The Creator

We are not talking about social media creators, but the Creator Archetype, one of twelve archetypes a leader could present themselves. Read about the Creator below.

When identifying a leader, one can dive into various traits and personality characteristics necessary to be effective. The truth is that we all bring strengths and weaknesses to the table as leaders. To be effective is to know what those strengths and shadows are. Being a leader requires understanding how you “show up” in difficult situations and when times are good.

When psychologist Carl Jung developed the idea of archetypes, stories familiar across all humanity, he believed that we were all born with what he called a “collective consciousness,” meaning that we interact with each other using traits and behaviors common to all humanity.

Modern psychologists have studied this concept and created and validated several archetypes or patterns one can identify in one’s personality. Using this concept, let’s look at a leader who shows a strong tendency towards being a “Creator,” one of twelve archetypes.

The following is a composite of creator leaders and follows a general description pattern.

The Creator

He was always looking toward the future and looking at patterns that might reveal themselves. Patterns and relationships that no one else could see were apparent to him. The present moment had value, but the future was where the action was. He loved taking disparate patterns and ideas and blending them into cohesive ideas, projects, or operating systems. His was of a continued learning mindset, an open mindset, where he was dedicated to learning as a virtue.

He started sentences with “What if,” and it seemed nothing was outside the realm of reality. When confronted with an issue, he often said, “What if we do ‘this,’ what would that look like? What are the consequences of doing that?” Or he would say, “What would it look like if?”

He would not let us bring up ideas or issues in a meeting if we used the word “but.” Anyone caught saying, “Yeah, but” was gently reprimanded and coached to say, “and.” Someone in a meeting might say, “The project has merit, but there are issues with our operations to get it headed in the right direction.” This statement, he said, didn’t add to the conversation or issue at hand. It merely presented a problem with no solution. Meetings and discussions about issues were supposed to fix the problem, not be a gripe session and a place to bring a litany of issues to the forefront.

“The project has merit, and issues with operations need to be addressed. I plan to (presents solution).” He said this was the appropriate start to a conversation about a problem or challenge. “And can also overcome this issue by (presents solution).” It was always about the “and” and not the “but”. No buts were allowed, only and.

AND added to the story, and BUT created exclusion.

Using this tiny but significant word reframed the issue at hand. He always reframed issues or problems. To him, they weren’t problems or obstacles. By reframing the issue or problem, he could easily take something and turn it into a fun puzzle or challenge that could be and would be solved or overcome. There was no such thing as an obstacle, only challenges to be beaten.

“What is the story?” That is a question he liked to ask. What is the story meant that one had to have all the facts and figures and everything figured out before approaching him about a problem or challenge. He loved telling everyone the story about grad school, where the professor had him and the other students write an essay on the spot about something they truly believed in. After completion, the professor had them write another essay (on the spot) with the opposite argument. “Put yourself in another person’s shoes,” he shouted.

He used this experience and story to describe why and how he thought the way he did. He was a storyteller at heart. Telling stories was his way of synthesizing the facts and elements of an issue.

The Shadows

The ideas and the creations flowed. He talked about getting into “flow” and creating periods when people could be their best and feel their best. Flow was a state of consciousness that all people could attain and do. He said that specific triggers caused flow and that all flow states started with difficulty. In other words, to get into flow, one had to conceive that the task or challenge ahead was slightly more complex than one could handle. Yet, once they started, they could achieve success. According to him, one lost track of time when in flow, and the work came easily. Distractions fell to the wayside, and the brain and intellect seemed to, well, flow.

This was an example to many people of his exotic thinking. While social scientists had documented flow, many thought these types of stories seemed to be out of touch with reality for many people.

Because of this lack of excitement by others about the things he felt were important, he could be impatient. Remember, he saw patterns and the future many others could not see. He saw the world of the future while many stood by, hoping they could get through the day. His impatience would turn to saying, “They don’t get it,” which often sounded condescending or arrogant.

In addition, the impatience and frustration would often send him scurrying to the next shiny object. Much like tech entrepreneurs or people with inventive minds, distraction by the next most exciting thing would distract him. And when things didn’t go the way he felt they should, he would put things off or procrastinate.

His love of learning, which in most cases is a virtue, sometimes caused him to not fully implement what he had just learned. Because of his varied interests, the potential of the next big thing, the next shiny object, threatened his success. Procrastination and putting things off would often follow, causing a spiral of depression and imposter syndrome.

Thinking and Leading

Thinking was his favorite thing to do. He was well suited to be a college professor who could dream up ideas and test them to see if they were true. Thinking and taking action is considered a positive trait in society unless the thinking is flawed and based on poor information. This has been true throughout history. People have followed leaders and deeply flawed ideas that caused significant grief in people, countries, businesses, and organizations.

Being a leader takes time and effort. As a leader, many people will follow and believe what you say. After all, you only become a leader if people believe in your ideas and conception of reality. Leaders will have followers and detractors. Half the people will love you, and the other half won’t. A leader can be polarizing, or they can be unifying. As seen in the description above, the leader brings strengths but can also have shadows.

The Creator is a pattern that serves the cause of leadership well. The Creator has to be careful not to get so wrapped up in their creativity and otherworldliness that he doesn’t bring others along with him. Creators can be influential leaders because they see the patterns and use holistic thinking to create beautiful stories. The effective leader must then rely on other archetype patterns to bring those stories and ideas to fruition. It is one thing to develop ideas; it’s another to make them happen.

What is your leadership archetype? Are you a Creator, or do you show up with a different pattern when leading and interacting with people? Knowing your archetypes is a step toward greater awareness of your ability to lead and function. I am certified as a CultureTalk facilitator and can work with you to determine your archetype and how you might use it in your business or organization.

It starts with an assessment that takes less than 20 minutes, followed by an hour-long session where we walk through your results. Afterward, we can discuss how a similar assessment might work to determine your organization’s archetype or culture. Email me at martin@martinkarlconsulting.com.