Like the famous observation about Churchill: "His chief of staff Alan Brooke complained that every day Churchill had 10 ideas, only one of which was good -- and he did not know which one."
And when I think of product meeting's I've sat in on... generally 90% of the "creative" ideas would be complete disasters. And a lot of the remaining 10% might be good, but the work involved in figuring that out for sure would often be prohibitive, for an unclear payoff. But occasionally you get a gem that everyone gets excited about.
I would say that people do like creativity, but only when it's clear that the particular creative solution will likely work. Which is generally not the case.
And if people went chasing every plausible creative idea, we wouldn't have time for anything else, like normal productivity. That's why it's a very difficult balance to get right.
You are demanding something you're just not going to get. You want it to be clear that a solution will work. Next you'll say you want market research. Next you'll say you want to test 42 shades of blue.
This is why it's important for an idea to be distilled into something that can be tried without much investment, so that a lot of ideas can be tried and that you'll stumble onto something great. Larger ideas usually end up being tried through force or by going behind somebody's back, and that's probably how it'll stay.
Look, You're close. I think the process of trying out ideas is poorly understood by most people, and based on the way you wrote this, even yourself. You touched on it a bit - "distilling ideas into something that can be tried without much investment". That's the gem.
This is what you're supposed to do with an idea:
* Identify the hypotheses that make it work.
* Identify which hypothesis is the most critical one - if that one fails, then you know the idea isn't going to work. It's fair to say that an idea depends on 2 or more hypotheses - the key here is to identify the critical ones.
* Finally, figure out how to fail each critical hypothesis as fast (and as cheap) as you can. There is always a way. If you can't fail it, then you got something good. You don't need market research. You don't need the assurance the idea will work. Just test the hypothesis.
What about testing the non-critical hypotheses? You'll get to them. Failing those doesn't mean the idea should be thrown out, only that you need to adjust the idea to take your new knowledge into account.
That's it, really†. I'm using this process to build my own business, and it's working out extremely well. I've thrown out tons of bad ideas and got some great traction on the good ones. The scientific discipline to testing the ideas is the key.
†I lied. There's one more step: keep track of your critical hypotheses - that's your business intelligence. You can use them to validate future ideas.
Perhaps I should have replied to the grandparent comment :-)
I was reacting to this part: "Larger ideas usually end up being tried through force or by going behind somebody's back, and that's probably how it'll stay."
My impression was that you appeared to believe this is the only way to do things. I was hoping to suggest that it doesn't have to be. Re-reading your post again, I see better what you're trying to say.
I think there are some ideas that cannot be broken down and you really do have to be reckless to try them - they deserved a mention because otherwise my comment was too general. They're dangerous but they're also important for progress.
The fact is, Mr. I-Am, that most of the time, green eggs and ham are just rotten. We are not looking for a guarantee that we will like your culinary experiments, but we would like some assurance that they are edible.
Most businesses fail. Yet, we still do our best to encourage the formation of new ventures. We hail the small businessman as a hero. We don't lament him as a frivolous dreamer, even though purely based on the odds, that's what anyone who starts a business really is.
Risk aversion and stagnation go hand in hand. Or, as Theodore Roosevelt said, "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
We do indeed encourage the formation of new ventures, but we do not encourage it unconditionally or randomly. We ask for a model. We ask what makes the would-be entrepreneur think it will work. And those entrepreneurs who can't answer, or whose answers aren't compelling, we ask to go convince somebody else.
Why do we do this? Because once again, the fact remains that most ideas are bad. Too much risk-aversion does indeed lead to stagnation, but too little risk-aversion is even more destructive. A balance must be struck, and the proper balance still leans heavily -not completely, but noticeably- toward caution.
>Most businesses fail. Yet, we still do our best to encourage the formation of new ventures. We hail the small businessman as a hero. We don't lament him as a frivolous dreamer, even though purely based on the odds, that's what anyone who starts a business really is.
This is a blatant double-standard. Non-entrepreneurs who take the same level of risk that is outright common in entrepreneurial ventures are lamented as frivolous dreamers.
One of these days, people are going to realize that little sentence was part of a few-dozen-paragraph speech.
> Nevertheless, while laying all stress on this point, while not merely acknowledging but insisting upon the fact that there must be a basis of material well-being for the individual as for the nation, let us with equal emphasis insist that this material well-being represents nothing but the foundation, and that the foundation, though indispensable, is worthless unless upon it is raised the superstructure of a higher life. That is why I decline to recognize the mere multimillionaire, the man of mere wealth, as an asset of value to any country; and especially as not an asset to my own country. If he has earned or uses his wealth in a way that makes him a real benefit, of real use- and such is often the case- why, then he does become an asset of real worth. But it is the way in which it has been earned or used, and not the mere fact of wealth, that entitles him to the credit. There is need in business, as in most other forms of human activity, of the great guiding intelligences. Their places cannot be supplied by any number of lesser intelligences. It is a good thing that they should have ample recognition, ample reward. But we must not transfer our admiration to the reward instead of to the deed rewarded; and if what should be the reward exists without the service having been rendered, then admiration will only come from those who are mean of soul. The truth is that, after a certain measure of tangible material success or reward has been achieved, the question of increasing it becomes of constantly less importance compared to the other things that can be done in life. It is a bad thing for a nation to raise and to admire a false standard of success; and there can be no falser standard than that set by the deification of material well-being in and for itself. But the man who, having far surpassed the limits of providing for the wants; both of the body and mind, of himself and of those depending upon him, then piles up a great fortune, for the acquisition or retention of which he returns no corresponding benefit to the nation as a whole, should himself be made to feel that, so far from being desirable, he is an unworthy, citizen of the community: that he is to be neither admired nor envied; that his right-thinking fellow countrymen put him low in the scale of citizenship, and leave him to be consoled by the admiration of those whose level of purpose is even lower than his own.
> The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impractical visionary is far less often the guide and precursor than he is the embittered foe of the real reformer, of the man who, with stumblings and shortcoming, yet does in some shape, in practical fashion, give effect to the hopes and desires of those who strive for better things. Woe to the empty phrase-maker, to the empty idealist, who, instead of making ready the ground for the man of action, turns against him when he appears and hampers him when he does work! Moreover, the preacher of ideals must remember how sorry and contemptible is the figure which he will cut, how great the damage that he will do, if he does not himself, in his own life, strive measurably to realize the ideals that he preaches for others. Let him remember also that the worth of the ideal must be largely determined by the success with which it can in practice be realized. We should abhor the so-called "practical" men whose practicality assumes the shape of that peculiar baseness which finds its expression in disbelief in morality and decency, in disregard of high standards of living and conduct. Such a creature is the worst enemy of the body of politic. But only less desirable as a citizen is his nominal opponent and real ally, the man of fantastic vision who makes the impossible better forever the enemy of the possible good.
It's fully reproduced in several places online under the name "Citizenship in a Republic", occasionally as "that speech he gave in Sorbonne": the first and last bits are very clear that his audience is not American. It is a speech very iconic of Teddy Roosevelt himself, too; one of the anecdotes in there is drawn from his time as a cowboy on the range.
It is important not to confuse the process with the product. 99% of good ideas do not come out as fully formed gems. Most of the time it takes collaboration with a group of trusting partners to nurture the thing into something good.
There's a point in time where you have to look at all the things that are being pitched, and think about it objectively in terms of what will work and what won't, but if that's the first step then what your really doing is looking at the steel ore that's being shipped to the auto factory and saying 'this isn't a BMW, throw it out'. Which turns out to be a great way of not making anything.
This reaction -- that "most creative ideas are bad" is exactly what the article is talking about.
How are you defining "bad"? Do you mean to imply that all creative ideas must be financially rewarding to be good? Or must have literary or artistic value?
I do agree that within the context of a working environment, many creative ideas are not going to result in a net benefit to the company. But does that make them bad? Or are the cliches and the bad ideas necessary stepping stones to finding the right idea?
I would posit that the bad ideas are a necessary part of the creative process. You are absolutely correct that spending time on every idea would be a disaster. But being dismissive of "bad" ideas does not respect the creative process, and expressing that negativity to a creative team will just encourage them to be less creative next time.
I think your post proved the point of the article.
Right... it's not really creativity itself that people are afraid of, it's risk. When someone suggests an idea that's new, never been tried before, nobody can really assess the risk. So they go to worst-possible-case scenarios, or just reject the idea out of hand. Unless it's one of those flashes of insight that is immediately and obviously a good idea, people will take the risk-averse position on most "creative" ideas.
And that's why "sales" skills are important. If you can sell people on the idea, you'd be surprised what risks places can take. Do I wish I didn't have to? You bet! But for now, it works.
Creativity is not simply an idea in the same way that a start-up is not simply an idea. The ability to execute is essential to creativity. A lot of real skills are involved.
I encourage you to test this hypothesis. I think you'll find it's incorrect. You can actually fail daily, in the ways you're most deathly afraid of (typically, looking foolish in front of others, facing a setback, or otherwise being knocked down a peg), and you won't die or worse (whatever "worse" is). People have tried this, for example instituting regimens of daily experiences of rejection, and it has only positive benefits.
Even a failed business or poor performance at a job won't kill you. These sound like worthier fears since they're more closely related to putting bread on the table, but typically the worst fears of corporate decision-makers are not that the company will execute poorly -- that usually happens anyway -- but that they will be blamed for it.
If we're going to talk about "failing" in general, I say fail as often as possible, even if this means the failures must be small.
You are right, but that is part of the process. When finding a good idea it helps to find lots of bad ideas and understand why they are bad. In the end it makes the good idea easier to see.
When coming up with a system design, db or otherwise I like to understands lots of different ideas, and more importantly, actively reject those ideas with a clear understanding as to why. The helps to find the idea that really does work.
I disagree. People get angry at the exercise of creativity.
Look at the reaction to the financial independence/lifestyle design. People HATE them. Tell many Americans that you're going to stop working for six months to read books in Thailand and they will despise you.
There are so many upsides to creativity, and so much human potential for it - the thing that stops most is the shame that gets splashed on you every time. And then you start splashing it yourself. And that's the game.
I like this comment because it reminds me of a quote from the late 60s movie Easy Rider, where a pair of guys take their motorcycles across the country in pursuit of "freedom." I think it has the same general sentiment and some interesting historical/societal connotations. Here's the quote (note that George is played by Jack Nicholson, whose other famous quote from this movie involves Venutians interbreeding and living among us...):
George Hanson: You know, this used to be a helluva good country.
I can't understand what's gone wrong with it.
Billy: Man, everybody got chicken, that's what happened.
Hey, we can't even get into like, a second-rate hotel,
I mean, a second-rate motel, you dig?
They think we're gonna cut their throat or somethin'. They're scared, man.
George Hanson: They're not scared of you. They're scared of what you represent to 'em.
Billy: Hey, man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody who needs a haircut.
George Hanson: Oh, no. What you represent to them is freedom.
Billy: What the hell is wrong with freedom? That's what it's all about.
George Hanson: Oh, yeah, that's right. That's what's it's all about, all right.
But talkin' about it and bein' it, that's two different things.
I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace.
Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free,
'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin'
to prove to you that they are.
Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you,
and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom.
But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.
Billy: Well, it don't make 'em runnin' scared.
George Hanson: No, it makes 'em dangerous...
Not sure how reading books in Thailand is creative. Being counter culture doesn't make you creative.
People react negatively to the "financial independence/lifestyle design" because they suspect you are telling them they are stupid for wanting to build a life the traditional way by working hard, starting a family and saving money for the future.
> Being counter culture doesn't make you creative.
So much this. Think of someone you see at the coffee shop with a sketch pad - tattooed, big ear plugs, tight jeans and a weird hat. Is this person creative? Without seeing some work output there's no way to know. Lots of people mistake appearance for an indicator for creativity.
The creativity came before the reading. Coming up with a plan to allow taking 6 months off and living in another country. The 6 months of reading fuels the next set of creative ideas.
I think the point is that there is nothing "creative" about deciding to go bum around SE Asia for a few months. Actually doing so will certainly take some planning, and maybe relaxing and reading might give you ideas for stuff to do later, but there is nothing creative in the act or in the planning and there is nothing to suggest that it will result will be anything creative either. I know scads of young 20-somethings who did exactly this and then came back home to do pretty much nothing.
I can't understand this line of reasoning. Creativity is the result of a process, and that process is ignoring (or at least comparatively devaluing) the horrific and sneering grasp of the status quo.
To separate the result of the creative process from the process is an abstraction that ends up excluding the actionable content from the concept. To argue over which acts are and aren't creative will do nothing to serve you in your life, so why do it except to try to bring others down?
Then explain the process. Tell me what you hope to create, why you want to create it, and why you think your chosen method will work.
As it stands, all I see is a six-month vacation in Thailand. I don't see the grand vision you say you have. Make me see it, and then we'll talk. And if you cannot help me see it, then why should I support you? Why should you go unquestioned?
Creativity isn't the creation of a product. It does not imply selflessness. It isn't de facto laudable, and "creative" need not even be a compliment. That's not the argument.
Instead - just look at what you need to justify in order to "support" me (what does this MEAN?)! Why, beyond mere curiosity, do you feel more need to "question" somebody for doing what they want when it is outside of the status quo? Why does this become an issue of approval?
EDIT: To clear up any miscommunication - I am talking about friends/acquaintances getting uncomfortable/upset about my spending my time, money, and life the way I want to simply because it does not conform to the status quo. I am not talking about soliciting anybody (that would be weird).
EDIT 2: Although the fact that multiple commenters assumed that someone else would have to be bankrolling me to do this shows how deep the "always have a job and spend what you earn" conditioning/lifestyle goes.
I didn't say that creativity was the creation of a product, per se. But by definition, it does create something: a product, perhaps, but just as likely a work of art, literature, philosophy, or other abstracts. Or maybe even just a plan of further action. The point of creativity is to create.
Why do I question you? Because all you've told me is that you want to spend six months reading books in Thailand. You won't tell me what you're reading, or why Thailand, or why it needs to be done full-time. Do you even know what you're going to be reading? I suspect not; I suspect this is pure leisure, and the plan to read books will only last until the first distraction comes along. But even if it doesn't, I'm not seeing what difference it would make. And all of this would be well enough to leave alone, but you're (hypothetically) asking me to either bankroll it, or to at least treat it as kind of serious personal project, without even telling me why I should do either one.
Why should I question you? Why shouldn't I? There is creativity, and there is BS, and this is sounding more and more like the latter. Why shouldn't you be called out on that? All I've asked is why, yet the response has been defensive if not outright hostile. What are you defending?
I think I know. This isn't Michelangelo or Picasso or Tolkien or Henson or even Yankovic. This is, at its absolute best, Katy t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m, acting out at random in blind rebellion, not against anything in particular, but merely for rebellion's sake, because that's what sounds like fun. And for that, you can leave me off your list of donors.
The key part is "they suspect". You don't have to tell them anything about their life. You don't even have to KNOW about their life. But they will still take your alternate lifestyle as a personal offense.
(as an aside, since when has "saving money for the future" been the habit in America?)
> because they suspect you are telling them they are stupid for wanting to build a life the traditional way by working hard, starting a family and saving money for the future.
Which is a problem, people take everything as a personal assault.
This has nothing to do with the creativity or lack of creativity in the action.
I guess I'm one of those Americans. My direct challenge to you would be... What do you do when the travel is over? Where did all the money for your trip come from? Where are your savings?
Maybe these aren't important questions to the world traveler. Maybe experiencing the world is much more important than career and financial agility and job security. That's fine.
But for me, that's a really sharp value change, and it makes me uncomfortable. I think that's what people are really feeling.
It's kind of like entrepreneurship. Everyone says it's a good idea. But when you get right down to it, most businesses are failures. Are you willing to take that risk on for the possibility of creative freedom?
Find another job. There's no real shortage if you're in tech.
>> Where did all the money for your trip come from?
Money put aside in my previous few years of work.
>> Where are your savings?
In the bank, looking a little smaller than they were before my six months off.
>> Maybe these aren't important questions to the world traveler. Maybe experiencing the world is much more important than career and financial agility and job security. That's fine.
Pretty much, for me.
I like what I do, and I do it well, but I'm not really committed to any one employer, not in the long term, I'm committed to getting the most out of my life. For me that seems to mean hitting the road in a foreign country (or several) for a few weeks or months at a time every few years.
>> It's kind of like entrepreneurship. Everyone says it's a good idea. But when you get right down to it, most businesses are failures. Are you willing to take that risk on for the possibility of creative freedom?
I'm a freelancer/contractor at the moment rather than an entrepreneur, but the answer so far as I can tell is - why the hell not? You can always get a proper job afterwards if it doesn't work out.
>> You can always get a proper job afterwards if it doesn't work out.
This is what I keep saying!
My mother (and my ex, too) would get very upset when, after college, I suggested building a business freelancing and eventually building my own products -- it's too risky, they said. But I'm a young person with no dependents or anyone else I'm responsible for, I have very few expenses, I have time to build something substantial that can be more successful than a job. Where's the risk? Worst case scenario, I get another job. Best case scenario -- freedom from concerns about money, location, and time.
Stay on this career path forever? I can't ever have those last three things. But hey, it's the easy way out, right? It's what everybody else does.
Mid-case scenario - you get valuable business experience and when you do get that other job you leap up the ranks quicker than if you just went and did something conventional.
Obviously you have to weigh up, for you, the lifestyle you want to lead and the stability you need, but it's not like it's a dumb thing to take a chance, especially when you have no dependents.
I'm pretty much doing that. Reading books in Thailand, enjoying life, learning another language. Tip: If in Bangkok, then get your books at Dasa Book Cafe (google it).
Really if you do not party all the time and decide to live in the non tourist areas then besides having a great experience you don't burn a lot of money either.
I'd say that living in a non western culture for a while will actually help you in your career later on as it puts things in perspective.
Hipster alert: The definition of a hipster is someone who spends a lot of enregy trying to figure out what everybody else is thinking, just so s/he can think the opposite.
Why do you care -- or ever know -- if most Americans will despise you?
"How can you know if someone is a counter-cultural free-thinking rebel who doesn't care what anybody think? They'll tell everybody."
Why would you expect different? Creativity is risk. Without risk it wouldn't be creative, it'd just be the obvious, safe thing to do.
The thing about creative risk is it's an investment. Most of the time it's likely to fail but occassionally it'll provide enough RoI to make the risk more than worthwhile.
The returns on creative risks over the last century have been astounding. Micro-processors were a creative risk. The airplane was a creative risk. Orbital satellites were a creative risk. The internet was a creative risk. And so on.
And very frequently the Idea Fairies have 100s of ideas for everyone else to spend time either chasing or refuting, but nothing to contribute beyond that. It's a balance.
Like the famous observation about Churchill: "His chief of staff Alan Brooke complained that every day Churchill had 10 ideas, only one of which was good -- and he did not know which one."
And when I think of product meeting's I've sat in on... generally 90% of the "creative" ideas would be complete disasters. And a lot of the remaining 10% might be good, but the work involved in figuring that out for sure would often be prohibitive, for an unclear payoff. But occasionally you get a gem that everyone gets excited about.
I would say that people do like creativity, but only when it's clear that the particular creative solution will likely work. Which is generally not the case.
And if people went chasing every plausible creative idea, we wouldn't have time for anything else, like normal productivity. That's why it's a very difficult balance to get right.