I was introduced to this concept in a Freakonomics podcast series on creativity. It was a small part of the overall broadcast, but it stuck with me.

David Galenson is an economics professor at the University of Chicago. He is best known for his theory of creativity, which he developed by studying the ages at which artists made their most significant contributions. He subsequently applied this same research to economists, film makers, novelists, poets and musicians.

I found his theory fascinating, as well as helpful. As a leader, I feel that innovation is a part of the job. We can’t make significant contributions unless we are able to find ways to do things better. Galenson’s research informs this understanding. He divides innovators into two archetypes: experimentalists (or seekers) and conceptualists (or finders).

Which are you?

Experimentalists

Seekers use trial and error as their primary form of discovery. They test and learn. They make progress incrementally. They often start out without knowing exactly what the final outcome will be.

Galenson uses the example Paul Cezanne, who painted Mont Sainte-Victoire, a mountain in southern France, about 50 times over 30 years. A seeker is never finished, because things can always get better.

For this reason, seekers tend to make their greatest contributions late in life. This is because their work is cumulative. The long-term impact of continual experimentation can be significant, even if any single development is small.

Conceptualists

Finders make sudden, radical innovations. Rather than developing incremental progress through experimentation, the big idea will come to them all at once. If the idea is not fully formed, they will continue to prepare until they can “see” the end result. They then will start their work in earnest.

Finders tend to make their most significant contributions early in life. Years of experience can actually get in the way of sudden innovation. Galenson uses the example of Pablo Picasso, who invented cubism in his 20’s, or Bob Dylan, who wrote “Like a Rolling Stone” when he was 24.

Why this matters.

Few of us will change the art world or write a culturally iconic hit single. But leadership, by definition is about creating positive change. If you’re not trying to make things better, you’re not a leader, you’re a manager. We certainly need managers. But we need leaders, too.

Creativity is important because it enables you to innovate in your own leadership context. I don’t even think you need to get boxed into being a seeker or a finder. Understanding the different approaches will give you better insight into how you can improve things.

In some cases, you’ll need to experiment, then iterate. This is the Japanese concept of “Kaizen,” continuous incremental improvement. In other cases, you will be struck with inspiration about an entirely new way of doing things. In either case, you’ll be doing your best to be creative. That’s your job.