Are You a Synthesizer?

(click above for larger image)

So let’s say you are a planner.  You’re probably looking up at the visual and thinking to yourself—"yup, I do a lot of that”.  Or maybe you’re a designer (or design strategist) and you might be thinking the same thing.  Or you could be a business analyst or brand strategist and think “yeah, I do that”.  Maybe you are an interaction designer, writer, information architect or creative director and feeling the same way.  Maybe you aren’t any of these. 

Could it be that you are a human “synthesizer”?

I believe that the more options technology gives us—the more complexity, and potential—then the more important it becomes to hone in that core set of "truths" AND be able to articulate them to a diverse set of project influencers.  The reality is that while many of us think we have this ability—few probably do it really well.  But you know it when you see it, they are the ones who are able to cut right through the distractions—to the essence of the problem.  But they don’t stop there, they are able to tell stories which move people to a point consensus or action—or just move them period.  Synthesizers help take the inputs, distill them into something meaningful and articulate and output them in compelling, meaningful ways.

I believe that these soft skills are needed now more than ever because design, technology, business, brand and human needs have never been so intertwined before—so co-dependent.  Like good designers and planners, synthesizers possess a healthy dose of empathy.  But they can also look at things from a business perspective.  Good synthesizers can be analytical—but operate enough on intuition to not over analyze.  I wouldn’t be surprised if synthesizers tend to be fuzzy, T-shaped, or generalists—they would need to be able to go deep in certain areas, but also look at things holistically.

But one of the most important traits of a synthesizer is the ability to produce a set of “outputs” which moves insights from the abstract to the concrete.  To put this in perspective, a good synthesizer crystallizes the problem which needs solving for—so the solution process can begin in an informed fashion vs. a more arbitrary approach.  This is where competencies in design thinking, and storytelling become critical.

Synthesizer does not = job title.

Let’s be clear.  Being a synthesizer doesn’t require you to trade in your job title.  But, here’s the question I would pose.  Does your organization see the need for this kind of skillset?  Not only do I think it’s needed, but I think it may come not only from one person, but a group of people with complimentary strengths.  And often times this kind of thinking can emerge from outside the areas where you would think they should reside.

If you think your organization can benefit from more synthesis—here are some ideas of what you can do to help foster more of it:

1. Identify who is doing it, where and if it’s working (regardless of title or dept)
2. Develop case studies and document how synthesis impacted the actual solution
3. Figure out how your environment can be tweaked/adjusted to support more of it

Research without synthesis usually ends up being raw data—which is important, but data alone has never led to effective solutions, great work or innovation.

Comments

[Susan Reynolds]

Excellent points and observations. Makes me wonder whether some studies / analysis of the effectiveness of synthesizers within an organization already exists.

[zeroinfluencer]

The problems that occur when you place yourself in a role like this is that you 'color' the outputs. Like the analogue 'music' synths, their filters were unique to the machine, thus their 'sound' was always identifable. The Roland 303 Squelch box is a classic example.

Einstein's one liner "The environment is everything that isn't me." is something that I hold passionately when 'planning'.

Excluding yourself from the problem at hand whilst using your own 'personal' qualities to solve a problem requires something more like 'additive synthesis' - where sampling is used as the basis which is then manipulated like a classic synthesis system.

Music synthesisers normally have a fixed path for signal clarity (reduces noise gain), but modular based systems like The Serge system, dont, but offer finest control and output and will take a lifetime to master.

Is being a simple (digital) synth a perilous situation for planning? Like all good synths, it comes down to the design on the 'filters' and the 'routing' affordance of the signal path, without them you'll have thin, uninspiring outcomes. And good versatile filters, like a Sherman Filter Bank, are rare breeds of design.

Here's a Sherman in action.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zO1h6IfnExM

So, as a planner, I think it's important to identify and understand your 'routing' (logic affordances/ontologies) and 'filters' (tastes/influences/exclusions) before you apply yourself to a system. And do as much knob twiddling as possible. 8-p

This approach is far better than 'sampling', that is, helping yourself to bit and pieces of another strategic/creative execution and trying to 'mash them together' to produce insight.

If you use your filters creatively & experimentally the results will keep inspiring you.

[Yoav]

Hi Daniel,

I've been reading your blog for over 3 months now. And this post (IMO) is your best one. Is this an original idea (observation). If so, than you've got a really big thing here. Synthesizer type employees are the engines that power technology companies. If companies were able to detect, enhance (compliment with other capabilities) and re-purpose these employees into high stakes, high complexity project, they would benefit greatly.

I look forward to hearing more from you on the subject.

-Yoav

[Luc Debaisieux]

Hi David,
I like the difference you make between simple (vague) data and synthesized information. I think your visual can apply to many jobs/situations.

Anyone who has to integrate a briefing should be able to "synthesize" information and put him/herself into empathy-mode to "become" the question or problem to solve. Like in the film "What women want" with Mel Gibson. "He has the power to hear everything women are saying... finally a man is LISTENING". First key.

Second key is linked to what Zeroinfluencer said. Beware of the coloring, the transformation or the personal projections you might subconsciously add through the synthesis.

Last but not least, and I think this is the most difficult part. The one you are a Zen Master of, David: being able to translate your synthesis in a simple and accessible way. Whether through a visual or a text that skill required abstraction and didactics. The more pertinent you get, the easier it becomes to share... and convince.

Thank you for Synthesizing this and making us think about how to think. You are making it obvious again! : )

[Graham Hill]

David

Are you sure you are not moonlighting as an Organisational Consultant in your spare time? This post, as do a number of previous ones, touches on issues at the centre of organisational development today.

Synthesis requires that people look at an opportunity through a number of different perspectives - http://www.customerthink.com/blog/looking_at_business_from_all_sides - and then integrate the perspectives into a new solution. Michael Mauboussin in an article on the importance of diverse thinking - http://www.leggmason.com/funds/knowledge/mauboussin/DiverseThinking.pdf - shows that people who have a little knowledge of a lot of different topics (the 'foxes') generally outperform people with a lot of knowledge about a few topics (the 'hedgehogs').

The role of synthesiser isn't a formal one, but should be part of everyone's job. Just as delivering quality work and continuous improvement should be part of everyone's job too. That doesn't mean that everyone is equally good at synthesising though.

Perhaps the complexity of today's business life and the increased job specialisation that requires, means that we are developing too many expert job hedgehogs at the expense of the better read business model foxes. And just perhaps the increase in collaborative, open and crowdsourcing problem solving is an emergent solution to this problem.

Graham Hill
Independent CRM Consultant
Interim CRM Manager

[John Dodds]

Synthesisers are important but we all know that it's the rhythm section that really matters. Without that we get nowhere.

[DA]

Hi everyone, thanks for the great comments on this. I'm traveling on Business right now, but as soon as I can put some solid thought into this—I'll chime in here.

[Valeria Maltoni]

I am both a synthesizer and have the ability to go deep into several areas. Dan Pink called this whole brain thinking.

Synthesis to me also means translation -- and Luc alludes to it. The ability to find a way to communicate what you see, the threads you can uncover and connect *and* to convey the information in a way that is both useful and relevant to various people. Hence the importance of communications.

[Jeb Hurley]

In a similar vein to Graham's comment, the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative emotion based data is also at the core of creativity and innovation in branding, marketing and product development.

Pop neuroscience books like 'Blink', as well as a more serious treatment of the topic in Antonio Damasio's excellent 'Descartes Error', provide a great neurobiologial foundation on the relevance and importance of synthesis.

A quick review of the mainstream business press over the past twelve months produces a significant number of articles on the role of emotions and the importance of the ability to synthesize them into information that can be acted upon.

I agree with Yoav. This idea is one of the 'next big things'.

[Steve Woodruff]

I am a synthesizer by nature, and when approaching a problem, tend to look for common threads woven throughout the set of issues, and foundational perspectives that inform the whole. One you have those distilled, it's often fairly straightforward to identify a right way forward (the hardest part, of course, isn't identifying - it's getting everyone persuaded to change!)

[Mike Arauz]

Right on; I completely agree. It'll be tricky for companies to ride that fine line between identifying this role and building some structure around it, yet also leaving it open enough to allow it to bleed into diverse disciplines.

Also reminded me of this great Radio Lab episode -
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2007/07/08

"How does the brain produce a thought? Or experience a unitary, whole, synchronized perception of a cup of coffee? For neuroscientists, this is the Mount Everest of questions. We have a look at one possible theory (that a thought is like lots of little neurons singing together in harmony) and then visit neurologist Christof Koch to ask: who conducts the brain chorus? Koch thinks he knows, and he tells us of the cutting edge work of one of science’' great thinkers, Francis Crick...an inquiry which lasted until his dying day."

[Peter Kim]

Synthesizer DOES = job title = strategist.

[DA]

Pete I disagree, I see this kind of thinking come outside of the "strategy discipline" all the time. From designers and planners as well as strategists. Maybe we need to re-think the notion of strategy in all it's forms.

[Lewis Green]

David,

As always, great way to get us to see things from another point of view. My one add on is that before we can identify a synthesizer, we need first to understand ourselves.

As soon as I read John's comment, I knew wherein I belonged: "it's the rhythm section that really matters." In the business environment, that describes me perfectly. I am a big picture guy, in Pete's words, a strategist, who is forward looking. I can never be a synthesizer, because as soon as I hear what I believe to be a great idea, I begin imagining the possibilities and want to get there yesterday.

[deb schultz]

Great choice of word - the synthesizer is curator, connector and ultimately catalyst.

Spot on.

[Stephen Collins]

David, I think you're completely right about the synthesizer makeup. Being a synthesizer is, I think, exactly what most consulting companies (in any industry) look for but rarely get - that person who can observe, absorb, distill and drive action and results.

Certainly, these are things I very much seek to do in my consulting and presenting work.

Of course, your ability as a synthesizer to catalyze action is often shaped by the client - open minds and cultures foster the capability to drive change, whereas command-and-control and top-down organisations often limit change through committee swamps.

[Herb]

David,

I haven't read through the rest of the comments but wanted to drop in my 2 cents. You mention empathy...it was a while back, but I think I twittered you an idea that people who are designing, yes - designing, designing social media plans (plans that create or foster brand conversation with consumers) need to have a empathic or compassionate skill set. This gives them the ability design social media experiences with the feeling/understanding the effect of the plans from the target/consumer's point of view. Knowing perspective may be one of the key assets to being a synthesizer. Now, given, I may have been using 'design' very liberally here (and feel free to correct my perception).

The other thing that I think is spot on with your 'synthesizer' is that they offer solutions. To me, it is in this that someone understands what we are trying to achieve, then put the inputs together, understands the target and was able to offer a solution to the problem that tactics could then be derived out of. So many times I get people offering 'trends' and/or tactics with no logic or justification towards a strategic solution. I feel that that it is easy for people to spot trends or the latest and greatest and feel like they are synthesizing. But they are not synthesizing they are compiling.

I'll be sure to re-visit this in the morning as the mind is clear but the Guinness may be distracting my otherwise perfect articulation. Good post.

[Steven C.]

This post is an instant classic. It's capture and synthesized perfectly.
My only question is: Where's the feedback loop?

I would imagine that many of the output "artifacts" are actually 'works in progress'.

Was the feedback loop purposely left out to not impede concrete action?

[Adam]

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

Thesis is the strategy based on prior learnings
Antithesis is the application of the strategy
Synthesis is the learnings of that application

[Adam]

A synthesizer thus owns that loop. Can empathise with functionaries who are stuck in each stage (Strategists = Thesis, Designers = Antithesis, Researchers/Decompilers = Synthesis)

[Steven C.]

Great points Adam. Thanks for the clarification

[Paula Thornton]

Great minds think alike. I started down a similar path in June (see the last 4 paragraphs at http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/21/the-philosophy-of-enterprise-20/).

At least a meaningful conversation broke out on the topic here. When I look at the key elements of design thinking the fundamentals require synthesis -- it's the means by which to determine the 'possiblities'.

[Download Mobile Ringtones]

http://download-mobile-ringtones.blogspot.com

[Tania Rochelle]

Great post! This is what we try so hard to impart to our students at Portfolio Center--that it's emotion that drives people to action, the importance of storytelling, and how they MUST be able to clearly define the question (synthesize) before they can begin to search for the solution.

[Whitney]

Pretty funny that you posted this on Twitter today. I hadn't read it when you originally posted, but over the weekend I was working on my bio and decided to call myself a synthesist. Then I found this: http://www.earthtym.net/s-synthesist.htm -- and I thought, holy crap, that's me!

[Adam Kmiec]

David,

good points all around. My mantra has long been that data without context is dangerous. The toughest thing will be for organizations to figure out where this "role" or person will live. By design we try to put people into organizational boxes and try to avoid "floaters." I see a synthesizer as someone who float throughout an agency adding value at every stop.

Adam

[Michael Schneider]

I see synthesizers everywhere, but I see them with varying degrees of effectiveness based on their skills, knowledge, wisdom (experience) and sphere of influence, presentation ability etc.

I bet there are a lot of people who think they are synthesists and are not.

Do you think one can learn to be a synthesizer? Are there certain gifts that one must possess: being naturally disarming, simplistic yet eloquent etc?

[The Bitter Guy]

After a certain level of readers' IQ+ambition the idea of the article is like a horoscope; everyone can identify with it.
The organisation that is made up by human synthesizers lacks gifted people, an ecosystem with no variety that can reproduce ambition but cannot reproduce healthy community members.Like a bourgeois family that ends up divorcing,a piranhas decorative lake.
Would you enjoy the concert of synthesizers the second time you woulf hear it?
I feel ackward that I cannot identify with this guide, because I love the way it is written.

[David Armano]

"The organisation that is made up by human synthesizers lacks gifted people, an ecosystem with no variety that can reproduce ambition but cannot reproduce healthy community members"

No organization should be made up of just one type of person. An organization of only artists, only scientists, only marketers or even "synthesizers" would not be a fun place to work at. But one that gets a bunch of these folks working together is.

[The Bitter Guy]

I agree, the synthesizer gluing his and others' art & science together. Err, if we are talking about an influential powerless manager,we have located my source of bitterness.

[Martina]

Thanks for writing this.

[digital dissertations]

Blogs are good for every one where we get lots of information for any topics nice job keep it up !!!

[Dissertation Examples]

Blogs are so interactive where we get lots of informative on any topics nice job keep it up !!