Instinctual Innovation versus Intellectual Innovation
One of the best Twitter names that I've come across recently is @ShowerThinker. It's an account for an inventor that makes post-it notes for the shower called Aqua Notes.
This Twitter name captures a well-understood fact - that a lot of great ideas (and ultimately innovations) come to us not from brainstorming, but from the connection to our subconscious that occurs in the shower (or pretty much anywhere else in the bathroom). If so many great ideas come to us when our active mind is elsewhere, then why is such little attention paid to this source of innovation.
A lot has been written about creativity and the brain, left brain vs. right brain thinking, and how often the brain just needs to get out of its own way for creativity to occur as there is no single creative area of the brain.
In my own cuarto de bano moment, I came up with this contrasting phrase to help us frame the conversation - Instinctual Innovation versus Intellectual Innovation.
Intellectual Innovation begins with active efforts to capture and develop ideas using techniques such as brainstorming, greenhousing, etc.
Instinctual Innovation springs forth from a collection of sometimes un-connected information that collects in an individuals brain. Often ideas that form the basis for instinctual innovation rattle around as part of a collection of problems in search of solutions for a long time before emerging.
I've created this table to lay out some of the differences:

Innovation has garnered a lot of attention in the press over the past couple of years, and many executives have the word rolling off their tongues quite easily now. In some organizations this has translated into employees being trained to be better intellectual innovators, or into creativity consultants helping stimulate the organization's intellectual innovation for a particular project.
But much less attention is being paid to instinctual innovation. To build sustainable instinctual innovation you have to train members of your organization to be business innovators. You also need to provide members with a set of clear and actionable innovation goals along with a simple visual framework to decipher them. And, most importantly you have to invest in the organizational change necessary to create a culture of continuous innovation.
Then, and only then, will instinctual innovation be best able to emerge from any part of the organization on its own timeline and integrate with the intellectual innovation that is also going on at the same time.
Intellectual innovation can help drive the short-term growth of an organization. But, when combined with instinctual innovation, the two together can create an innovation engine to power the organization now and into the future.
What do you think?
Braden Kelley (@innovate on Twitter)
Labels: Braden Kelley, Instinctual Innovation, Intellectual Innovation











8 Comments:
Braden,
Great post. For instinctual innovation, I'd say that people need some time to be able to think. So much of our workforce is overtaxed with the need to constantly work on the actions of today and this week that they don't have the time to reflect that might allow for this inspiration. BTW - liked the video, but for some reason when I play it it comes out mono (1 headphone) - were you trying to reach only 1/2 of the brain?
The question is - Which half of your brain received it? ;-)
Good catch. Apologies for the mono audio. I'm new to new this whole video thing, and I need to get an adaptor for the microphone I've got (or a different microphone) to make it go stereo.
Braden
@innovate on Twitter
Braden,
Nice thought, although actually I think Instinctual Innovation does not have much to do with 'thinking'. These things (rather than 'thoughts') just come up while you are doing nothing. Which is probably why they come up in the first place: no pressure, no distraction.
These sessions as a customer of ours rightly pointed out should not be called "brainstorm sessions" - it is not a process of thinking, let alone a stormy process - but rather "open mind" sessions. Not when we are focussed on something, but when we are open, these ideas come up. And often we are building on ideas of others. We should therefore be open to the ideas of others.
Well, just some thoughts on your article. I hope you can build on them.
Regards
Rutger
If instinctual innovation comes from unfocussed thinking, then perhaps we need to focus on providing time for/ encouraging people to read widely - gathering the seemingly unrelated information that leads to that brainwave.
Included in this has to be the business context - if we want people to innovate strategically we need to ensure that they have access to the business information they need. This means communicating corporate strategy in a way that provides direction while inviting new inputs and ideas.
This post has been removed by the author.
Rutger - I like the 'open mind session' phrasing. Instinctual Innovation does require thinking, but think of it more as background processing that takes place after you kick it off with a problem statement or thought, and that we are not consciously aware of.
Emily - Great thoughts. Instinctual Innovation does in fact require very clear communication of the organization's innovation strategy and goals. Slack time in most companies is a luxury, but office architecture that allows for more comfortable spontaneous conversation spaces can help to create bite size chunks of it without formal programs.
Braden (@innovate on Twitter)
Instinctual innovation or as I generally refer to as Eureka Innovations have been the best innovations in the past. Individuals with high indulgence would have immersed themselves in such deep context, that the instinct lead to either an expected result or an accidental innovation (like 3M).
However, managing such an innovation to implement corporate strategy will be a nightmare for a Manager. Instinctual, as the word itself says cannot be binded by the time and we do not know when to draw a line and start the ball rolling.
I am afraid I disagree on the short term/long term relevance of both kinds of innovation. From my viewpoint, Institutional innovation is a long term strategy wherein the organization is made open and accommodative for new ideas/initiatives. Instituational innovation structure may help to create an environment for the innovations in the organizations to be in context. Through this we might have a better hit rate of useful business innovations.
Hi,
I term it "intuitive leadership", and the highly intuitive, although not always the totally articulate, nor identified "leader", cannot do otherwise than create and have insights, no matter what the topic may be.
Creativity tools, time and process, frameworks, strategies, support and insight to relevance of coming at innovation from a range of directions definitely is productive, and I agree able to be integrated to most teams or individual's functioning, there is a natural being that leads, connects, and integrates in a very unique manner.
One of the closest explanations I have found (apart from neurologically - based and/or psychologically argued - and I do mean "argued") is the iconoclastic style discussed in Bern's fairly recent book. However that makes the individual sound likely to be a tad overly dominant, whereas I believe it is a reflective-reconnect and reframing of input and retained info being moulded and remoulded, and not linked to a major desire to "lead". After all, the poor brain is a little busy...
Possibly many of Collins' Level 5 types would be the ones to study empirically for more insights. Realising the potential of this however often I feel is subject to finding the environment where the extreme thinking process is not considered bizarre, but measured on how (somehow) "good luck" seems to follow that individual (or group of like minds) around without them really seeming to do "the right things" in business methodologies.
Post a Comment
<< Home