“The power of a group could be compared to a laser. Ordinary light is called ‘incoherent,’ which means that it is going in all kinds of directions; the light waves are not in phase with each other, so they can’t build up. But a laser produces a very intense beam which is coherent and can do all sorts of things that ordinary light cannot.”
—David Bohm, American theoretical physicist
For the group to reach the potential of a laser, group composition is an important factor. To foster flow, the group task must be challenging for each member, providing a balance between boredom and frustration.
However, there is a dichotomy. For straightforward goals, all members should have comparable skill levels and fundamental domain knowledge. For example, group flow is unlikely if a software development team does not share a common understanding of engineering principles, software structure, and customer requirements.
In contrast, the most innovative teams combine a wide range of expertise. Teams that share a common vernacular and unspoken rules work efficiently but not necessarily innovatively. Too much familiarity among members blocks group flow because their interactions are less challenging.
David Tanner founded DuPont’s Center for Creativity and Innovation in 1990 and used various creative thinking techniques that contributed significant profits and savings to the company. From his experience, a group focused on innovation ideally has 10-12 members, with a good mix of men and women. He considered it essential to include a decision-maker and a “wildcard”—someone who knows nothing about the focus. The wildcard could be a person in another industry, perhaps a biologist or an oil-and-gas engineer to address an aerospace fluid dynamics issue. Or the wildcard could be chosen from an unrelated department, perhaps human resources to help with branding or an office administrator to assist with a technical problem.
Also consider including members of different generations. In this respect, the traditional guideline of everyone having a similar level of experience and skills can be limiting. In my experience, the key unifier is attitude. No matter age or experience, for the stages of clarifying the focus and ideation, members who are challenged and engaged will contribute to the team’s success. Refining ideas and implementation plans may be more suited to groups with an equal level of skill and experience.
Finally, it is absolutely essential to include a person who has the authority to make decisions to move forward and implement creative ideas. This individual provides the feedback necessary for the group to remain in flow. Team members lose focus and energy when the direction isn’t clear and timely decisions aren’t made. Additionally, autonomy is the top predictor of team performance. The best groups form on their own and are self-directed, because great minds gravitate toward each other.
Conversely, flow is blocked when any member dominates, is arrogant, or believes there is nothing to be gained from the group’s focus. Have zero tolerance for these attitudes. A single comment can decimate group flow and even damage future group collaboration. Transformative leaders protect the group from anyone who dominates or does not engage, regardless of status. Status does not automatically qualify someone to be a member when group flow is sought.
Consider all these suggestions when forming your group, but if possible, allow members to gravitate toward each other and be self-directed. Attitude and an appropriate level of challenge are keys to success. Make sure that group members are not so diverse in background that seasoned experts become bored and less experienced participants become frustrated. As focused light waves build on each other to produce a transformative laser, so should your team members build on each other’s contributions and experience to deliver innovative ideas.
