"What the innovators have in common is that they can put together ideas and information in unique combinations that nobody else has quite put together before.
The researchers describe this ability to connect ideas as "associating," and say it's key to innovators' ability to think outside the box. But they add that the secret to how the great innovators think is the way they act.
"The way they act is to observe actively, like an anthropologist, and they talk to incredibly diverse people with different world views, who can challenge their assumptions."
and
"All these behaviors are powerfully enhanced by a capacity to ask provocative, challenging questions of the world around them."
And, Marc Ventresca, a lecturer in strategic management at the University of Oxford Saïd Business School, and he agrees that innovation is not an inherent trait, but a set of skills that people can learn. He says:
"Data says that people who have more varied connections hear more diverse information, and see patterns before other people," he told CNN.
"They are able to put together something they hear from a conference they were at last week with a briefing they're at tomorrow and come up with a new idea."
The goal is not simply knowing lots of people, but knowing people from varied backgrounds, who work for different companies, in different industries, have different skills, and deal with different issues, so that you are exposed to varied ideas."
So, having contacts and a network of people from a variety of backgrounds, jobs, places, educations, etc. is the catylist of innovation. It is the variety of input, along with the ability to observe and experiment with the information they connect that makes them come to conclusions or create new ideas before others.
Now, having read that, One of the next emails I opened had a link to another article from the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog. Here Patrick J. Deneen tells of his recent visit to a museum to see the treasures of an extinct culture when they were at their peak. His thoughts took him to monoculture and how it can make systems susceptible to an outside threat that can wipe it out, quickly and completely. Here are some of this thoughts:
"Nature abhors monocultures. Nature abhors them so much that they do not exist in accordance with nature. They would be unknown but for modern man.
A monoculture is a single form of life - or, by extension, a single culture - that exists over a large expanse of space, even globally. Nature abhors monocultures because they are so susceptible to annihilation by one agent of destruction. In plant or animal life, for example, a single virus or bacteria, a single destructive fungus or disease, a single hostile predator or pest would wipe out an entire monoculture without the barest resistance. It is the very nature of nature to avoid monocultures - indeed, it cannot be otherwise since any form of monoculture cannot long exist in nature. Life in the natural realm is manifold and varied, precisely so that some life will weather the inevitable deadly challenges that arise.
It could be posited that modernity is defined by the introduction of monocultures."
He cites three major areas at risk: politics, finances and economy. He goes on to say:
We live at a moment of monoculture's triumph - and demise. Around us is the evidence of the near-total victory of monocultures in nearly every field of human activity, at the same time that the recklessness and fragility of monocultures comes ever more fully into focus.
And then gives examples in agriculture, finance and higher education. How we have homogonized and brought into conformity many aspects of our lives and world. He states:
In these three cases - and one could offer many more - the potential for failure is acute. We have come to believe that the very extent and expansiveness of our form of global culture has made us less susceptible to systemic failure of the sort that eventually led to the demise of those many cultures whose detritus I viewed in the museum in Santiago. In fact, we are moving toward ever greater possibility of overall, general, and systemic failure as a whole.
and:
At this moment especially we should be protecting actual diversity - bio-diversity, financial diversity (i.e., local markets) and educational diversity in the name of local, regional, religious and pedagogical traditions (rather than being blinded by the monoculture-based claims of "multiculturalism"). Yet, at this moment we are apt to cling to our modern faith in the logic of monocultures, even as the news seems to be undeniable that nature hates monocultures, and nature will not be indefinitely denied.
So, to be the most innovative, we need to be multi-cultural, have a large group of diverse friends and aquaintences, and understand multiple world (and dare I say, religious) views. But the key is learning to observe all of that, ask questions, determine where associations can be made, and connect the pieces into a new, innovative idea that we are willing to put out there and test.
My questions come in several aspects:
1. The social media phenominon. We are able to stay in contact with a multitude of people we have met over our lives with facebook, twitter, myspace, etc. These contacts ("friends" "followers") have a multitude of backgrounds, and social media give us a wonderful way to continue our relationship with these folks. We can observe their ideas, their lives, their faith and we are in a unique position (each one of us because we each have a unique list of friends/followers) to draw new, innovative ideas about living in our life. How can we capitalize on these connections to learn the art of innovation?
2. The Inter-faith movement. While contacts and relationships across religious divides expose us to that variety of diverse cultures, I think we will need to be careful to cultivate both the relationships, but also our own uniqueness. It comes down to some of the thoughts of Disciples founder, Alexander Campbell, that we can live in harmony with and love our neighbors even if we have a different set of beliefs about our faith. How can we cultivate relationships across multi-faith lines without diluting our own faith/religion into a mono-religion puts the Church at risk as much as society and culture is at risk on the financial, political and educational fronts?
3. Our lifestyles. How can we cultivate the diverse contacts in our own lives? How can we work to value and support a multi-cultural world....in all aspects of our world? Will just putting it on our "radar" start the process of circling the wagons around the amount of diversity (which seems to be declining)we enjoy in our world now? And, how do we encourage our children and youth to value a multi-cultural, multi-economic, multi-faith world rather than the Post Modern mono emphasis we are seeing?
4. Our individual faith. How do we integrate the relationships with a multitude of cultural, faith, economic, educational and political spheres? Will solitude become more important in the listening, observing and associating processes that stimulate innovation in our personal faith? How do we see this process as inspired by God?
Lots of questions, and many answers for me to listen, observe, associate, question some more and experiment with. I hope you will join me in this quest.



