Embrace the Paradox

Recently I was honored to have the opportunity to sit-down to a conversation with Dr Stewart Desson the founder of Lumina Learning , and creator of Lumina Spark.  I first met Dr. Desson when he led a session at the Asia Pacific Conference for the Association for Talent Development (ATD) in Taipei.  I was very impressed at how his one hour session incorporated pair-work, visuals, psychometric tools, and group discussion.  There was something for every type of learner in the session, and he struck me as a learning professional who covered the bases so as to connect with extroverts, introverts, creatives, and practical-minded professionals. 

Following my certification as a Lumina Spark Practitioner at the end of 2023, I had been exploring different ways to use this psychometric tool and methodology to bring greater awareness to myself, as well as integrating Lumina Learning within the 1-1 coaching and applied improv training in the work that I do–all with the goal of making life and work more fulfilling and fun in the end.  Lumina Learning has helped to provide a framework that brings greater clarity to the levels of deep diversity we have within ourselves, as well as assisting in building rapport amongst the teams with whom we collaborate. More than just a personality test, Lumina Spark integrates elements of Carl Jung’s Big 5 to help provide personality portraits that serve as building blocks in understanding how individuals think and behave in different situations.

In the conversation below, Dr. Desson is joined by his colleague and Lumina Spark “polar opposite”, Jonathan Cannon, to introduce ideas about the workplace, Lumina’s early days, a view on AI and the future of work, and the power of embracing the paradox within ourselves, others, and the organizations where we work.

When you hear the term “Work Playground,” what’s the first thing that comes to mind?

Stewart: I think of an actual playground with 7 or 8 year olds playing together and making stuff.  I like the idea of the work playground, because I’ve always found that work should be more playful and fun, and when we do have fun, that’s when we get the best out of ourselves and others.

What do you do to find adventure in your work?

Stewart: I personally want to find adventure at work, but that’s not necessarily what the whole organization wants.  People are from different cultures and ages.  People are bringing to Lumina their perceptions of work, which are all varied.

Jonathan:  The type of team back in the early days of Lumina would have been more inspiration driven, more of the adventuresome ones.  

Stewart: So at the beginning of Lumina it was as much about selling a dream and as much “vapor-ware” as it was software.  We were just so excited about the idea.  To give an example, on the day when we moved from vapor to software, we were working with a Canadian client, the software wasn’t complete yet, there was a bug, and it wasn’t producing pdfs.  At the time I was in the basement, and one of the people we were working with locked me inside and said, ‘you will stay in that basement until you come up with the software for this presentation.’ I was essentially in the basement, locked inside, talking to colleagues back in the UK, with no way out.  I could see the humor in the moment, but I could also see that it was a poignant movement, as the client liked us and our product, and it would be a good potential starting point for us.

How to balance this idea of stability and adventure in the workplace?

Stewart: I am seeking adventure.  I like creating new stuff and seeing where it will go.

Jonathan: I find it a bit more stressful and balance it to keep it down to Earth.  We don’t want to scare people away. In my work and life I strive for stability, but I want my work to be interesting.  I’m not necessarily the one to create an adventure, but I’m able to look at ideas in a very practical way.  I’ll be strapped in for the ride, even if I’m not necessarily the one leading it.

Stewart:  Whereas I get an adrenaline rush. 

“No conflict is conflict.” This was a quote from a Lumina Learning session that really stuck with me.  What about the value of discovering constructive conflict within organizations?

Stewart:  My instinct is to be people focused in a conflict; however, I’ve learned that it can be good to be outcome-focused.  I try to use the models that I’ve been sharing for the past twenty years.  Even if my default pattern is to avoid conflict.  If I’m on top of my game, I’ll be more outcome focused.  This topic does truly resonate with organizations.  Organizational conflict is a huge issue, regardless of where people are located.  It’s a global phenomenon.  We need to stop avoiding conflict and handle it constructively.  People need to listen first, and they need to be willing to give feedback in a constructive way.  I’ve yet to meet an organization that doesn’t have the need to address conflict and difficult conversations.

Stewart:  Another thing about conflict is that people do improve at it if they work at it.  But then they may get better positions, promotions, and then they’re dealing with bigger problems, trickier people and interactions.  And we can slide back on old patterns of avoidance with conflict and difficult conversations.  We never truly arrive.  It’s like brushing your teeth, you always need to keep doing it and taking up hygiene.

Learn more of how Lumina Learning encourages constructive conflict here

What are your feelings about taking risks as an entrepreneur or in business?

Stewart: In a large organization, you’re a spinning cog in a huge machine, and there’s a huge amount of context you take for granted.  People might be working for you, but they are also working with the entire organization.  We might be just a transient manager for them.  Dynamics and stakes are a bit higher when you are the owner of the company.  In a bigger corporation, you have to comply with the rules a bit more.  Smaller companies do have some of that, but there’s more inspiration driven work at this small scale.

Have you had to tune up your caution being a business owner?

Stewart:  Yes, I’m not naturally cautious.  It’s something that I’ve learned.  I’ve learned the value of caution.  I’ve had a few software projects that I’ve had to do away with after a year’s work.  Also some software projects that were great, but then a key person leaves, and then you make some discoveries that make you have more of a critical and cautious eye.  Certainly financially I’ve learned to turn the volume up on my caution.  I am a massively calculated risk taker.  I want to load the dice and take the gamble when the options are in my favor.  I’ll happily take a calculated risk.  When a calculated risk goes wrong, Taking calculated risk is my version of being down-to-earth.  

Jonathan:  The big thing is knowing why you take a certain risk, and why you make a certain assumption.

One of the key points that struck me in your previous talks is the importance of “valuing the paradox”: What does that mean?

 It’s kind of abstract because you’re living in it.  An organization needs to make a conscious effort to value the paradox and find people that don’t tend towards one way.  Eventually organizations will become a lopsided culture if they’re not careful. Dr. Stewart Desson

What about organizations that are trying to rebrand and making an effort to change who they are?  How do we make the effort to value the paradox and maintain balance?

Stewart:  It’s really hard.  I remember a bank that was looking for more counter-culture within their organization, but within three months, these people were feeling rejected and being ejected.  One of my favorite expressions which I got from a mentor is “always listen to the dissenting voice.”  The dissenting voice doesn’t mean that they’re right or listen to what they say, but as leaders we need to be open and curious.  I listen to people even if I think they’re talking nonsense. 

Please see here for a short introduction regarding shaping an innovative culture.

Are there examples of Lumina practitioners surpassing expectations?  

Stewart: I’m continually amazed by how people are using Lumina.  I heard about Lumina being used by a courtroom for mediation in America.  There was another instance in the UK when Lumina was used by a group of surgeons who had been disagreeing for ten years with huge consequences.  Lumina played a part in the mediation of this situation.  Students use it for figuring out how to work on projects with other students, get a better job, work with their teams.   The most moving application of Lumina I can think of was with Amos Bursary.  It started with the first black female in the House of Lords.  She set up a charity to help people in London to find an education.  They have a ten year project where they gave Lumina Spark to a group of at-risk students, they enroll them in institutions, and over a decade they follow these students, how they grow, become mentors, etc.  They’ve done profound things.  Lumina has played a part in helping them have greater awareness, value and self-esteem.  It’s a really moving application that I’m really proud that Lumina has played a part in.

Learn more about how the NHS used Lumina Learning for mediation here

Jonathan: We’ve done a lot of work with neurodivergence as well, helping people have a greater self-awareness that the differences they have in their own personalities aren’t “negative” things, but are just a different way of thinking.  It’s helped individuals come out of depression. 

What about examples with regards to abusing or misuse of Lumina?

Stewart: I’ve seen people abuse psychometrics to make it a control mechanism that includes typing and oversimplifying; reducing complexity.  I personally consider that an abuse of psychometrics.  People are rich, complicated, and nuanced.  We need to look at the science of the results and bring greater individual and organizational awareness, not in a reductionist way.  However, we go to great lengths in our training to try to ensure that typing and oversimplifying doesn’t happen.  We won’t unleash Lumina on people that aren’t properly trained–they will default to what they’ve done before–simplifying people and going with our previous biases.  We’re making the training psychometrically counter-culture. Predictability is important, but we need to be aware of the situation when one person has one KPI–we want to assume right proportions of predictability, but also increase the usability so that people can resonate with the experience. We also want consequential validity–what are the intended and unintended consequences of using the application within our organizations?  It’s not an easy answer.  We want to break the idea that we’re going to give you a very clear and simple reading and put you in a box.

Jonathan: We have a tendency to type people instinctively, and there’s a certain comfort to being typed.  That’s how we make decisions. 

As we think outside-the-box and challenge ourselves, what are you making efforts to learn yourself?

Stewart:  The biggest one has been Gen AI.  If you asked me 25 years ago, I would have purported to know a bit about it before it was fashionable.  I was genuinely quite shocked to see how powerful Gen AI has been.  Lumina integrates Gen AI quite well.  We need to figure out how to embrace Gen AI in the best way possible.  My way of learning is to talk to people.  I’ve engaged with AI experts and invited them onto panels, also just to learn from them during the panel itself.  That deepens my own learning–having meaningful dialogue.  I’m continuing to do that.  Not a month goes by where I’m not involved with some activity or conference with AI.  I need to make sure that I’m putting down track in front of the steam engine and getting ahead of the game.

How do we deal with AI anxiety and resistance? 

Stewart:The huge role for the leader is to make the organization safe for employees to learn about and experiment with AI. We can assume that half our workforce will be anxious, and the other half will be more curious.  One of the biggest problems to learning anything is fear of failure and not being allowed to be curious.  We need to role model using AI, and role model making mistakes while doing it.  For me personally, I was feeling anxiety of AI taking over and having emotions, and that we’re serving the robots instead of them serving us.  I think the more we learn about it the more we get evidence-based answers to soothe our anxiety.  AI is all based on correlations and data, and storing it.  Machines are taking our prompts, turning them into numbers, and predicting patterns.  This knowledge helps us reduce our anxiety.

Jonathan: Most of our fears are based on lack of knowledge and exposure.  The same thing happens with racism and misunderstanding of people who are different with us.  We have this fear of the unknown.  It happened in a conference when I was answering questions on the spot, and I didn’t know what they were going to throw at me. That makes me hugely anxious.  But the anxiety makes me prepare more, and in the end I ferel good about myself.

Stewart:There’s nothing wrong with anxiety if it motivates you to get things right.  

Explore Lumina Learning’s fact sheet, AI: Talent & Development's Saviour or Saboteur?

How do you see the future of the workplace?

Stewart:I’ll start by answering how I’d like to go. I’d like to play my part in having workplaces becoming more collaborative, open, inclusive.  I want people to come into work to get along with their boss, colleagues, employees, and have a vision.  However, a lot of workplaces put people in a box, and their main thing is just to do the work in front of you.  It’s not as fun, it still works, you’ll grind out the work.  I want it to be more humanistic.  In the end, more humanistic workplaces will increase productivity.  That’s what I want to be a part of. 

How do I think it WILL go?  This humanistic approach won’t happen everywhere for sure. Ideally if workplaces want to keep their people, they will become more humanistic and collaborative.  Regarding AI, I was initially skeptical; what I’m not skeptical of is what Gen AI will do to work over the coming decade.  I think it will have a huge impact in the workplace.  It won’t replace people, but if you don’t use it well, you will be left behind. I remember being old enough when people said that if you used calculators, you wouldn’t learn math.  They were banned for a bit, but we see how that worked out.

Thinking about the future, how do we motivate, support, and co-work with our next generation?

Stewart:  On the one hand, the different generations are pretty different.  Generations in different locations are different, but we also need to see the economic backgrounds, level of prosperity, and upbringing.  One of the biggest differences between my generation and those who are entering the workforce is that younger people seem to be more open, more on the level with their bosses, and less anxious about losing their jobs.  There’s pretty good full employment if you’re a well-educated person in a prosperous economy.  Older people grew up during the wartime era, and that brings anxiety regarding a sense of security.  Younger people didn’t grow up with this situation, so they may be more assertive at work.  However, they have different anxieties caused by social media, etc.  

Jonathan: Variation within a generation is much wider than between generations.  You might have different values between generations as well, but motivations aren’t so much about the generations, but more about the individuals.

Stewart:  Biologically we all have the same structure of the brain.  There’s not a huge difference between the generations.  The opinion that there is such a big difference between the generations is a myth…it sounds good and works as a label.  There’s a researcher in the US named McAdams who has a theory about personality which focuses on the structure of our personality evolving over tens of thousands of years through evolution.  Let’s say that there is a bit of us that is buried deep inside…that’s genetic and dormant.  It’s the first level.  The second level deals with personal concerns–those that influence us and our coping mechanisms in how we operate with those in our lives, our teachers, parents, siblings, friends, etc.  At this level there might not be too much difference between generations.  The third level is our life story or our narrative–it’s where we find the biggest difference amongst the generations.  Who are our role models, where do we get our information, how do we interpret our situations?  

In the end, we’re all human beings, we just have different narratives, and the world around us changes our perspective and our stories.  In my father’s generation, the world was structured, people were told what to do, etc…currently, the world is very fluid, nobody wants to be told what to do or limited, people will have multiple careers in their lifetimes, and for some of us the job that we will have in ten years’ time might not even be invented yet.