From what I have learned so far, the amygdala, a tiny, almond-shaped part of the brain is a major culprit. Its regulatory functions have much to do with our emotions.  It’s been called the investigator into the ambiguous. “If something is different or seems amiss, the amygdala fires to find out what’s happened.” When the amygdala is activated, either by fear, ambiguous situations, or potential danger, it can hijack our judgment and creative functioning.

How do we tame the amygdala?  The first step is awareness.  Often we are not conscious that this hijacking is happening, but if we are careful we can recognize what’s going on in two ways.  Physiologically, there can be muscle contraction, hyperventilation, perspiration, and increased blood pressure.  Behaviorally, there are also signs, especially if you are acquainted with your favorite creative talents.  With the talents, a couple of patterns emerge:

1) An exaggeration of your normal self.  For example, if you normally enjoy life and take everything in stride, you may become obsessed with living in the moment and fail to face reality. Or leaders who usually enjoy working with details might suddenly start to obsess over those details. Leaders who normally relish exploring opportunities may become excessively concerned about future possibilities. A typically balanced, more “rational” leadership style can turn into micro-management and convert analysis into paralysis.  Or more nurturing leaders may become obsessed with making sure everyone’s needs are met.

2) On the other hand, you can become totally the opposite of your normal self.  Examples of this stress symptom include an exaggerated concern for details from normally big picture leaders.  Typically objective, analytical and “logical” leaders can become obsessed with the meaning of life or find themselves caught up in raw emotions.  Or, usually nurturing, supportive leaders can become uncharacteristically critical of everyone around them and try to control every little thing.

Getting back to normal.  Recognizing the signs of stress is the first step. The next is getting yourself back to your usual (hopefully creative) self.  Here are some ideas for doing that based on brain research and my study of the creative talents:

• Take a deep breath.
• Practice mindfulness.  One technique from David Rock is to sit quietly with your feet on the floor and pay attention to all the sensations you are feeling in your feet, toes, legs and body.
• Go for a walk, go dancing, or get some other form of exercise
• Deliberately bring your runaway reacting back to a better balance between collecting data and making decisions
• Consciously do something that is outside your normal behavior patterns. For example, if you tend to keep your stress to yourself, find someone to talk to. If you tend to let everyone know about your stress, try to find some alone time and write in a journal. If you tend to want to analyze every little decision, trying letting go. If you are normally a “go with the flow” kind of person, try using some “if-then” analytical tools to move forward.

Of course, the signs of stress can vary by individual, but the key thing is to learn to identify your own signs of stress and find tools and techniques to let you address them quickly. Then you can get back on track to your creative self and well functioning brain.

What are your strategies for managing stress?

First, let’s start off with a definition of collaboration.  I see collaboration as more than teamwork.  Although it certainly involves working together, that work is designed to achieve something new and different as a solution to a complex problem.  There is informal collaboration which happens among learning community and collegial networks and more formal collaboration, where individuals are charged with coming up with a solution to a problem. For the purposes of this post, we can probably address both types.

Nilofer Merchant has written a very insightful post about the dangers of collaboration (http://nilofermerchant.com/2011/12/01/8-dangers-of-collaboration/). She points out that the complex problems requiring collaboration are full of ambiguity and uncertainty around the problem, the ultimate solution, and the roles individuals will play in the effort.  Not everyone has the same comfort level with this type of ambiguity and lack of clarity.  Individuals who prefer details and clear paths to solutions may struggle with the cloudiness inherent in a collaboration effort.

In addition, there is research suggesting that other personality differences can affect collaboration.  For example, individuals with extraverted/introverted preferences tend to have different types of networks that support collaboration.  Those with extraverted talents or preferences will build wider, larger networks that are “sparser,” or less connected.  Those with introverted talents or preferences will have deeper and denser networks, with more interconnections.  We might also hypothesize that those individuals who favor extraversion will prefer to interact face to face in groups or teams, and those individuals who favor introversion might prefer more written communication or more one on one interactions.

It’s clear to me at least that cognitive preferences for data collecting and decision making could play a role in the actual work of collaboration.  Individuals who prefer logical, objective information might clash with those who prefer subjective data, considering people and relationships.  There might be disagreement around the type of data considered – details and specifics or patterns, trends and concepts.  Personality preferences for closure could come up against those who prefer open ended loose conversations.  We know these biases impact team results so isn’t it safe to assume they will influence collaborative efforts as well?

Personality preferences might also influence the type of collaborative tools that are used.  Brainstorming may or may not appeal to everyone, for example.  Some individuals might prefer more reflective idea generation tools, such as Brainwriting or more structured techniques, such as TRIZ.  And what about comfort levels with conflict, a crucial component of achieving creative results from collaboration?  Preferences can play a role here as can abilities and knowledge on how to disagree constructively.

We know that the cognitive differences impact the shape and form of creative contributions.  Might they also cause hurdles to collaboration that need to be recognized?  If we are going to break down barriers to collaboration with the intent of producing more innovative outcomes, perhaps we need to consider cognitive obstacles?

Collaboration expert Morton Hansen in his book “Collaboration: How Leaders avoid the Traps, Create Unity and Reap Big Results” argues for more research on this topic of personality traits.  What are your thoughts?

One of the key reasons why I love my church is its Senior Minister and CEO, who is both a terrific preacher and a truly great leader. She provides an incredible lesson in creative leadership, in her recent handling of what could have been a major disaster for Old South.

Our beautiful church building borders on a Boston subway line.  On December 3, 2008, a project to upgrade and make accessible the nearby subway station created a huge crack in the church’s east wall, which began underground at the foundation, rose 85’ up to the roof, and endangered the Church’s E.M. Skinner Organ (Op. 308) organ as well as the integrity of the east facade. The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (the “T”) assumed full responsibility.

Senior Minister Nancy S. Taylor, who had warned the T about the possible danger years before the project was initiated, spent the next three years showing what truly creative leadership is all about.

She brought together several church members to form what became known as the “Crack Team.”  Together, they spent countless hours negotiating, planning, pushing, cajoling, challenging, encouraging, and at times even threatening the right people just the right amount.  Under her leadership, the Crack Team refused to make an insurance claim that would have raised insurance costs for every church in the denomination—and most likely wouldn’t have covered the cost of the restoration in any event.  The Team also refused to sue and spend years on a lawsuit that would have wasted time, broken many relationships—and probably wouldn’t have recovered the full cost of the restoration anyway.

As a truly creative, outstanding leader, Nancy led the church on a different course.  According to our associate minister, “They said this church couldn’t do it. They said we’d never be able to be made fully whole. Or if we did, that we would never recoup the full cost of the restoration. Or if we did, that we would never do it without litigation.”

Reverend Taylor and her team proved them wrong.  Incredibly, on the other side of the successful resolution of the “Crack,” after all the meetings and hours that she and the Crack Team members would rather have spent on something else, everybody ended up happy:  the T, the contractors, the lawyers, the insurance people, and Old South members.  Good relationships were forged with everyone with whom the Crack Team worked, and some of those folks with whom they negotiated are now joining us on Sundays, every now and then.  A truly amazing, win-win story!  That’s what great creative leaders are supposed to do:  work with their crew to take the ship safely through dangerous waters, by finding a new direction that brings everyone to different and better shores.

What are some examples of great creative leaders you know who don’t make the national news?

The above contains (with permission) portions of a tribute to Reverend Taylor given by Old South’s associate minister Quinn Caldwell, on December 5, 2011, at the re-dedication of the church.

1. Identify your organization’s criteria for evaluating and deciding to further pursue ideas that are generated.
2. Ask the right questions, those that force participants to take a new and unfamiliar perspective and that limit the conceptual space the team will explore, without being so restrictive that it forces particular answers or outcomes.  For example, a consumer electronics company looking to develop new products might start with questions such as “What’s the biggest avoidable hassle our customers endure?” and “Who uses our product in ways we never expected?”
3. Choose the right people, those who can answer the questions you’re asking, including those with firsthand, “in the trenches” knowledge.
4. Divide and conquer, by breaking sessions up into smaller groups of 3-4 participants, focused on separate questions, within limited time frames, and isolate “idea crushers” (bosses, “big mouths,” and subject matter experts).
5. Set clear expectations so that participants are clear about what they will—and won’t—accomplish.
6. Wrap it up at the end of the session, on a high note, by describing exactly what steps will be taken to choose the winning ideas and how they will learn about the final decisions.
7. Follow up quickly on these commitments.

These recommendations are a terrific improvement on traditional brainstorming. As I have long advocated with my clients when consulting on developing more creative leaders, truly creative efforts require clarity around objectives and success criteria. By recognizing this important ingredient, McKinsey’s advice provides a well-structured approach that will greatly enhance idea generation.

I would, however, add one other consideration to further enhance the outcomes of a “brainsteering” session – and that is to recognize individual cognitive differences during these sessions. Not everyone is comfortable or at their creative best in a group setting with everyone talking. Some people get a lot of inspiration by being off by themselves and letting ideas and thoughts incubate.

Thus, “brainsteering,” no matter how well structured, should not be the only idea generating tool for a team. Team leaders can add techniques that allow for quiet reflection, incubation, and the creative inspiration that can ensue for everyone. These techniques include journaling, brainwriting, or Bryan Mattimore’s brainwalking and can be done either inside the sub-group session or outside the general session. By carefully balancing group activities with more reflective ones, teams will tap into the introspective side of every team member’s creativity and allow all team members to maximize their creative contributions!

What has been your experience with different idea generation tools?

If questions are so important, how can we learn to ask better ones? Here are three important points to remember:

1. Good questions challenge mental models or those blinders that often keep us from seeing what’s possible. Novel questions open up new worlds of opportunity. For example, asking the question “How can we optimize our car rental business?” generates a different set of answers – a fairly limited set, in fact. But asking “How can we optimize our transportation business?” opens up all sorts of possibilities around expanding into hourly contracts for other forms of transportation, such as Zip-cars, bikes, Segways, or scooters.

2. Related to the need to switch mental models to be a more effective leader is the demand for more innovation — in process, products or services. Most innovations represent an answer to a new question, or to an old question asked in a new way. To come up with some unexpected perspectives, try asking a different question. For example, “What haven’t we thought of?” “What can we try?” or “What can we do with this?”

3. Since the questions we ask ourselves are important in influencing our behavior and feelings, we need to look at these internal questions as well. What would happen to our openness to change and risk if we switched from asking ”What could I lose” to “What can I learn?” Or, instead of asking “How could I do such a stupid thing?” what about asking “What benefit can I get from this?”

Because questions are so critical, we need to design ones that challenge assumptions, generate more creative answers, and widen the lens of “our perceptions of what is possible.” One of the first steps in developing good questioning skills is to learn to “question our questions!” We can do this by asking,

• What do I want this question to accomplish?
• Is this question expansive, inspiring, and bold?
• Could this question lead to unforeseen, creative answers?
• Does this question generate new learning?

Why not start building a portfolio of questions to open up worlds and expand possibilities? A great resource is the book Leading with Questions by Michael Marquardt http://amzn.to/v0jOUY.

According to Meg Armstrong, an executive coach: “Curiosity and asking penetrating questions are enduring qualities in the best leaders.” And management guru, Jim Collins has said: “there is nothing more exciting than picking a question that I don’t know the answer to and questing for answers!”

So, why is it that leaders are so afraid to ask questions?

While absorbing the incredible glass creations of color, shapes and sizes, I realized that the  life and experience of Dale Chihuly provides many important lessons for creative leaders:

1.  Artists learn from anyone anywhere.  Chihuly studied and learned formally at Rhode Island School of Design and from masters in Venice and around the world.  He was also inspired by nature, Native American Indian basket and blanket design, his brother’s red roadster, or a neon sign over the bar where his mother sometimes worked.  According to a Boston Globe article, he was fascinated by the way the color flickered and steamed in the rain when he showed up to fetch her home.  Leaders too can study nature, observe closely and look beyond their own culture for ideas and to learn.  They must also be open to where new learning may take them.
2. Artists think expansively and experiment.  Chihuly’s sights are set not just on what he can put on a sculpture stand.  He also focuses on what he can create to change the character of the space where the sculpture is located — a room, house, field, or waterway. Early on, he worked not just in glass but also in many different mediums, such as neon, dry ice, and experimental plastics.  Leaders also must think beyond their immediate environment and be willing to try new things, while still considering how a new direction can change the character of the organization.
3. Artists must have a thick skin.  Called by some as a “master of color and light” and a major American artist, Chihuly has also been accused of frivolity and superficiality.   Because he is passionate about his art, his attitude toward critique is “there is nothing any artist can do about people who dislike his work.”  Leaders also must walk a fine line between listening to feedback and being bold and courageous with new ideas.
4. The art and science of creativity is in the execution.  Chihuly has been quoted as saying, “with an idea, the interesting thing is to make it work.”  As I have said many times before, leaders who figure out how to get an idea implemented can be just as creative as those who come up with the idea in the first place.
5. The life of an artist is not easy.   Chihuly suffered through the early deaths of his father and brother, loss of an eye and bodily injuries through accidents, and took his time getting through school.  He responded to these challenges with hard work, determination, and developing a glass blowing team to create his masterpieces, instead of as a solo artist.  Neither is it easy to be a leader.  But building a team they can trust will enable leaders to became a choreographer, not dancer, an architect, not builder.

Did you see the exhibit or have you seen any of Chihuly’s works?  If so, do you have any more lessons for leaders to add to the list?

In a recent at (www.TheHumanFactor.biz), Holly Green described the dangers of using a SWOT analysis in strategic planning.  In summary she wrote:  “a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities & threats) analysis is an integral part of most strategic planning processes. And it can be very helpful and powerful tool because an accurate identification of SWOTs plays an important role in determining subsequent steps in the planning process.  But a SWOT is not always all that it is cracked up to be!

As Green points out, a SWOT analysis is intended to drive exploration of new and better ways to add value to customers by focusing on an organization’s key competencies to leverage possibilities or avoid threats.  However, leaders too often use the SWOT process to blame competitors, the economy, or other external factors for things they can’t control.  As a result, they end up spinning their wheels rather than gaining any real traction to move the company forward.

There are many approaches to make a SWOT more effective.  Green suggests asking the right questions and using the information that is uncovered to develop new strategies.  Some of the questions she recommended asking are:

• Where have we really been able to excel?
• Is there something we have that we don’t use/do enough?
• Is there something we can develop quickly that we can leverage?
• What has gotten in our way in the past?
• How do we get in our own way?
• What are our competitors most worried we will do? Should we do that?
• What signals are critical to assessing our relationships with our market and customers?

Green suggests that leaders also reflect on how they “do” strategic planning in the first place.  For example:

• What proportion of our organization’s resources go towards maintaining and enhancing the status quo?
• How much time do we spend leading and nurturing new directions?
• What new efforts have we started in the past year? What efforts have we stopped?
• Is our long-term thinking focused on the few critical things that matter? Are we vigilantly avoiding the many possible diversions that arise?

Responders to her post added two other great ideas to improve the use of a SWOT analysis.  The first is to explore additional analytical tools.  The Strategy Canvas developed by the authors of Blue Ocean Strategy is one such tool.  The second suggestion is to make sure that culture is addressed.  Leaders can do this by asking — against each SWOT category —  what is it about our culture that impacts this area?

I would add two more recommendations to improve SWOTs:

1. Too often, leaders fail to realize that a SWOT Analysis is intended to develop strategies, not just to do a series of lists!  A good SWOT analysis forces leaders to come up with creative answers to the questions: “How do we use our strengths to take advantage of opportunities and to ward off threats?” and “How do we overcome our weaknesses to take advantage of opportunities and ward off threats?” It’s the well-thought-through and inventive strategies that emerge in answer to these questions that are the valuable outcome of the exercise.
2. In addition, I find that too often leaders fail to understand that opportunities and threats are those EXTERNAL forces that can impact the organization.  Thus a good SWOT analysis involves a great deal of research into current and future EXTERNAL drivers — economic, demographic, financial, political, etc. — that could affect the organization’s future.  It’s only with a rich array of such information that leaders can take full advantage of a SWOT analysis.

What has been your experience with SWOTs?

The panel will be using their research from China, Latin America, and Sierra Leone to address the questions:  Is leadership understood similarly in different cultures around the world? What role does culture play in mental models of “leadership?”  Based on this research, we will examine the challenges of defining “leadership” globally and discuss the implications for global leadership development.

We believe that global leadership programs are often rooted in a western model and understanding of leadership and fail to take into account the variety of leadership mental models found around the world.  Most programs provide a great benefit by developing in leaders an appreciation and understanding of cultures, customs, and habits specific to the geographies that they must manage.  However, rarely do such programs address the issues of deeply rooted culturally-based mental models of “leader” and “leadership.”

Our 90-minute session will start off with comments by the panel members to spur questions from the audience.  Roughly half way through the session, we will open the floor up to the audience for further discussion around the topic.   Here are some of the questions we plan to ask.

1. How do you react to the premise that programs designed to develop global leaders too often tend to overlook culturally rooted mental models of leadership?
2. If indeed our mental models of leadership have deep cultural roots, what competencies might leaders need to be truly global?
3. What techniques might be used to develop these competencies?
4. Are there universal competencies and then some that might be culturally specific?  How do we manage any global vs. local tension?
5. How might this discussion also connect to cultures within an organization?

A vivid example of a culturally based mental model of leaders was given by a colleague in a workshop at last year’s ILA conference.  In the Ukraine, where he was raised, the word for leader is “rukovoditel,” which roughly translated, means one who “takes by the hand.”  As the word indicates, the cultural mental model was top-down leadership with workers being told what to do (led by the hand!).  Such a mindset resulted in several obstacles to attempts to develop teams when foreign companies came in after Glasnost to help with the privatization of industries!  If you have additional examples, I would love to hear them!

I’ll provide a summary of the discussion in a subsequent post when I return, but I thought you might have some thoughts on this issue?

As we drove through the absolutely beautiful countryside of the relatively unknown Dordogne region of France, with its picturesque villages, castles, prehistoric cave paintings, delicious wine and food, I was reminded of the importance of history in creativity.  We tend to dismiss the impact of history and too often associate creativity with coming up with something brand new. Similarly, the notion of “creative destruction” is frequently considered a prerequisite for organizational innovation and creativity. I hold a quite different view. I believe history plays a critical role in innovation for two reasons.

First, Few creative ideas are truly original. Most are built on the work of others. Which is why a proper understanding and appreciation of history is so important!

Let’s look at an example.

The invention of the printing press, considered by many to be the greatest invention in history, was not the work of one individual. Years of small adaptations and persistence by many who preceded Gutenberg paved the way. Gutenberg’s creative contribution of moveable type was the last step.

Secondly, history not only provides a foundation on which to adapt.  Understanding history also contributes insights into the context in which a change or innovation will occur. Appreciating the history of an organization, its culture and its experience with other strategic changes is a vital step in managing the challenges of selling and implementing an innovation, often the most critical factors contributing to the success of the innovation.

I know I am learning a great deal from helping my 94-year-old co-author write his legacy.  In reading the stories he writes about World War II, growing up in the depression, cherishing his family and friends with love and laughter, and starting his own business in the 1960’s, I find so many lessons from this fine example of what Tom Brokaw calls “The Greatest Generation.”

So, rather than dismissing history and those who remind us of its critical lessons, we need to recognize that “history teaches us what not to do more often than what to do. The key is, though, history teaches.”

How do you feel about history and its role in successful innovations?

From what I have learned, certain standards prevail throughout the various in stages of the distillery process, such as the minimum number of years for aging and how long the barley stays in fermentation. However, it turns out, there are at least six factors driving the distinctive bouquets, flavors, and colors of the different malt whiskies:

1.  A source of good, soft water is essential. Neighboring distilleries with different sources of water produce distinctly different whiskies.
2. In certain parts of Scotland, the amount of peat used to fuel the barley fermentation process imparts a very distinctive flavor, as anyone who prefers Islay whiskies to those of the Glen region knows!
3. The shape of the stills affects the amount of secondary substances left from the malted barley and the peat, which in turn affect the flavor of the whisky.
4. The skills of the staff who determine when the distillate has reached the desired strength are also important in maintaining consistency over the years.
5. The type of wood and previous uses of the barrels, for Oloroso sherry or American Bourbon for example, will cause the color and taste of the liquor to vary.
6. Finally, the Scottish air and breezes that surround the casks as the whisky ages will also affect the quality and flavor of the whisky.

Many of the distilleries also have different ownership structures that influence the strategies of the distilleries. One we visited is part of an alliance with other distilleries. One has accepted a large Japanese investment and is focusing on producing whisky to be used in other blended scotches. And one has gone through multiple owners and is now the boutique whisky of a larger distillery. Some outsource different stages of the process, such as fermentation or bottling. Thus there are several different business and operating models.

As you sit back and sip on your favorite beverage, whether it’s whisky, wine, tea, coffee or whatever, you might want to ponder some questions. How long has it been since you’ve taken the time to consider what makes your organization distinct? How might the particular climate within your company and its operating structure affect the organization’s long-term prosperity? How are you making sure that the talents of your staff are recognized and that key staff are retained to maintain the consistency and the quality of your organization’s products and services?