Summary:
- Part 1: Younger, entry-level team members may be more motivated by a sense of ownership and belonging to a larger cause, rather than just a paycheck.
- Part 2: An enthusiastic new-hire’s curiosity, combined with their lack of experience may help identify blind-spots in culture, tools, processes and roadblocks that may help improve organizational performance.
- Part 3: Empowering your lowest-level team members to be able to explain your organization’s goals and decision-making strategy may help support creativity and critical thinking.
- Part 4: Recognition for an entry-level team member may be as simple as genuinely expressing interest in their contributions, even if they are minor.
Hard working, but distracted!
Recently, a group of managers on a conference call were discussing the gap between our expectations of performance for our entry-level positions and what our Millennial employees actually deliver. A comment was made about a group of very hard-working, intelligent, and creative individuals that seem to get distracted and off-task on a regular basis. “We’re constantly having to reel them back in! They work really hard but don’t actually finish the simple thing I asked them to do.”, “They keep talking about automation or how to improve all our processes, but they haven’t taken the time or seemingly have the self-discipline to learn our traditions. They just need to conform to what we tell them and pay their dues for a few years.”
There could be a large number of reasons why these complaints manifest themselves. It is possible that the person in question is narcissistic, emotionally vulnerable, anxious, struggling with problems at home, or struggling with any variety or combination of reasonable issues. We are not going to tackle all of them here, but we explore one possible correlation. Artistic and creative employees can mistakenly be misdiagnosed by a manager and treated improperly to achieve the desired outcomes.
Do not punish people for their virtues
The personality trait associated with highly artistic, intellectual, and creative individuals is strongly rooted in biology and is visible as structural brain differences[1] from the norm in fMRI scans (Riccelli, 2017). Twin studies show that this is likely to be the most heritable aspect of personality (Vernon, 2008). Creative people see patterns and possibility in many things. They do not respond well to a dogmatically-imposed need for definite answers or closed projects (Trapnell, 1994) (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). They tend to value self-direction, stimulation, and universal welfare (Parks-Leduc, 2015).
Creative people do not generally conform to tradition. Security of a stable job is one of the least motivating characteristics for people near the upper pole of this personality trait. Offering them security through conformity would be generally demotivating; these are not values that these personalities typically subscribe to (Parks-Leduc, 2015).
This cognitive disposition is not an arbitrary choice that can be easily negotiated or reprimanded out of the employee[2]. These characteristics are integral to personality and should be positively fostered with a supportive environment[3] if it is appropriate for your organizational needs.
Creativity does not predict success
Creativity can be an asset to certain domains, but it is not entirely self-evident that the stable, inner gears and levers of all organizations would always benefit from people that are highly creative.
Well-structured and stable organizations do not generally provide fostering environments for creative people. Creative personalities have a strong tendency to be non-conformists and most likely would not be willing to be placed neatly within a stable structure. On the other hand, organizations going through restructuring, reorganization, or consolidations, may benefit from the creative, lateral thinking that is required posit a new direction.
In 2005, a series of Canadian legal firms nominated their top corporate legal counsel for a study sponsored by the Canadian publisher Lexpert. The Top 40 under 40 were selected to study what unifying characteristics made up these excellent performers. “They defy stereotypes…” (Taylor, 2005).
“These people are not lawyers in the pure sense anymore. They are a unique hybrid that is part lawyer, part business leader and, in some cases, part entrepreneur.”
Jim Riley, senior corporate partner in the Toronto office of Ogilvy Renault LLP.
The leading unifying characteristics for these lawyers are raw intelligence (98th percentile), and Conscientiousness (88th percentile). Conscientiousness generally describes a tendency to be organized, work hard, ambitious, and trustworthy. Creativity, however, is not their strong suit. The study finds that they are actually fairly average in their creative potential.
“While this group are in the 77th percentile of extroversion, their creativity, while very good, is not as high as one would think it would be, especially considering how high their raw intelligence is. Essentially, many are more conservative thinkers.”
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, clinical psychologist.
People that value conformity and security are entirely different people from the visionaries and creatives (Parks-Leduc, 2015). They are not the same personality, or the same person at all. Neither of these personalities are intrinsically better or worse than the other; they should, however, match the needs and values of your organization and statement of work.
Competitive organizations in the market need a balance of both extremes: those that only think outside the box, and those who will follow clear direction and implement. Leaning too far to the creative side, the long-term financial stability of constant change comes into question. Leaning too far to the stability side, the return on investment may be more stable, but the adaptability demanded by the market outpaces the organization and forces restructuring, reorganization, or consolidation.
A different approach: goals, values and constraints
The biological roots of creative behavior are strong[4]. If the needs of the organization do not support the hiring of creative people, it should not be expected that anyone can be coached out of, or worse, reprimanded for, a biologically-based cognitive predisposition.Statement of work definition for a creative person is not straight forwards. Motivating and keeping existing creative employees is also not straight forwards.
Consider the statement of work and the associated constraints. Does it need to be done in a particular fashion? Is there already a predetermined process for completing the task? Is the work repetitive? These types of tasks are not well suited for creative personalities.
On the other hand, tasks that start with a premise and value structure instead of a list of instructions may support creativity. For example, drawing out the general rules of the game and stating an objective: “We’re playing street soccer. The objective is to score as many points as possible by kicking this ball into that net. You’re generally constrained to using your feet, and you should stay inside the bounds of the field. Here are some examples of what has been done in the past for you to look at.”
Providing a purpose and an end goal allows these personalities to use their creativity to get through the intermediate challenges. Consider the balance between the objectives being too exacting or too vague for the experience of the employee. Lack of clear ideals, values, or tools to work with can turn any project into a ‘rock-fetching exercise’. Dispel confusion without micromanaging or obscuring your intentions.
Open people highly value self-direction. Fostering an environment that allows them to take personal ownership of your values and act creatively on your behalf is much more motivating to them than the more authoritarian top-down command structure. Consider your communication approach with each person individually. Consider the use of value-focused thinking for your creative employees.
- What are the near-term goals and priorities? How does their daily work fit in to these goals?
- What do we value, and how is it measured? Are these values aligned with the basis for decision-making and conflict resolution?
- Who is impacted by the work? How can we leverage some of our existing structures and processes to support effective communication with people that have diverse viewpoints and personalities?
Curious to understand your own personality? head to www.understandmyself.com
Footnotes
- As part of the Human Connectome Project, over 500 participants helped researchers further the link FFM traits with a neuroanatomical basis. “Openness was linked to thinner cortex and greater area and folding in prefrontal–parietal regions” (Riccelli et al., 2017, p. 671-684). This suggests that a person’s tendency to think creatively seems to be embedded in the underlying physical structure of their brain
- Creativity is highly covariate with the stable Five-Factor Model (FFM) psychometric personality trait: Openness to Experience. The underlying facets of this trait split into a few, rather disparate, categories that have been generally described as aesthetic sensitivity, and interest in ideas (McCrae et al., 2005a). This personality trait should not be confused with interpersonal openness or frankness (Sneed, McCrae, & Funder, 1998). “Openness is seen in the breadth, depth, and permeability of consciousness, and in the recurrent need to enlarge and examine experience” (McCrae & Costa, 1997, p. 826). This trait has a wide range of cognitive and social consequences, and really shapes how people perceive the world.
- Konstabel (2007) found a strong relationship between someone’s perceived social desirability of trait Openness and their own self-reports. For example, people who enjoy discussing philosophy, tend to find people who similarly like to discuss philosophy, desirable. This suggests that groups of creative people tend to support each other.
- Vernon et al. (2007) studied 75 pairs of twins residing in the US and Canada. They found that, for trait Openness, “the majority of the variance is attributable to genetic and non-shared environmental factors, with genetic factors accounting for [72%] of the variance.”
References
Personality Test ($10)
- Get a list of objectives
- Structure the objectives for each individual
- Integrate them into a common set of objectives
Bender, M. B. (2010). A manager’s guide to project management: Learn how to apply best practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Cappelli, P., & Hamori, M. (2004). The path to the top: Changes in the attributes and careers of corporate executives, 1980-2001 (No. w10507). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Konstabel, K. (2007). The more like me, the better”: Individual differences in social desirability ratings of personality items. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tartu, Estonia.
Leary, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825-847).
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: data from 50 cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(3), 547.
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3-29. Pinker, S. (2016). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature.
Riccelli, R., Toschi, N., Nigro, S., Terracciano, A., & Passamonti, L. (2017). Surface-based morphometry reveals the neuroanatomical basis of the five-factor model of personality. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 12(4), 671-684.
Saucier, G. (1994). Trapnell versus the lexical factor: more ado about nothing?. European Journal of Personality, 8(4), 291-298.
Sneed, C. D., McCrae, R. R., & Funder, D. C. (1998). Lay conceptions of the five-factor model and its indicators. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(2), 115-126.
Taylor, I. E. (2005, November 1). Lexpert ® | The Top 40 Corporate Counsel: 40 and Under 40. Retrieved from http://www.lexpert.ca/article/the-top-40-corporate-counsel-40-and-under-40/
Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(2), 445-452.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(6), 1049.
