there is too much structure (i.e., the structure is too tight), there will be too few options and no problem solving. If there is too little structure (i.e., the structure is too loose), there will be too many options, resulting in indecision (through lack of focus) and again, no problem solving. The exact balance needed depends on the problem , not on what any one person prefers.

From Concepts to Paradigms

To be able to think and to communicate any thought, we need a cognitive structure: i.e., concepts. As the simplest form of cognitive structure, concepts can be created by an individual and held by that individual alone (i.e., concepts are not necessarily shared). When cognitive structures become larger and more complex, and when they are developed with and by the consensus of others, we often use another name: paradigms. The term paradigm became a household word when T. S. Kuhn published his landmark book,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , in 1962 [3]. In this extended essay, Kuhn describes the ways in which scientific frameworks and the technologies that support them change and develop over time. Within this broad perspective of scientific change, Kuhn used the term paradigm to describe an intellectual structure or body of knowledge that identifies the set of beliefs within a science that have been agreed upon by its practitioners to define that science. (Note: The general use of the term "science" includes any recognized field of study.) In effect, paradigms are shared superconcepts that have been formed by the practitioners of a particular field; an individual cannot develop or maintain a paradigm in isolation. Because paradigms are so important, they appear in many places and in many different forms: as models or theories (in science and engineering), rules (in law), policies (in business), frames of reference (in psychology), and classifications (in biology), to name a few.

The role of paradigms is essential and fundamental; by defining the domain of a science, they set a boundary around it and determine which elements are to be included and excluded just as a concept defines the domain of an idea. For example, the paradigm determines which data are to be included or excluded, which problems are to be tackled and the way those problems are to be perceived, the kinds of solutions to be sought and the ways and means appropriate for seeking them (including both theoretical frameworks and technology), and the criteria for proof or falsification. In other words, the paradigm determines what a science is, what that science does, and how that science is carried out. As an example , lets consider the paradigm of 21st century medicine. Within this paradigm, we know that data related to all human body functions are included, but data related to crop growth or engine design are not. In terms of relevant problems, medical doctors are expected to tackle human health-related issues of all kinds (within a hierarchy of severity), but we do not expect them to deal with animal grooming or precision manufacturing. Doctors and nurses are also expected to develop their solutions to problems based on empirical evidence and sound reasoning; crystal balls and magical spells are not considered appropriate means! And so it goes on the expectations established by a particular scientific community (medicine, in this case) form the internal structure of the paradigm and draw a boundary around it, giving everyone a predictable sense of what its practitioners know and do. Paradigms, then, are efficient by imposing order on the problems within them; the effectiveness of this order is judged by its past success (is it useful?) and by its promise of future success (will it continue to be useful?). Paradigms are also enabling in their establishment of the agreed training and knowledge requirements for the practitioners of the paradigm. Taken together, this training and knowledge define the practitioner or professional of the given field, which benefits both the practitioners themselves and those who want to use their (now mutually recognized) expertise. But paradigms are not perfect they have their limitations as well. For example: paradigms provide very few immediate solutions to specific problems; in general, our models (paradigms) only promise answers in general, which we must then seek and find in particular. More importantly, perhaps, paradigms are always incomplete, since we cannot know when relevant new information may become available that was not considered when the paradigm was originally formed. Paradigms are designed to handle only the problems and data which we expect they will need to handle! Fortunately, paradigms (like concepts) must be flexible as well as predictable , so they can be extended and changed to deal with relevant new problems and data (i.e., appropriate novelty). Residual Puzzles and Counter Instances To understand the growth and extension of paradigms, we need to consider two more useful terms introduced by Kuhn: residual puzzles and counter instances *3+. First, lets set the stage: as practitioners of a science go about their daily work, new data are uncovered that must be squared with the prevailing paradigm i.e., the practitioners must decide whether the new data (and any new conclusions they foster) fall inside or outside the boundary of the paradigm, and if they (data and/or conclusions) do fall inside it, their relationship with the existing elements of the paradigm must be determined. In making this determination, Kuhn proposes that one of two things occurs. In the first case, practitioners are able to incorporate the new data and/or conclusions into the prevailing paradigm, either by inserting them directly into the existing structure or by adjusting the structure incrementally i.e., in such a way that the paradigm retains its currently understood

form, but with adjustments to its boundary and/or internal (elemental) structure that make it (the paradigm) more accurate and efficient. Data that can be incorporated into a paradigm in this way are called residual puzzles, that is, residual details of a stable framework of understanding that are plugged into place as they become known. Counter instances are quite different. In this case, practitioners are not able to incorporate the new data and/or conclusions into the prevailing paradigm, even with incremental adjustments to its boundary and/or internal elemental structure. In other words, the new data cannot be made to fall inside the boundary of the prevailing paradigm, no matter how hard the practitioners try. Counter instances, then, by their very nature, call the validity of the prevailing paradigm into question, creating the need to investigate more radical changes to its structure perhaps even its complete replacement. The Progression of Science: Normal Science vs. Science in Crisis With residual puzzles and counter instances defined, now we can consider how the underlying structure of a science (i.e., its corresponding paradigm) changes and progresses over time. According to Kuhn, any science (engineering, for example) progresses in cycles, with periods of what Kuhn called normal science alternating with periods of science in crisis . In normal science (where we spend much of our time), the prevailing paradigm is explored, refined, modified, improved, and adjusted. Data seen as new (novelty) are treated as residual puzzles, which can be resolved within the context of the paradigm. In accommodating these new data, the paradigm is - inevitably changed, and these changes retain and improve (i.e., tighten) the paradigm during the time in which it dominates. Practitioners in the field are generally content with these changes, since more modification does not seem needed. These predominantly adaptive times of paradigm extension (i.e., evolution of a paradigm) are an excellent representation of adaptive creativity . When the paradigm can no longer accommodate the new data, the scientific community has moved into a period of what Kuhn called science in crisis. Here, evidence accumulates to suggest that the prevailing paradigm can no longer explain all that is happening. The residual puzzles - if central enough - are now seen as counter instances, perceived proof that the current paradigm does not work, rather than special cases that might still be explained using the current paradigm (with minor modifications). An alternative paradigm is needed (i.e., the current paradigm must be replaced or modified extensively), based on radical scientific achievement that will loosen the structure currently in place. These times of science in revolution are perfect examples of innovative creativity . It is important to note that any suggested alternative paradigm must be able to accommodate the new troublesome data, but it must also support or at least explain all of the old. Thus, new scientific theories do not completely eradicate the old; instead, they are dependent upon them, even if they serve primarily as a springboard. As Krauss notes (in Kirton *4+): Popular wisdom might have you believe that new discoveries in science always center on radically new ideas. In fact, most often the opposite is true. The old ideas not only survive but almost always remain seminal. Here we begin to glimpse an important insight: science cannot progress without both the adaptive and innovative contributions; the key lies in knowing which style of contribution will be most effective at any particular time. A Brief Example from Medieval Astronomy

To illustrate the discussion above, lets consider how a typical paradigm works, using an example from medieval astronomy: the development of a model for our universe. Under the leadership of Aristotle, the ancient Greeks first modeled the universe as geocentric (Earth-centered), with the sun, moon, other planets, and stars all orbiting the Earth on concentric, crystal spheres. This model (paradigm) served them well, and for some time, it was able to accommodate any new data they collected while watching the heavens. Eventually, however, as new developments in the technology of star gazing began to accumulate, the data gathered agreed less and less with the prevailing paradigms predictions, and over time, the paradigm was changed repeatedly as a result. In some cases, new data were treated as residual puzzles: for example, Ptolemy (one of the Greek, ruling, elite savants in Egypt), added smaller circular orbits called epicycles on the edges of the circular planetary paths (which he called deferents) in order to account for retrograde motion (among other variations). In this case, the geocentric nature of the model was maintained, along with the circular shape of all the orbits both of which were central tenets of the prevailing paradigm. The addition of epicycles adaptively refined these key assumptions in a way that brought the paradigm into closer accord with observation, and this adjusted model remained in use for over 1000 years. In other stages of the models development, new data were treated as counter instances , eventually leading scientists to replace the geocentric model with a heliocentric (sun-centered) system, although not initially with the elliptical orbits that we know today. This more radical restructuring of the prevailing paradigm (moving the sun to the center and downgrading the Earth to a mere planet, while retaining circular orbits) represents a more innovative change, which while a step in the right direction (we can tell ourselves now) required a significant amount of adaptive fine-tuning before it was acceptably accurate.

Paradigms, Structure, and Creative Style

So far, we have been looking at how humans (working alone or together) organize and develop their knowledge using concepts and paradigms. Within this context, the individual practitioner of a particular paradigm is left with a recurring problem: in the face of some new piece of data, how does one know when to retain the paradigm and when to replace it? Or, in other words: how do we know whether to tighten or loosen the structure of the paradigm in order to accommodate the new information? These should be objective questions, objectively answered but are they? The fact is, different individuals will see different merit in retaining or replacing (tightening or loosening) thesame paradigm, depending on their individual cognitive preferences! This makes scientific progress all the more difficult (and interesting), particularly as our problems become more challenging and our dependence on others (our collaborators) becomes greater. Now we begin to see that there may be an advantage to having colleagues who are not like us, if we can manage them. Fortunately, the Adaption-Innovation (A-I) continuum sets up a means of predicting who is more likely to see merit in improving the prevailing paradigm and who is more likely to advocate its replacement , based on creative (cognitive) style. Recall: a paradigm is an intellectual structure(it defines the boundary of a domain, what is inside and what is outside this boundary, and how its contents are organized). Creative (cognitive) style is an element of cognitive function, in which people differ in the amount of structure they prefer (and how they handle it) when solving problems.

Specifically, adaptors (strictly speaking, those who are more adaptive we are dealing with a continuum, not a typology) prefer more structure when solving problems, with more of it consensually agreed so as to have a predictable framework with which to solve problems. Innovators (strictly speaking, those who are more innovative) prefer less structure when solving problems, with less of it consensually agreed so as to have more flexibility to manage the given structure in order to solve problems. All individuals must have some structure in order to operate, but no one can function within total rigidity. As a result of these differences in preference, those who are more adaptive and those who are more innovative have different views on what constitutes change. If we return to our discussion of paradigms, we note that every time novelty (new data) is resolved by a paradigm, the paradigm changes no matter how that novelty is resolved. Therefore, adaption produces change (what one might call evolution), even though innovators tend to ignore these changes (they are looking for revolution); innovation also produces change, even though adaptors tend to reject these changes as ridiculous. Viewed another way: adaptive problem solvers more readily recognize the efficiency of a paradigms structure, while innovative problem solvers often need to be reminded of its value. On the other hand, innovative problem solvers are more willing to shed the paradigms structure when it has become obsolete, while their more adaptive counterparts may need more encouragement before they are willing to do so. In general, though, both adaptors and innovators recognize that paradigms need to be changed: adaptors tend to change the paradigm just enough to make it better (evolution), while innovators are more likely to completely replace it (revolution). Either approach may prove to be the right one in a particular situation, but neither will be rightall the time; it depends on the current problem, i.e., on Problem A. In the end, evolution will continue to work as long as it solves the given problems, but if it moves too slowly, it sets itself up for revolution. When this happens (i.e., when a paradigm is threatened), there is disorganization, fear, and great anxiety; everyone is threatened (including the innovators), although the adaptors may be more so. The bigger the paradigm, the more people are involved, the more fear, anxiety, and chaos are created, and the more resistance appears (i.e., the bigger the war). Paradigm shifts (as Kuhn defined them) are typically not a pretty business.

The Paradox of Structure

We began this chapter by looking at how the brain organizes knowledge using (relatively) simple cognitive structures called concepts. Now, we see that the way we manage our world (through problem solving) also relies upon our different preferences for structure in handling paradigms an extension of the same (with other types of structures in between). In other words, the way we manage our world ( sociology) is a reflection of how our brains function (psychology ), which depends, in turn, on their very structure (biology ). Throughout this discussion, we have seen how critical and challenging it is to balance flexibility and predictability in our management of structure (of every type and at every level): everystructure, whatever its nature, is both enabling and limiting at the same time, and we must all solve this Paradox of Structure [4] with every problem we face. To apply this important concept in a familiar domain, lets consider how we, as engineers, handle the structures with which we work. First: we spend much of our time trying to decide how much we will take the present structure (a particular system) and make it work better (more effectively) - changing the structure, inevitably, as we solve our problem. Or, we may choose to alter the

structure (system) first, in order to solve the problem differently, and then change it again by succeeding. This is a riskier approach, as it is prone to greater error overall. As a practical example: assume that the control system for a particular production line is performing poorly. To solve this problem, we could: (1) keep and recalibrate (re-tune) the existing controller; or (2) replace the existing controller with a different controller, which must then be tuned appropriately. In the first case, we are trying to make the current system work better, changing that system as a result; in the second case, we are changing the system in a more radical way first (by replacing the controller), and then changing it again as we tune the new controller within the system. Which approach is most effective? It depends on the situation i.e., on the particular problem within this particular controller. In general, neither approach is inherently superior across all situations. Structure, like creative (cognitive) style, can be mapped on a continuum, ranging (theoretically) from total rigidity to total chaos. Humans cannot exist at either extreme (we cannot operate with total rigidity or with total entropy); instead, we operate in a narrow band in between, but with enormous differences amongst us based on our cognitive diversity. Summarizing these differences from a style perspective, the more adaptive tend to see structure as enabling , operate well within structure, make effective use of structure, and will attempt to provide and/or get more structure as they solve problems. The benefits of having adaptors within a team are clear: they ensure stability and consistency, both in terms of the tasks being performed and in group cohesiveness. On the other hand, the more adaptive may tend to stay with a structure (e.g., a paradigm) too long, after its usefulness has played out. In contrast, the more innovative tend to see structure as limiting, prefer to operate with less structure, are adept at manipulating and/or moving the boundaries of a structure, and often operate within their own structure that is not necessarily shared. The advantages and disadvantages of a more innovative approach to problem solving are clear too: innovators are vital for radical shifts, but they may tend to leave a structure (paradigm) too soon, before its usefulness has played out. In the end, the degree of structure that is appropriate will vary with the situation , but the perception as to how much structure is appropriate depends on the individuals adaptiveinnovative preference. That is, there is no best style in any absolute sense; we must seek out the most effective style for the problem at hand. The key is finding a balance to reach ground where there is payoff for all. We must all learn how to maximize the enabling factors and minimize the limiting factors in ways that will benefit everyone involved. Naturally, proponents of any particular structure or solution will play down its limiting side and play up its enabling side. Adaptors are more likely to see the advantages of a tighter structure, for example, and innovators are more likely to see its limitations. In the end, adaptors can work with the limits better than innovators in order to enable and succeed, and innovators can see past the limits better than adaptors in order to succeed. As a special caution, there is a popular school of thought that claims that breaking down structure is always better (i.e., less structure is more creative), but A-I theory strictly rejects this notion. Adaption and Innovation (as general approaches to problem solving) are equal in fundamental value, as are those whose preferences lean in either direction all this wrapped around the management of structure. We need a diversity of problem solvers, using a diversity of problem solving styles, to manage the vast diversity of problems we are faced with today.

It is also important to remember that what applies here to style also applies to level. For example, while solving an engineering problem, when must we continue to stay completely in the engineering discipline at, say, a high level and when must we move outside the discipline altogether? When does this particular high level need to change? Once more, it is the problem that should determine the which (discipline, degree of complexity, etc.), the when, and (in this case) the how much not any of our individual preferences.

References
1. 2. 3. 4.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence , New York: McGraw-Hill. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs , New York: Norton. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kirton, M. J. (2006). Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change , London: Routledge.

K. W. Jablokow, 2013. All rights reserved.

Aligning the Creative Diversity of Problems and PeopleHelp

Aligning the Creative Diversity of Problems and People
~ An excerpt from Creative Diversity , by K. Jablokow ( K. Jablokow, 2013) Introduction As a species, we humans are faced with a fantastic range of problems (many of which we have created ourselves) that must be resolved successfully if we are to survive. Our problems begin with our own biology and the management of the vast numbers of different cells within our bodies. Fortunately, we have an immensely powerful system for managing these cells and their tasks i.e., the brain and much of this management is carried out automatically. An additional key point regarding the diversity within our bodies is related to the large amount of neutral diversity that they each support [2]: e.g., 2 lbs. of bacteria some friendly, some hostile (that will be under attack or being suppressed, at this instant), but by far the most neutral (neither helpful nor hostile at present) and a likely source of potential help. This extra diversity enables us to adapt to new circumstances when called upon to do so, aiding in mankinds unparalleled success. Our brains have also developed a high degree of specialization - e.g., handedness, language (associated with the left hemisphere) and we have many examples of learned specialization within our species as well (e.g., different occupations). Here, too, we see large amounts of neutral diversity; for example, different occupations are not required for our survival as a species, but they do enable improved performance. The lesson to be learned here is that neutral diversity is worth tolerating as a potential pool of diversity from which to draw when necessary as long as it is not too expensive to keep! The range of problems faced by humans goes far beyond our bodies, of course. We live in everchanging (and expanding) environments, face ever-shifting (and increasing) demands, and must live up to ever-escalating expectations. Under these conditions, we cannot hope to solve all our problems alone. We must collaborate, and since we have no instinct to guide us in this endeavor, this collaboration is one more problem that we must learn to manage and resolve. Diversity, then, is natural it is also a structure! As with any other kind of structure, the Paradox of Structure applies. So, diversity is both enabling and limiting within an individual and within a group/team, as is the totality of diversities collected in the group with regard to the problems that group will face. Diversity is necessary for the solution of Problem A (the original problem the team/group has come together to solve), while it simultaneously results in the creation of Problem B (the need to manage the individual differences of the team/group members). We know that, generally, successful teams spend more time on Problem A than on Problem B, but how do we manage to make this happen? Lets start with a few basic principles: First, we must accept that diversity (in all its forms) exists, and come to an understanding of how it can be characterized and described. Next, each individual must consider the balance between his/her value and his/her cost to the group this is the economy of diversity [2]. The Economy of Diversity: Ones Value vs. Cost to the Team

Every group is a collection of dyads or pairs, so our problems of diversity can ultimately be broken down into a collection of personal equations i.e., my diversity relative to yours, your diversity relative to his, his to hers, hers to mine, etc. (all 1-to-1 relationships). The lesson learned above (from our own biology) is that neutral diversity [2], if not too expensive to maintain, is worth tolerating for its added potential when new problems (of different types e.g., of different levels and requiring different styles) arise. How can we apply this lesson to collaborative (group) problem solving? Every individuals diversity (i.e., your diversity) adds value as it extends the range of problems the group can solve more effectively. But this individual diversity also comes at a price: we must each deal with you and you with each of us, and if our differences are great, the associated price may be high. However, if the potential return is greater than the cost and your diversity does not threaten the group, then your diversity should be tolerated (at the very least) even when not in immediate use in anticipation of the day when it will be needed. So, we must each ask ourselves: Is the cost of having me (and you) in the team worth the potential return? Hand in hand with this question is another to consider: Whose responsibility is it to ensure that ones particular diversity doesnt cost more than it promises to return? Now we are reflecting on the balance between a persons rights in and obligations to the group, or what Kirton calls team ethics *2+. In essence, each and every person has an obligation when collaborating, i.e., my responsibility is to present my diversity to the group as a contribution greater than its costs. As a member of the group, it is also my responsibility to accept as much diversity as possible, either because it has benefit to the group now or will have benefit in the future. So, in the end, it is everyones job to know Problem A and to avoid Problem B i.e., to complete ones own sub-task within the teams (common) Problem A in such a way that it doesnt limit or prevent others from accomplishing theirs (which would amount to an intruding Problem B). Diversity within the group comes at a cost, but in general, the payoff is worth the investment. The group needs to learn to keep cost down and value up as Problem A is resolved, even as it shifts about in terms of its requirements! Problem A and Problem B To accomplish this essential alignment (and the constant realignment) of people and problems in terms of the four principal variables of creative diversity (i.e., opportunity, motive, level and style), we need a framework for characterizing Problem A and Problem B to help us understand them and how they are related. Lets begin with some basic definitions:

Problem A: the problem requiring collaboration (with its various sub-problems and/or subtasks, A 1, A2 , A3, etc.) Problem B: the management of diversity within the team (with its various components related to differences in level, style, motive, perceptions of opportunity, etc.)

Lets use a few simple diagrams to illustrate the situation, starting with Problem A :

Figure 1: Problem A (with sub-problems A1 , A2, A 3, and A4 ) In many fields, we are accustomed to separating problems into various sub-problems and/or tasks based on specific requirements and functionality; the interconnections between and integration of the outcomes of these sub-problems are also part of our problem (Problem A) analysis. Here, for example, we have a Problem A with four sub-problems or sub-tasks (A 1 A4 ), each of which (it would seem) comprises 25% of the overall problem without noticeable overlap, and so on (actually, this is an unlikely case, as real life is much more complicated!). We also need to add the cognitive requirements and functionality of Problem A to our framework i.e., we need to be able to characterize a problem in terms of opportunity, motive, level, and style with the aim of aligning our problem solving behavior (both as individuals and collectively, as a team) to what the problem requires. Assuming we have characterized Problem A in terms of our four principal variables, how can we make use of the information to manage Problem B effectively? Conceptually, the task may seem straightforward, but in practice, it can be very complex indeed. Lets see what we can discover about it with a few simple examples, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Three groups and their relationship to Problem A along one cognitive dimension Lets assume, for instance, that we have characterized Problem A along one of its dimensions of level (e.g., degree of difficulty, type or amount of knowledge, domain of expertise required) or style (e.g., more adaptive to more innovative) as shown. Its clear that these three groups stand in different relation to the problem in its current state: recalling the Paradox of Structure, what is enabling and limiting about the structure of each of the three groups shown in terms of Problem A and Problem B? Group 1: In terms of this particular dimension of Problem A, Group 1 appears to be fairly well matched to the problem. There are two people just outside the left boundary of Problem A, but because they are so close to it, they may be able to contribute through coping behavior or to a specific element of the current task without too much difficulty. In terms of Problem B, however, things are likely to be just a bit more challenging. While the team members who are aligned with Problem A also happen to be relatively close to one another, there are a number of other individuals in this team who are separated by wide gaps from their teammates. Thus, we might say that the cognitive structure of this group (at least in terms of this particular dimension of level or style) is enabling with respect to the resolution of Problem A, but it has some limiting features with respect to the creation of Problem B.

Group 2: Clearly, this group is limited with respect to its capacity for solving Problem A (along this particular dimension of level or style) at least as it (Problem A) currently stands. Group 2s structure is quite enabling, however, in terms of the reduction of Problem B. Also, in looking ahead, should Problem A (with its general tendency to be a moving target) shift toward the group as time goes on, they will be well placed to manage its new requirements more effectively. Group 3: This group is limited by its structure in terms of both Problem B and the current state of Problem A. There are no team members who are (strictly speaking) perfectly aligned with Problem A, although (once again) one or two of them might be close enough to cover aspects of the problem through coping behavior. The potential for Problem B seems likely too, with the possible exception of the two team members who are shaking hands they may be similar enough to work together without significant challenges. On the other hand, the structure of Group 3 may be very enabling across a broader range of this particular dimension in the face of a shifting Problem A in either direction! In summary, we can see how the same diversity that enables the solution of a particular Problem A (in its current state) may limit the team by creating Problem B; likewise, that diversity (i.e., the lack of it) may minimize Problem B, but leave the team poorly equipped to solve Problem A! From another perspective: a lone individual may not have the range of resources to solve the problem at hand (hence the need for the group). However, when in a group, this same individual may be faced with more diversity than is needed, and may handle it badly, thereby allowing Problem B to take up the very resources needed to resolve the original Problem A. As expected and as just one example the more adaptive and the more innovative tend to handle Problem B differently, just as they handle any Problem A differently. For example: with their greater sensitivity for group consensus, the more adaptive may focus on the resolution of Problem B before they are comfortable solving Problem A. If this does not happen right away, they may exert more and more pressure for conformity over an increasingly large range of operations. In contrast, the more innovative may threaten the cohesion of the team through their personally held diverse perceptions of Problem A and in searching for solutions. They may abandon the team as they search for an unlikely solution which they believe will rally the team around them, even though their colleagues doubt its potential for success. A key learning point here is that Problem B is a problem, just like any other, so the same key variables and variations apply. All these style-related issues must be faced, along with all those related to other aspects of diversity cognitive and otherwise (e.g., levels of expertise, politics, motives, and so on). Cognitive Gap Another useful concept in understanding and handling diversity in the context of collaboration is cognitive gap, defined as follows: cognitive differences that exist between individuals (whether operating alone or in groups) and between each individual and the cognitive requirements of the problem(s) that must be solved. So, in addition to differences in creative (cognitive) style, cognitive gap can readily be extended to describe all differences related to cognitive function (potential level, knowledge, skills, motive, etc.). As intuitively expected, the larger the differences, the larger the gaps, and the more gaps in evidence, the more challenging the problem solving endeavor becomes. Note that cognitive gap is used to describe differences between people (as individuals and/or groups), as well as differences between people and the problems they face. For convenience, we will refer to these two main categories of cognitive gap as Person-Person gaps and Person-Problem gaps, respectively *1, 2+; in both cases, Person can refer to an individual or a group. With these new concepts and terms in hand, lets return to Figure 2 and identify some of

the Person-Person and Person-Problem gaps we find there and relate them to our previous insights about Problems A and B: Group 1: Here, the Person-Problem cognitive gap is relatively small when the entire group is taken into account; the problem space is fairly well covered along this dimension. Person-Person cognitive gaps may be small or large, depending on which individuals are under consideration. For example, there are several small sub-groups within the larger group that are closely placed along the continuum, while other pairs/sub-groups are a greater distance apart. Group 2: In this case, the Person-Problem cognitive gap is large (no direct coverage of Problem A at all), while Person-Person cognitive gaps are generally small (at least, in terms of this cognitive dimension). Group 3: Finally, here, the Person-Problem cognitive gap may be small or large, depending on the individuals in question; there are two who are close to the boundaries of the problem space. In terms of Person-Person cognitive gaps, this group has the largest challenges; there are only two individuals positioned close to one another within the greater group. Closing Comments In closing, it is important to note a few things: first, since cognitive gaps are almost certain to exist within any problem solving group and in fact, they can be desirable, even necessary, in some ways it makes little sense to ask how we might avoid them. The more relevant question is: How do we understand, analyze, and manage them effectively ? We might sum up this issue as follows: in terms of the problem solving group, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts if and only if its parts collaborate effectively. If they do not collaborate effectively, then the whole can be (indeed, almost certainly will be!) less than the sum of its parts. Diversity, then (with all its enabling and limiting qualities) is natural both within our individual bodies and within the groups we form to solve problems; we must manage diversity well, or we (as a species) will perish. How much, how well, and in what way we can manage it is the key. Within this greater diversity, creative style is a particular form of diversity that we must distinguish in particular, from creative level and then we must manage them both, along with motive and different views of opportunity. We know that a diversity of problem solvers is required to solve a diversity of problems, but the management of this diversity of problems and people (unlike the diversity itself!) does not come naturally to us it must be taught. If we want to manage change widely and well, we must learn to manage diversity wisely and well. References 1. Jablokow, K. W. and Booth, D. E. (2006). The Impact and Management of Cognitive Gap in High Performance Product Development Organizations, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 23, pp. 313-336. 2. Kirton, M. J. (2011). Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change , London: Routledge.

K. W. Jablokow 2013. All rights reserved.