1-2 page

8 Overcoming resistance Mindsets and paradigms

The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order and only luke-warm support from those who would prosper under the new.

(Machievelli, The Prince)

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. (Albert Einstein)

Learning objectives This chapter explores:

1 The power of mindsets and paradigms in the operations of business organisations. 2 The role of thinking pattern sets. 3 How group and organisational mindsets interact. 4 The role of psychological factor sets in shaping perceptions. 5 How these perceptions can act as blockages to individual and organisational business

creativity.

Introduction Many individuals, groups and organisations appreciate the need to adopt a fresh approach to meeting the complex challenges of modern buyers’ markets. However, successfully converting this ‘wish’ to practical achievement is often frustrated and sometimes killed by the destructive power of individual, group and organisational mindsets and paradigms. Resistance to practising business creativity skills and to successfully managing innovation and entrepreneurial skills is common. Commitment to learning new methods of problem solving requires both a dedication and a time commitment. The chapter explores the destruc- tive power of this resistance and explains how steps can be taken to overcome many of the frequently experienced creativity blockers. (See Figure 8.1.)

Context

The power of mindsets and paradigms

In their Handbook for Creative Team Leaders, Rickards and Moger (1999) include Charles Handy’s gruesome metaphor of the boiled frog to dramatically illustrate the power of mind- sets. Handy noticed that if a frog is placed in water that is at a comfortable temperature it is

160 Innovation from theory to practice

Figure 8.1 Overcoming mindsets and paradigms.

quite calm. If the temperature is raised gradually the frog shows no sign of discomfort until, well before the water boils, the frog dies. If a frog is dropped into water that is very hot or close to boiling it will attempt to jump out as the sudden realisation of impending danger trig- gers a reaction. This metaphor shows how human mindsets may be blind to mounting threats until a sudden shock causes people to realise the seriousness of their situation.

Overcoming resistance 161

Mindsets are defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as ‘fixed opinions or states of mind that are formed by earlier events’. They are mental attitudes that influence the ways individuals interpret and respond to experienced real-time conditions. As manag- ers are placed under sustained pressure to perform in a rapidly changing wealth-creating environment how they think in chaotic uncomfortable conditions is attracting increasing attention. This is determined by a complex pattern of mental input factors including personal, group and organisational influences. At the individual level thinking patterns that fashion behaviour are determined by four key factor sets: cultural, social, personal and psychological.

1 Cultural factor sets include the dominant cultural and social class factors that surround an individual from birth.

2 Social factor sets encompass an array of influences such as preferred reference groups, family expectations, and so forth.

3 Personal factor sets describe a complex collection of variables that shape individuals’ thinking and value choices, such as age, life-style, economic status and personality, etc.

4 Psychological factor sets address the key variables that determine individuals’ percep- tions, learning patterns, and the way that they acquire beliefs and attitudes. These factor sets integrate to form a complex system (personal mindset) that governs the general/ habitual thinking patterns of individuals.

Clashing ideologies

Two mindsets can be found in the boardrooms of many organisations that seem to be mutually exclusive.

The first is the belief that the business of business is business. This is the view held by many established Anglo-Saxon economies. This view contends that the sole pur- pose of management is to create shareholder value and that social issues are not a major concern of corporate management.

The second mindset stresses the importance of corporate social responsibility and argues that business activity should actively reflect social issues and that these are not peripheral activities but central to business practice.

This text argues that these mindsets should not be taken as mutually exclusive and that corporate mindsets should reflect a balanced approach that combines the goal of generating shareholder value with that of social contracts to nurture and build the long- term development of the market infrastructures in which they operate.

Source: Davis, I. ( 2005) ‘The biggest contract’, The Economist, May.

When individuals are viewed in group situations further complexity arises. By definition a group is a collection of individuals all with their own unique collection of factor sets. Harmonising their behaviour is cognitively a highly complex task. The imposition of linear causality – for example, the belief that the way to get individuals to work together, is to stick them together, give them something to do and then determine their reward on how much they accomplish in a given period of time – is a mechanistic approach to management that will inevitably constrain individual performance. At its most extreme this reduces individuals to units of input, and unless they have private reasons for accepting this (because there is lit- tle if any alternative employment) most individuals will tend to go through the motions and

162 Innovation from theory to practice

do the minimum that is necessary to earn their bread. Others, though severely repressed by insensitive management, will for their own satisfaction – perhaps to stay sane – put in some extra effort to innovate somehow.

Key principles

Group mindsets

A group of individuals is by definition a collection of individual mindsets. The cognitive and motor behaviour that people perform in the course of pursuing a goal can induce a mind- set that persists to influence the strategy they use to attain very different goals in unrelated situations (Wyer and Xu, 2010). Individuals also change their behaviour patterns when they interact with others. Behaviour breeds behaviour. The degree to which behaviour choices are changed is governed by a complex set of factors that include perceived trust, motivation and so on. (Individuals tend to naturally release more creative effort at home than in the work place where the sensed group and/or organisational climate – contextual stimuli – makes them more at ease.) A new group mindset emerges that is separate from and additional to each individual’s personal mindset. The nature of this is conditioned by the perceived level of trust in the group. In short, more personal trust produces more collective or group trust and potentially greater creativity.

Chapter 7 discussed the basics of group dynamics and the leading factors that commonly arrest group performance. Individuals can be encouraged to express themselves in groups and this is a key skill of an effective traditional manager. Sustained high group performance requires sensitive management skills that seek to enable or release it rather than impose it. If external stimuli make a group’s task more and more difficult to achieve then effective managers will know that they have a real problem. Months of sound management practice can dissipate into chaos, falling morale and disillusionment if a group manager is tempted to go for a quick (often linear) fix to appease some organisational authority. The credibility – and thus success – of an enabling manager can take months to achieve but can be lost in less than a minute. Group managers under pressure should be given open encouragement by their organisations to audit their own skills, and be given the opportunity to improve key compe- tencies and to acquire new ones that are relevant to the prosecution of their responsibilities. They should not be required to perform in new and changing contextual situations by being expected to use management tools and techniques that were designed for quite different days. Nor should they be hindered by beliefs and attitudes that were formed to serve the needs of former times.

Organisational mindsets

So a manager who is responsible to his staff/group (is loyal) will have to find an approach that harmonises all the constituent mindsets. This is further complicated by his or her need to exercise responsibility to the organisation (Pina e Cunha et al., 2001), which will possess yet another collection of mindsets. Managing effectively in a chaotic context will often place the manager where it is very difficult to win. The organisational mindsets may insist that things are done in certain ways because that is how they have always been done. To suggest anything different smacks of disloyalty. Most of us at some time or another have been reprimanded for an unconventional approach to a problem by the sharp retort, ‘We don’t do things this way here’. Organisations like individuals are jealous guardians of their beliefs and attitudes.

Overcoming resistance 163

Again, individuals may dislike some organisational ways that perhaps owe their origin to sunnier days and over the years have become enshrined in corporate mindsets. Frustration abounds when individuals realise that these organisational mindsets are blocking their efforts to solve today’s complex problems. Then there are the work groups. These often present real problems, as they tend to be caught between the individual and corporate mindsets.

To any manager, and especially a potential creative manager, warring mindsets pose a really difficult challenge. To make matters worse, they are self-perpetuating and self- reinforcing mechanisms that are capable of flying high over current contexts whilst attempt- ing to understand and manage them with the tools and techniques that originated in the past (see Figure 8.2).

Challenging mindsets

It is therefore quite understandable for managers to spend much time agonising over how much they can challenge an organisational mindset if they honestly believe that it is restrain- ing problem-solving activity. Some managers, in the belief that most problems are temporary and organisational mindsets are permanent, sacrifice the pressures of the contextual reality to those of history. In turbulent times these responses can severely damage individual and group morale and hence achievement levels.

Psychological factor sets

Some useful light can be thrown on understanding individual, group and organisational mindsets by taking a brief look at the psychological factor sets whilst, for the time being, treating the cultural, social and personal factor sets as hygiene factors (Hertzberg, 1987). The key psychological factors are: perception, learning, and beliefs and attitudes.

Perception

When individuals and groups are exposed to external contextual stimuli they either accept that the stimuli are real and so seek to respond positively to the challenges this brings, or they

Figure 8.2 Assumptions becoming mindsets.

164 Innovation from theory to practice

modify this reality (Figure 8.3). One modification is to distort the reality so that it becomes agreeable or comfortable. An alternative modification is to reject the current stimuli alto- gether and to retain older, more comfortable, perceptions. Once individuals and groups have made their respective selections they need to collect and collate information that will assist them to interpret fully the meaning of the contextual factors and so be able to think about their positions. As individuals and groups tend to be closer to contextual reality than organi- sations they are often aware earlier of the need to move away from the virtual reality that many organisations display. This means that they are often ready to think about alternative courses of action before their organisations. So why try and change organisations from the top down? In essence an organisation is the shared view of its members and so can be seen as a single collective mind (Mitroff, 1984). The private response activities of individuals and groups will be characterised by changes in behaviour resulting from a careful consideration of the changing stimuli. This is the learning factor.

Learning

A willingness to modify and sometimes abandon old ways makes sense for private groups, for they are custodians of their own future. Stay in one place too long and the social world passes you by. Organisations, on the other hand, are frequently characterised by entrenched mindsets and so seek to maintain the comfort of their status quo when everything else around them is changing rapidly. This stiff-upper-lip approach can be quite valid if the

Figure 8.3 A matter of perception. Do you see a white triangle even though there are no edges or contours? Does the triangle appear whiter than the white background?

Overcoming resistance 165

change dynamics are purely temporary and confidence expects the good old times to return soon. If the change dynamics are not temporary this failure to acknowledge the real state of the environment can be suicidal.

Beliefs and attitudes

Organisations can so envelop themselves with mindsets and paradigms that they effectively lose sight of their operating environment. Solid successes in previous times may well have led to the construction of immense bureaucracies whose job is often interpreted as being to maintain this status quo at all costs. Sometimes whole organisations can become the prisoner of myopic thinking and overzealous administrators. Forms, regulations, statistics and other measures are designed to keep the organisation happy. If powerful cliques feel that the real news is just unacceptable then some will attempt to blow it away by altering the measuring system so that it says what they want it to say. This is an acute version of distorted percep- tion but it is more common than many would like to admit. Supposedly a sign outside Albert Einstein’s door read: ‘Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that is counted, counts.’ We must not get hypnotised into relying solely on the power mindset of research, numbers, data and facts – we must continue to trust in and recognise the invaluable quality of creativity in energising business activity (Berliner, 2015).

Of course, there are many fine organisations that capture the wind of change and use it to create wealth, but, sadly, many fail to perceive accurately the seriousness of their contextual positions until very late in the day. No over-harsh criticism of administrators is intended, for their services are required. However, they are needed to support management not to subsume it or to place it in chains. Administrators should serve organisations and not dominate them. Organisations that allow their administrations to escalate in the good times later discover that they are still employing large numbers of administrators when times become less prosperous. Some even continue to expand their administrative departments even when operating condi- tions are waning.

Consultancy work has given first-hand awareness of many vastly inflated administrative empires that in some cases outnumber the productive headcounts in organisations. As operat- ing environments become harsher, most organisations are faced with more and more complex problems that require more than basic rational-analytical thinking and the common tendency to oversubscribe to linear causality models. Today’s ‘borderless world’ is a complex place that is increasingly characterised by complex systems. To understand these systems, manag- ers need to become acquainted with systems thinking. There is mounting evidence to suggest that how managers think about problems and their organisations is directly related to their ability to achieve responses (Senge, 1990). The next sections provide an overview of hard and soft systems thinking.

Creativity blockers

Expecting resistance to change and planning for it from the start will allow managers to effectively cope with objections. Understanding the most common reasons people object to change gives a manager the opportunity to plan a strategy to address these factors.

The key six blockages to personal creativity commonly identified in the literature (e.g. Osborn, 1963; Kreitner, 1980) are as shown in Figure 8.4.

166 Innovation from theory to practice

Perceptual blockages

These blockages arise from the way that we have learnt (instruction and experience) to adapt to the stimuli that surround us in the world as we see it. Habitual responses can lead us to miss other, perhaps contextually more suitable, responses. For example:

• Seeing only what we expect to see, failure to really understand contextual stimuli – driving in fog! (Figure 8.5.)

• Stereotyping – tendency to jump to conclusions too quickly. • Eyes down – propensity to tunnel vision. • Mistaking cause and effect – if there turns out not to be a hotel room for an invited guest

and we assume that is the hotel’s fault when in reality our secretary forgot to make a reservation, our search for solutions will be misdirected. The fact that there is no room for our guest is an effect of the problem not the cause.

Figure 8.4 Common individual CPS blockages.

Figure 8.5 The Nine Dot test.

Overcoming resistance 167

Emotional blockages

These blockages are evident when we deliberately suppress an idea or course of action because we perceive that it will be unpopular with our peer group and do not want to risk their scorn. Or, perhaps, when we come up with an idea that is different (such as, for exam- ple, an Imagineering (Morgan, 1997) approach) and we do not want to look ridiculous in the eyes of our fellows. For instance:

• Fear of making mistakes or looking silly. • Racing away – rushing in too quickly may result in the wrong problem being solved or

the right problem but with the wrong CPS approach. • Playing it safe and avoiding anxiety – a common response in individuals who are uncer-

tain of how much support they will receive from the group or organisation. • Awaiting instruction – related to the above cause, and tends to be found in rule-bound

organisations. • Sloppy response – tends to be found in situations where the problem is routine and the

overall motivation of the staff is low.

Process skill blockages

These are caused by a basic lack of technique. This can all too easily arise when we have been used to existing in fairly stable operational conditions where real problems and challenges are few and far between. For example:

• Lack of knowledge in problem-solving process. • Lack of creative thinking – a reluctance to use creative thinking. • Too heavy a reliance on logical skills – wanting to write the proof before the problem

is solved. • Snatching at the problem – failure to apply methodical convergent/divergent tracking

points. • Lack of sufficient contextual information, poor or the wrong problem statement and poor

CPS ability. • Lack of understanding of the facts – shooting in the dark.

Communication blockages

These occur when we are unable to communicate in a suitable style for our voice to be heard and understood by those charged with tackling the problem in question. Examples are as follows:

• Failure to couch the problem and its proposed solution in suitable terms. General man- agement will not comprehend functional jargon. Not all concerned outside publics will understand the organisational ‘speak’.

• Difficulty in explaining the situation to others, as it is sometimes unconsciously cloaked in jargon and/or organisational ‘speak’. The safe default is to explain things clearly and simply.

• Failure to justify recommendations. • Failure to capture the attention of vital parties owing to weak presentation skills. • Autocratic, argumentative styles that annoy people.

168 Innovation from theory to practice

Environmental blockages

These often crop up to distract us from getting to grips with a problem and frequently result from unexpected or seasonal increases in our workload. For example:

• Management culture – the impact of organisational mindsets. • Comfort factors – poor facilities (everything from toilets to coffee and tea provision) can

dampen enthusiasm and quality of response. • Ambivalent attitude of key contacts in the organisation. • Monotony – need-to-know management causes people to get bored. • Absence of kaizen – people are more responsive if they know that they are expected to

look continually for better ways of doing things.

Cultural blockages

This set of blockages impact on us as a result of of personal, group, organisational and national cultures. For example, some managers feel that the Creative Management style is too open and risky and may harbour the latent opinion that staff are to be instructed and not consulted! Instances are as follows:

• Religious acceptance of the status quo. • Resistance to major change. • Distrust of illogical ‘right-brain’ and total thinking skills. • Belief that humour is for private life only. • Reluctance to work in teams – everyone-for-himself mentality does not foster coopera-

tive effort. • Lack of vision. • Work environment • Socio-cultural factors • Emotional charge. • Communication factors. • Perception issues. • Participation issues.

Practice

Obstacles to individual business creativity

After a creativity workshop in Durham, delegates were asked to brainstorm the main obsta- cles, as they saw them, to introducing creative personal problem solving (CPPS) into the lives of their colleagues at work. They were also asked to suggest ways that these obstacles might be overcome. Table 8.1 summarises the results.

Tiredness

Many exhibited a reluctance to put in the necessary time to learn a new skill. Home was seen as a place to relax and that did not include thinking about being creative! Work was identified

Overcoming resistance 169

with pressure – paper and politics that made people tire quickly and reduced their enthusiasm to attempt anything new. Invariably the workplace was seen as a mechanistic culture where some pulled the levers and the others ‘did their bit’.

Anxiety

Experienced at work, was often transferred after working hours to home life. Many found it difficult to relax away from work and free their minds to attempt anything new.

Negativity

The harsh economic climate of the North East led many to adopt a pessimistic outlook on life. Often frustration with the performance of ‘the management’ or the euphemistic ‘they’ seemed to produce a pronounced negative culture.

Fear of failure

This occurred frequently and was cited by individuals working in both large and small organ- isations. Many in this group did not realise that it was possible to practise creativity at home in a safe environment (Kennedy, 2011; Storm and Angello, 2010).

Fear of standing out from the crowd

Several delegates were tempted but reluctant to speak out for fear of the consequences, pre- ferring to keep their heads down.

Fear of challenging the rules

Unsure of how managers might react to suggestions to do things differently, many opted to keep quiet.

Fear of emotional things

Many delegates felt that they would risk emotional responses if they advocated total thinking practices.

Table 8.1 Individual CPS blockages

Obstacle Advice

Tiredness Get a good night’s sleep Anxiety Relax Negativity Be positive Fear of failure Trust your intuition Fear of standing out from the crowd Stand your ground Fear of challenging the rules Rules should help, not hinder Fear of emotional things Realise that total thinking makes sense Myopia Wake up!

170 Innovation from theory to practice

Myopia

Many thought that top management were not in tune with the real world faced by the front line personnel and felt that signalling this would result in hostile management reactions.

Obstacles to group business creativity

Some weeks after, delegates on a creativity workshop in Durham were requested to report what they saw as the main barriers to introducing CPS to individuals in their organisation; another set of delegates on a creativity workshop were asked to indicate what they saw as the main blockages to introducing CPS successfully. Table 8.2 summarises the results. On the other hand, blockages commonly identified in the literature on CPS – basically stemming from a poor understanding of how to manage groups – are summarised in Table 8.3.

Table 8.2 CPS difficulties: an empirical sounding

Obstacle Advice

Negative attitudes Quietly get on and try some CPS tools and techniques without feeling it necessary to explain the how involved and produce some good results

Politics Stand your ground; argue to be judged on results – seeing, rather than telling, encourages believing

Fear of exposing poor team work of others

Operate tactfully. Tackle problems; don’t evangelise the CPS cause

Myopia Calmly explain the contextual factors affecting the problem to all group participants

Concern over problem choice Select non-complex do-able issues at first Low creativity Need for guidance of a skilled CPS facilitator Lack of trust Do your best to earn it Poor problem-solving skills Introduce and demonstrate some basic tools Unclear aims Develop a problem statement to clarify Reward structure viewed as

unfair Indicate your understanding and seek to influence

the system

Table 8.3 Leading CPS difficulties identified in the literature

Obstacle Advice

Lack of vision Inform group of what is involved and seek their collective ownership of it

Poor participation Encourage individuals to contribute – provide a safe environment; avoid power driving the group

Poor interaction Get the group to talk amongst themselves as well as to you; promote a ‘one for all and all for one’ philosophy

Lack of trust Up to the facilitator to dispel Poor reward Requires the facilitator to use imagination – successful group behaviour

has to be recognised in some way. People do not live by bread alone Starting too soon Facilitator needs to carefully guide the group and to resist people

looking for pre-conceived answers rather than generate ideas Confused focus Facilitator should steer the group to converge and diverge ideas at

suitable intervals

Overcoming resistance 171

Common problems that challenge the effectiveness of hard systems thinking

Diagnosis

A tenet that is open to question, especially in times of accelerating change, is that indi- viduals, groups and organisations are able to diagnose key problems correctly. Frequently it is organisations, rather than groups or individuals, that have the greatest difficulty in obtaining accurate problem diagnoses, as their collective thinking can be confused and distorted by their corporate milieu of mindsets. Some organisations like to believe that they never really have serious problems for these only confront other, and in their eyes usually badly run, organisations. This mindset has variations, such as a strong confidence in the power of rational-analytical thinking to solve almost anything, and the belief that all problems have happened before so may confidently be considered as temporary irri- tants that will soon be gone.

Belief in measurement

Another drawback in turbulent times is the tenet that all goals, decisions and important issues can be quantified and measured. This positivist contention has prompted many organisations to invest in sophisticated IT systems to produce vast wads of information. Whilst this has made many corporations ‘feel good’ it has also left many of them struggling to get to grips with all the data that their mainframe and networks provide. However, many organisational activities, such as operational and tactical matters, where the situations are clearly structured, can be capably handled by hard systems thinking.

Risk spots

Even in the best of times most organisations have risk hot spots in their operations that seem to continually resist the efforts of hard systems to control. Here chaos reigns and life is uncomfortable. Attempts to rationalise and programme these hot spots inevitably lead to disappointment and frustration. Some organisations find that their mindsets blind their vision so causing them to function in an imagined or virtual reality. When this occurs frustration mounts, as the chaos continues and managers tend to apportion blame for poor performance levels on the contextual factors. In stable times, when most of the organisation is functioning well (in equilibrium) the hot spots, though still irritating, can be carried along by the general positive momentum of the organisation. As fundamental changes in contextual stimuli cause chaos in the base operations and as the hot spots become more and more unstable, many managers must feel that life is very unfair. In this situation soft system thinking may be the most appropriate course of action.

Faith in management techniques

Finally, the belief that organisations can be steered into the future by traditional manage- ment techniques alone is a critical assumption especially in times of accelerating contextual change. Mechanistic planning is fine where the probability of being able to forecast the future accurately is high; when the reverse is the case managers need to form a clear picture of what makes sense in the new context.

172 Innovation from theory to practice

Action

Working with others

Most would agree that the potential output of several minds is greater than that of a single mind. Working with others obviously seems to make sense. However, in the often frantic activity of an average day, many managers probably attempt to progress far too many prob- lems under their own steam. Opening problems up to others makes sense, but is there time to call the necessary meetings? Or might there be some latent reluctance to do so, as the organi- sational culture may view that it is the manager’s job to solve problems?

When this occurs in organisations it tends to make individual managers reluctant to sepa- rate the what from the how in problem-solving activity. Some managers may even perceive working with others as a sign of weakness, preferring to take everything on themselves and working long and arduous hours. Such managerial supermen can find it very difficult to share problems with others, even though they may appreciate the logic of harnessing the talents of colleagues. Coping with pressure is a constant process for busy managers. As the problems come faster and faster and as the complexities increase, many managers must feel that they are running in order to stay in one spot. There inevitably comes a point when sheer workload convinces them to actively contemplate involving others.

Viewing management problems

Change, whether driven by cost, technical factors or the corporate organisation, can threaten the social culture and workplace norms. A desirable approach to successfully implementing change is to involve employees who have both a professional and personal stake in helping managers understand resistance to change (Eroke, 2014). Management problems can usually be viewed in the light of six key issues:

1 functional/technical skills; 2 general management processing skills; 3 cost constraints; 4 time constraints; 5 quality expectations; 6 climate change.

Most managers have a sound perspective on their functional/technical ability and experi- ence has equipped many with know-how in relation to cost, time and quality constraints. However, with climate change (Holtum, 2014) companies are skilled at doing straight-line extrapolations of current trends and adjusting accordingly. When there is an upward trend in, say, energy prices, they extrapolate it and take energy-saving action. When energy prices trend back downward, they extrapolate that trend linearly and tend to shelve energy-saving actions. From the perspective of most corporate executives, the greatest threat from climate change is not straight-line deterioration but rather a discontinuous and irreversible shift lurk- ing out in the future. As their operational environment becomes more and more chaotic, so greater emphasis needs to be placed on the realisation of the skill potential contained within groups and organisations. This contextual pressure is challenging many individual manage- ment styles and is promoting the cause for effective team working and the development of industry-specific scenarios.

Overcoming resistance 173

Whilst managers usually value talking to others about functional and technical skills, there is frequently a marked resistance to seek the thoughts of others on problem-processing mat- ters. The management how is often seen as a very private affair. There are immense gains to be made by opening up problems to groups. As the pressures on managers to perform to high standards in difficult conditions intensify, so many, hitherto private, managers will steel themselves to explore the dynamics of team working. Apart from organisational mindsets the major factor restraining many managers is probably a deep concern of losing control. There is no doubt that whilst opening up problems to others is beneficial and, if handled correctly, a creative joy, people can be difficult too. Individuals regularly need to check up on their inter- personal skills as it so easy gradually to slip back into an autocratic style in the heat of the moment. Then, as behaviour breeds behaviour, suspicions gain ground and the essential band of trust is damaged. Most team workers will allow the captain to have the occasional private moment and still respect his or her role. If this becomes the regular mode of behaviour, then teams will soon collapse in a regrettable climate of mutual suspicion and fear. Effective man- agers have to win through thick and thin. Collaborative team spirit is essential and of especial importance to CEOs (Ibarra and Hansen, 2011).

Fostering good group relations is not easy. It means giving people space to express them- selves. It means not being too judgemental too early and too negative in any criticism that you may make. It means being responsible to all your individuals, to groups and to the organ- isation. It means promoting ‘a one for all and all for one’ climate in place of ‘all for one and one for one’ approach. It means playing a considered and honourable political game when pressures threaten individual, group or organisational relationships. Politics was intended to be an honourable pursuit; it has only become an object of popular scorn because it has been conducted irresponsibly for private gain. However, private gain can be achieved both by responsible means as well as irresponsible means. The latter is unlikely to foster the growth of group creativity, the former will and, in the process, make a real hero of the manager.

So, many managers who are determined to become creative managers can expect to be apprehensive to begin with and need to be bold enough to re-examine their interpersonal skills and practical understanding of group dynamics. Apart from any individual contemplation that managers may care to make, a good way of sparking business creativity is to examine organi- sational mindsets, to call a meeting of key staff away from the work place and explain to them just why it is sensible to try something new (Capozzi et al., 2011). This is the value of a strong contextual approach. Different conditions require a different approach. Every sports person knows that and most others soon appreciate it too. Once the contextual argument has been put, concerned individuals should then open up to new problem-solving initiatives, then, as soon as possible, demonstrate some CPS action. Help from a fully trained creative facilitator is invaluable at this stage. Be careful of the temptation to do too much too soon.

Once underway, talk about experiences with various CPS tools and techniques amongst colleagues. Find others who are also in the process of getting to grips with CPS and compare notes. Set up a networking system to share knowledge and experience in the use of the CPS tools and techniques. This can be done using a variety of means, including face-to-face meet- ings, email and social networking (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter).

Fixed vs. growth mindsets

Those with a fixed mindset, a mental block that stops them from achieving something, will resist opportunities to learn and practice CPS techniques. Their main goal is to appear smart and capable and to avoid failure at all costs. When these people do fail, they view it as a direct

174 Innovation from theory to practice

measure of their competence and self-worth. People with a fixed mindset are often overly sensitive to appearing wrong or being judged.

According to the Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck (2008) people with a growth mind- set have another approach to life entirely. In this mindset, the hand you’re dealt is just the starting point for development. This growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts. Although people may differ in their initial talents and aptitudes, interests or temperaments – everyone can change and grow through application and experience.

Dweck has shown that praising people for being bright or talented nurtures the fixed mind- set, whereas focusing on their hard work and perseverance fosters a growth mindset. With a growth mindset, attitudes change and people believe change is possible and even necessary. They do not view failures as the end of the world but see them as opportunities for learning. They become comfortable with taking risks, and even seek out calculated risk opportunities. They want to challenge themselves to achieve something harder, stretch beyond their per- ceived limits, and go for things others might not think they are capable of achieving.

Nudges and wise interventions

Fixed and growth mindsets are now a common starting point for ‘wise psychological inter- ventions’ (WPIs). Psychologists believe that these are effective in unblocking mindsets caused by psychological barriers that keep people stuck in inflexible patterns of behav- iour. Superficially WPIs are like ‘nudges’ – external interventions designed to guide people towards desired behaviour choices. Though similar to nudges in spirit, WPIs are quite differ- ent in practice, based on making long-lasting changes to peoples’ thought processes rather than short-term changes to their environment. Managers should tread carefully. WPIs inevi- tably revive the fears that were expressed about nudges. Who decides who needs to be wised up? Will they be told what is happening to them, and how it is supposed to work, and how they might benefit? More importantly, can they opt out?

The use of psychological nudges to persuade people to become organ donors or to renew their car tax on time are clearly good examples of their use in society. Use of the more sophis- ticated psychological WPIs to help individuals to overcome blockages to creative thinking requires respectful experimentation. Three contextual factors are important elements of the creative process for helping managers overcome the challenge of resistance to adopting crea- tive thinking challenge. These are: the current business climate, leadership styles and team characteristics (Gibson and Shalley, 2014; Hon et al., 2004).

Summary Both organisations and management theory seem obsessed with creativity and a fixation with the new is accompanied by just as strong a rejection of that which is different. Muhr (2010) turns to the moral philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas (1981) to address this paradox and argues that pro- found novelty can only be accomplished in ethical encounters that nourish trust and confidence. Good managers do not attempt to manage creativity, they manage for creativity by providing a working environment and culture that allows creativity to flourish. This challenges all managers ‘to bring paradoxes, conflicts, and dilemmas out in the open, so that collectively we can be more intelligent than we can be individually’ (Senge, 1990). Finally, as Gosling and Mintzberg (2003) argue ‘imagine the mind-sets as threads and the manager as weaver. Effective performance means weaving each mindset over and under the others to create a fine, sturdy cloth’.

Overcoming resistance 175

Discussion questions 1 Briefly describe the thinking pattern factor sets. 2 Why do managers, whether individual, group or CEOs have to be wary of assumptions

in current buyers’ markets? 3 How can consideration of psychological factor sets assist managers to overcome resist-

ance of employees to new ways of thinking? 4 What are the leading blockages to individual creative thinking? 5 What are the leading blockages to group creative thinking? 6 Briefly discuss the common problems that challenge the effectiveness of hard systems

thinking in times of discontinuous change. 7 Name the five key issues that help to address management problems. 8 ‘“Assume” makes an “ass” out of “u” and “me”’ (Anon). Discuss.

Case exercise

Rose Tree Garden Centre: growing confidence in creativity

Rob Malin founded a family owned garden centre in north-east Derbyshire in 2010 with a combination of family savings and his redundancy pay. At first the business grew steadily and to the family’s surprise covered all its start-up expenses and returned a small but grow- ing profit. Suddenly in 2013 the firm’s fortunes stated to decline and in 2014 the business recorded a loss for the first time.

In July 2015 Rob Malin’s son Clive graduated from a northern business school where he obtained a first class MBA. As the family business faltered Rob expected Clive to take up a senior role in the garden centre. Clive agreed, as he was keen to apply as much as he could of the learning he had experienced on his MBA course. His father had worked for 40 years in an engineering company in South Yorkshire and had ended his career as the Production Director of a subsidiary company making high quality utility pipes for gas, oil and water logistics. The parent company disposed of the subsidiary in 2010 and shortly afterward Rob was made redundant. Rob, a finance specialist, was not always an easy man to work with, as, over the years, he had become single minded and autocratic in his management style. He saw his role as the boss and let everyone who worked in the business know it.

Clive quickly grasped the serious position of the garden centre and challenged his father to explain why he had suddenly rented space in the centre to a fancy goods firm and a garden pond company while Clive was away studying in 2014. Rob explained that he felt it made sense to cover expected difficulties in the main business that had been hit by poor weather in the previous year and by competition from a local farm shop that had diversified into the plant nursery business. When challenged on what logic he had applied to the selection of these start- up companies he became obviously embarrassed as he replied just ‘business feel, son’.

The family firm employed 20 full-time staff and a number of part-time staff on a seasonal basis to help with the spring, summer and Christmas business peaks. Trade was declining fast on the traditional side and both the fancy gift and garden pond companies were loss making. Clive, alarmed at the state of the business and at the way in which it was run decided to sum- mon all the staff to a meeting to discuss the firm’s position. To his father’s amazement he was determined to arrange the meeting in a local small hotel and to invite all employees that were on site plus seven guests.

Now that he had taken over the business from his father Clive was determined to run the business in a new way. He wanted to create a company climate in which all employees could

176 Innovation from theory to practice

feel that they were valued and in which they would enjoy working. Once everyone had seated themselves he outlined his vision for the company and emphatically declared that he wanted his staff to feel free to exercise their creativity. At first the assembly looked at him with puz- zled brows asking him to explain what he meant. ‘Things are not too good at present and we must all work together to fashion the future for the business.’

After presenting a brief review of the current position of the garden centre Clive called for some suggestions as to how the business could be developed. The sound of silence echoed around the room. Clive then invited all present to participate in a problem-solving exercise in which they were going to be encouraged to think creatively to come up with ideas that could potentially transform the business. Several looked puzzled and one well-respected senior employee asked what was on everyone’s mind . . . how?

Clive introduced his guest explaining that he was an experienced creative problem- solving facilitator, he left the front of the room and sat down amongst his employees. He had met Mark whilst at university and had been amazed at how he enthusiastically involved peo- ple in his sessions despite many claiming that they just were not naturally creative thinkers. He began by asking his audience why they felt that they were either not or only slightly crea- tive. This exposed a common set of creative thinking blockages (see Figure 8.4) or mindsets. Mark then proceeded to classify his audience into two groups (sceptics, open-minded) and gave every attendee a hand-out and invited them to think about where they thought they were on the matrix (Figure 8.4).

Clive returned to the front of the room and asked people to form groups of four before giving the floor back to Mark who asked his team of six CPS facilitators to run a 15-minute CPS session to assist the group members to generate ideas that in their belief held innovate potential. To the surprise of many several good ideas resulted and Clive informed everyone that his management team would consider the best ideas and report their conclusions to all staff. In closing the meeting he thanked everyone for taking part and was pleased that they had enjoyed the experience. He also expressed his determination to create a culture that encouraged positive attitudes that generated a climate of positive thinking that he hoped would change the behaviour of initial resistors and sceptics. He announced that everyone would receive training in CPS tools and techniques and that personnel would be sensitively encouraged to develop their CPS and team working skills.

Questions

1 How might Clive build on the meeting in the hotel and encourage individuals to cultivate growth mindsets?

2 How might Clive best deal with employees that harboured fixed mindsets? 3 Clive intended to change the way things were done at the Rose Tree Garden Centre, to

introduce a flatter organisational structure and to encourage all employees to practise both individual and group CPS in their everyday work when appropriate. What problems do you think he may face and how might he overcome them?

References Berliner, M. (2015) ‘Data, technology and creativity: New opportunities for marketers’, The Guardian,

25 August. Capozzi, M. M., Dye, R. and Howe, A. (2011) ‘Sparking creativity in teams: An executive’s guide’,

McKinsey Quarterly, April, pp. 74–81. Dweck, C. (2008) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, New York, NY, Ballantine Books.