The Syncretic Process and The Value Of Associative Thinking In A World Of Linear Decision-Making
The products and services—the creative intellectual capital upon which most business are founded—were born in an associative thought process. Paradoxically, later decisions in those same organizations are frequently initiated, managed, and concluded almost entirely within a framework of linear-logical thinking. Syncretic thinking is a mental process that makes non-linear, and therefore unexpected, but nonetheless logical associative connections among seemingly divergent phenomena or data on the basis of subtle qualities they may have in common. This process, present during the conception of a new venture, should not be abandoned or overwhelmed by linearity.
By understanding and resolving this paradox between the creative syncretic process that characterizes the founding stage culture of an organization, and the conservative linear processes that characterize later stages we can generate a new mix of creative thinking that effectively includes and optimizes both elements. These two divergent modes highlight several differences between the mind-sets that typify the young and innovative start up phase of a business, and that same business when later it is more mature and settled into it’s niche. Associative and inventive thinking that generated a novel product or service and founded an organization or industry usually, at maturity, will have yielded to a more rigorous calculus and competitive strategic analysis. In this later phase of organization, rewards linear thinking frameworks that conserve capital and that advance incrementally within a defined and established niche. The creative productive early associative process is discouraged, and linearity, alone, is widely believed to support long-term survival. Neither framework by itself is likely to encourage the growth of new ideas that may form the future re-creations of the organization in a changing market and technical environment.
By examining organizational process in these contexts it becomes obvious that young businesses, if they are successful, owe much to their early associative and inventive ideation process and their ability to tolerate risk. The bane of startups however is lack of rigor, planning, and strategic analysis. Established business, in contrast, may owe the health of their market position to a process that conserves strength for the long haul, while taking fewer risks. Here the problem flips over again and features greatly diminished creative output and reduced enthusiasm and employee recruitment and retention within the company. Here is the paradox: Young businesses have what older businesses need; and mature businesses have what young ones require.
Some organizations are able to manage the first stages of syncretic creativity and reasoning as they are carried along on a wave of creative excitement and novelty. Once the rush and newness wear off these same organizations may fail during latter stages of the creative effort when syncretic thinking should not be abandoned but must be integrated with linear thinking. Informed creativity management can avoid conflict between these differing thinking styles and communication. Failure can occur when instead of continuing in a syncretic mode that gradually integrates associative with linear thinking, a research and development team is forced into a linear exercise that requires them to justify their work or budget projections, and must compete with other more naturally linear individuals and departments for the scarce attention and resources of the parent corporation.
There are no shortages of information or educational support for the development of linear and logical thinkers, (indeed this is the modality of most education), and we can trust that the educational system and Business Schools will continue to train young brains that perform and test well in linear and logical tasks. It remains difficult to discover sources of knowledge and educational programs that offer training in the neglected non-linear or associative mental techniques.
The Syncretic Management Turnaround:
The standard models in western education emphasize linear-logical approaches. These models cast aside the often brilliant, but learning-disabled and/or dyslexic students. This cohort, strongly curious and intelligent, and forced to find it’s own way through the educational system, provides a bounty of innovation as they mature. Many, with poor performance and spotty school records in their early years, become industry leaders as elders. These are the talented creative individuals we should seek to fill the associative thinking roles as we restructure our creative departments.
The Syncretic Management Model is a modality that brings the creative capacities inherent in younger people and startup companies to the assist the waning creativity of the same people and companies later in their respective lives.
The conventional linear model places the innovative return on creative investment in jeopardy, reducing the innovation output of the organization as it grows. Competition for support among ideas and inventors within an organization is the wrong model if long term success and expansion into new markets is the desired goal. This conflict from within is much like an autoimmune disease in the life of an organization. Integration of both modalities—linear and associative—within individual minds and throughout the work force nurtures the fruit of creative reasoning throughout the full cycle to mature productivity.
The syncretic management model, as a vigorous alternative, would buffer the creative workers from the dampening and innovation-discouraging effects of frequent, periodic quantitative justification, deadlines and financial projections. Syncretic management would place pairs of well chosen team leaders who together are skilled syncretic/linear structural managers, and who communicate well with each other. These dyads nurture and act as managers for small creative groups. This pair of managers must carry the responsibility of interfacing with higher level management and insulate the creative workers who are their direct reports from direct scrutiny. High level policy and management practices should, for their part, commit to a constant elevated level of support for these syncretic groups, via their managers, over longer financial planning and projection cycles than are allowed for by the quarterly and annual reviews and allowances. Organizations wishing to enhance creativity and innovation should be patient and expect to prepare for a multi-quarter delay on these time and funding investments.
The syncretic management team leaders should be responsible for selection and recruitment of a balanced ratio between syncretic and linear thinking styles when creating a new product development team. Each new placement should be capable of interfacing most effectively with the highest potentials and abilities of their counterpart teammates. The supervising management dyad—the teams co-directors— are similarly built upon the syncretic/structural bond model but each individual in the management diad should be cast not in a creative capacity but in a management context. Each should be competent to oversee and facilitate the flow of communication across this interface between the contrasting mind styles exhibited by work group members and the rest of the organization. The successful team and it’s management dyad will function as an integrated thinking unit (similar to a single human brain). The combination of individual minds will blend to produce a whole that is larger and more powerful than the sum of its parts or any of it’s parts. As a corollary, each individual will develop to become more effective and productive than could be possible without immersion and integration within a supportive group.
The immediate goals of introducing the syncretic management process within an organization is to increase and facilitate creative innovation and achievement. Long term goals include extending the longevity of the organization in it’s evolving marketplace and smoothing out business cycles by developing a company based as much on proprietary information and technology, as upon the business of business. Organized in this way, companies have a better chance of remaining successful technology leaders by becoming incubators and hatcheries, and will subsequently have more ideas to offer their markets. They will increase the survivability rate of new idea-hatchlings by becoming more able to protect and nurture new ideas and idea-makers while still in their most vulnerable ‘newborn’ states. An open flow of ideas originating from within the creative wellsprings throughout the organization will keep that organization young and enthusiastic as it replenishes itself from within. As the organization is renewed it will build and retain a loyal customer base. A secondary effect will be the increased job creation potential of such companies, creating the potential of transforming a company or a product and it’s customers into an industry.