EVALUATING THE ORGANIZATION’S INNOVATION CAPABILITY: A NEW GUIDING METHODOLOGY

Abstract

Will our organization be innovative? The answer to this question essentially defines tomorrow’s business success. The purpose of this article is to introduce the organizational personality (TOP) framework as a new, qualitative methodology for evaluating and predicting an organization’s innovation capability. TOP framework leverages personality systems interactions theory, a groundbreaking integrative framework model of personality that is currently widely unknown in the business world. By differentiating between content of thinking (what we think) and forms of thinking (how we think), TOP framework demystifies the inner workings of the innovation process and represents a powerful 360-degree thinking and evaluation grid to steer innovation from a meta level.

INTRODUCTION

“A new theory is a lens that lets us make a new and valid prediction: The new theory does not give us new information. It adds new insight to existing information – to the facts we knew when looking through the old lens – and sets our gaze on critical new information we can seek out. A new way of looking at a business can also make unseen patterns visible and reveal innovative levers we can use to drive changes that have impact.” (Moldoveanu & Leclerc, 2015, p. 1)

Will our organization be innovative? The answer to this question essentially defines tomorrow’s business success. A corporate culture stepping up to innovate is a glorious thing to behold, and may often seem miraculous. The methodology presented in this article offers new insights based on scientific psychology: by differentiating between content of thinking and forms of thinking, the inner workings of the innovation process can be demystified and turned into powerful tools to understand innovation.

Business literature and social business networks contain much guidance regarding innovation, culture and leadership. Everyone agrees that the old ways no longer hold true for digital and purpose-driven companies. The Global Competitiveness Report has concluded that human capital, agility, resilience and innovation are premium factors that are becoming increasingly significant as the Fourth Industrial Revolution accelerates (World Economic Forum, 2019). Whilst organizations expect new leadership capabilities, they are still largely promoting traditional models and mindsets, and businesses remain out of step with millennials’ priorities (Deloitte, 2019a, 2019b). While these studies and reports provide valid insights, they fail to provide an aggregate view that connects all the pieces of the puzzle. This is where personality systems interactions (PSI) theory and the organizational personality (TOP) framework come into play.

The concept of organizational personality leverages the explanatory and predictive value of PSI theory (Kuhl, 2001).¹ PSI theory is a groundbreaking and integrative framework model of personality that incorporates central themes from cognitive, emotional, motivation, developmental and social psychology as well as neuroscience (German Psychological Society, 2012). To date widely unknown in the business world, PSI theory provides an exciting new method to evaluate an organization’s innovation capability.

The Organizational Personality Framework

In the process of applying PSI theory at an organizational level, I developed TOP framework, a new methodology to evaluate and shape future-fit organizations. The framework states that organizations, like individuals, have preferred forms of thinking, all of which correspond to specific strengths and limitations. TOP framework separates content of thinking (what we think) and forms of thinking (how we think), although in reality, both are seamlessly interconnected. This distinctive analytical feature results in an elegant, efficient and cost-effective methodology for reviewing and comparing a multitude of topics across an organization.

The key characteristics of innovation powerhouses as presented in this article were deduced both bottom-up, from a system-theoretical perspective using PSI theory and TOP framework, and top-down, using the same lens to analyze the 2019 innovation edition of “brand eins”, a renowned German business magazine (Brand eins Medien, 2019). Most quotes used in this paper are from this edition and the accompanying interview with Google’s chief innovation evangelist, Frederik G. Pferdt (Pferdt, 2016). The results of this analysis were presented during the closing keynote address at the certified internal auditor conference of The German Institute of Internal Auditors (Deutsches Institut für Interne Revision) on June 7, 2019.

All insights combined yield an impressively consistent picture: innovative organizations excel at combining the right content of thinking (i.e., knowledge, experience and data) with the right forms of thinking (i.e., distinct thinking and behavior patterns that boost innovation).

This article first discusses some key concepts of PSI theory that are leveraged at an organizational level throughout the article before introducing one information processing system as the linchpin of innovation. The following two sections then introduce the content of thinking required for innovation to happen and the forms of thinking that boost innovation. Finally, the article summarizes the characteristics of innovative organizations and concludes with some general reflections on TOP framework.

PERSONALITY SYSTEMS INTERACTIONS THEORY FUNDAMENTALS

This section introduces eight key concepts of PSI Theory (Kuhl, 2001, 2017) that are leveraged and referred to throughout the article. The reader can refer to this section as a reference while reading the article.

Concept 1: Four Information Processing Systems

The first concept is PSI theory’s distinction between four fundamentally different ways in which humans process information. Each information processing system (hereinafter “system”) represents a different aspect of human competence. These systems can be classified as follows:

• Fast versus slow: From a performance speed perspective², PSI theory differentiates between two fast and two slow systems. As noted in the popular book Thinking, Fast and Slow, fast thinking occurs with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control, whereas slow thinking requires one to allocate attention to effortful mental activities (Kahneman, 2011).

• Behavioral versus experiential: From a personality axis perspective, the four systems are connected into two sets of partner systems that belong to the behavioral versus the experiential axis of personality.

• Complex versus elementary: From a cognition perspective, two systems belong to complex cognition, the other two, to elementary cognition.

Table 1. PSI Theory’s Four Information Processing Systems.

Table 1 PSI Theory’s Four Information Processing Systems

The two information processing systems at the experiential axis of personality are defined as follows:

1. Fast-Complex: Extension memory or complex (intelligent) intuition (EM) is an extended experiential memory that encompasses and integrates an individual’s entire knowledge and experience, including the personally relevant parts. As a holistic system of experience, EM provides an overview of all life experiences that might be relevant to the current situation but that cannot be fully consciously perceived due to the immense volume of all experiences that are considered simultaneously.

2. Slow-Elementary: EM’s partner system, object recognition (OR) is a conscious form of information processing that frees up one single object per moment of consciousness out of a large number of options. OR is error-oriented, with attention to discrepancies. OR often relates to problematic details, such as sources of danger, troubling issues or the unexpected.

The two systems at the behavioral axis of personality are as follows:

1. Slow-Complex: Intention memory (IM) is a conscious information processing system, primarily traceable to action planning and the memory for planned actions that may be traced back to thought processes that involve two alternative results (e.g., true or false “binary logic”) or that connect two pieces of information. IM highlights what is important, and its content is verbally explicable. IM involves analytical thinking and planning.

2. Fast-Elementary: IM’s partner system is intuitive behavioral control (IBC). IBC is a system focused on getting things done. It is a form of perception that controls action unconsciously (implicitly). IBC’s content is characterized by an indissoluble fusion of all perceived sensory impressions.

Concept 2: Content versus Forms of Thinking

The second concept is the differentiation between content of thinking (what we think) and forms of thinking (how we think). PSI theory focuses on the interaction and dynamics of the systems independent of content descriptions:

As the meaning of the abbreviation PSI suggests, it is not the structures of personality as such that are relevant, but the dynamics that unfold between the structures. One can imagine personality as a multi-level architectural model in which no level and no system acts on its own, but everything is connected to everything and – above all – interacts with each other. Julius Kuhl (IMPART, 2021, PSI theory section).

The differentiation between content and forms of thinking results in questions such as the following:

• What type of information (i.e., content) is stored in which system?

• How can a system be activated?

• What are the workings and characteristics of a system?

• How does a system process its content?

• What are the prerequisites for information to enter and leave the system?

• How do the systems exchange information between them?

As a general rule, it is important to remember that the answers to these questions are different for each system, and any content of thinking can be combined with any form of thinking.

Concept 3: Emotion Regulation

The third concept is the role of emotion regulation. PSI theory proposes that the activation of the four systems as well as the information exchange between them depends on emotions, that is, moods and feelings. To switch between systems, an individual – and also an organization – must be capable of emotion regulation. TOP framework uses the term organizational self-steering competencies, which ideally result in organizational agency – at any given time, the organization, its departments, teams and employees can activate the system best suited to perform the task at hand.

Concept 4: Extension Memory’s Characteristics

The fourth concept is EM’s characteristics. This article positions EM as the linchpin of innovation because of several key characteristics. EM can leverage an individual’s complete biographical experiential knowledge, which is highly individual and unique (and stored mostly unconsciously). These extensive, interconnected experiential networks are felt, rather than precisely expressed in language. EM predominantly operates intuitively (unconsciously) with an extensive connection to body awareness and the emotions. EM’s parallel processing capacity can consider virtually infinite elements of information simultaneously. EM’s content is characterized by integration: humans can retrospectively render conscious many details they have processed unconsciously through EM’s intuitive experience. EM’s broad and free-floating attention works from the background of the consciousness, responding to everything in the environment that could be (self-) relevant.

Concept 5: Systems Interactions

According to General Electric's famous CEO Jack Welch, “an organization’s ability to learn, and translate that learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive business advantage” (Slater, 1998, p. 12). The fifth concept is the interactions between the four systems. In “PSI language,” the above quote refers to two interactions: learning from mistakes and new experience (OR–EM interaction) and implementing plans and intentions (IM–IBC interaction). We also discuss the interaction between the two systems at the complex cognition level (IM–EM interaction).

Concept 6: Object Recognition – Extension Memory Interaction

The sixth concept is the interaction between slow-elementary OR and fast-complex EM. The proverb “not seeing the forest for the trees” serves as an illustrative metaphor. A person who sees the forest is in EM’s holistic processing style with its focus on the whole. A person who sees the trees is in OR’s detail-oriented processing style that detaches one incongruent or unexpected object from its context for later recognition in a different context. OR challenges and refines EM’s content (an individual’s entire knowledge and experience) by bringing new information to EM’s attention.

Concept 7: Extension Memory – Intention Memory Interaction

The seventh concept is the interaction between fast-complex EM and slow-complex IM. IM represents conscious, analytical thinking with binary logic (either-or), whereas EM represents intuitive, holistic thinking with an integrative breadth (both-and). IM analytically challenges and refines EM’s content of thinking (an individual’s entire knowledge and experience) and transforms creative ideas into elaborate plan. An appreciative cooperation between these systems at the complex cognition level can be compared to an amazing team working together to produce stellar output.

Concept 8: Intention Memory – Intuitive Behavior Control Interaction

The eighth and last concept is the interaction between the two systems at the behavioral axis of personality: slow-complex IM, which devises elaborated plans, and fast-elementary IBC, which executes plans at a crucial moment and in a context sensitive way and gives IM continuous feedback on what works – and what does not.

Table 2. Interaction Patterns Between Information Processing Systems.

Table 2 Interaction Patterns between Information Processing Systems

A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING INNOVATION

This section specifies the key statements about innovative organizations (outlined below), which are derived from PSI theory and TOP framework, similar to a site map. Each statement is categorized and operationalized with indicators that are further described in this article.

The resulting framework is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Framework for evaluating the organization’s innovation capability

Category	Statement	Indicator
1. THE LINCHPIN OF INNOVATION: EXTENSION MEMORY	1.1. Eureka! A New Idea	Innovative organizations understand the difference between Extension Memory’s and Intuitive Behavior Control’s parallel processing capacities.
	1.2. Extension Memory: Innovation’s Superstar	Innovative organizations comprehend Extension Memory’s role as innovation superstar.
	1.3. Yellow Versus Green Innovation	Innovative organizations know the difference between “yellow innovation” and “green innovation”.
2. CONTENT OF THINKING	2.1. Innovation’s Primary Raw Ingredients: Knowledge and Experience	Innovative organizations understand that knowledge and experience serve as the foundation for innovation.
	2.2. Innovation’s Second Raw Ingredient: Data	Innovative organizations are data savvy.
	2.3. Actuality, Breadth, Diversity, Relevance	Innovative organizations strive for world-leading content of thinking (knowledge, experience, data).
	2.4. Upskilling	Innovative organizations continously challenge, expand and modify the organization’s overall content of thinking.
	2.5. All Together Now	Innovative organizations create opportunities to share content of thinking.
	2.6. Permeable Organizational Borders	Innovative organizations allow external content of thinking entering the organization.
	2.7. The Experience Trap	Innovative organizations are aware of the adverse impact that knowledge and experience can have.
3. FORMS OF THINKING	3.1. Anxiety at the Gateway of New Knowledge	Innovative organizations are capable of self-criticism.
	3.2. Intangible at the Beginning	Innovative organizations know that innovative ideas start with “gut feelings”.
	3.3. The Human Touch: Appreciation, Respect, Trust	Innovative organizations cultivate appreciation, respect, and trust at all levels.
	3.4. A Relaxed Atmosphere	Innovative organizations understand the key requirements for Extension Memory’s activation.
	3.5. Vulnerability	Innovative organizations provide a safe space for the vulnerability associated with an activated Extension Memory.
	3.6. What Leadership is About	Innovative organizations have an Extension Memory-friendly leadership style.
	3.7. The Product of Discipline and Creativity Is Innovation	Innovative organizations cultivate an appreciative cooperation between analytical and holistic thinking.
	3.8. There Is Nothing Good Unless You Do It	Innovative organizations excel at implementing plans.
4. INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS	4.1. Panta Rhei - Everything Flows	Innovative organizations understand the perpetual transition between the four systems and apply all key characteristics introduced in this article simultaneously.
	4.2. Mature Organizational Personalities	Innovative organizations have commonalities with mature organizational personalities.
	4.3. Individual Preferences in Information Processing Systems	Innovative organizations consider both content and forms of thinking in their recruiting and staffing decisions.
	4.4. Innovation versus “Business as Usual”	Innovative organizations understand the difference in forms of thinking required for innovation and for day-to-day processes.
	4.5. Predicting an Organization’s Innovation Capability	Innovative organizations use the TOP framework to steer innovation from a meta-level.

THE LINCHPIN OF INNOVATION: EXTENSION MEMORY

This section introduces fast-complex EM as the linchpin of innovation.

Eureka! A New Idea

Eureka! A New Idea (1.1.) refers to the source of a new idea. Apple's co-founder and CEO Jobs (1996) explained:

Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things (section GrokKing design).

In this quote, “they just saw something” serves as metaphor for EM and IBC’s intuitive (unconscious) workings. Both EM (complex intuition) and IBC (elementary intuition) have a practically infinite parallel processing capacity that can consider virtually infinite elements of information simultaneously³. The difference between the two is as follows. While IBC’s content is characterized by fusion⁴, EM’s content is characterized by integration. In other words, with hindsight, humans can render conscious many details they have initially dealt with unconsciously through EM’s intuitive experience (Kuhl, 2017). With IBC, this retrospection is not possible.

Extension Memory: Innovation’s Superstar

Extension Memory: Innovation’s Superstar (1.2.) establishes EM as the innovation superstar, due to its content (an individual’s entire knowledge and experience) and its way of processing this content (parallel processing, integration). Combined, these qualities enable an individual to reconnect, recombine and reorganize their knowledge and experience to devise a new, innovative idea and to later render conscious many details. There's a hitch, however: EM's output quality (i.e., the quality of a new idea) highly depends on the quality of its content. EM’s content, in turn, depends on EM’s ongoing interactions with the two slow, conscious systems: IM challenges EM’s content analytically, and OR challenges EM’s content by bringing new information to EM’s attention.

Yellow Versus Green Innovation

Yellow versus Green innovation (1.3.) refers to the colors used in the evaluation graphs of PSI theory’s TOP/EOS personality diagnostics: yellow indicates EM, and green indicates IBC. This article focuses on EM’s role in innovation and introduces what (from a PSI perspective) could be termed “yellow innovation.” Ideas emerging from IBC could be termed “green innovation.” Green innovation is characterized by an incredibly fast pace and a potential lack of ethics and is beyond the scope of this article.

CONTENT OF THINKING

EM, IM, IBC and OR all represent forms of thinking, as they are information processing systems. They store and process information that represents content of thinking. This section introduces the role that content of thinking plays in innovation.

Innovation’s Primary Raw Ingredients: Knowledge and Experience

Knowledge and Experience (2.1.) refers to the overall pool of knowledge and experience an organization can leverage and serves as the foundation for innovation. Parts of this knowledge and experience are available in a documented form; this documentation may include strategies, business processes and methodologies. Other parts are stored implicitly in the employees’ memories. An employee’s professional and life experiences, including the personally relevant parts, represent EM's content - and are all highly relevant to innovation. Put simply, to synthesize something new and devise innovative ideas, organizations need humans with a wealth of knowledge and experience. At Stanford, a ‘radical collaboration’ approach is adopted which involves people from different disciplines working together (Pferdt, 2016), hereby connecting the dots between different knowledge and experiences.

Innovation’s Second Raw Ingredient: Data

Data (2.2.) refers to the importance of data to innovation. TOP framework classifies data as content of thinking. The researchers and authors Meyer-Schönberger and Ramge (2019) state the following:

In the future, it will no longer be human genius equipped with sufficient capital that will determine which companies are innovative, but above all access to data, in particular feedback data, generated by the use of digital services. This in turn means that the most innovative companies will be those with the most and the most relevant data.

If data-rich companies are the future innovation champions, innovation will significantly depend on an organization’s access to data, metadata and feedback data and on its ability to make this data useable and useful. Data complements knowledge and experience in serving as a basis for innovation. To leverage the power of data, a company must ensure data availability, access to data pools, data sharing, data purchasing, and data science and data engineering skills and competencies.

Actuality, Breadth, Diversity, Relevance

Actuality, Breadth, Diversity, Relevance (2.3.) refers to an intolerance to outdated and one-sided content of thinking. Synthesizing things that are new worldwide calls for up-to-date, broad, diverse, relevant and ideally world-leading content of thinking. Due to EM’s parallel processing, a diverse range of content of thinking can be crucial to devising new ideas. Organizations cannot determine whether EM’s content (the implicit knowledge and experience stored in employees’ memories) meets these requirements. They must simply encourage and strive for the best content of thinking possible, which includes willingness to learn from mistakes (i.e., fostering ongoing learning processes). Menne (2019)⁵ stated, “Diversity will become even more important in the digital work environment. Not as a cheap, political buzzword, but because the results of mixed teams – international, young, old, digital native and skilled craftsman – are demonstrably better.”

Upskilling

Upskilling (2.4.) refers to continuously challenging, expanding and modifying an organization’s overall pool of knowledge and experience. Finckh (2019)⁶ from the financial service provider Allianz highlighted:

We will invest massively in training opportunities to give our employees the chance to meet the new challenges and to qualify for other areas. The first step of this up-skilling initiative is a worldwide, free access for all employees to the online learning platform LinkedIn Learning. We do not control which courses individuals take to advance their education; everyone is allowed to learn whatever they want.

New content of thinking can be purchased, for example, through training, recruiting, consulting, suppliers, cooperation and mergers and acquisitions. It can also be generated by merging content of thinking previously held separately, for instance, by combining data insights with employee experience, by leading workshops across divisions or by allowing employees to follow their inspiration.

All Together Now

All Together Now (2.5.) involves employees meeting, talking to each other, collaborating and cooperating (both formally and informally) to build upon each other’s ideas. This practice not only modifies an employee’s highly individual and unique EM content but also modifies the overall pool of knowledge and experience an organization can use to foster innovation. According to Menges (2019)⁷,

In the end, the companies with the best ideas will prevail. And these ideas don’t appear when everyone is sitting at home in front of their computers waiting for orders. They emerge when people work together on site to create something lasting.

Permeable Organizational Borders

Permeable Organizational Borders (2.6.) refers to external content of thinking entering the organization. Beil (2019)⁸ from chemical company BASF Group stated, “It is a matter of thinking about innovation from the standpoint of the market and the customer’s needs. I encourage all our researchers and developers to talk to people outside the company as often as possible” (p. 14). Innovative organizations participate in social dialogues and regularly have in-depth discussions with people outside the organization such as users, clients, suppliers, previous and potential new employees, competitors, universities, stakeholders, citizens, neighbors and experts.

The Experience Trap

The Experience Trap (2.7.) refers to the adverse impact that knowledge and experience (content of thinking) can have on new ideas through a selective consideration of what is expected and desired. As Schuh (2019)⁹, the founder of the new German electric car eGO Life, explained, “In the first year, I only had people on the team, who had never developed production cars before. With them, you could have built robots for use at home or drones. The only person with automotive experience was me.” When the first prototype was ready, “a youngster with a visionary drive to redesign was joined by an experienced professional.” Innovative organizations know both the extent to which knowledge and experience may aid the innovation process and at which point this prior knowledge is helpful (Molitor, 2019). Employees and decision-making bodies with outdated or one-sided content of thinking risk prematurely discrediting innovative ideas.

FORMS OF THINKING

This section introduces the forms of thinking that boost innovation (how we think) in combination with content of thinking that meets the requirements outlined in the previous section.

Anxiety at the Gateway of New Knowledge

Anxiety at the Gateway of New Knowledge (3.1.) refers to the moods that typically accompany OR’s activation: anxiety and fear. Alon (2019)¹⁰, who studies underlying principles that govern biological circuits, argued that “The path to new knowledge often leads through an extremely frustrating phase in which nothing seems to succeed. Orientation and security are lost, experience is no longer worth anything, fear is spreading”. When the discrepancy between the current content of thinking and a new situation exceeds a critical limit, EM is deactivated, and OR, with its focus on one single novel detail, is activated. Fear is spreading. What occurs next depends on how an individual – and an organization – can cope with stress. Innovative organizations are capable of self-criticism and their leaders and employees can handle the negative feelings associated with new idea. This ability allows them to make an informed decision about integrating new information into the organization’s content of thinking.

Intangible at the Beginning

Intangible in the Beginning (3.2.) refers to EM’s communication, which can be felt rather than precisely expressed in language. As Pferdt (2016), Google’s chief innovation evangelist, said,

Of course, we also have our share of criticism. But the way we formulate it is different. We may say, “Yes, I think that’s a great idea. But I would add this or that.” Or, “Have you ever thought about approaching it this way and that way?” Such constructive discussions and suggestions help thoughts to grow in the first place. We are convinced that this is the only way to create the courage to develop ideas further.

EM’s primary language (in the beginning) is “gut feelings” and pictures.¹¹ These EM characteristics have far-reaching implications for innovative organizations. EM’s initial output is not analytically tangible. Instantly criticizing an idea or forcing a creative idea prematurely into a verbal, conscious form does not foster innovation. There is no simple “on-off” switch for creativity. Innovation cannot be imposed or forced because access to EM is associated with a feeling of relaxation and psychological safety.

The Human Touch: Appreciation, Respect, Trust

The Human Touch: Appreciation, Respect, Trust (3.3.) refers to how innovative organizations consistently create an overall environment and specific opportunities that are EM-friendly and invite their employees to activate their EM in a safe setting. Showing appreciation and respect and treating employees with trust are integral to fostering an EM-friendly environment. Pferdt (2016) explained about Google,

What sets us apart and makes us so successful are things that all companies can actually adopt because they are deeply human: openness, transparency, trust, respect. These are values that people all over the world appreciate and understand. And which, if they can actually be experienced, contribute significantly to promoting a wealth of ideas and innovation.

A Relaxed Atmosphere

A Relaxed Atmosphere (3.4.) refers to the mood that accompanies EM’s activation: relaxed and calm. A relaxed mood is a key requirement for EM activation. Moreover, individuals tend to activate EM when three elements of information are given (thus transcending IM’s binary logic, as EM is designed for processing more than three elements). EM is also activated when there are no direct requests and when several choices are offered, often more casually than explicitly (Kuhl, 2001). These quotes from NASA’s Space Apps Challenge fit these requirements: “Volcanoes, icebergs and asteroids (my goodness!)” and “What the world needs now is … ” (Lau, 2019).

Vulnerability

Vulnerability (3.5.) refers to EM’s extensive connection to body awareness and the emotions. Due to EM’s emotional coupling, an activated EM results in increased vulnerability. Employees will only share their ideas if the organization provides a safe space for this increased vulnerability. When employees activate their EM in a work context, it is a precious gift that organizations should never take for granted. Nevertheless, the individual ultimately decides whether or not some of EM’s implicit content is shared. “To be innovative, people need to have confidence in their own ideas. And this is developed best in an environment that reacts positively to new things and is curious in its truest sense.” (Pferdt, 2016)

What Leadership Is About

What Leadership is About (3.6.) refers to an EM-friendly type of leadership required for innovation that involves empathy, integrative competence, personal involvement (identification), personal presence in encounters with others, flexibility in implementation, and an ability to actively cope with the negative feelings associated with challenges (Kuhl & Alsleben, 2009). Hill (2014), who has studied some of the world’s most creative companies, has argued that,

If we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again, we must recast our understanding of what leadership is about. Leading innovation is about creating the space where people are willing and able to do the hard work of innovative problem solving (12:04).

An EM-friendly type of leadership can create this space.

The Product of Discipline and Creativity Is Innovation

The product of discipline and creativity is innovation (3.7.) refers to the ideally appreciative cooperation between IM and EM. Collins (2019), one of the most important management experts of today, found that “Creativity only becomes valuable when combined with discipline. The secret lies in finding the right kind and dose of discipline to reinforce creativity, not to suppress it”. What makes the combination of discipline and creativity so powerful? As suggested by the quote, creativity comes from EM, and discipline, from IM. EM has the ability to integrate many discrepant perspectives to synthesize a new idea. IM analytically challenges and transforms the new, creative idea into an elaborate plan. This process is cyclical. Innovative companies master the art of both IM and EM (analytical and holistic thinking), thus leveraging the benefits of both forms of thinking across the organization.

There Is Nothing Good Unless You Do It

There Is Nothing Good Unless You Do It (3.8.) refers to the interaction between IM and IBC. IBC puts plans into action, in the favorable moment and in a context-sensitive manner, and generates actual, tangible results. Innovative organizations can quickly jumpstart IBC and rapidly execute any plan. Pferdt (2016) states about Google, “With us, the implementation in practice goes very quickly”.

INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

This section concludes with some general statements about innovative organizations.

Panta Rhei – Everything Flows

Panta Rhei – Everything flows (4.1.) refers to the perpetual transition between the four systems. Innovative organizations excel at all four systems, and they are capable of proactively switching between these systems. They are aware of the strengths and limitations associated with each system and consider one-sidedness in forms of thinking a risk. Innovative organizations are capable of applying all key characteristics introduced in this article simultaneously.

Mature Organizational Personalities

Mature Organizational Personalities (4.2.) refers to the commonalities between innovative organizations and mature organizational personalities, a term established by TOP framework. Organizations capable of repeated innovation share some key characteristics with mature organizational personalities. They are capable of self-criticism (OR–EM interaction), can quickly implement plans (IM–IBC interaction), and excel in both analytical and holistic thinking (IM–EM interaction).

Individual Preferences in Information Processing Systems

Individual Preferences in Information Processing Systems (4.3.) refers to the employee’s preferred forms of thinking. Innovative organizations understand that individuals significantly differ in their preferences for specific forms of thinking. These organizations consider both content and forms of thinking in their recruiting and staffing decisions and seek managers and employees who display a natural preference for the forms of thinking known to boost innovation.

Innovation versus “Business as Usual”

Innovation Versus “Business as Usual” (4.4.) refers to the difference in forms of thinking required for innovation and for day-to-day processes. Innovation is fostered by the intuitive systems EM and IBC and by a rapid, continuous cycle through all four systems. These characteristics are reflected in the methodologies used in innovation processes such as design thinking, agile, and facilitation. Day-to-day processes are often characterized by a preference for the conscious systems IM and OR.

Predicting an Organization’s Innovation Capability

Predicting an Organization’s Innovation Capability (4.5.) refers to a quote from the German Psychological Society that assigns PSI theory an “explanatory and predictive value” that “extends far beyond personality psychology” (German Psychological Society, 2012). TOP framework methodology, which leverages PSI theory at an organizational level, thus embraces foresight and can (at least in the near future) predict innovation. However, organizations should be aware that while changing their content and forms of thinking is possible, both transformations require time.

CONCLUSION

This article highlights the benefits of applying TOP framework in an innovation setting. Using a mapping approach, we have examined innovation through the lens of PSI. This work is meant to serve as an introduction to how PSI concepts can be applied to foster innovation. It may have given you a taste of what is possible, but it was nothing more then a bit of expolatory fun. We have only included some of PSI theory’s key features¹²; we excluded green innovation¹³, and the innovation process extends beyond the quotes included in this article.¹⁴ Still, it should be evident that TOP framework is a powerful methodology that provides a comprehensive evaluation method to assess a multitude of topics including and beyond innovation. By focusing on the complex interplay between content and forms of thinking at individual, team, department, organizational and societal levels, TOP provides a new way to understand organizations. One of TOP’s advantages is its effortless elegance, which makes it enjoyable to use but requires solid PSI theory and TOP framework knowledge. All the same, the innovative potential TOP affords is well-worth any effort required to familiarize oneself with this framework.

RECOMMENDED READING

Bledow, R., Kühnel, J., Jin, M., & Kuhl, J. (2021). Breaking the chains: The Inverted-U-Shaped relationship between action-state orientation and creativity under low job autonomy. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321996812

Engel, A. M., & Kuhl, J. (2015). Personality and planning: The interplay between linear and holistic processing. The Psychology of Planning in Organizations, 74-104. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203105894-8

IMPART (2021). https://www.impart.de

Kuhl, J. (2021). https://www.psi-theorie.com

Kuhl, J., Quirin, M., & Koole, S. L. (2015). Being someone: The integrated self as a Neuropsychological system. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(3), 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12162

Kuhl, J., Quirin, M., & Koole, S. L. (2020). The functional architecture of human motivation: Personality systems interactions theory. Advances in Motivation Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2020.06.001

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Except where attributed to others, the author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author acknowledges the valuable review comments from Julius Kuhl, Professor Emeritus in differential psychology and personality research at the University of Osnabrueck, Germany, founder of Personality Systems Interaction Theory and author of numerous books and articles on personality and motivation.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Barbara R. Siegenthaler

Barbara R. Siegenthaler, Founder of Savanteon LLC, Swiss Attorney-at-law, Certified Internal Auditor and Qualified PSI Expert is a seasoned multi-disciplinary expert with over 16 years of experience in various roles at a global insurance company. Currently, her main focus is on behavioral risk and predictive assurance in combination with internal audit. As an engaging speaker who challenges the status quo of internal auditing and provides a reliable pathway to the profession’s future, Barbara is much in demand at national Internal Audit conferences across Europe. Barbara can be reached at [email protected], www.savanteon.com and www.personality-based-audit.com.

Notes

1. Professor Dr. Julius Kuhl, head of the personality psychology unit within the department of psychology at the University of Osnabrueck, Germany (1986 to 2016), and founder of the theory of personality systems interactions (PSI), www.psi-theory.com.

2. The performance speed is defined as the processing time when the system is used. It differs from the learning speed that is beyond the scope of this article.

3. Apart of this commonality, EM’s and IBC’s characteristics are entirely different.

4. Specifically, IBC’s content is characterized by an indissoluble fusion of all perceived sensory impressions.

5. Simone Menne, Chief Financial Officer of Lufthansa AG until 2016, today Supervisory Board member and Non-Executive Director at BMW, Deutsche Post DHL and Johnson Controls International (Menne, 2019).

6. Christian Finckh was Head of Human Resources at Allianz SE at the time of the interview. On January 1, 2019, he moved to Allianz Global Investors (AGI) as Head of Global Allianz Business Development (Finckh, 2019).

7. Jochen, Menges, Professor of Human Resource Management and Leadership at the University of Zurich (Menges, 2019).

8. Christian Beil, Management Consulting – Growth & Innovation at BASF (Beil, 2019).

9. Professor Günther Schuh, co-director of Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL) at RWTH Aachen University, Germany, and founder of the new German electric car e.GO Life (Schuh, 2019).

10. Professor Uri Alon, Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel (Alon, 2019).

11. While EM’s primary language are “gut feelings” and pictures, EM has a hybrid competence: In exchange with IM and OR, EM works with language in a holistic way. A good example of EM’s linguistic “vocabulary” are metaphors.

12. PSI Theory includes seven levels of personality, of which we have only used two, and a third to a certain extent. For example, the impact of stress or the interactions between systems and motives (defined as intelligent needs) have been left untouched.

13. Refer to section 1.3 Yellow vs. Green innovation.

14. For example, how can an invention become a useful mass product.