Creativity Central [Marty Baker]

I saw this amazing presentation by Idris Mootee CEO of Idea Couture a few years ago and was amazed just how well this single slide show condensed 20 years of branding lessons into about 80 slides. The thinking is remarkable. And the graphics are incredibly well done. If you want to rethink branding. Understand why it has replaced virtually every other term (advertising, marketing etc) then take a look at this inspiring Slide Share Presentation.
Free Power Point Presentations

Like the cliff swallows of San Juan Capistrano, there is one annual event that generally ruffles the feathers of creative facilitators. 

Usually it’s an article on the perils and pitfalls of brainstorming. Typically, the article cites a study that proves that individuals working alone produce more ideas working in a group. Or it’s the latest incarnation of the idea that brainstorming as practiced by most companies isn’t very productive.

So what’s the feather ruffling part?

It begins with an observation I recently shared in Nashville at the IFCA conference in a talk called Beyond Brainstorming. 

Alex Osborn is generally regarded as the father of modern brainstorming.  His book, Applied Imagination, became a business sensation in the 1950s by creating a framework for generating ideas in groups.

But more people cite the book than actually read it.  In the book, Osborn says very clearly that group brainstorming is merely a supplement to individual brainstorming.  In other words: “here’s another tool to help you create ideas.”

So if you want to go by the gospel of brainstorming, it shouldn’t be a question of which is better (either/or) but and.   It’s about using a variety of techniques to generate ideas.

Dana Montenegro of Seriously Creative and my company, Inotivity combine group and individual brainstorming in the same session in a unique process called IDEA Engineering.

The second feather ruffling is that most companies don’t follow most of the “rules” set out in Osborn’s book.  Surprisingly, they haven’t changed that much.  The main theme is to defer judgment and generate quantity. Leave the hen-pecking to later.

Most creatives understand that brainstorming works well when facilitated well -- but over the years brainstorming has evolved into many varied techniques that help inviduals think better and to build upon the ideas of diverse thinkers in grouos.  

I want to share some insights from one of the best collaborative thinkers on the planet, Tim Brown of IDEO.   It’s from his book, Change by Design.

“Business school professors are fond of writing learned articles about the value of brainstorming. I encourage them to continue to do so (after all, some of my best friends are business school professors, and it keeps them busy and out of my way). Some surveys claim that motivated individuals can generate more ideas in the equivalent time working on their own. Other case studies demonstrate that brainstorming is as essential to creativity as exercise is to a healthy heart. As is so often the case, there is truth on both sides. 

The skeptics certainly have a case: a well-intentioned manager who assembles a group of individuals who don’t know one another, who are skeptical, and who lack confidence and gives them a tough problem to brainstorm is likely to get fewer viable ideas than if each of them had been sent away to think about the problem individually.

Brainstorming, ironically, is a structured way of breaking out of structure. It takes practice. As with cricket or football (or their American equivalents), there are rules for brainstorming. The rules lay out the playing fieldwithin which a team of players can perform at high levels.

Without rules there is no framework for a group to collaborate within, and a brainstorming session is more likely to degenerate into either an orderly meeting or an unproductive free-for-all with a lot of talking and not much listening. Every organization has its own variations on the rules of brainstorming (just as every family seems to have its own version of Scrabble or Monopoly). At IDEO we have dedicated rooms for our brainstorming sessions, and the rules are literally written on the walls: Defer judgment. Encourage wild ideas. Stay focused on the topic. The most important of them, I would argue, is “Build on the ideas of others.” It’s right up there with “Thou shalt not kill” and “Honor thy father and thy mother,” as it ensures that every participant is invested in the last idea put forward and has the chance to move it along.

Brainstorming is not necessarily the ultimate technique for idea generation, and it cannot be built into the structure of every organization. But it does prove its worth when the goal is to open up a broad spectrum of ideas. Other approaches are important for making choices, but nothing beats a good brainstorming.

Well said Tim. See you in Capistrano.

A few weeks ago, I listened to a talk by Bob Sutton, author of Good Boss, Bad Boss and professor of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University.

He tells a great story in his book about Brad Bird, director of The Incredibles and Iron Giant. (Interestingly, I freelanced at Disney at the Ink and Paint building when both Bird and Pixar’s John Lasseter were working at the studio but never met the animators.)

The story is about Bird’s experience working on the animated film Iron Giant.  “The Iron Giant team worked on a climate of fear before Bird arrived, which he worked to repair by telling them:

            As individual animators, we all have different strengths and weaknesses,

            But if we can interconnect all our strengths, we are collectively the greatest

            Animator on earth. So, I want you guys to speak up and drop your drawers.

            We’re going to look at your scenes in front of everybody.  Everyone will get

            humiliated and encouraged together.  If there is a solution, I want everyone to

            hear the solution, so everyone adds it to their tool kit, I’m going to take my shot

            at what I think will improve a scene, but if you see something different, go ahead

            and disagree. I don’t know all the answers.

Sutton continues, “Bird’s statement drips with wisdom: It shows how much people need each other and the virtues of exposing one’s weaknesses. His line “Everyone will get humiliated and encouraged together” captures the essence of psychological safety.

I see a lot of companies where you sense the psychological safety net either doesn’t exist or is so infinitesimally small that both constructive confrontation and risk taking are rare events.

There is a balancing act that leaders have to do -- simultaneously remaining open and supportive but then having to make decision that is ultimately theirs.  This high-wire act goes with the territory.

But when I see organizations that are closed or leaders that are closed or don’t encourage Iron Giant thinking, you can feel a different kind of tension.  It’s a sweat of unexpressed ideas.  Unchallenged assumptions.  And a general inability to disagree, agreeably.

That's the tripwire for less productivity, faux collaboration and an us vs. them mentality.

Sutton sums up the story with some advice, “Fight for what you believe, but gracefully accept defeat.”

So, at your next meeting or group interaction, ask yourself, “Giant Problem or Iron Giant?”

Tech Republic has 10 great commandments for egoless programming. You don’t have to be a programmer to appreciate the Iron Giant thinking.

1. Understand and accept that you will make mistakes. 

The point is to find them early, before they make it into production. Fortunately, except for the few of us developing rocket guidance software at JPL, mistakes are rarely fatal in our industry, so we can, and should, learn, laugh, and move on.

2. You are not your code.

Remember that the entire point of a review is to find problems, and problems will be found. Don't take it personally when one is uncovered.

3. No matter how much "karate" you know, someone else will always know more.

Such an individual can teach you some new moves if you ask. Seek and accept input from others, especially when you think it's not needed.

4. Don't rewrite code without consultation. 

There's a fine line between "fixing code" and "rewriting code." Know the difference, and pursue stylistic changes within the framework of a code review, not as a lone enforcer.

5. Treat people who know less than you with respect, deference, and patience. 

Nontechnical people who deal with developers on a regular basis almost universally hold the opinion that we are prima donnas at best and crybabies at worst. Don't reinforce this stereotype with anger and impatience.

6. The only constant in the world is change.

Be open to it and accept it with a smile. Look at each change to your requirements, platform, or tool as a new challenge, not as some serious inconvenience to be fought.

7. The only true authority stems from knowledge, not from position.

Knowledge engenders authority, and authority engenders respect -- so if you want respect in an egoless environment, cultivate knowledge.

8. Fight for what you believe, but gracefully accept defeat.

Understand that sometimes your ideas will be overruled. Even if you do turn out to be right, don't take revenge or say, "I told you so" more than a few times at most, and don't make your dearly departed idea a martyr or rallying cry.

9. Don't be "the guy in the room."

Don't be the guy coding in the dark office emerging only to buy cola. The guy in the room is out of touch, out of sight, and out of control and has no place in an open, collaborative environment.

10. Critique code instead of people

Be kind to the coder, not to the code. As much as possible, make all of your comments positive and oriented to improving the code. Relate comments to local standards, program specs, increased performance, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Chris Kocek, a strategic planner at the agency GSD&M, recently posted an interesting blog on Curiosity called, Social Media Infographics from the Consumers’ Perspective.

He asks, “What does the world look like if we put the consumer at the center of the social media universe?” 

I am a huge fan of infographics -- and his historical approach to visualizing the exponential growth of the ways consumers can interact with companies and to each other is compelling.

Compelling because the growth of media outlets is something many clients says they understand, but generally the complexity makes their eyes glaze over.   

When I started in advertising, there was the sacred trinity of big media: TV, Print and Radio. (Followed by collateral  -- billboards, direct mail and brochures).  The internet, the omnipresence of social networking and the rise of mobile technology has completely re-imagined the media landscape.

By deconstructing the media and conversation channels, it provides a change map that helps visualize the possibilities. Nice work Chris.

A link to original blog:

http://bit.ly/vex8xp

 

At Inotivity, we call them ten-minute katas (a Japanese term describing detailed choreographed patterns of movements).  Today, kata is often used as a metaphor for a routine or pattern of thinking that leads to various levels of mastery.

It’s a provocative way to jump start creativity.

Hand out a pencil to everyone in your group or meeting. Ask everyone to look at the pencil and think about its attributes, qualities and benefits.  On a large note pad or white board write down the group’s ideas.

In creative problem solving, the technique is typically called object linking or forced analogy. 

The idea is to see how the qualities of the pencil can lead you to new ideas about a different problem or challenge.

Tom Wujec has a great example of the pencil experiment in his book Five Star Mind. He applies the experiment to developing ideas to advancing your career. (See graphic below)

Let’s take four typical responses. Eraser. Wood. Point. Six Sides.

Eraser.  How might you rub out or remove the things that hold you back.  What can past mistakes teach you about moving forward?

Wood.  Determine your inner substance or strength. What are you strongest qualities or skills? Conversely, what are your weaknesses?

Point.  Give yourself a strong objective.  What is the point of what you’re doing?

Six sides.  Hexagonal.  What six things could you do right now to improve your skill sets?  Or to get you noticed?

The big idea is to make a habit of linking objects to ideas.  It could be AA battery, a coin, a watch, a smart phone.  Literally, anything.

So make object linking a ritual. Make it a kata.  It’s a simple, but powerful way to begin developing a creative mindset.

Thanks to Tom Wujec and Doubleday Publishing.

 

A few years ago, we developed Inotivities: activities that lead to insight and innovation.

Our experience in leading hundreds of creative facilitations taught us that it was usually the short term, interactive, and collaborative games that led to the best ideas.

The Dashboard Inotivity. This was inspired by our work with management information systems, Toyota, financial advisor workstations, and more recently, Scott Klososky’s Velocity Manifesto.

The Inotivity in Brief:

Participants create a visual dashboard (Think car or airplane) that would give them all the information they need to make smarter, faster decisions.

How to Play:

While the Dashboard Inotivity can be played by individuals, it’s more usually effective in pairs.  The first step is to identify needs/wants. The second step is to prioritize those needs in order from must have to want to have.  The third step is to visualize (draw) the dashboard. 

The goal is to create a dashboard for each partner in the team.  This dashboard is the beginning of a series of refinements that will lead to developing the ideal flow of data and an action plan for implementing it.

Klososky provides a great metaphor. “Think of it (dashboard) as periscopes allowing a manager or executive to have a quick view into the analytics that are truly important to the business.”

The benefits of this Inotivity is that it allows an individual to explore beyond what’s possible. For example, in one session, a CEO created a motivation dial.  He could see at a glance -- the level of motivation in the organization by department and individual. 

Another manager wanted to have a meeting value dial.  When employees met, her instrument panel showed the cumulative cost in real time of what that meeting cost and was compared with the actual results or output from the meeting. 

This exercise helps managers or individuals understand what kinds of information they are currently getting and what information has the greatest impact on decisions they make. Sometimes participants discover a need for information that they never anticipated.

The value of a teammate is to act as a question asker and clarifier. Why do you need that information? How often do you use it?  Does someone else already have the information?

Ultimately, the goal is to turn some of the more powerful ideas into reality. Some systems may already exist and some you may be able to customize with your IT or MIS team. 

 

Check out the Velocity Manifesto below: The Velocity Manifesto: Harnessing Technology, Vision, and Culture to Future-Proof your Organization

If you’re game, I’d like you to try a short experiment.

Think about the people that you need to interact on a daily or weekly basis.  Take a piece of paper and draw a vertical line down the middle.  Put a plus sign on one side and negative sign on the other.

On one side write the names of those people with whom you enjoy collaborating. And on the other side, write the names of those who make collaborating a chore.

If you have more pluses than minuses, congratulations. If you have more negatives than positives, you are statistically in the majority.   

If you take the experiment a step further, write two or three reasons why that person makes a bad collaborator.  Then, do the same for your positive collaborations.

Do you see patterns on either side?

One of the great challenges of collaboration is that most people get tangled up in the personality (emotion) part of the equation.  Likeability is often a key trait listed in the positive column. 

But as desirable as likeability may be, it doesn’t always drive great collaborations.  Virtually every laudable article on the late Steve Jobs, mentions his ferocity and impatience with his collaborators. 

Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis were friends but had very different temperments and goals.

I’ve worked with brilliant people who simply haven’t inherited the collaborative gene.  In the growing field of personality profiling, they are referred to “Tellers” vs. “Askers.”

The great executive coach and author, Marshall Goldsmith has refined a technique I use in Inotivity team exploration meetings.

1.  Take a snapshot of the current and desired level of team work.

In a team meeting, ask each team member to consider

the questions “How well are we doing?” and “How well

do we need to be doing?” in terms of teamwork. Have

each member write down a score from 1 to 10 for each

question on a blank piece of paper and hand it in.

Have one team member calculate the average score for

each question.

2. Identify those behaviors that might close the gap.

Assuming there is a gap between “we are” and “we need

to be,” ask each team member to list on another piece of

paper what two key improvements in behavior would

help close the gap and improve teamwork. Be clear that

team members are not to single out people but rather

behaviors, such as listening better, articulating clear goals,

and so on.

  Go around the room asking everyone to share what he

wrote, and have someone record the answers on whiteboard

or flipchart.

  When everyone has spoken, ask the group to vote

on which behavior change would have the largest positive

impact on the group’s effectiveness.

 3.  Have team members interview each other.

Have each team member conduct a three-minute, one-on-

one meeting with every other team member. In these

sessions, each person should ask, “Please suggest one or

two positive changes I can make individually to help our

team work together more effectively.” Then have each

person pick one behavior to focus on improving.

4.  Make sure to follow up each month.

Begin a regular monthly follow-up process in which each

team member asks each other member for suggestions

on how to continue her improvement based on her

behavior the previous month. The conversations should

focus on the specific areas identified for improvement

individually as well as general suggestions for everyone

on the team.

 These conversations are most effective when both parties respect these two simple rules:

• The person receiving the suggestions cannot critique

them. His or her role is just to listen and say thank you.

• The person making the suggestions must focus not on the past but the future.

   Thank you Marshall for more great inspiration and the Harvard Business Review.