CHAPTER 7

Creativity

Myth Understandings

One of the most enduring myths in the creativity literature is the notion of the lone creator, the brilliant individual who has invented or discovered life-saving medicines, extraordinary consumer products, or great works of art. In reality, the most authoritative studies of creativity consistently report that the very opposite is true. Consider, for example, this summary of the research noted in John Briggs’ excellent book, Fire in the Crucible: The Alchemy of Creative Genius: “The legend of the lone creator is wrong. In recent years, investigators have begun to appreciate that creators collaborate in all sorts of ways in order to do their work. In fact, collaboration is one of the best kept secrets in creativity.”¹

In the world of art, collaboration and reaching for support has always been the norm, even among artists whose work would, at first glance, appear to be a solo endeavor. As mentioned previously, Picasso and Braque painted side-by-side, collaborating and criticizing one another’s work as they exchanged ideas across many years. In 1888, Van Gogh spent time at the side of Paul Gauguin, the two postimpressionists working and creating together. Their impact on one another’s work was described by one author in the following way: “After parting ways, neither artist could escape the other’s influence. Gauguin’s work began to have more religious themes after being influenced by Van Gogh’s strong religious background. Gauguin also began using brighter colors, especially yellow, and thicker brush strokes like Van Gogh. Van Gogh began to use Gauguin’s technique of painting from memory. This caused his paintings to become more decorative and less realistic.”²

Visual artists are just one example of many types of individuals whose work is improved by collaboration with others. We often think of writers as solitary creatures, generating creative energy out of their self-imposed isolation and growing ideas in the silent spaces around them. However, many notable writers candidly acknowledge the importance of collaborating with others in their field. For example, C.S. Lewis remarked that he could never have written The Chronicles of Narnia without the help of J.R.R. Tolkien. In turn, Tolkien said that he could never have completed The Lord of the Rings without the assistance of—guess who? C.S. Lewis of course!³

Nothing new that is really interesting comes without collaboration.

—James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA Double Helix

Some of the world’s most successful inventors in the arts, science, business, and media have benefited exceedingly from ongoing collaboration with a wide variety of individuals throughout their careers. Take Walt Disney, a name synonymous with creativity. He was responsible for bringing to life the most famous mouse in the world. This timeless creature, however, was not conceived by Disney alone. In fact, Disney had originally planned to call his pivotal character Mortimer Mouse. When he shared this with his wife, Lillian, she advised, “Not Mortimer, it’s too formal. How about Mickey?”⁴ And with this, the mouse we now all know and love came to be. There are two important points to highlight in this story. First, in his creative endeavors, Disney purposefully sought out a wide variety of people who could give him suggestions, advice, and new ideas. And second, he was willing to listen to and act on others’ advice.

Like all successful inventors, Disney allowed his creativity to be continually inspired by others. As a result, his creative successes grew and expanded across time. His visit to a charming amusement park in Copenhagen, Denmark was the spark for his now worldwide Disney theme parks, and many of his other creative ventures were inspired in a similar manner as well. For instance, Disney is credited with inventing an enduring new art form—the full-length animated cartoon. How did Disney develop the idea for this? Like most creative people, he journeyed through each day looking about him for all that he could take in, learn from, and be inspired by. In this particular case, Disney had invited his wife on holiday in France. While walking along the streets of Paris one day, he turned a corner and noticed movie-goers waiting in line to watch a series of seven of Disney’s short cartoons. His curiosity was piqued. He suspected that if people would pay to watch several short cartoons at one time, they might also be willing to pay to watch one long sketch. With that collaborative thought in mind, Disney went to work to create his first full-length feature. Carelessly dubbed “Walt’s Folly” by the local newspapers, we came to know it as Snow White.

Breakthrough inventions and discoveries in any domain are also almost always the result of collaboration. Consider once again Steve Jobs of Apple computers. He was inspired to create the incredibly successful Mac computer after examining an early desktop model and crude mouse during a tour of Xerox’s labs. Jobs later remarked, “What we saw was incomplete and flawed, but the germ of the idea was there … within ten minutes it was obvious to me that all computers would work like this.”⁵ Jobs’ collaboration with others in this new creative endeavor did not end there. He reached out and hired 15 Xerox employees who had worked on various facets and phases of the early computers and he partnered with Steve Wozniak, an engineering wizard who possessed the skills necessary to construct the machines. In the end, of course, this reaching out resulted in incredible success.

Jobs views his reliance on others for creative support as a strength. In an interview for Wired Magazine, Jobs commented: “Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they really didn’t do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things.”⁶ When Jobs returned to Apple, he persisted in developing powerful, collaborative alliances across time. For instance, he made a bargain with his arch competitor, Bill Gates, so that Microsoft would continue to produce Mac-compatible versions of its Office Software. This collaboration provided Jobs with the insight to develop a Windows-compatible version of iTunes. As we all know, this expanded the company’s market in a colossal way. In the end, no one questions Steve Jobs’ personal genius. Instead, insightful individuals simply recognize that an essential part of that genius has been his ability to reach out and engage valuable collaborators all along the way.

Other examples of people reaching outside themselves for inspiration include:

• Velcro was discovered by a man who was inspired while taking burrs off his dog.

• James Watt conceived the idea for the steam engine, the computer of its day, by watching a tea kettle boil.

Many innovators across the arts, sciences, business, sports, and myriad other fields have come to the same conclusion. They willingly acknowledge that inspiration and creative breakthroughs come from looking outside oneself.

I think it is in collaboration that the nature of art is revealed.

—Steve Lacy, jazz musician

From the earliest childhood on, I have had the strongest desire to understand and to comprehend whatever I observed.

—Charles Darwin

It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.

—John Wooden, UCLA basketball coach

With our new recognition of how important collaboration is in any creative endeavor, let’s now begin to examine the role of several specific types of support that may help to promote creativity for individuals and groups, including: proximity, criticism, and fieldwork.

Proximity

Great discoveries and improvements invariably involved the cooperation of many minds.

—Alexander Graham Bell

Steve Jobs has been given much credit for the design of the Pixar Studios building. There were objections initially when he located the mailboxes and meal areas in the center of the building, far from some staff offices. However, he was very deliberate in this arrangement. He believed that by making it a necessity for developers of various types to walk past the offices of other creative teams on a regular basis, accidental collisions of mind and collision of ideas would occur. Attesting to the value of these chance collaborations, Ed Catmull remarked:

Our building, which is Steve Jobs’ brainchild, is another way we try to get people from different departments to interact. Most buildings are designed for some functional purpose, but ours is structured to maximize inadvertent encounters. At its center is a large atrium, which contains the cafeteria, meeting rooms, bathrooms, and mailboxes. As a result, everyone has strong reasons to go there repeatedly during the course of the workday. It’s hard to describe just how valuable the resulting chance encounters are.⁷

Pixar was not the first to reap the benefits of building design as a catalyst for creative collaboration. Bell Laboratories was a division of AT&T early on, when AT&T was the only phone company in the United States. This scientific research corporation was, in many ways, the Apple of its day, generating a multitude of inventions that have completely changed our world. For example, in 1947 they created the transistor that would later make computers possible and, several years later, their creation of a silicon solar cell led to the development of the solar powered devices we use today. The laser, fiber-optic cables, touch-tone telephones, fax machines, communication satellites, and the first computer programming languages were all introduced to the world by Bell Labs as well. The man given credit for creating this culture of creativity was Mervin Kelly. He, too, believed in the beneficial effects of proximity in creative development and designed the Bell building with very long hallways believing, correctly, that various people would run into one another by chance on their journeys down the corridors.

Before Bell Labs, in 1942, was Building 20 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—a scientific think tank. Scientists were housed in what was considered a “dreadful old building” with the task of creating new technologies, such as improved radar equipment that could assist with the war effort. As the lab expanded, new space was required, and Building 20 was all that could be found. Remarkably, within a handful of years, the teams in this less than ideal setting had achieved major breakthroughs in radar technology, which aided naval navigation and weather prediction, as well as in improving the Allies’ ability to detect enemy submarines.

The scientists in Building 20 were undeniably brilliant. However, much credit for their achievements has been given to the odd, unpleasant nature of the building. The offices all faced a very long hallway—so long, in fact, that it was hard to see clearly from one end to the other. On treks down the corridor, scientists would invariably bump into other researchers. These accidental meetings were considered a critical contributor to the project’s success. As author Jonah Lehrer writes: “Building 20 became a strange, chaotic domain, full of groups who had been thrown together by chance and who knew little about one another’s work. Yet, by the time it was finally demolished in 1998, Building 20 had become a legend of innovation, widely regarded as one of the most creative spaces in the world.”⁸

Creativity involves a large number of people from different disciplines working together to solve a great many problems. Creativity must be present at every level of every artistic and technical part of the organization.

—Ed Catmull, President, Pixar and Disney Animation Studios

Preceding Apple, Bell, and even Building 20, we find Thomas Edison’s lab, an extraordinary incubator of inventions and the creative team as well. As David Burkus describes in The Myths of Creativity:

The team at Menlo Park worked on various projects, some for Edison’s clients, some for clients of their own, and even some side projects just for fun. They worked closely together, often sharing the same workshop space, despite being involved with separate projects. They shared machines, traded stories, and passed along insights or ideas they believed might be helpful for other projects or unknown future work. Their ideas and insights cross-pollinated. In some cases, they borrowed ideas and even physical parts from other projects.⁹

In more recent years, many organizations have continued to expand in new ways on the use of building design and proximity in purposeful efforts to maximize collaboration and incidental support opportunities between individuals and teams. For instance, one of the most successful airplane launches to date was the Boeing 777. Their chief executive at that time, Phillip Condit, helped to design the new building needed for the development and manufacturing processes. Like other successful leaders, Condit knew how important it would be for staff from different departments to intermingle and stimulate one another’s creativity. In one attempt to maximize such interactions, he designed the new building with not only elevators, but escalators thinking that the slower ride to the next floors might provide greater opportunities for interaction and lead to chance conversations.

Google, too, benefits regularly form design features that enhance what they term ROC—“return on collisions.” This organization is famous for its generous perks, including their gourmet meals. What many people aren’t aware of, however, is that this benefit is designed to maximize employee creativity. Google tracks how long the cafeteria lines are, and they strive to keep the wait consistently at three to four minutes. This, they believe, will increase the likelihood that individuals will have time to visit with one another during the delay. Additionally, long tables are provided for employees to sit at during breaks and meals, improving chances that employees will sit across from or next to someone they don’t know. As Geoff Colvin in Fortune Magazine writes: “ … and it puts those tables a little too close together so you might hit someone when you push your chair out and thus meet someone new … the ‘Google bump’ as employees call it. And now we see the real reason Google offers all that fantastic free fare: to make sure workers will come to the cafeterias, where they’ll start and strengthen personal relationships … the food is just a tool for reaching a goal, and the goal is strong, numerous, rewarding relationships.”¹⁰

A study conducted by Ben Waber and colleagues clearly demonstrated this power of return on these social collisions. They studied the sales force of a large pharmaceutical company, tracking collaboration across occupations. The company wanted to increase collaboration across disciplines, so to accomplish this goal they decided to do something odd: they reduced the number of coffee machines. Previously, the company had provided one coffee machine for every six employees. They took out the smaller machines and built bigger ones, with an end result of one coffee maker for every 120 employees. They also created a larger, more attractive cafeteria, which became popular among staff. Individuals and teams from different departments began to bump into one another incidentally during coffee breaks and lunch time, and, within three months, sales had gone up 20 percent—an extra 200 billion dollars.¹¹

If you are thinking that in this age of digital communication that these sorts of accidental collaborations or “collisions” are less critical than they were in less technologically advanced times, you would be wrong. Professor Thomas J. Allen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who wrote the book Managing the Flow of Technology, was the first to identify what has come to be called “The Allen Curve.”¹² This is a measure that associates how often employees communicate with one another with how physically close they are when they work. What Allen discovered was that employees were more likely to interact regularly with fellow team members who sat six feet or less away from them than those who were 60 feet away. This, of course, seems obvious. For many of us, however, this correlation may no longer appear to be relevant in today’s world, because we can easily connect with others from anywhere at any time. As Waber put it: “It would seem that distance-shrinking technologies break the Allen curve and that communication no longer correlates to distance.” However, when his team studied contemporary workplaces, they found that “both face-to-face and digital communications are still very relevant in the age of technology.” In one study, engineers who shared a physical office were 20 percent more likely to stay in touch digitally than those who worked elsewhere. When they needed to collaborate closely, co-located workers e-mailed four times as frequently as colleagues in different locations, which led to 32 percent faster project completion times.¹³

In another interesting study of this type from Harvard Medical School, the effect of collaboration among researchers on the success of scientific papers was examined. Research success was defined by how many times a particular paper was cited as a reference in other research. The study examined a total of 35,000 papers, each written by two or more authors, and they matched the number of citations with the physical proximity of the co-authors. What they discovered was that the most successful research papers were written by authors who worked within 10 meters of one another.¹⁴

A great deal of current research, in fact, supports the essential nature of proximity in creativity and success. As a result, a relatively new phenomenon called “coworking spaces” has taken office collaboration to a new level during the past decade. In these spaces, individuals and groups share their working environment with others who are typically not employed by the same organization. They may work side-by-side with vendors, customers, and teams from other organizations to create products and services, or be inspired by observing others working in varied fields on projects quite different from their own.

Airbnb, for example, the thriving community marketplace where customers can rent a wide variety of unique accommodations, has a conference room in its San Francisco headquarters that anyone can rent and use to create such work groups. Zappos, the remarkably successful online retailer, also has a coworking space that is inhabited by their own employees, freelancers, neighbors living near the Zappos offices, and others. These more recently designed “hubs” appear to be the modern equivalent of Bell Labs and Building 20, providing networking opportunities and camaraderie, as well as what Rameet Chawla describes in Entrepreneur magazine as “… the intangible benefit of what I call assisted serendipity: a multitude of unexpected encounters that are difficult to recreate in traditional office settings and provide nearly immeasurable amounts of value for new businesses.”¹⁵

Criticism

The question is, then, how do you develop an environment in which individuals can be creative?

I believe that you have to put a good deal of thought to your organizational structure in order to provide this environment.

—David Packard

While criticism and negative feedback can certainly make some people feel uncomfortable, current research maintains that a free flow of ideas along with healthy debate results in more quality solutions than the original model of brainstorming. This is true whether you are in the business world, education, the arts, or in any other creative setting. Team members who are set up to safely and effectively critique one another’s ideas tend to experience more success.

David Kelly is founder of the design firm IDEO, one of the most innovative companies in the world. According to IDEO’s general manager, brainstorming at IDEO is “practically a religion.”¹⁶ Employees are instructed to defer judgment and go for quantity. Although this sounds like a return to Osborne’s strict rules on brainstorming, Kelly has expanded the original model and has developed a unique, clear set of rules for giving critical feedback as well. IDEO uses one of the cornerstone strategies of improvisational theatre called “yes and,” in which people build upon others’ ideas without negating them. In theatre, saying “yes” demonstrates acceptance of people’s ideas as they are shared. Every new piece of information added helps to refine or redefine the idea as the concepts grow. In business, the process works that way as well. It is a way to begin the collaborative creative process on a positive note as discussion begins.

Pixar has an even more elaborate process for letting the director and team know when an idea they are proposing won’t work. In a presentation at the Stanford Business School, Catmull began by stating that the first versions of movies often “suck.” The line usually gets a laugh, but the message is quite important. Catmull’s management genius is evident in his ability to create a safe structure in which creative teams can effectively discuss and address any noted “suckiness.” The model that Pixar has developed is unique in the industry. It’s based on the principle of developing creative teams where people can and must reach for support. Other studios purchase a script and then hire people to direct and act, but Pixar reversed this process and made hiring and managing people the first priority.

One manager leads each creative team. When Pixar’s creative teams need help, they seek support from the “brain trust,” a group consisting of John Lassiter and the eight senior directors who provide feedback (a.k.a. support). “This is all about making the movie better,” says Catmull. “There’s no ego. Nobody pulls any punches to be polite. This works because all the participants have come to trust and respect one another.” The advising group has no authority, so a director is always free to take or leave the advice. Catmull believes that the lack of authority is crucial: “It liberates the trust members, so they can give their unvarnished, expert opinions and it liberates the director to seek help and fully consider the advice. It took us a while to learn this.”

Everyone recognizes the challenges inherent in getting talented people to work effectively with one another. As Catmull describes it: “This takes trust and respect, which managers can’t mandate; they must be earned over time. What we can do is construct an environment that nurtures trusting and respectful relationships and unleashes everyone’s creativity. If we get that right, the result is a vibrant community where talented people are loyal to one another and their collective work … [And] everyone feels they are part of something extraordinary.”¹⁷

Trust between people does not necessarily mean that they like one another, it means that they understand one another.

—Peter Drucker

Leaders in any meaningful endeavor have the responsibility for creating an environment where new ideas are welcome, even when—or possibly especially if—they contradict what leadership is already doing. The field of medicine for example, is constantly undergoing change for the betterment of the world. Creativity is at the core of this persistent metamorphosis at every level, from the development of the latest pharmaceuticals and robotic surgical techniques to the evolution of management and delivery of services in varied settings. One study, which sampled the effects of creativity in a medical setting, looked at quality improvement projects in intensive care units (ICUs) at 23 hospitals. What researchers found was that “… some units were identifying risks and coming up with ways to avoid future problems, while others were not because the people in them were terrified to speak up.” They consistently noted that the units demonstrating the greatest quality improvement across time had managers who “asked questions, acknowledged their own fallibility or lack of knowledge, and appreciated others’ contributions.” In her summary, investigator Amy Edmondson highlighted the benefits of making things safe for people to share their concerns and ideas: “As a result, these units more quickly adopted new practices that reduced infection rates and led to other improvements in patient care.”¹⁸ The important point here is that, no matter what the field or endeavor might be, when leadership opens the door to constructive suggestions and creative input, the chances for individual and organizational success improve immeasurably.

Innovation usually emerges when diverse people collaborate to generate a wide-ranging portfolio of ideas, which they then refine and even evolve into new ideas through give-and-take and often heated debate. This collaboration should involve passionate disagreement. Often organizations try to discourage or minimize differences, but that only stifles the free flow of ideas and rich discussion that innovation needs.

—Linda Hill and Greg Brandeau, Harvard Business Review

Fieldwork

The most creative individuals and organizations put little stock in divine inspiration. Instead, they go out into the world and observe their customers to assess their needs and frustrations, then seek to create meaningful solutions. One of the most creative companies in the world today is the innovation consulting firm, IDEO. They helped Apple to develop the computer mouse, designed the first portable defibrillator, and created the first stand-up toothpaste tube! The company’s strategy is to view themselves as anthropologists and to see their customers as a tribe to be observed and studied. This tactic appears to work exceptionally well, regardless of the organization type.

IDEO, for example, was hired by Kaiser Hospitals to try to improve the system used during shift changes. This is one of the most important and potentially dangerous times in a hospital, as vital information is passed from one group of nurses to the next. Omissions and misunderstandings during this critical transition time can result in harm to patients. IDEO stationed their team members at handoff points during shift changes to study what worked and didn’t work. What they noticed was that the nurses spent 30 minutes at each shift change reviewing the patients’ progress and planning for the next shift. The patients and families referred to the units as “ghost towns” for those 90 minutes each day. These were not times when they could reach for support when in need. Even worse, given fatigue and distractions, sometimes vital information was not shared or not heard. In response to these observations, IDEO came up with a simple, elegant solution. Instead of meeting with oncoming nurses as a group, each nurse going off shift would discuss the patient’s situation and plan with the new nurse at the patient’s bedside. The patient and family members then could listen, add information, and express their needs. In addition, a chalkboard was placed at the bedside for essential information about medications, procedures, etc., as well as listing the nurse on shift—the patient’s primary contact for support. As a result of this fieldwork, errors were significantly reduced. In addition, nurses were more successful in their roles and patients were provided the support they needed to recover with greater ease.¹⁹

John Hopkins Medical Center identified a similar concern after a child died from a preventable medical error. In this case, fieldwork was undertaken by one of the center’s physicians. While watching a European road race on television one night, he observed the extraordinary teamwork of the pit crew and wondered if their systems might be helpful in improving the hospital’s systems. He went to Ferrari’s racing team for ideas on improving shift change communication and the ideas he came away with worked!²⁰

As we reach the close of this chapter, let’s return once again to Steve Jobs and Apple. It is useful for us to remember that this company has not invented any type of device. Instead, they have improved—usually dramatically—on existing products. The iPod, iTunes, iPad, iPhone, and everyone’s new best friend Siri, were all built based on ideas or inventions originally created outside of the Apple corporation. The genius of Steve Jobs and the members of his team is in their fieldwork. They have been able to sustain their magnificent success in part by going out into the field to discover gems, along with their existing flaws, and have created solutions to make products better, easier to use, more stylish, or otherwise more compelling to their audience. They continually look for inspiration wherever they can find it.

Alex Portland, the Director of the MIT Human Dynamics Laboratory summarized how essential collaboration—reaching out—is to the creative success of any organization: “It is not simply the brightest who have the best ideas; it is those who are best at harvesting them from others. It is not only the most determined who drive change; it is those who most fully engage with like-minded people. And it is not wealth or prestige that best motivates people; it is respect and help from peers.”²¹

The myth of the lone creator refuses to vanish. It is an attractive myth, the notion that one of us, if talented and inspired enough, can bring forth a work of art or breakthrough product. Individuals do invent remarkable things and create great beauty to be enjoyed by the world, but only with a little—or a great deal—of help from others. It is when people reach out and collaborate that creativity truly flourishes.

What a person thinks on his own without being stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of others is, even in the best of cases, rather paltry and monotonous.

—Albert Einstein