• 27
  • comments
Post Image

 

As most of you know, I’ve been doing a lot of self-analysis lately, trying to dream up my dream job.  It’s not easy.  Because I don’t want just any job–in fact, I don’t want a job at all.  I want to wake up like Steve Jobs and successfully answer the question, “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?”

In order to arrive at that mythical place, you have to know what to commit to.  That is, what attributes of your future are must-haves, outside the realm of compromise?  One of the big absolutes for me was finding a profession that frequently tapped my creativity.  Hey, I’m a poet and a writer, so that idea seemed like a no brainer.

But wait!  It turns out there are two kinds of creatives, and before you design that dream job, you’d better know which one you are.  Here’s a quick test, which I initially came across while reading Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers: write down as many different uses you can think of for a brick.

First of all, I challenge you to actually take the test.  Some people impose a time limit (you shouldn’t take all day or ask your friends), but much like a fitness test that measures how many consecutive push-ups you can do, time usually isn’t the limiting factor.    This is the standard creativity test in use today, based primarily on the work of J.P. Guilford from the 1950′s.  It measures divergent thinking, which he proposed was the primary attribute of creativity.  Mind mapping is the buzzword for this activity in the 21st century.

Here’s the rub: I do not perform well on this test.  Instinctively, I knew I wouldn’t.  My best creative moments happen either when I’m surrounded by other intelligent people, or shortly afterwards.  Even when I write poems, I sit down with a large pile of books and journals and read as much as I can for about 30 minutes.  I also have good music playing in the background.  Then, and usually only then, the ideas start flowing.

I’m not the first to suggest there are different types of creatives, but whatever you call them, it’s important to note the difference in aptitude for divergent thinking.  I break creatives into two groups: generators and synthesizers. Generators are those who come up with new ideas from scratch, whether they happen to be painters or engineers.   They’re going to have high scores for divergent thinking.  Synthesizers, on the other hand,  pull inspiration from those around them.   By and large, they’re probably not divergent thinkers, but will appear every bit as creative as generators in a team setting.

This is vitally important to understand.  First, how a business might use these two creative types to drive innovation is completely different.  If you set up a competitive environment as opposed to a collaborative one (as many businesses do), you’ll lose the benefit of your synthesizers.  Second, if you don’t understand the basis of your own creativity (which honest to goodness was not apparent to me until I took that test), you’re likely to set yourself up for a lot frustration by picking a career that doesn’t suit you. Third, I suspect a lot of people claim they aren’t creative because they don’t match the generator stereotype.  I love this article from Fast Company, which discusses the research behind creativity myth-busting.  If businesses embraced the ideas in that article, I likely wouldn’t have a hard time finding that dream job.  And neither would you.

  • Liked this post? Click here to subscribe to
  • Everyday Bright Logo
  • Add Comment
  • A Chance to
  • Speak Your Mind

27 Responses to Generators & Synthesizers: They're Both Creative (And So Are You!)

  1. Hi! Thanks for this. It helps crystallize something I’ve been thinking about for a while. I’m a synthesizer and often feel a bit bad for not being a generator. I look forward to reading some of the articles/books you mention here.

    • Thanks, Sandy. It was a big a-ha moment for me too. I think the key is realizing both kinds of creatives are valuable, even if the generators get all the glory. :) Let me know what you think of the reading. Gladwell in particular is a favorite of mine. Can’t go wrong reading his stuff.

    • P.S. When I was a kid, for a (brief) while I thought I wanted to be an inventor. Then I realized lipstick had already been invented. That was the end of that! Clearly not a generator! LOL Should we go around saying: synthesizers unite?

    • On
    • April 19, 2010 at 8:12 pm
    • Marcus
    • Said...

    Great insights Jen, and I feel that this observation is key and ties in several of the concepts you’ve already discussed.

    I too am a synthesizer, which is not surprising because you and I have always been quite similar in many ways. But not only am I a synthesizer, but I’m also an extravert, and I absolutely thrive on interaction with other people. Which means that typically I do my best creative work in collaborative environments and those groups energizes me such that I am able to sustain the effectiveness of that energy in collaborative meetings longer than might otherwise be possible for a group of nothing but generators.

    This also touches on your discussion of leaders and advisers. I most often tend toward the adviser role, and I’ve found this helps me facilitate that collaboration and also bring meetings to a close when objectives are met or the energy has become exhausted.

    There are many things I’m not, a generator being one of the most notable ones, and a good poet being another. ;) But as I’ve come to develop a deep understanding of my personality and my skills, I’ve been able to utilize those to facilitate others and achieve group goals quickly and effectively. And sometimes being the adviser/facilitator supporting the #1 might just be the best place to be…

    • Marcus,
      The connection of synthesizer and extroversion is interesting. Testing confirms I am nearly 50/50 when it comes to the extroversion/introversion scale. I certainly thrive in collaborative environments, but I also find it exhausting. So you’re right, a higher degree of extroversion probably benefits you by providing additional stamina. I think there may also be a correlation between extroversion and likeability, which would enhance your facilitator role. I agree it dovetails with the leader vs advisor discussion. Look at you, you’re synthesizing my posts! LOL

  3. Shakespeare was a synthesizer. Think on it.

    • Ty,
      I’ll admit that while I enjoy Shakespeare’s writing, I’m terrible at history (it’s that lack of attention to details). Are you suggesting Shakespeare is a synthesizer because he was simply observing and reporting on the human condition, or something else?

      • It’s believed that Shakespeare ripped off all his storylines from other authors. He just happened to make them better. Or more appealing to the masses. Or something? (Never been a fan.)

        In any case, you could call it a collaborative effort… for which he got all the credit.

        I’m a synthesizer, too. I don’t repackage other people’s blog posts Shakespeare-style (so don’t worry), but I draw inspiration from others to generate new ideas, like you.

        Loving your blog, BTW. I’m about 12 pages in, and I can’t seem to escape! =)

        • LOL. I love this line: In any case, you could call it a collaborative effort… for which he got all the credit. I’m gonna have to quote you on that.

          Thanks for the kind words on the blog. It’s the love of my life, next to my husband and daughter.

          No need to escape. Stick around and make yourself at home. I love chatting with visitors. :)

  4. I think I’m a generizer. Maybe a syntherator. One of the two. . .

    • Jay,
      The question is, can you be both? I’m not sure of the answer to that. Just as I was saying to Marcus that I am 50/50 on the extroversion/introversion scale, can someone be 50/50 generator/synthesizer? I’m hoping my brainstorming group (that would be you all) will help me answer that!

        • On
        • April 20, 2010 at 8:51 pm
        • Jay
        • Said...

        Jen, It certainly seems so to me. On MBTI, I’m about 50 / 50 E and I as well as F and T.

        But I’m strongly NP.

        • Jay,
          I’m strongly NP too. Have you ever done the exercise where you’re put with a group of NPs and told to draw a picture (no other instructions)? It’s hilarious. That was when I believe there really was something to the MBTI.

  5. Some theories of creativity deny the existence of ‘generators’: people that apparently pull ideas out of thin air have often been unconsciously working on it for a while. The ‘eureka’ moment often depends on a number of circumstances coming together, including the idea being ‘ripe’.

    Of the books I’ve been reading, the one I’ve got most from is The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler – I found it fascinating and I think you would too.

    • Angela,
      I can see the apparent validity of no one being an absolute generator. We all absorb and synthesize to some degree. But I think there’s no denying that some people are very good at divergent thinking (the classical “creative”) while others bring a different kind of creativity to the table. I may be wrong on the generators vs. synthesizers because the insight is primarily taken from my own experience (a sample set of one). I’ll definitely pick up the book you mention. This the one you mention in your own blog, yes? Sounds fascinating!

      • Hi Jen

        It was Weisberg I mentioned on my blog – also very interesting but I didn’t get to finish it. It was on inter-library loan and got recalled. I’ll have to get it again later on (doing a PhD part-time, I have years to go!). If you’re interested in what inhibits and what enables creativity, another to watch out for is Amabile’s ‘Creativity in Context’: a drier read because it includes lots of research results but has links to the article you referenced in that it looks closely at the effects of competition, assessment, observation etc on creativity.

        • Angela,
          I love it when people add to my reading list! No worries about dry material. As a scientist, I’m used to that. Always a pleasure to get your perspective!

  6. What Jay said!

    But seriously. Very insightful, thanks for the post.

    • Thank you, Lori! I’m really glad this resonated with people. It certainly was a relief to me to have a theory to explain my apparent lack of classical creativity! :)

  7. Jen, Haven’t heard of that exercise. We never did it in the teacing field–testing was restricted to the students ; ^ ), but I can see the comic possibilities.

    And for your groan of the day: As mentioned above both my N and P scores are pronounced. And since my name is Jay, there’s added resonance when I say: My P-ness is much larger than my J-ness.

    Thank you. Thank you very much.

    • Jay,
      If you ever have the chance, do the exercise. So-much-fun. It would be great dinner party fare I think (if everyone happened to know their MBTI). As for your P-ness, that’s just plain silli-ness. LOL

  8. Jenn, Why yes. Yes it is. Where can I find exact details of exercise?

    • Here’s where I have to admit I don’t have the details because I took part in the exercise nearly 15 years ago as part of a leadership class. I can describe what the class did, and perhaps you’ll know the secret MBTI handshake to find the rest.

      Step 1: Divide your group into their function pairs (NT, ST, SF, NF).
      Step 2: Give each group a pad of paper (preferably one of those flip charts).
      Step 3: Tell each group to draw a picture. Provide no further instruction.
      Step 4: Compare pictures between groups.

      Now in the leadership class, the instructor had descriptions of what the pictures might look like for each functional group, which were spot on. That’s the part I can’t find on the internet. But I will tell you the teacher very dramatically said, “Now I’ve saved the NTs for last. This could be pretty shocking for those of you in the other groups.” And shocking it was. Not to mention hysterical (to me). Try it!

  9. Fascinating, Jenn. Thanks for the intro. I will have to try this.

    • On
    • May 13, 2010 at 12:34 am
    • Kathleen
    • Said...

    I couldn’t figure out what I didn’t like about this “creativity test” before so I didn’t comment. I don’t mean this as negatively as it will probably sound but I’m not even motivated to try it. What does it solve? I think a better creativity test is a problem that needs a solution. It seems to me that this is a competition to see who can come up with the most ideas and so maybe we can pass out some gold stars. Is this about quantity or quality? How many ideas are useful? Based on the solutions provided, is someone going to get a brick now and pick through the list to find a problem it will solve? Why not start with a problem and maybe you’ll find a brick to solve it? This is what matters most.

    But then, I’m of the opinion that creativity -as it is generally interpreted to mean- is over rated at the expense of execution. Yes, I know this opinion makes me unpopular but then you don’t have to deal with the pallets of ideas that come my way that will never bear fruition because the originator can only come up with an initial idea but they don’t have any ideas (usually a skill set) to solve the ends. If this test is used as a standard, it doesn’t mean it is valid beyond reinforcing prevailing cultural values…

    • Kathleen,
      I think the test measures a certain kind of creativity, but not the only kind. My argument is that just because you don’t do well on this classic test doesn’t mean you should write yourself off as uncreative, which unfortunately I think has been the standard reaction. I’m not sure I’d introduce utility into the definition of creativity, but certainly creative ideas that can’t be executed or make problems worse aren’t particularly interesting either (unless we’re talking pure art, which I don’t think needs to be useful).

      All that being said, don’t get too caught up in the test. It measures your ability to do divergent thinking, nothing more. The output of that particular test is not useful, but the ability to think divergent may very well be useful in another setting.

  11. Pingback: Career Design, Part 2: Overcoming Your Financial Fears Everyday Bright