KEY POINTS:
Have you ever called someone a "glass half empty" type person?
When I have tried to express a feeling I have had when seeing something that seemed lacking in some way, I have been scolded for being critical. People have said, "I prefer to see the glass as half full, not as half empty like you do!"
Is this the optimist's view or the view of someone who is happy with status quo or worse, mediocrity?
It's an interesting question, one that reflects the issue of cognitive style. No one would argue that people have different ways of thinking and seeing the world. Why, then, are we so judgmental when it comes to listening to the results of different thinking styles? Some people tend to question everything, as they like to explore options and challenge boundaries. Other people tend to view the boundaries as providing the structure to solve the challenges.
For example, some people will not venture into a grocery store without a list of what to buy. They may create a computer list based on the aisles of their regular grocery store. Other people scoff at this structure that kills the thrill of exploring what's possible as they design their meal plan by walking through a grocery store. The result for both is the same: they buy enough food for their meals.
Those of us who hear this criticism need to equip ourselves with ways to defend our questioning way of seeing the world.
Perhaps the issue is not whether the glass is half full or half empty: perhaps it's that I can see twice as much opportunity as you can.
From research on cognitive diversity, we know that those who "question everything" as a way of solving challenges make up about 20 per cent of any reasonably sized group. As such, your teams will comprise people whose questioning may lead them to see opportunities that others miss. The trouble is how others interpret these comments.
When I ask these innovators to relay the criticisms they've received in job performance reviews, they offer these common responses:
* You think too much.
* You always find the flaws; you're always critical.
* You go off on tangents.
* You're not a team player.
* You're a loner.
People don't want 10 ideas, they just want one.
How is it possible to tell an employee, "You think too much"? The second comment concerns me the most: "You always find the flaws; you're always critical."
When innovators question things, they do so to explore ideas. When others see this exploration of ideas, they may perceive this as criticism when none was intended. I know this situation well. After listening to an idea, I felt I could enhance it if we dealt with some issues. I presented my insights, only to be told, "You're so negative. I am not looking for criticism." I was dumbfounded. I offered no criticism.
Here is the dilemma facing people. Should they contribute knowing that others may see their insight and ideas as criticism?
I have been asked to contribute to group brainstorms because I am an "ideas guy." I participate just like everyone else; and when the leader or facilitator starts to close the discussion on the idea, I notice some weaknesses that, if managed well, could turn a good idea into a great idea.
I am now in a position to decide whether I want say something. Do I risk being labeled "critical" or "skeptical"? Both are equally negative. What to do? If I don't say anything, then I know I am agreeing to something with flaws for the sake of team cohesion.
A test for managing people and ideas: do you induce a 'corporate creativity coma"?
What will you do to create a microclimate during these meetings to make them open to the full contributions of all people?
If you manage this poorly you risk wasting the brain power of people who offer more diversity of thought and insight.
A woman in Toronto once described this failure to manage diversity well. She told me that she stopped short of contributing all that she could in a discussion in order to avoid conflict. She called this a "corporate creativity coma." This leads to a well-researched situation facing many organizations today: the lack of staff engagement.
If you want to keep people engaged, you must consider how you will continue to encourage those who question everything as well as those who are more comfortable with the status quo.
* Ed Bernacki is an international speaker on innovative thinking, currently based in Canada but formerly in New Zealand.
