Using Modes of Thinking in Innovative Teams
A simple framework for working with and leading innovative teams in the day to day.
Psychometric tools are an interesting subject; The idea that we can develop frameworks to help us understand ourselves and others for better interaction and collaboration is enticing. My experience with organizations that have offered resources for Myers-Briggs or Insight’s Discovery has led me to the conclusion that many offerings are a kind of “Astrology for MBAs”; They are very interesting but I can’t help but be skeptical that its a corporate horoscope with more steps and that they are not entirely functional in the day to day flow of product and engineering teams.
That hasn’t stopped me from trying to discover some kind framework that could work to aid me in being a more thoughtful teammate or leader. And, after all, destroying the nuance of personality and thought is what the internet teaches us! /s
All jokes aside, a simple psychometric framework that is easy to apply but is not over zealous in its prescription is kind of what I found myself writing about: What might a good version of this look like for product and engineering spaces? After many years of refining and using my own, I think I have something worth sharing.
A Designer, Problem Solver, and an Implementer are in a meeting….
Every professional has experienced the silent agony of being trapped in the wrong meeting with the wrong mindset:
You come to the meeting brimming with possibilities and creative energy, ready to brainstorm. As you get going an individual announces, “Our team has already decided on the solution I am not sure we need to explore this further."
After meticulously analyzing the problem from every angle, you've prepared a comprehensive proposal on three potential approaches with detailed trade-offs for each. Five minutes into your carefully structured explanation, your boss interrupts: "Great, so we're going with option B. Moving on!" No discussion of edge cases, no examination of long-term implications—just a snap decision based on what worked at their previous company. You smile politely while your beautiful decision matrix dies a quiet death.
The team has been debating the philosophical implications of different architectural patterns for 45 minutes. The discussion has somehow drifted from React components to the meaning of state in the universe and what to call it. You've got three PRs waiting for review, a deployment scheduled for this afternoon, and this meeting was supposed to be a quick 15-minute sync. As someone suggests "taking this offline to a separate three-hour workshop," you quietly calculate how much actual work could have been completed in this time.
As amusing as these scenarios might be, they all represent fundamental misalignments between a person's current thinking approach and the meeting's actual purpose. As we navigate through problems and projects, our thinking shifts between exploration, analysis, and execution. This happens in no particular order, and the thinking approach you're using dramatically affects how you engage in discussions, what feedback feels valuable, and what makes a meeting feel productive versus excruciating.
So what are these modes?
Designer - Divergent Thinking
The Designer mind thrives on exploration and possibility. It's the mental equivalent of a pathfinder who can see trails where others see only wilderness. This thinking approach excels when navigating ambiguity, identifying patterns across disparate domains, and reimagining what could be rather than accepting what is. Designers intuitively grasp complex systems and find elegant ways to simplify them. They're at their best when sketching the broad strokes of a vision that connects human needs to technical possibilities.
Their strength—seeing endless possibilities—is also their challenge. Designers may struggle to converge on a single solution, preferring to keep options open even when decisions need to be made. They can become restless with detailed analysis, grow frustrated when forced to narrow their focus prematurely, and occasionally mistake ideation for implementation. While a Designer might envision ten revolutionary product concepts by lunchtime, they might also leave a wake of half-started initiatives behind them. Think of them as brilliant cartographers who can map uncharted territories but sometimes forget that someone actually needs to build the roads.
Solver - Convergent Thinking
The Solver mind thrives on precision and clarity. It's the mental equivalent of a scientist meticulously testing every variable to find the one true answer hiding in the data. This thinking approach excels when dissecting complex problems into solvable components, uncovering hidden variables, and constructing robust solutions. Solvers find satisfaction in bringing order to chaos through structured analysis and logical frameworks. They're at their best when given well-defined problems where depth of thought and technical rigor are required to find the right answer.
Their strength—analytical thoroughness—is also their challenge. Solvers are deeply methodical, often appearing tedious to others as they meticulously weigh the pros and cons of every possible approach. They don't just want a solution; they want the right solution, backed by evidence. While they're willing to explain their reasoning, they bristle at compromising quality for mere expedience—to a Solver, taking shortcuts isn't pragmatic, it's professional malpractice. Their pursuit of perfection sometimes leads them down rabbit holes of diminishing returns, where they might create elegant, bulletproof solutions but miss opportunities that require quick, adaptive thinking—master craftspeople who forget that most users care more about whether the door opens than the perfection of its hinges.
Implementer - Direct Thinking
The implementer thinking mode is one of direct execution and action. This mode is at its best when it has a clear solution and deliverable so that it can find the most direct, effortless path to completion. This is the mode of thinking you want when you need to just get shit done. They are masters of their tools and are expert craftsman knowing how to do it faster and better. When given a clear path they can lock and deliver.
There's no patience for long pedantic discussions about better paths, analysis, or explorations of the 'why'—just execution. This mode can come across as impatient and apathetic to solutions and process; willing to cut important corners just to get it done. Implementers don't have time to read this entire framework; they've already built three prototypes while you're still on this paragraph.
Comfortable Modes
As you read these descriptions, you likely felt a tug of recognition with one or more modes. This reaction reveals something important about how you naturally approach problems.
Unsurprisingly, professional maturity correlates with thinking mode flexibility. Junior team members often identify strongly with a single mode ("I'm a solver through and through"), sometimes dismissing others. Mid-career professionals typically recognize value in multiple modes while maintaining preferences. The most seasoned veterans move fluidly between modes, adapting their approach to whatever the situation demands.
Yet even the most adaptable among us has a home base—a comfort mode we naturally gravitate toward when facing new challenges or retreating from stress. This default setting aligns with our formative experiences, innate strengths, and past successes. Understanding your comfort mode reveals both your superpowers and blind spots, helping you recognize when to intentionally step outside it for the good of the team or project.
Flowing Between Modes: Mental Stances, Not Identity
These thinking modes are tools in your cognitive toolkit, not labels for your identity. You wouldn't describe yourself as "a computer" just because you frequently use one—similarly, you aren't "a Designer" but rather someone who engages designer thinking when appropriate. The most effective professionals recognize that different situations call for different mental approaches.
As we navigate complex work, we naturally shift between these modes—exploring possibilities as a designer, analyzing options as a solver, and driving execution as an implementer. The hallmark of professional maturity is the ability to transition deliberately between these modes rather than being stuck in one default approach. Senior professionals can often detect which mode is needed in a given moment and smoothly shift gears, while more junior team members might struggle to operate outside their comfort zone.
Your preferred mode can evolve throughout your career as your experiences and interests change. Like a river reshaping its course, your thinking patterns adapt to new landscapes. My own journey took me from solver thinking (where I enjoyed optimizing for measurable outcomes) to designer thinking (where I now find fulfillment in system-level exploration). These shifts can be intentional career pivots or gradual evolutions sparked by life changes, new challenges, or shifting values.
A Practical Framework
The usefulness of this framework has served me well to navigate politics, projects, and conflicts while also helping me grow the people I lead and get desirable outcomes. What makes it work is a simple set of ideas around how thinking modes affect a person's mood, desires, and needs based on straightforward traits and interaction patterns.
This simplicity isn't meant to be applied ruthlessly—it's simple to ensure application and learning is easy, but there's always nuance! People are not state machines; there's more to them than how they think or work. Treating these ideas as dogma is a recipe for disaster, but as a framework to guide a more nuanced approach, I've found it incredibly helpful.
As you read about these thinking modes, the line between describing thought processes versus personalities might blur. That's intentional. As humans, personification is a natural instinct, and imagining thinking modes as personalities turns out to be very effective for building mental models. But BE WARNED, these are not personality types. Avoid zealously associating traits too broadly to people based on their thinking mode. Remember, these traits are here to help guide and frame, not judge and control.
The Three Modes
DESIGNER → Thinking: Divergent & exploratory • Mantra: "What if we..." • Time: Future • Risk: Embraces ambiguity
SOLVER → Thinking: Convergent & analytical • Mantra: "Let's analyze..." • Time: Present-to-future • Risk: Mitigates risks
IMPLEMENTER → Thinking: Direct & concrete • Mantra: "Let's just do it..." • Time: Present • Risk: Accepts known risks
Designer
The cartographer who can map uncharted territories but sometimes forgets someone actually needs to build the roads
Thinking Style: Divergent & exploratory
Designers are visionary and empathetic, adept at immersing themselves in complex problems without clear solutions. They excel in ambiguity, integrating diverse issues to develop comprehensive systems. Their divergent thinking opens up possibilities—expect exploration, not immediate answers.
However, designers struggle when their exploration is constrained or criticized too quickly. They resist converging on a single idea and find deep analysis exhausting. Left unsupervised, they become over-ambitious, easily distracted by grand possibilities, and can derail processes by constantly reopening discussions that others consider settled.
Managing designers requires giving them space to explore—but not so much that they get lost. Think of yourself as a border collie herding a particularly creative sheep, gently guiding them back to the objective when needed.
Outcomes and Strengths:
Vision creation • Pattern recognition • Empathetic and egoless • Systems thinking • Problem framing
Needs and Environment:
Space to explore • Freedom to prototype • Multiple perspectives • Human engagement
Challenges / Conflict Creators:
Constrained thinking • Forced convergence • Deep analysis • Execution
Interactions:
With Solver:
Frustrations: Constraining exploration • Tedious analysis • Lack of flexibility
Gets: Technical validation • Solution options • Integration paths
With Implementer:
Frustrations: Lack of vision • Limited exploration • Missing context
Gets: Reality checks • Concrete examples • Refinement opportunities
Solver
The master craftsperson who forgets that most users care more about whether the door opens than the perfection of its hinges
Thinking Style: Convergent & analytical
Solvers are deep thinkers and impact-oriented. Entrust them with well-defined problems, and they'll find the optimal solution. They possess deep technical knowledge and willingly delve into complex issues, embracing new concepts when needed. Solvers are constructive skeptics—if they're satisfied, you can trust that all details have been considered.
Their challenges emerge when problem spaces, outcomes, and impacts are poorly defined. They tend toward perfectionism, becoming engrossed in 'what ifs' and 'best approach' loops. Once they've finalized choices, they strongly resist backtracking. Cutting corners makes them deeply uncomfortable, and they value process and standards—analyzing them initially but fiercely defending them once established. In a world of 'move fast and break things', solvers are muttering "but have we considered what happens if..." while everyone else has left the room.
Managing solvers requires defining spaces and expectations clearly while providing a kind but sturdy push toward picking a path despite unknowns. Don't let them set too many expectations, or analysis paralysis will follow.
Outcomes and Strengths:
Deep technical knowledge • Solution architecture • Edge case handling • Facts and metrics based • Thorough analysis
Needs and Environment:
Clear context • Defined outcomes • Time for analysis • Complete understanding
Challenges / Conflict Creators:
Ambiguous problems • Rushed solutions • Corner cutting • Undefined impact
Interactions:
With Designer:
Frustrations: Lack of clear outcomes • Too many possibilities • Overwhelming domain scope
Gets: Clear problem framing • Domain context • Vision of outcomes
With Implementer:
Frustrations: Corner cutting • Incomplete analysis • Rushed solutions
Gets: Solution validation • Practical feedback • Implementation insights
Implementer
The speedrunner who's already built three prototypes while others are still discussing the problem statement
Thinking Style: Direct & concrete
Implementers are builders and makers first, experts with their tools and techniques. Given a well-defined problem and clear solution, they swiftly find the most direct path to implementation. They think concretely, finding analytical discussions tedious. Instead of explaining, they demonstrate. Implementers thrive when given focus space, counting completed tasks like others count stars.
Their challenges arise with ambiguity. Like solvers, they need well-defined problems, but they also need pre-defined solutions. They're 'A to B' thinkers, uninterested in exploring problems or solutions, only in finding the most direct execution path.
Managing implementers requires crystal clarity on both problem and solution, with ample focus space and limited distractions. Regular reviews are critical—their direct nature leads them down brittle paths, and they respond poorly to late-stage feedback. Telling an implementer to change direction after completion is like telling someone who's just climbed Everest they were supposed to climb K2 instead.
Outcomes and Strengths:
Tool mastery • Rapid execution • Practical solutions • Efficient paths • Concrete results
Needs and Environment:
Clear direction • Direct paths • Concrete goals • Room to focus
Challenges / Conflict Creators:
Unclear solutions • Too much discussion • Complex paths • Overexploration
Interactions:
With Designer:
Frustrations: Lack of clarity • Unnecessary complexity • Too much abstraction
Gets: Future context • System vision • Evolution path
With Solver:
Frustrations: Endless questions • Excessive analysis • Tedious/pointless details
Gets: Clear solution path • Architecture clarity • Technical boundaries
Applying Modes within a Team
The best teams are diverse and skillful in thinking modes—no mode is superior, and all are needed for great results. There are three key applications:
1. Team Composition
One of my first tasks with a new team is understanding their comfort modes (it's never right the first time). This helps identify growth or hiring needs. Ideally, team members split across different comfort modes. More senior individuals should be comfortable in 2+ modes. The unicorns comfortable in all 3 modes exist, but beware—they're often overused and prone to burnout.
2. Objective Resourcing
Different scenarios call for different thinking modes, here are some examples:
You need to explore how users engage with a feature and understand their needs
→ Ensure your team approaches with designer mode • If resource-constrained, prioritize having your natural designer there
After exploring ideas and understanding the problem space, you need a plan
→ Include both designer and solver modes • Prevent designer from overpowering discussions • Keep solver from excessive detail focus • Drive toward convergence with the solver
Design and plan are solid, but you need a prototype
→ Bring solver and implementer modes together • Follow the plan without cutting corners • Prevent implementer's hastiness while avoiding solver's perfectionism
We need to refine the product or prototype based on user feedback:
→ Bring together implementer and designer modes • Use implementer's concrete foundation • Allow designer to envision improvements • Keep focus on user experience not complete redesign
3. Conflict Management
Conflict isn't bad—it's an innovation catalyst when handled properly. The framework helps identify conflict sources based on mode interactions:
When someone argues against a decision because "it's worth the effort to do the right thing," they're likely in solver mode. Coach them toward implementer mindset or provide additional analysis.
When someone bristles at code style feedback in reviews, they're likely an implementer facing a solver's pedantry. Consider automating style checks or coaching the solver to prioritize feedback.
When someone seems earnest that we are missing the big picture, they are likely a designer facing the feeling of a lack of exploration. Determine is the exploration was cut short or if the problem space is ill-defined.
Identifying & Evaluating Thinking Modes
This isn't science—interpretation matters. Some tips:
DON'T take self-declarations at face value. How you see someone's behavior may differ from their self-perception.
DO assign multiple comfort modes to each person. This prevents reductive thinking.
DON'T over-analyze traits. A few matching traits suggest comfort in that mode—trust your instincts.
DO reevaluate during conflicts. Active thinking mode may differ from comfort mode, indicating a coaching opportunity.
NEVER assume needs without follow-up. Modes guide intuition but don't replace communication.
At the End of the Day...
This framework isn't rigorous science or revolutionary; it's a tool I've used to be a more empathetic teammate and leader. People are complex, and the goal isn't to reduce them to categories but to better understand their needs and desires. This complements, not replaces, listening and relationship building.
If it feels incomplete, that's because it is—an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem. But I've found it invaluable for becoming a better team member, friend, and leader.