The concept of personality types has become conventional wisdom. As a culture, we seem to accept the fact that no single person can be competent at all types of tasks. Using the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator, a person categorized as INFP should probably not be asked to take on a position that requires purely fact-based judgments. As a result of this shift in thinking over the last two decades, we’ve seen a continual change in organizational theory. The new norm is flat, open, collaborative, team-based structures that attempt to maximize an organization’s collective wisdom. But this methodology has not yet become the norm as an approach to innovation.

In most organizations, innovation continues to be an event, a job, or a department – a small number of individuals that seem to fit a stereotypical description of outside-the-box or strategic thinkers.

Using the structure supplied by assessments such as Meyers Briggs or DISC, I believe there are at least four personality categories that apply to the innovation process. Each category can be considered both a step in the process and a set of skills that contribute to innovation.

Observers
Individuals obsessed with data populate this category. They read everything they can get their hands on, and they find the time to actually listen to all the podcasts the rest of us merely subscribe to. These individuals are vital for identifying what is happening, changing, emerging, or being talked about.

Connectors
People in this category are adept at finding patterns. They have a natural ability to scan large amounts of information, make connections between seemingly unrelated data, and develop hypotheses about how these data fit together and what the patterns might imply.

Evaluators
This category is reserved for people who excel at recognizing the advantages (or disadvantages) of any given idea, plan, scenario, etc. They possess keen analytical skills. Their insights are highly valuable.

Implementers
Individuals in this category set priorities and execute. They know what it takes to implement new processes and commercialize new products and services.

Thought leaders in this space are predicting a future when the organizations commonly thought of as “innovative” will be the ones who will find a way to manage around the fact that innovation is not a linear process. Innovation functions best when individuals contribute to the steps of the process that most closely match their personality. Observers observing. Connectors connecting. Evaluators evaluating. Implementers implementing.

In our office, we’re constantly passing around emails with links to articles, websites, etc. that someone here finds interesting – usually things that relate loosely to design, technology, or communication. Every once in a while one of these emails will find its way into our thinking or our processes, but more often than not these nuggets of information are digested, then lost. Not the right time, out of context, etc.

Imagine if each of those emails could be tagged and made available for the entire organization in a user-friendly format. The number of data points would grow over time. Information would group or cluster.

Now imagine an individual developing hypotheses based on these information clusters. These hypotheses could range from the predictable to the never-before-considered. Like the data points, the hypotheses would be tagged and made available for the entire organization. Also like the data points, we would begin to see clusters over time. What would happen if the organization could react to and provide critical analysis of these hypotheses?

Over time this process of discussion and analysis would begin to enable the groups of hypotheses to be categorized by their likelihood of panning out. Taking it a step further, imagine if this smaller group of hypotheses-most-likely-to-pan-out could be ranked by the organization in a Digg-like fashion.

Imagine this scenario not as an event, but as a fluid activity. Individuals could participate in as few or as many steps in the process as they felt comfortable, based on their personality. The result of all of this could potentially provide a snapshot of what the organization as a whole is paying attention to at any point in time, as well as our predictions about how these things could impact the organization, our priorities, and our rationale for what we believe deserves attention.

If getting a greater number of people involved in innovation efforts is important to an organization, this is the type of thing that needs to happen. Otherwise, innovation will remain the domain of a small number of people.