Brainwriting the New Brainstorming

In his post Bob Sutton suggests that brainwriting has proven more effective than brainstorming at producing ideas. So of course, I was intrigued what this new technique was all about. After a quick bit of reading here is the summary of the steps for this technique.

1. Members of the group write down ideas on pieces of paper in silence


2. The pieces of paper are passed between each other and then the individuals add to the idea their own thoughts. Different color pens help in this distinction between ideas.


3. Once each piece of paper has been shared with each member then the pieces of paper are placed in the center of the table for all to see.
4. These steps are repeated up to 25 times. depending on time available.


5. Then the group divides up an individuals go away and try to recall as many of the ideas as possible.


6. Finally each individual works alone to generate more ideas

This technique has been shown to be more productive in idea generation and can help reduce group think that can occur from some brainstorming sessions.

Brainstorming 2.0

Fast Company and Jonah Lehrer, have recently written some interesting ideas around the value of brainstorming, and whether it even works. Is brainstorming really a waste of time?

Brainstorming as a tool for creative people has been used since the 1940's when Alex Osborn (BBDO) came up with this process for idea generation for his teams of advertising gurus. This was part of 6 phases he proposed for creative problem solving.

  1. Mess-finding (Objective Finding) 
  2. Fact-finding 
  3. Problem-Finding 
  4. Idea-finding 
  5. Solution finding (Idea evaluation) 
  6. Acceptance-finding (Idea implementation)Idea generation is a vital part of each phase, as is deciding which ideas are most relevant to carry forward to the subsequent phase.

He sheltered the ideas and creativity from criticism in the early stages so that the individuals were more free to imagine and not face criticism when ideating, which he believed would stifle input from people. Alex promoted this concept as part of BBDO's secret sauce to creativity. Now any company worth their salt in the innovation space uses brainstorming as part of the creative process. So have we be fooled?

So what is wrong with brainstorming? Is it broken, or does it just not work?

Well one argument that Lehrer puts forward is that some research suggests that people can be more creative working alone. It seems putting people into large groups doesn't increase creativity and idea generation. Instead group dynamics affect each person's contribution. This makes a lot of sense and groupthink is something that has been researched and written about by Susan Cain. I have also come across this idea in "The Innovation Killer" by Cynthia Rabe. Groupthink was an observation put forward by Irving Janus, that groups can make faulty decisions and behave irrationally even when presented with facts. 


Janus outlines some of the symptoms of group think as:

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

People in groups have dynamics they bring to the group such as hierarchy in the team and social interactions. We like to be agreeable to fit in better with peers rather than upset the status quo. This doesn't really suggest brainstorming doesn't work, but is definitely something that can be fixed with better organisation and realization that this groupthink problem can arise. The real point is not just bringing groups of people together, but bringing the right people to the group and sessions. Outside thinkers, or zero gravity thinkers as Rabe suggest can help in this, by not having the same associations with the group performing the brainstorming these personality types might be more open to making comments and not falling prey to group thinking. Also, just being aware of the problem can help the group realize that it might be occurring and find ways to stop groupthink occuring


The next argument brings up that criticism actually improves the brainstorming process, which I think is maybe missing the point of brainstorming. Brainstorming is about idea generation not the next pahse which would be evaluation. The argument goes that in an experiment where two groups brainstormed with one allowing criticism and the other didn't that the critical group actually performed better with the number of ideas. Now of course not knowing exactly the process they used, I would assume that maybe what happened is that the criticism actually generated new ideas. This would fall inline with one of the brainstorming rules or build on the ideas of others. I don't think criticism actually was the catalyst for new ideas, but probably got people focusing on one idea at a time, as they would have discussed one idea a little further, then generated ideas from that original, just as brainstorming is meant to. 


I think adding a new rule that allows criticism is not the answer, it is going to quickly lead to resentment, of the idea generator, who will feel personally criticized and more importantly bring back the problem of quiet people not speaking up for fear of "stupid ideas". I do however think that building on peoples ideas gives this concept a positive spin, focusing people on ideas one at a time. Interestingly the Fast Company article does go on to say that criticism allows refining and redefining the problem, which increases creativity. I agree that problem definition is one of the hardest and most important steps, I am not sure you need criticism to do this but I do agree that it is an important part of brainstorming, to know what exactly you are trying to solve.


Lehrer goes on the describe that creativity is about happenstance not planning. This I agree with having a team of diverse experts working together is indeed more important for innovation to happen than having teams spread out across buildings or countries. This makes a lot of sense, there are more chance interactions and shared knowledge moments when people are closer together. I also agree that fresh approaches from new team members and outsiders can be invigorating for a stale team that is churning over the same ideas and problems for a long time. I would even consider idea pollination through collaborative workspaces. Environments are known to have a huge affect on what happens in them, create a creative space and people will feel more creative.

So the final question is do we need to drop brainstorming or can it be reworked. I believe that brainstorming is a valuable tool in idea generation and some of the rules outlined here are incredibly useful for making it work.  Yes there are good sessions and bad sessions, the real problem exists when people become complacent and think that it is some magical process to have the next big idea. Brainstorming is really a catalyst of idea creation, it can help teams bond across departments, it can fuel lateral thinking and also generate amazing ideas outside of the problem space. Brainstorming, needs to be part of your culture, the more you do it the better it gets. With the right facilitator, I believe that brainstorming can address all the problem Lehrer puts forward, all that needs to be remembered is that you are dealing with people and as such they have feelings(and don't like to be criticized) and need motivations(positive feedback) to work together problem solving. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss all the work that companies like IDEO and Stanford's d.school have put forward to make successful brainstorming sessions, these companies and teams have proven the power of brainstorming and show that great ideas can be found in these sessions. It takes work and effort but the results can be very rewarding and the process a great deal of fun.

Seems I am not the only one whom sees a flaw in the article about brainstorming, Bob Sutton with way more clout and experience than me, has a similar feeling that brainstorming when done correctly can be a very effective way to produce ideas. He suggests that giving people the problem in advance of a brainstorm can let individuals come prepared to contribute having already immersed themselves in the problem space. He makes some excellent points and more importantly knows the pros and cons of brainstorming first hand. He sees brainstorming as a combination of individual and group thinking all happening in parallel when facilitated correctly with good techniques. The switch from individual to social modes can be done easily by expert brainstorming facilitators. One important insight is that the work of Robert Zajonc, that suggests that people are unable to withhold judgement on anything they encounter.

I put together the rules of what leads to a great brainstorming session here.

Here is a summary of what Jonah Lehrer proposes would help fix some of the issues with brainstorming.

• Rather than brainstorm with the traditional “no criticism, every idea is worthy” rule, encourage debate. It isn’t pretty or polite, but team members engage more with their colleagues’ ideas. They often come up with more thoughts–many of them unpredictable and original–after facing conflicts (the conclusions of a study by U.C. Berkeley psychology professor Charlan Nemeth).

• Take a cue from the most successful Broadway musicals (Lehrer points to empirical evidence conducted by Brian Uzzi, a sociologist at Northwestern University), which tend to have a mix of repeat collaborators and new talent on their creative teams, rather than closed circles of long-time co-workers, or all-new groups who aren’t familiar with each other.

• Collaborate physically near others to promote better group ideas. The ideal distance? Thirty-two feet. This is based on research by Harvard Medical School researcher Isaac Kohane, who used the numbers of citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers as a metric. Those groups with the most citations for their collaborative papers were working within 32 feet of one another. Those with the least were at least a half a mile apart.

• Force teams into chance encounters in the workplace, via architecture. Lehrer cites Walter Isaacson’s recent biography of Steve Jobs: Jobs guided the design of Pixar’s headquarters to offer an atrium that housed the only bathrooms in the building (later, more were added)–thus increasing the odds that writers and programmers would discuss cross-disciplinary ideas, even during their breaks.

• Consider abandoning beautiful design when attempting to create an effective creative space. Lehrer cites Building 20 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (which has been demolished), originally a temporary building nicknamed the “plywood palace.” Bose Corporation used it as an incubator. The first video game was created there. And linguistic study was revolutionized within Building 20, too. It was so ugly and underdesigned, researchers who worked there were forced to customize their work spaces. The room numbering made no sense, and people got lost. So they wandered into each other’s genuinely creative, personalized labs and offices. And exchanged ideas.

• Think about it: brainstorming, for all its ostensible freedom of thought, actually asks teams to follow a script of non-criticism and free-flowing associations. Consider re-writing it.

Kodak's Dilemma

I can remember the first time I got my grubby little hands on a Kodak camera as a child taking snapshots of my parents and cows whilst on holiday. It was a a strange delight to get the pictures back from the chemist (pharmacist), and look at the results, of course a lot of them were incorrectly exposed and blurry but some were pure gold and the stuff of great memories. I thank Kodak for some of those great moments captured, whether with their cameras or their film rolls, they played a huge part in capturing my memories for scrap books and photo albums. The Kodak brand took years to build and was one of the most respected in the realm of photography, they had huge brand value and by all respects should have continued to be a great brand. Sadly their journey is coming to an end and now their brand will be in the scrap heap with other unexpected giants they made similar mistakes when it comes to disruptive technology.


Of course, the World changed with the invention of digital cameras and image processing, and this is where the mighty Kodak failed, they took their eye off the landscape of photography and ultimately failed to react quickly enough to gain ground. Now this is very interesting considering that Kodak actually invented the first digital cameras back in 1975, sadly for them they focused on high end users and sold their technology for use in other peoples hardware. It took Sony to turn the digital camera into a viable consumer product. So what is obvious is that Kodak, suffered from what Clayton Christensen would refer to in his book as the innovators dilemma. As he suggests these huge multi-billion companies are mostly interesting in keeping their current customers happy and they innovate to improve their existing products for those specific customers. Certainly Kodak was not short on innovative talent they hold hundreds of patents estimated at $2.6 billion, but they were not necessarily being innovative in the right areas. A company like Kodak is not going to be willing to invest in an untried technology in a new market, until they start seeing a worthwhile investment of restructuring and planning new strategies. This of course is the dilemma, to innovate and start planning future revenues but not investing so heavily that the existing revenue generation and customers are not neglected. The disruptive technology came from below and shifted the landscape, eventually over taking existing film based technology.

So the question is how could they have done it differently, how might Kodak have dealt with the new trend in photography and ultimately could design thinking have helped in this process? Could Kodak have been saved, could they have moved their brand into the 21st century?

So let's see what went wrong first. CEO, George Fischer, had been working on the digital strategy for Kodak, but the first mistake was underestimating the growth of this category. The assumption was only power users would be interested in the disruptive technology, why jeopardize their existing core business, that was their second mistake. Thirdly they let other brands start to dominate the market presence, because they saw no direct threat to their core business model. Then we look at their expertise and engineers and see that Kodak were absolutely experts in film and processing and even had developed digital technology, but had failed repeatedly to invest in this team and product arm. This of course created instability within Kodak between teams at rivalry with each other, the old school versus the new up and comer. This does not create a good environment for innovation, and then budgets get called into question. Should the core team get the funding or the new teams? The company sold off it's huge health imaging business for over $2.3 billion, and missed out on the baby boomer retirement crowd. Again they were resistant to updating and growing their company in digital. Then came the camera phone, and now digital was everywhere, Kodak was far from ready for this shift. They really didn't see companies like Fuji as important to follow and keep a close eye on, and as such they were surprised as Fuji, dominated the Japanese market then increased share in the US. Fuji film had great distribution models and continued to grow in the digital space. Consumers had changed and were more willing to accept imports from Japan that were well made and manufactured as well as cheap. Of course, it all ended with price battles that ultimately lead to Kodak's demise as the overheads and investments ate away at their bottom lines. Kodak, was too proud of their brand and failed to see the real state of their market and consumers, everything had altered and Kodak didn't.

If we think about the work of Clayton Christensen, he would of course have predicted all of this and said that this was obvious considering all the warning signs, it is almost a classic model of what he refers to in his book. The basic business model would have needed to change to allow more innovation. I can see how a spin off business for Kodak could have been laying the foundation of the next generation of consumer products and services for Kodak. It is in this smaller disruptive team that could innovation could have begun to thrive. Independently funded from the main business they could have worked smarted and more focused on the problems at hand, and grown their own distribution channels and consumer demographics. The main core business would have continued and this smaller team could have been a chance to test the waters of the new space and begin to lay down a new foundation for the core business for Kodak.

Within this team, I could imagine design thinking could have really helped expand and grow the core competencies and technologies. The iterative approach to design with user input early in the discovery process, would have maybe uncovered some interesting insights to digital photography uses. Even though early digital technology wouldn't have produced the quality output you see today they Kodak could have seen the interest that people had once the Mega-Pixel tipping point occurred and reacted to it. Building out prototypes and making small bets would have helped tailor those offerings and maybe establish some new unseen markets ahead of the competition. With less pressure to perform financially, initially this disruptive team could have organically morphed without affecting the main clients and business. Then when the time was right Kodak would have not only established the new technology infrastructures but have a good distribution channel and mark presence, maybe even some new brands to play with under the umbrella of Kodak's reputation. The competition would have been less of a shock and the rapid prototyping team could would have been better suited to the growing changing market and demands.

This is all subjective of course, but I feel design adds huge value to large businesses offering a way to innovate and keep ahead of the competition and most importantly allows the core business to stay on track, while making smaller investments in unknown technologies.

As a final note. Vince Barabba, former Kodak executive, in his new book "Decision Loom" puts forward 4 interrelated capabilities that he feels are important to enable effective enterprise. It's a shame that Kodak didn't take live by these ideas, it may have helped in saving them from the mess they are in now.

1.  Having an enterprise mindset that is open to change. Unless those at the top are sufficiently open and willing to consider all options, the decision-making process soon gets distorted. Unlike its founder, George Eastman, who twice adopted disruptive photographic technology, Kodak’s management in the 80’s and 90’s were unwilling to consider digital as a replacement for film. This limited them to a fundamentally flawed path.

2. Thinking and acting holistically. Separating out and then optimizing different functions usually reduces the effectiveness of the whole. In Kodak’s case, management did a reasonable job of understanding how the parts of the enterprise (including its photo finishing partners) interacted within the framework of the existing technology. There was, however, little appreciation for the effort being conducted in the Kodak Research Labs with digital technology.

3. Being able to adapt the business design to changing conditions.Barabba offers three different business designs along a mechanistic to organismic continuum—make-and-sell, sense-and-respond and anticipate-and-lead. The right design depends on the predictability of the market. Kodak’s unwillingness to change its large and highly efficient ability to make-and-sell film in the face of developing digital technologies lost it the chance to adopt an anticipate-and-lead design that could have secured the it a leading position in digital image processing.

4. Making decisions interactively using a variety of methods. This refers to the ability to incorporate a range of sophisticated decision supporttools when tackling complex business problems. Kodak had a very effect decision support process in place but failed to use that information effectively.

Driving motivations at work

I occasionally have to interview people for new roles in the company and some of my questions revolve around what motivates you to do your job. Interestingly the answers are all over the board from the obvious things like being at the cutting edge of technology to working as part of a team. These answers of course are mostly a response to the situation and the nature of the interview. The thing I am most curious about is that once the first few weeks are over, what then are the real motivations in your career as the long hours get longer and the projects get harder and more involved, what then motivates you to get out of bed and be energized to come up with just one more idea, to add to the hundred or so you have already worked on. Daniel Pink, thinks he might just have the answer. In his book, "Drive - The surprising truth about what motivates us" he puts forward three important motivations that he believes are at the base of what leads to real motivation and drive.

The concept to keep in mind that he suggests is that when it comes to manual tasks that require not much thinking, such as factory labor and piece work, that can be learnt and repeated easily, then money is the most powerful motivator. Raising production levels is done easily in this instances with more money. The real problem comes when the task at hand requires more thinking skills or creativity, then it seems that money actually to a point gets in the way. At first, money can produce more effort, but once the monetary amount gets to a certain high level for the subject then their performance starts to deteriorate and they have more of a mental block as a result of the monetary award available. Now don't get me wrong, I am not advocating reducing people's salaries, I think people should be paid for their skills manual or mental. In fact, if the amount you earn is less than you would wish then most likely this would also affect performance because you feel unappreciated. So I think the point is to take money of the equation first, give people what they want within reason.

The question is really what are the intrinsic motivations for those of us that have the luxury of thinking jobs that challenge us not for survival but because they want our thoughts and knowledge. This is where Daniel has some very interesting ideas and insights. Let's look at each of these.

1.Give People Autonomy
This first point is all about being in control of your destiny, nobody likes to be told what to do. So allow people to solve problems in their own way. Of course there maybe constraints on a project, but allow the individual to solve it in their way. Giving them more a sense of achievement and control.

2. Allow them to become Experts
Most people want to learn and through learning become better at what they do. Especially in the realms of business, development and creativity people that have these kinds of jobs want to get better at what they do. It fills in some of the needs to grow as an individual and have a sense of challenge. This is part of what finding what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi would call "Flow" those moments between challenge and skills that make the time speed by as they are neither to boring or too hard.

3. Give them Purpose
Finally there is purpose, which is basically following on the concepts of Maslow's Heirarchy of needs, which I wrote about here. Purpose in this case is all about achieving self fulfillment. Working on something that is going to have an impact on other people or make you feel better about yourself is a huge motivator for an individual or a group of people.

And there we have it three guiding principles to having a more fulfilling career, and maybe making a company or manager have more satisfied workers and colleagues. I think all three of these concepts are grounded in very real psychology and they make a lot of sense when you think about them. People fortunate enough to be a wealthy country are no longer thinking about work to make money anymore and are looking for something higher on the needs ladder that leads to greater satisfaction. These three ideas are a great step in the right direction.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Most of our decisions are a result of intrinsic motivations that we have through our day to day life. Some we are aware of and many appear to affect us on a deep unconscious level. These motivations and needs can be the desire to eat and be healthy, to the desire to look good and be accepted by our peers. In 1943 Abraham Maslow proposed a theory of human motivation that he placed into a hierarchy with basic physiological needs such as breathing, food and water that are needed for survival at the bottom of the structure to self actualization, and self esteem at the top.

 

This diagram can prove helpful in understanding the importance of motivation when making decisions for a given situation. The real value for design in this diagram is that when planning a new product or promotional piece, then you are more able to think clearly about what needs you may be addressing and how important they are to the individual. Very often you want a new product to solve a particular problem, and that may be a motivation lower on the needs hierarchy suggesting it is fundamental desire of many to be healthy for example, but then you want to attach aspiration imagery and language that appeals to a higher need for a product to allow the user to achieve a higher level of creativity or self esteem. The concepts Maslow put forward are guides to the things that are important to us, after the basic needs are met it is important to understand the importance of the higher needs for us to ultimately become more self fulfilled and reach a transcendent state of being. The goal of reaching all that you can be is the concept in this diagram, once all things lower in the hierarchy are resolved then you can become yourself. The concept has received criticism about being very ethnocentric, as it doesn't express the differences of social and intellectual needs for those born into individualistic society and those raised in a collectivist society, where the acceptance and community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality. It is most definitely about the individual, which makes sense considering Maslow was from the United States and lived in an individualistic society. None the less it does give a insight into some motivations of people and especially consumers from many parts of the World that are mostly looking for self fulfillment. The flow from survival, comfort and psychological needs into self actualization and transcendence is an important part of understanding the motivations we have in given situations, it also goes a long way to explaining some of our habits and how external influences can affect our decisions. Also, as you browse the hierarchy of the diagram, you see how friendship, family and respect have lead to such social networking sites as facebook and twitter not to mention how blogging itself is helping in our need for creativity and self actualization.

Manfred Max-Neef argued against this concept and put forward an extension of human needs that looks more like this table below, Max-Neef believed that there is no hierarchy of needs but rather trade offs towards satisfaction. He also suggested that our needs are few, finite and classifiable and not like Maslow whose hierarchy suggests the needs are infinite and insatiable. Max-Neef argues that poverty for example, may result from any of these needs being denied or unfulfilled.

Need	Being (qualities)	Having (things)	Doing (actions)	Interacting (settings)
subsistence	physical and mental health	food, shelter, work	feed, clothe, rest, work	living environment, social setting
protection	care, adaptability, autonomy	social security, health systems, work	co-operate, plan, take care of, help	social environment, dwelling
affection	respect, sense of humour, generosity, sensuality	friendships, family, relationships with nature	share, take care of, make love, express emotions	privacy, intimate spaces of togetherness
understanding	critical capacity, curiosity, intuition	literature, teachers, policies, educational	analyse, study, meditate, investigate,	schools, families, universities, communities,
participation	receptiveness, dedication, sense of humour	responsibilities, duties, work, rights	cooperate, dissent, express opinions	associations, parties, churches, neighbourhoods
leisure	imagination, tranquillity, spontaneity	games, parties, peace of mind	day-dream, remember, relax, have fun	landscapes, intimate spaces, places to be alone
creation	imagination, boldness, inventiveness, curiosity	abilities, skills, work, techniques	invent, build, design, work, compose, interpret	spaces for expression, workshops, audiences
identity	sense of belonging, self-esteem, consistency	language, religions, work, customs, values, norms	get to know oneself, grow, commit oneself	places one belongs to, everyday settings
freedom	autonomy, passion, self-esteem, open-mindedness	equal rights	dissent, choose, run risks, develop awareness	anywhere

Jung, Archetypes and Branding

Carl Jung, conceived of the concept of unconscious personality types that drive and ultimately become manifestation of ourselves to others in the early 1900's. He perceived of many of these archetypes in the unconscious that represent us metaphorically. I am interested in 12 of the most notable, that are useful when thinking about branding and any kind of product development that goes beyond just functionality but need to connect at an emotional level. The work of Dr. Carol S. Pearson, has formulated these ideas into 12 easy to digest archetypes that fit nicely in the field of personifying brands and consumers.

Branding benefits from these insights by framing the product and service as an extension of these types of personalities. These archetypes can be the foundation on which you build a community of followers or loyal consumers, knowing your target you can better tailor your product and messaging. The most fun part of reading these archetypes I have found is that it easy to begin to think of people you may know that fit one or more of these descriptions and then begin to see think about the products or lifestyles they like to surround themselves with.

Here are the 12 archetypes as outlined by Dr Pearson.

1. The Child - Innocent 

Motivation: Independence & Fulfillment

Motto: Free to be you and me

Goal: To experience paradise

Person: Dolly Parton, Dorthy(Wizard of Oz), Forest Gump, Betty Boop, Ronald Regan

Company: Disney, Coca Cola, McDonalds


Description: Innocent individuals are most fulfilled when their lives are based on their deeply held values and beliefs. Naturally idealistic, optimistic, and hopeful, they often demonstrate perseverance in the face of obstacles and motivate others to trust that everything will turn out well in the end. They’re most excited and challenged by opportunities to put their personal values into action.

Innocent organizations often are successful at ignoring and moving through barriers that would stop others; seeing what’s right in almost any situation; and maintaining faith in their ideals.

Innocent types need to make sure they’re not in denial about real problems that need to be faced, resistant to change/innovation, or too loyal when loyalty is not deserved.

Subtypes include:

•	Idealist/utopian: Lives through belief in the perfect world or a set of ideals
•	Traditionalist: Remains loyal to and maintains faith in simple values and virtues
•	Perseverer: Stays the course and goes “where angels fear to tread”
•	Optimist: Believes in the power of positive thinking
•	Cheerleader: Encourages and cheers on others

2. The Hero

Motivation: Risk & Mastery

Motto: Where there's a will there's a way

Goal: To prove worth, through courage and over coming obstacles.

Person: Lone Ranger, Superman, Michael Jordan

Company: Nike, Fed Ex


Description: Hero individuals are most fulfilled when they can rise to and overcome a challenge. Naturally determined, achievement-oriented, and focused, they enjoy demonstrating a winning attitude and often can motivate others to achieve their goals. They’re usually excited and challenged by the opportunity to prevail against the odds.

Hero organizations normally are very successful at producing consistent results; creating teams and systems that fulfill objectives; and giving their all to achieve a goal.

Hero types need to be careful about seeing others as enemies; responding to stress by working harder and harder; and rushing to action instead of thinking things through.

Subtypes include:

•	Competitor/winner: Energized by overcoming obstacles and competing with others
•	Dragon slayer: Energized by besting adversaries
•	Crusader/rescuer: Emphasizes making a difference for others
•	Achiever: Consistently produces results and succeeds through discipline/focus
•	Coach: Shapes individual or team performance by bringing out the best in others

3. Every Person

Motivation: Belonging & Enjoyment

Motto: All men and woman are created equal

Goal: Connection with Others

Person: Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Oliver Twist

Company: Gap, Wrangler, Saturn, Wendys


Description: Everyperson individuals are most fulfilled by helping others belong and fit in to the group. Naturally empathetic, unpretentious, and resilient, they often demonstrate their common touch and can motivate others to try hard to do their best. They’re usually excited and challenged when everyone needs to pitch in and solve a problem.

Everyperson organizations often are very successful at providing a sense of belonging and human dignity to others; creating hard-working teams that take pride in their work; and fostering real camaraderie among employees.

Everyperson types need to be careful about playing the victim, becoming cynical and negative, creating an “us vs. them” mentality, and being too protective of their own turf.

Subtypes include:

•	Egalitarian: Believes in the inherent worth and dignity of all
•	Realist: Tries to face the facts as they are, not as she or he wishes they were
•	Communitarian: Seeks and builds community in all situations
•	Comrade/pal: Likes to be one of the gang
•	Democrat: Believes in the concept of “all for one and one for all”

4. The Great Mother - Caregiver

Motivation: Stability & Control

Motto: Love thy Neighbor, as yourself

Goal: Protect people from harm

Person: Mother Teresa, Princess Diana

Company: Campbell's Soup, All State Insurance


Description: Caregiver individuals are most fulfilled when they can make a difference for someone else. Naturally compassionate, nurturing, and dedicated, they enjoy demonstrating their supportiveness and can motivate others to provide better service or care. They’re usually excited and challenged by responding to needs.

Caregiver organizations often are most successful at providing consistent, high-quality service or care; creating stable and nurturing environments; and advocating for others at a very high level.

Caregiver types need to watch their tendencies toward martyrdom and enabling others, and to burn themselves out while always putting others first.

Subtypes include:

•	Supporter/advisor: Lends a helping hand, support, or counsel to others
•	Advocate: Stands up to others on behalf of those in need
•	Nurturer: Provides comfort, kindness, and compassion to others
•	Service provider: Provides consistent, high-quality service or support
•	Altruist: Gives selflessly to make a difference for others

5. Explorer

Motivation: Independence & Fulfillment

Motto: Don't fence me in

Goal: Freedom to find out who you are through travel

Person: Amelia Earhart, Indiana Jones, Christopher Columbus

Company: Starbucks, REI, Jeep


Description: Explorer individuals are most fulfilled when they can seek out new approaches and perspectives. Naturally independent, authentic, and curious, they’re able to follow unique paths and motivate others to explore uncharted territory. They’re usually excited and challenged by the opportunity to blaze a new trail.

Explorer organizations often are very successful at staying current with trends, encouraging individual initiative, and providing others with the opportunity to learn and grow.

Explorer types need to avoid being unwilling to settle down or commit to a course of action; forgetting to coordinate with others; and overlooking the needs of others.

Subtypes include:

•	Trailblazer/pioneer: Sees or scouts for new opportunities/possibilities
•	Adventurer: Emphasizes adventure and/or new experiences
•	Seeker/wanderer: Searches for a unique identity, path, or solution
•	Iconoclast: Places great value on being different and/or independent
•	Individualist: Maintains personal integrity and authenticity in all endeavors

6. Sage

Motivation: Independence & Fulfillment

Motto: The truth will set you free

Goal: Discovery of the truth

Person: Carl Jung, Oprah, Albert Einstein

Company: Discovery Channel, Oprah Show


Description: Sage individuals are most fulfilled by finding the answers to great questions. Naturally intelligent, knowledgeable, and reflective, they demonstrate the value of thinking things through and motivate others to seek the truth. They’re usually excited and challenged by situations and problems that need to be better understood.

Sage organizations often are very successful at developing significant expertise; gathering and analyzing information so that it’s useful to others; and contributing knowledge to almost any situation.

Sage types need to be wary of ivory tower thinking, dogmatism, and coming across as lacking feeling/empathy.

Subtypes include:

•	Expert/guru: Develops own knowledge and expertise to the highest level
•	Philosopher/contemplative: Uses deep thinking to seek and create clarity
•	Mentor/teacher: Shares wisdom with the world
•	Investigator: Researches and gathers information
•	Analyst: Thinks things through and synthesizes learning

7. Lover

Motivation: Belonging & Enjoyment

Motto: Only have eyes for you

Goal: Intimacy and experience sexual pleasure

Person: Rudolph Valentino, Bill Clinton, Klimt

Company: Victoria's Secret, Calvin Klein


Description: Lover individuals are most fulfilled by building relationships. Naturally appreciative, passionate, and committed, they enjoy creating consensus and motivating others to see and utilize their own special gifts. They’re usually excited and challenged by opportunities to enjoy the richness and fullness of life.

Lover organizations often are very successful at building real partnerships among employees and clients; seeing the possibilities for greater quality of life inside and outside of the workplace; and establishing harmonious ways of working together.

Lover types need to be careful about cliquishness, emotional intrigue/drama, and conflict avoidance.

Subtypes include:

•	Partner/intimate: Forms close bonds; finds ways to make others feel special
•	Harmonizer: Ensures that relationships are harmonious and pleasurable
•	Connector/matchmaker: Brings together people/groups who are well suited for each other
•	Aesthete: Appreciates/creates beauty and beautiful environments
•	Bon vivant: Lives life with passion and enthusiasm

8. Trickster - The Fox -Jester

Motivation: Belonging & Enjoyment

Motto: If I can't enjoy myself I don't want to be part of the revolution

Goal: Live in the moment with full enjoyment

Person: Tina Fey, Charlie Chaplin, Robin Williams

Company: Ben & Jerry's, Geico


Description: Jesters are most fulfilled when they can use their ingenuity and wit. Naturally playful, spontaneous, and humorous, they enjoy light-hearted truth-telling and can motivate others to see the value of fun. They’re usually excited and challenged by opportunities to lighten up stressful situations.

Jester organizations usually are successful at brainstorming and thinking outside the box; finding clever ways around obstacles; and having fun while getting work done.

Jesters need to be careful to stay on task when getting routine work done; avoid using humor in hurtful ways; and not come across as being unable to take anything seriously.

Subtypes include:

•	Entertainer: Helps others have fun or a good time
•	Wit: Uses ingenuity and resourcefulness; lives by his/her wits
•	Wise fool: Sees the absurdity/hypocrisy of life and rises above it
•	Holy fool: Emphasizes living life in the now in a Zen way
•	Jovial truth-teller: Satirizes or parodies current thinking

9. Devil - Outlaw - Revolutionary

Motivation: Risk & Mastery

Motto: Rules are meant to be broken

Goal: Revenge or Revolution

Person: Che Guevara, James Dean

Company: Apple, Harley Davidson


Description: Revolutionary individuals are most fulfilled when they can change something that they feel needs to be changed. Often unconventional thinkers who can develop new, cutting-edge approaches, they enjoy challenging the status quo and motivating others to think differently. They’re usually excited and challenged when they can take on tried-and-true methods or ways.

Revolutionary organizations often are very successful at developing truly radical ideas, products, and services; leading reform of all kinds; and/or serving as the contrarian voice in debates.

Revolutionary types need to be careful about coming across as reckless, shaking things up endlessly/needlessly, and becoming stubbornly oppositional.

Subtypes include:

•	Troubleshooter: Sees problems/drawbacks/defects in current ways of doing things and determines how to improve them
•	Radical/rebel: Lives/thinks outside the bounds of conventions and/or takes action or risk without waiting for others to agree/catch up
•	Challenger/contrarian: Questions the tried and true; presents opposing points of view
•	Populist: Believes in the premise of giving “power to the people”
•	Game-changer: Initiates radical innovations that change the rules of the game or the realities of the marketplace

10. Magician

Motivation: Risk & Mastery

Motto: It can happen!

Goal: Knowledge of the fundamental laws of the Universe, how things work

Person: Martin Luther King, Escher

Company: Calgon, Mastercard


Description: Magician individuals are most fulfilled when they can see a vision realized. Naturally intuitive, insightful, and inspiring, they’re able to perceive and appreciate multiple perspectives and motivate others to believe that anything is possible. They’re usually excited and challenged in times of great transformation and turmoil.

Magician organizations often are very successful serving as catalysts for change; turning problems into opportunities; reframing difficulties; empowering people, teams, and networks; and creating flexible, win/win solutions for all involved in a situation.

Magician types need to ensure they don’t use power manipulatively, don't expect miracles to save them when things get rough, and lose patience with those who aren’t as visionary as they are.

Subtypes include:

•	Catalyst/change agent: Sees opportunities for change or provides impetus for innovative transformation
•	Envisioner: Sees possibilities and develops a clear vision of the future
•	Healer: Effects individual or group healing
•	Intuitive: Uses synchronicities/hunches/serendipity to set a course
•	Wizard: Has a talent for unexpected, serendipitous results

11. Ruler

Motivation: Stability & Control

Motto: Power is all that matters

Goal: Control

Person: Alan Greenspan, Queen Elizabeth I, Hilary Clinton

Company: Microsoft, Mercedes, American Express

Description: Ruler individuals are most fulfilled when they can demonstrate leadership, orchestrate complex situations, and/or use their influence to make things work better. Naturally confident, competent, and responsible, they enjoy demonstrating their savvy and motivating others to maintain high standards. They’re usually excited and challenged by opportunities to take charge of a situation.

Ruler organizations often are most successful when they can make decisions that benefit others, use power to create positive outcomes, and make order out of chaos.

Ruler types need to be careful about dominating others, getting bogged down in policies and procedures, and becoming overly hierarchical or political.

Subtypes include:

•	Leader: Takes charge of people/situations; takes responsibility for the good of others
•	Powerbroker: Uses power/influence to get things done
•	Conductor/orchestrator: Directs complex systems/processes/structures and/or creates order
•	Role model: Sets standards for others to follow
•	Peacemaker: Finds common ground among disparate individuals and/or groups

12. Creator

Motivation: Stability & Control

Motto: If you can imagine it it can be created

Goal: Creating something of value

Person: Martha Stewart, Edison, Leonardo Di Vinci

Company: Crayola, Lego


Description: Creator individuals are most fulfilled by seeing new ideas take shape. Naturally expressive, original, and imaginative, they enjoy demonstrating their inventiveness and often are able to motivate creative thinking in others. They’re usually excited and challenged by opportunities to express themselves or advance new ideas. 

Creator organizations often are most successful at developing distinctive, original products and services and/or innovating new solutions or expressive means.

Creator types need to be careful about overloading themselves with constant new projects and a tendency toward perfectionism. 

Subtypes include:

•	Artisan: Gives expression to visions/thoughts/ideas
•	Innovator: Generates ideas for new approaches
•	Inventor: Devises objects or ideas that perform new functions
•	Builder/designer: Makes new forms/objects/processes/structures
•	Dreamer: Envisions ideas and sees the world through an imaginative lens