Foursight creative problem solving process

Essay Process Preferences: Knowing Yourself And Others

process tendencies are often apparent is in meetings. One person may be stuck in analyzing information, another wants to generate ideas, a third is focused on developing a solution, and still another is ready to just do it. FourSight gives you a window to view these interactions as preferences rather than distractions and, thus, maximize the benefits of diversity.

THE FOUR PREFERENCES: USING FOURSIGHT TO IMPROVE PERSONAL PERFORMANCE

FourSight enables individuals to identify the degree of energy they have for four different process preferences. These preferences are called Clarifier, Ideator, Developer, and Implementer. Both research (Puccio, 1999, 2002; Puccio & Grivas, 2009; Rife, 2001) and experiences gained through the use of FourSight with numerous groups have led to insights into the qualities and characteristics associated with each of the four preferences. Table 13.2 provides a summary of the key qualities associated with each of the preferences measured by FourSight. As you examine this table, think about yourself in light of these descriptors. Which ones sound like you? Which ones sound completely foreign to how you think and behave? Some people have a strong inclination for just one of the four preferences. Others have combinations of peak preferences (i.e., a person might enjoy and have great energy for both the Clarifier and Implementer preferences). As you read these columns, place a check next to those items that describe you. Be honest with yourself. This quick self-assessment may help you gain some insights into your approach to the creative process.

FourSight is a value-neutral assessment of creative process preferences. Having a strong preference in one area over another is not inherently good or bad; each preference has its characteristic assets and potential liabilities. The value is in understanding your preferences. This information can show you areas of strength and unearth blind spots in your interactions with people and process. It can help you to understand why you have been successful in some situations and why others frustrate you. The goal is to use this information to arrive at a deeper understanding of how you personally approach the creative process and then to use this information to enhance your effectiveness.

Individuals with a strong preference for Clarifier are drawn to and have a great deal of energy for uncovering facts that determine the most productive way of defining the task or problem. Clarifiers are good at examining the details, analyzing situations, and diagnosing problems. They are not satisfied with a cursory understanding of a situation; therefore, they seek information and have a tendency to ask lots of questions to develop a deep understanding. They are cautious about leaping to conclusions or solutions. Because any preference taken to an extreme can become a liability, high Clarifiers run the risk of suffering from analysis paralysis by overanalyzing situations to such a degree that they are slow to resolve a challenge or to capitalize on an opportunity. That person in your class or at work who continuously asks questions is likely to be a Clarifier.

Table 13.2 An Overview of the FourSight Preferences

173

Source: Puccio (2002). Reprinted with permission.

High Ideators excel at generating ideas. They are fluent and flexible thinkers who find it easy to generate out-

of-the-box ideas. If you need ideas, go see an Ideator; they have plenty. They are intuitive, global, and conceptual in their thought processes. Because they tend to think in more abstract terms, they sometimes struggle when working with details. They may overlook the details, leave them to someone else, or find that working out the details drains their energy. That friend of yours who has a new big dream every month and who continuously amazes you with his or her imaginative ideas is probably a high Ideator.

Developers enjoy refining ideas. They are energized by the kind of thinking required to analyze and critique ideas. Developers may not generate lots of ideas, but they are good at selecting ideas that can become highly workable and practical. Individuals who are Developers tinker with ideas. They enjoy crafting and polishing ideas. The potential downside to this preference is that Developers may sometimes become preoccupied with perfection and not be willing to push an idea forward because they feel it can still be improved. The colleague who seems to get completely absorbed in perfecting an idea, continuously revising, modifying, and improving it, is displaying a clear tendency toward the Developer preference.

High Implementers are action-oriented people who like to reach closure. They like to see things happen. As a result of their drive toward completion, they may experience frustration when working with others who take time when making decisions. Implementers move quickly from concept to reality. Their ideas have little chance of growing any moss. Though Implementers are adept at getting things done, the potential risk they run is rushing too quickly to action and thus implementing ideas that are not fully developed. Do you know someone who always seems to get the job done and then moves quickly to the next task? If so, you are probably witnessing a high Implementer at work.

There are also people who do not express a peak preference for any of the four areas (i.e., all of their preference scores are rather similar). These individuals are referred to as Integrators because they are adaptable. Integrators can go with the flow of the process, moving easily from step to step. They can also look at situations from many different perspectives. Integrators tend to be good team players that can communicate readily with others who have different process preferences and have a concern for maintaining harmony in teams. The potential challenge for Integrators is that, sometimes, they might focus too much on serving as peacemakers in teams and therefore may not always express their own opinions.

Think about how you naturally approach the creative process, and consider ways in which this approach has served you well, but also consider how your preferences have inhibited success. As one student wrote in regard to

174

her FourSight preferences, “I must not shy away from that which I do not enjoy, but rather recognize it, embrace it and improve it.” This is using foresight.

FourSight is one approach to identify process preferences relative to CPS. Basadur and his colleagues (1990) have designed another measure of process preferences called the Creative Problem-Solving Profile. For information on their approach, see Box 13.2.

BOX 13.2 RESEARCH NOTE

Basadur’s Creative Problem-Solving Profile

In 1990, Basadur, Graen, and Wakayabashi published a detailed description of a paper-and-pencil inventory designed to help people identify their preferences within Basadur’s version of CPS called Simplex. They named this measure the Creative Problem-Solving Profile (CPSP). According to Basadur et al. (1990), people can be located along two perpendicular information-processing dimensions, how people gain knowledge and how people use knowledge. Knowledge can be gained either in direct or abstract ways. People then use this knowledge for ideation (i.e., divergent thinking) or for evaluation (i.e., convergent thinking). As Basadur and his colleagues noted, “Each individual could thus be characterized as having a unique set of relative preferences on these two information processing dimensions….Considering these two dimensions makes it possible to create four quadrants of different combinations of gaining and using knowledge” (p. 113).

These four quadrants are used to identify four different process preferences. High preferences for gaining knowledge through direct experience and using knowledge for ideation is called the Generator. The combination of the acquisition of knowledge through abstract thought and a preference to use information for ideation is called the Conceptualizer style. The third process preference is called Optimizer, which combines a preference for knowledge brought about by abstract thinking and a preference to use knowledge for convergence. Finally, the Implementer style brings together a preference for knowledge acquisition through concrete experiences and the use of this knowledge for convergent thinking.

The CPSP uses twelve sets of four words to identify individuals’ preferences. Each word in the set relates to one of the four poles on the two underlying dimensions. A respondent examines the set of words and ranks them in terms of how descriptive they are of his or her problem-solving style. The CPSP has been used in a number of research studies (Basadur & Head, 2001; Basadur, Wakabayashi, & Graen, 1990; Houtz et al., 2003). A study of particular note, with respect to the notion of psychological diversity, is Basadur and Head’s (2001) examination of problem-solving performance in teams. These teams were either comprised of members with homogenous CPS styles (i.e., all of one CPSP style), moderate homogeneity (i.e., members from two of the four CPSP styles), or heterogeneous blends (i.e., members from all four CPSP styles). These researchers found that MBA students working on a business problem in teams with the greatest mix of CPS process styles significantly outperformed the homogenous groups on three of five measures of innovative performance. For a look at the CPSP, go to Basadur et al. (1990), and for further information on Basadur’s Creative Problem Solving model, Simplex, go to Basadur (1994).

Using CPS Principles and Procedures to Complement Your Creative Process

Now that you have a deeper understanding of how you engage in the four areas of natural creative process, this may give you a better idea of what areas could be strengthened. What do you do if something does not come naturally to you? The CPS process described in previous chapters provides deliberate principles and tools that can support you in improving your creativity skills. Therefore, if you have a low tendency for a particular FourSight preference, you can learn various CPS principles and tools to assist you with the steps of the process for which you have less energy. If, for example, you are a low Ideator, it may be valuable for you to learn and apply the divergent thinking guidelines and such tools as Brainstorming and Forced Connections. Although you may not possess a natural tendency to be an Ideator, it is possible, when necessary, to learn to think and act like an Ideator. Table 13.3 provides some examples of CPS principles and tools that individuals with low preferences might find useful to learn and apply. Knowing your preferences allows you to dip into CPS and extract those principles and tools that complement your natural tendencies.

The combination of understanding the steps to the creative process, such as those associated with CPS, and understanding how you personally engage in the creative process, will enhance your self-management skills. For instance, if you know your high Implementer preference often causes you to move quickly to action and, as a