19,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
Tear down the obstacles to creative innovation in your organization Unlocking Creativity is an exploration of the creative process and how organizations can clear the way for innovation. In many organizations, creative individuals face stubborn resistance to new ideas. Managers and executives oftentimes reject innovation and unconventional approaches due to misplaced allegiance to the status quo. Questioning established practices or challenging prevailing sentiments is frequently met with stiff resistance. In this climate of stifled creativity and inflexible adherence to conventional wisdom, potentially game-changing ideas are dismissed outright. Senior leaders claim to value creativity, yet often lack the knowledge to provide a creative framework. Unlocking Creativity offers effective methods and real-world examples of how the most successful organizations create cultures of innovation and experimentation. Best-selling author and scholar Michael Roberto presents a thorough investigation of organizational obstacles to creative thought. Highly relevant to the growth crises many enterprises face in today's economic landscape, this book examines how to break barriers to spark creativity and foster new ideas. This insightful and informative work allows business executives, senior managers, and organization leaders to: * Recognize the six organizational mindsets that impede creativity and innovation * Learn how to tear down the barriers that obstruct the creative process * Create an environment that allows talented people to thrive * Encourage creative collaboration in teams throughout an organization Leaders do not have to conceive innovative ideas, but rather open the path for curious and creative employees within their organization. Unlocking Creativity: How to Solve Any Problem and Make the Best Decisions aids organizations in removing obstacles to the creative process and helps to form an atmosphere of imagination and innovation.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 329
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
COVER
PREFACE
Endnotes
CHAPTER 1: The Resistance to New Ideas
Closed-Minded Experts
Double Talk on Creativity
Creativity Bias
The Dire Need for Creativity
The Person versus the Situation
The Six Mindsets
Endnotes
CHAPTER 2: The Linear Mindset
Linear Thinking
A Sanding Block, Deodorant Stick, and Butter Dish
Design Thinking Flourishes
Da Vinci: An Early Design Thinker
Rough Sailing in Corporate Waters
We Hate to Iterate
Spaghetti and Marshmallows
Endnotes
CHAPTER 3: The Benchmarking Mindset
Learning from the Best
The Benchmarking Curse
Dave Grohl's Inspiration
Fixation and Water Jars
Look to the Outside!
Define Substitutes Broadly
Taking the Leap
Endnotes
CHAPTER 4: The Prediction Mindset
Nobody Knows Anything
A Dart-Throwing Chimpanzee
The Need for Control
Moving the Needle
Growth and Expectations in the Magic Kingdom
Niche versus Blockbuster
Time to Ripen
Endnotes
CHAPTER 5: The Structural Mindset
Does Hierarchy Help or Hurt?
The Obsession with Reorganizations
Shaping Team Climate
Establishing Ground Rules
Designing the Work
Stop Searching for a Panacea
Endnotes
CHAPTER 6: The Focus Mindset
The War Room at Google Ventures
The Dangers of Multitasking
When the Tank Runs Dry
Psychological Distance
Focus + Distance
Endnotes
CHAPTER 7: The Naysayer Mindset
The Devil's Advocate
Creativity Killer?
Who Plays the Devil's Advocate?
Do You Create Anything?
Endnotes
CHAPTER 8: Leader as Teacher
Stirring the Brain
Encourage Questions
Let Them Answer
Share Failure Stories
Celebrate Mistakes
Empathize Genuinely
Make Them Believe
Introduce Novelty
The Leader's Greatest Reward
Endnotes
RESOURCES
Case Studies
Simulations
Toolkits and Handbooks
Articles
TED Talks
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
INDEX
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1: Impediments to an Effective Iterative Process
Chapter 3
Table 3.1: Examples of Substitution Threats
Chapter 5
Table 5.1: IDEO's Brainstorming Rules
Chapter 6
Table 6.1: Strategies for Achieving Psychological Distance
Chapter 7
Table 7.1: Asking the Right Questions
Chapter 8
Table 8.1: What Great Teachers and Leaders Do to Ignite Curiosity
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1: Three Most Important Leadership Qualities in the Next Five Years
Figure 1.2: Fortune 500 Compound Annual Growth Rate Analysis: 2014–2016
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1: The Typical Corporate Planning Process
Figure 2.2: The Iterative Problem-Solving Process
Figure 2.3: The Design Thinking Process
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1: Herd Behavior in Network Television Programming
Figure 3.2: Design Fixation: The Spill-Proof Cup Experiment
Figure 3.3: Learning from Analogous Contexts
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1: National Football League Quarterbacks Drafted in the First Round: 2000–2014
Figure 4.2: Walt Disney Company Stock Performance During the Michael Eisner Era
Figure 4.3: Grocery Sales per Square Foot for Selected Retailers in 2012
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1: Building Work Environments to Stimulate Creativity
Figure 5.2: How Leaders Create Psychological Safety
Figure 5.3: Designing the Work
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1: Do Eccentric Poets Generate More Ideas Than Rigid Librarians?
Figure 6.2: The Effect of Temporal Distance on Creativity
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1: “Yeah, but. . .” vs. “Yes, and. . .” Thinking
Figure 7.2: The Constructive Devil's Advocate
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
C1
iii
iv
v
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
E1
UNLOCKING Creativity
HOW TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEM AND MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS BY SHIFTING CREATIVE MINDSETS
Michael A. Roberto
Copyright © 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750–8400, fax (978) 646–8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748–6011, fax (201) 748–6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762–2974, outside the United States at (317) 572–3993 or fax (317) 572–4002.
Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Roberto, Michael A., author.
Title: Unlocking creativity : how to solve any problem and make the best decisions / Michael A. Roberto.
Description: Hoboken, New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., [2019] | Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2018043694 (print) | LCCN 2018045131 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119545767 (Adobe PDF) | ISBN 9781119545835 (ePub) | ISBN 9781119545798 (hardcover)
Subjects: LCSH: Creative ability in business. | Creative thinking. | Decision making. | Problem solving.
Classification: LCC HD53 (ebook) | LCC HD53 .R596 2019 (print) | DDC 658.4/03—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018043694
COVER DESIGN: PAUL McCARTHYCOVER IMAGE: © GETTY IMAGES: CLASSEN RAFAEL / EYEEM
To all my teachers from childhood, who stimulated my curiosity and creativity, and most especially to Kristin, the most caring and dedicated elementary school teacher from whom a child could learn.
PREFACE
Tuesday, September 11, 1979. My family and I sat down in our living room, in front of our Sylvania console television set, at eight o'clock in the evening. We had purchased the TV Guide at the supermarket several days earlier to learn about the new fall broadcast network television schedule. Our family had three options that evening. CBS offered a new show, California Fever, a rather forgettable teen drama that was canceled after just 10 episodes. NBC televised the debut of The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo, starring Claude Akins.1 Years later, TV Guide ranked that program among the 50 worst television shows of all time.2 We didn't even give these two programs a second thought. Tuesday evenings served as appointment television in our home. As a nine-year-old boy, I loved watching Arthur Fonzarelli, Richie Cunningham, and the rest of the Happy Days crew. Of course, we didn't have much choice. Who in their right mind would watch those other two programs?
Shortly thereafter, my parents signed up for a new service called cable television. I remember the installer bringing a set-top box to our living room. Instead of turning the knob on the front of the television set, we now pushed down one of the box's 12 buttons to change the channel. Imagine that! We now had 12 options instead of just 3! Of course, we still had to get up from the couch each time we wanted to change the channel. The 12th button, the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN), proved particularly intriguing to me. No one in my neighborhood had heard of this channel. It promised 24 hours of sports coverage. Mostly, that meant a healthy dose of rodeo, billiards, and Australian-rules football along with college sports (often televised on tape delay!). ESPN did not have the rights to air the major professional sports in those early days. My friends and I mostly loved watching SportsCenter each morning, a show featuring the highlights from the previous day's sporting events, hosted by anchors Bob Ley, George Grande, Tom Mees, and Chris Berman.
Fast-forward 18 years. Cable television had grown considerably, and we had many channels from which to choose. Disney now owned ESPN, and the network aired in over 70 million homes across the country.3 But in 1997, three important events began to reshape the television landscape. HBO aired its first hour-long original drama (Oz), soon to be followed by other groundbreaking and critically acclaimed programs such as The Sopranos.4 Meanwhile, Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph founded Netflix in Scotts Valley, California. The new company offered DVD rentals by mail.5 Fellow Silicon Valley entrepreneurs Jim Barton and Mike Ramsay founded TiVo in that same year. Their digital video recorder enabled people to record programs, pause live television, and skip commercials easily.6
Today the television industry has changed dramatically. Broadcast television viewership has declined substantially over the past two decades. Netflix and Hulu have roughly 75 million subscribers combined in the United States.7 Cord cutting has become quite prevalent, meaning that more and more consumers choose to go without a cable television subscription. As a result, ESPN has shed 16 million subscribers over the past seven years, which amounts to over $1 billion annually in lost revenue.8
Today, my family has an incredible array of high-quality programming options from which to choose. We can select from nearly 500 original scripted programs, up from 182 shows just 15 years ago.9 On any given day, my children might be binge-watching the new season of a Netflix or Amazon original show in a matter of days, or plowing through every season of old favorites such as Friends or The Office. My spouse and I could be binge-watching our favorite new program, The Crown, while DVRing something that we simply don't have time to view at the moment. Despite the radical change in consumer viewing habits, the broadcast television networks continue to premiere most series in September, air episodes once per week, and televise a season finale in May. Talk about sticking with the status quo.
The past year's Emmy nominations demonstrate how new players dominate the production of high-quality, creative programming. In the best-comedy category, ABC received two nominations, but the rest went to shows airing on HBO, Netflix, and FX. In the best-drama category, only one broadcast network show received a nomination (NBC's This is Us). Netflix, Hulu, HBO, and AMC received the other six nods.10 The last broadcast network program to win this Emmy award was Fox's 24—and that was 12 years ago.11
The transformation of television during my lifetime raises some interesting questions for me. First, how are new companies producing so much highly creative content, and how have they developed new business models? Second, what has prevented traditional players from adapting successfully? Surely, the traditional television players do not lack creative talent. What, then, are the obstacles that prevent them from adopting new business models or generating high-quality, creative content to compete successfully with the likes of Netflix and HBO?
These questions can be generalized and applied across a range of industries and situations. The desire for more creative solutions to pressing problems extends well beyond the television business, of course. When surveyed, CEOs across a variety of industries have identified creativity as one of the most desired leadership qualities for the future.12 Many companies face a growth crisis, or they find their industries are being disrupted by entrants with different business models featuring original products and services that address unmet consumer needs. These established firms desperately need creative solutions. They must adapt or die.
Seven years ago, with this challenge in mind, my colleagues and I concluded that we needed to enhance the creative capabilities of our students. We had to prepare them better for a changing workplace and turbulent environment. Our team did not believe that creative capacity was a fixed trait. Instead, we embraced the notion that creative capabilities could be nurtured. Our team developed the IDEA program at Bryant University. Every first-year student takes part in this immersive, three-day experience that provides hands-on experience with the design thinking process, a creative problem-solving methodology used by many enterprises. The students' ability to generate breakthrough solutions to perplexing problems in a matter of days always amazes us. We find the experience both exhilarating and inspirational.
As we developed and delivered this unique program over the past seven years, I also spent time researching creativity in organizations around the world. Unfortunately, I have witnessed many impediments to creativity in these enterprises. Senior leaders routinely speak about the need and desire for more creative ideas, but their employees seem frustrated and discouraged when they pose original concepts and solutions. This observation motivated me to write this book. I wanted to understand the barriers to creativity in more depth.
Numerous explanations exist for why organizations fail to generate a sufficient number of creative ideas. One theory focuses on the dearth of talent. In other words, older, established firms simply need to do a better job of attracting and retaining highly creative individuals. Another theory focuses on organizational structure, emphasizing how hierarchy and bureaucracy stifles creativity in many enterprises. Still others attribute the lack of creativity to the pressure to meet Wall Street earnings expectations, or the use of short-term incentive and compensation schemes. These explanations do not lack merit, but they don't tell a complete story.
This book addresses a more fundamental obstacle to creativity in organizations. I examine the organizational mindsets that stifle creativity. By mindsets, I mean the belief systems that shape how people think, decide, and act with regard to the development of original ideas. These mindsets often are quite pervasive, reaching all corners of an organization. They do not reside simply in the heads of a few individuals. The mindsets comprise implicit and explicit beliefs about how the creative process unfolds, what drives creativity, and how creative ideas should be evaluated.
In the chapters that follow, I argue that leaders at all levels need to transform these mindsets to stimulate creativity in their organizations. They should not focus simply on finding “better” people, but instead remove the obstacles that impede the creativity of the talented individuals already in their midst. The best leaders acknowledge that they might not have the creative solutions to their organization's most significant challenges. They seek to marshal the collective intellect of their people and unleash the creative capabilities of those around them. These leaders embrace the responsibility to create a supportive environment and dismantle the barriers to creativity. This book aims to help leaders in this mission to build more creative enterprises. As you read about the six mindsets described in the pages that follow, consider how they shape and influence thought and action in your organization. No matter your position or authority, you can contribute to the successful transformation of these mindsets. One person cannot do it alone. Leaders at all levels, including those without formal authority, will need to partake in this important work.
Michael A. Roberto
June 2018
Endnotes
1
. Classic TV Database. “1979–1980 TV Schedule” (
www.classic-tv.com/features/schedules/1979-1980-tv-schedule
, accessed June 22, 2018).
2
. Internet Movie Database. “The 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time According to TV Guide,” March 24, 2016 (
www.imdb.com/list/ls032245551/
, accessed June 22, 2018).
3
. Dave Nagle, “ESPN, Inc.: 1997 in Review,” ESPN Media Zone, January 2, 1998 (
espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/1998/01/espn-inc-1997-in-review/
, accessed June 25, 2018).
4
. Ethan Alter, “Return to ‘Oz’: An Oral History of the Pioneering Prison Drama,” Yahoo! TV, July 12, 2017 (
www.yahoo.com/entertainment/hbo-oz-20th-anniversary-oral-history-153416770.html
, accessed June 25, 2018).
5
. Netflix. “About Netflix,” Netflix Media Center (
media.netflix.com/en/about-netflix
, accessed June 25, 2018).
6
. TiVo. “History,”
TiVo.com
(
www.tivo.com/history
, accessed June 25, 2018).
7
. Chris Welch, “Hulu Passes 20 Million US Subscribers, Says Offline Downloads Are Coming,” The Verge, May 2, 2018 (
www.theverge.com/2018/5/2/17309336/hulu-20-million-subscribers-announced-offline-downloads-new-feature
, accessed June 26, 2018).
8
. Shalini Ramachandran, “How a Weakened ESPN Became Consumed by Politics,”
Wall Street Journal
, May 24, 2018 (
www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-weakened-espn-became-consumed-by-politics-1527176425
, accessed June 26, 2018).
9
. John Koblin, “487 Original Programs Aired in 2017. Bet You Didn't Watch Them All,”
New York Times
, January 5, 2018 (
www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/business/media/487-original-programs-aired-in-2017.html
, accessed June 26, 2018).
10
.
variety.com/2017/tv/news/2017-emmy-nominees-list-nominations-1202494465/
, accessed June 26, 2018.
11
. Variety Staff. “Emmys 2017: Full List of Nominations,”
Variety.com
, July 13, 2017 (
www.emmys.com/awards/nominees-winners
, accessed June 26, 2018).
12
. IBM. “IBM 2010 Global CEO Study: Creativity Selected as Most Crucial Factor for Future Success,” IBM press release, May 18, 2018 (
www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31670.wss
, accessed June 26, 2018).
CHAPTER 1The Resistance to New Ideas
The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.
—John Maynard Keynes, economist
Many critics rendered harsh judgment when 40-year-old Édouard Manet displayed his rather shocking painting Le Bain at an exhibition in Paris on May 15, 1863. Critics responded:
Its garish colouring pierces the eyes like a steel saw; his figures seem to have been cut out with a punch and have a hardness that is capable of no soothing compromise. It has all the unpalatability of green fruits that will never ripen.
1
A young man's practical joke, a shameful open sore not worth exhibiting this way.
2
An absurd composition.
3
Manet's controversial work featured a naked woman seated on the ground alongside two men fully clothed in stylish attire. The woman's blue dress and straw hat lay on the ground beside her, adjacent to a picnic basket and a loaf of bread. In the background, another woman bathes in a stream. Manet's work proved scandalous. He had not depicted a nude goddess in a scene from mythology, as many traditional painters did, but rather an unclothed woman in a modern Parisian scene. Some suggested that the painting depicted prostitutes working in the Bois de Boulogne, a large public park on the western edge of Paris. The painting elicited derision and ridicule from those who attended the exhibition. One person wrote that Manet's work met with a “veritable clamor of condemnation.”4 Another critic observed that, “Never was such insane laughter better deserved.”5
Le Bain (later retitled Luncheon on the Grass) elicited criticism not only due to the scandalous nature of the Parisian scene Manet depicted. It also challenged convention and tradition with its style; many considered Manet's approach quite radical and rather crude. He did not try to capture every detail with precision. Author Ross King wrote that, “[Manet] did not concern himself with realistically transcribing nature or ensuring the flesh tones of his subjects correctly matched their outdoor setting.”6 Instead, Le Bain appeared “sketch-like” and “roughly-painted.”7 Manet did not apply his paint in layers over the course of many weeks or even months, and he did not apply a glaze to the finished artwork. Instead, he pioneered the alla prima (at once) technique, using broad brushstrokes to paint a scene in one sitting. His work featured sharp contrasts of color rather than subtle transitions. The painting lacked proper perspective, too.8 Many critics rejected this radical new style. Manet lacked the finesse to which they had become accustomed.
In 1863, many people regarded Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier as “the most renowned artist of our time.”9 Unlike Manet, Meissonier worked with great precision to depict scenes of 17th- and 18th-century life, as many other artists did at the time. His work evoked nostalgia for the past, depicting chivalrous gentlemen on horseback or men engaged in noble activities such as chess, music, painting, or reading. Meissonier also loved to depict famous scenes from Napoleon's military campaigns. He strove for historical accuracy and authenticity in every detail. Observers needed a magnifying glass to truly appreciate the minute details captured meticulously in each painting. Critics marveled at his physical dexterity. Meissonier amassed a considerable fortune and received great acclaim for his work. While Meissonier received praise, Manet once noted that, “Insults are pouring down on me as thick as hail.”10
In that era, French artists aspired to display their work at the Exhibition of Living Artists that took place annually in the Grand Palais des Champs-Élysées. Commonly referred to as the Paris Salon, the exhibition attracted as many as one million citizens over a six-week period. Manet submitted Le Bain in 1863, hoping it would be chosen by the members of the jury for inclusion in that year's salon. Count Alfred Émilien O'Hara van Nieuwerkerke oversaw the selection process. He strove to preserve the highest possible standards for the salon. He favored the style of Meissonier, with its focus on history and idealism, and rejected the realism movement, with its embrace of ordinary life and people of all social classes. Commenting on these radical new artists, he said, “This is the painting of democrats, of men who don't change their underwear.”11
Nieuwerkerke ruled that the jury should consist only of men who were members of the Académie des Beaux-Arts, an elite society of traditionalists intent on preserving the status quo. Approximately, 3,000 artists submitted more than 5,000 paintings for consideration in 1863. In mid-April, the jury announced its decisions. They had accepted only 2,217 paintings by 988 artists. The jury rejected Le Bain as well as two other paintings submitted by Manet. Other spurned artists included Gustave Courbet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Camille Pissarro, Paul Cézanne, and James Abbott McNeill Whistler. Controversy swirled around the widespread rejections. Emperor Napoleon decided to intervene. Concerned about societal unrest and discontent, the emperor chose to embrace the idea of a separate exhibition consisting of the artwork rejected by the establishment. Soon this exhibition came to be known as the Salon des Refuses (exhibition of the rejects). More than 1,000 people per day attended, though many laughed at the rejected works of art. Manet submitted Le Bain for display, and mockery and ridicule ensued for him as well.
Amidst the deluge of criticism, a few astute observers noted the stark contrast between those accepted and rejected by the Paris Salon. They sensed that the ground had begun to shift. The famous journalist and art critic Théophile Thoré described it as a contrast between “conservatives and innovators, tradition and originality.”12 Amidst widespread criticism, younger artists took comfort that others shared their willingness to experiment and break new ground. Manet became a leader among this new generation of painters. He met regularly with other innovators such as Edgar Degas, Claude Monet, Renoir, and Pissarro at Café Guerbois in Paris. They argued and debated, and they shared ideas on Sundays and Thursdays, becoming known as the Batignolles Group.
Ten years after the original salon controversy, Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Degas, and others created the Société Anonyme Coopérative des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs (Cooperative and Anonymous Association of Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers). They chose not to submit their work to the Paris Salon. Instead, they formed an independent exhibition, which opened to mixed reviews. Monet submitted a painting titled, Impression, Sunrise. Critic Louis Leroy mocked the painting in an article titled, The Exhibition of the Impressionists. He wrote, “Impression—I was certain of it. I was just telling myself that, since I was impressed, there had to be some impression in it…and what freedom, what ease of workmanship! Wallpaper in its embryonic state is more finished than that seascape.”13 Others started referring to this group of renegade artists as the impressionists, and even the painters themselves adopted the name despite the fact that it had emerged from a scathing criticism of their work. We know how this story ends. Ultimately, Manet became known as the father of modernism, and the impressionist movement stands as one of the most consequential eras in art history.
The story of Manet and the impressionists should not surprise us. We have heard this type of story on many occasions. Today's experts reject tomorrow's creative geniuses. Conventional wisdom, preconceived notions, and cognitive biases blind the experts from recognizing the merits of bold new ideas. We trust experts and look to them for wise judgment, prescient forecasts, and sound leadership. Turn on the television, and you see a steady stream of pundits being called upon to weigh in on a variety of economic, political, and social issues. However, expertise may not translate into an ability to see the future, or to evaluate original, out-of-the-box ideas more effectively than you and I can. Experts should be flying aircraft, performing heart surgeries, and designing bridges. We don't want a novice fixing our car or our broken hip. However, when it comes to creativity and innovation, expertise may be a liability at times. As Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki once said, “In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.”14
Closed-Minded Experts
Alfred Wegener brought a beginner's mindset to the field of geology over a century ago. Like Manet, his fresh ideas did not earn acceptance readily. Wegener earned a doctorate in astronomy in 1904 and later became immersed in meteorological research. He became fascinated by the discovery of similar animal and plant organisms on different continents, as well as complementary geological features on landmasses separated by oceans. He proposed his theory of continental drift in the early 1900s. Geologists forcefully rejected his ideas. Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago commented, “Wegener's hypothesis in general is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe, and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts than most of its rival theories.”15 Wegener's concept only became widely accepted by scientists decades after his death.
Chester Carlson invented the process of electrophotography in the 1930s, but many companies rejected his requests for funding. Writing years later, Harold Clark noted that:
Xerography had practically no foundation in previous scientific work. Chet put together a rather odd lot of phenomena, each of which was obscure in itself and none of which had previously been related in anyone's thinking. The result was the biggest thing in imaging since the coming of photography itself.16
Finally, in the mid-1940s, the company later known as Xerox decided to support Carlson. By 1965, the Xerox 914 copier accounted for over $240 million in revenue, over 60 percent of the company's total revenue. The word Xerox became a verb, much like Google is today.
In the 1980s, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren argued that bacterial infections, rather than stress, caused ulcers. Marshall explained the initial reception when he began presenting his work at medical conferences:
To gastroenterologists, the concept of a germ causing ulcers was like saying that the Earth is flat. After that I realized my paper was going to have difficulty being accepted. You think, “It's science; it's got to be accepted.” But it's not an absolute given. The idea was too weird.17
Frustrated by the mainstream medical community's reaction to his work, Marshall took some Helicobacter pylori bacteria from the stomach of an ailing patient, ingested it himself, and became quite ill. Within days, Marshall experienced vomiting, halitosis, and gastritis (an inflammation of the stomach lining). He treated himself with antibiotics and he recovered fully. Still, experts did not accept Marshall and Warren's theory for years. Finally, in 2005, they received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their groundbreaking work.
We always hear the stories of venture capitalists striking it rich by investing at the ground level in startups that go on to achieve remarkable success. For instance, Peter Thiel invested $500,000 in Facebook in 2004. Eight years later, he sold his stake in the social media giant for more than $1 billion. However, many entrepreneurs face multiple rounds of rejection by industry experts. For example, Joe Gebbia, Brian Chesky, and Nathan Blecharczyk sought funding for their startup in 2008. They wanted to raise $150,000 in return for a 10 percent stake in their company. The co-founders approached seven accomplished and well-known investors in Silicon Valley. Five investors sent them rejection letters, while two never even replied.18 Nine years later, their company, Airbnb, had achieved a $31 billion valuation. If one of these investors had invested back in 2008, their $150,000 investment would have been worth $3.1 billion nine years later. The Airbnb story does not prove to be unique. Even the most accomplished venture capitalists invest in many startups that do not succeed and pass on a number of deals that could have been highly lucrative. Every investor has at least one great regret.
Erin Scott, Pian Shu, and Roman Lubynsky examined data on 652 startups from MIT's Venture Mentoring Service. The service attempts to match startups with mentors. The mentors receive data about a variety of startup ideas. They must decide what they think about the ideas without having an opportunity to review information about the founders or to meet the team in person. Scott and her colleagues examined how many of these startups went on to have their products commercialized successfully. For startups involving high research and development expenditures, the more highly rated ideas did have a better chance of being commercialized. However, the researchers checked to see if expert mentors were better at predicting a startup's success than the mentor group overall. They defined experts as people with industry-specific experience or doctoral degrees in that particular technical field. The study's results suggest that expert mentors with extensive industry experience and academic training did not forecast new venture success in R&D-intensive sectors more accurately than the mentor group overall.19
Why do experts fail to recognize creative genius? Victor Ottati and his colleagues have documented evidence of what they call the earned dogmatism effect. The scholars argue that social norms about novices versus experts play a key role in how people perceive new ideas. They explain as follows:
Consider, for example, a seminar pertaining to cancer. Within this situation, some individuals may occupy the role of “novice” (e.g., a layperson) whereas others may occupy the role of “expert” (e.g., a cancer researcher). Because novices possess limited knowledge, social norms dictate that they should listen and learn in an open-minded fashion. The expert possesses extensive knowledge, and therefore is entitled to adopt a more dogmatic or forceful orientation. Dogmatic statements are more likely to be tolerated when the “expert” speaks than when a “novice” speaks. Novices possess limited knowledge, and as such, are expected to adopt a more humble and open-minded orientation.20
Ottati and his co-authors conducted a series of six experiments to study the earned dogmatism effect. In particular, they wanted to know if self-perceptions of expertise mattered. In other words, does close-minded behavior occur simply because people perceive themselves to be experts, even if that might not actually be the case? In the studies, individuals were made to feel as though they were either experts or novices in a particular knowledge domain. The scholars discovered that those who felt as though they were experts tended to act in a more close-minded fashion in subsequent parts of the study. For instance, they gave a political history test to research subjects in one experiment (15 multiple-choice questions such as “Who was Richard Nixon's initial vice president?”). One-half of the subjects received easy questions, while the others tackled challenging questions. After the participants responded to all the questions, the researchers provided them false feedback. They told participants who had answered the easy questions that they had performed better than 86 percent of the test-takers. They informed the subjects responding to difficult questions that they had performed very poorly, worse than 86 percent of their fellow test-takers. The scholars then administered a cognitive test of open-mindedness. The participants who had received the positive feedback (made to feel as though they were experts) tended to exhibit more closed-mindedness, even though the feedback was completely made up! Ottati and his co-authors concluded that people become more dogmatic when they perceive themselves as experts.
Dogmatic thinking and closed-mindedness may be most prevalent when outsiders or newcomers propose theories that mark a radical break from past convention. In 1962 Thomas Kuhn wrote a groundbreaking book titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. A physicist by training, Kuhn became one of the most influential philosophers and historians of science. He argued that science does not progress solely in a linear, incremental, and evolutionary fashion. Instead, major leaps forward occur from time to time in a revolutionary fashion. Kuhn describes these discontinuities as paradigm shifts. Controversial new models shake the foundation of a field during these revolutions. Kuhn argued that newcomers often drive the paradigm shifts:
Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. And perhaps that point need not have been made explicit, for obviously these are the men who, being little committed by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them.21
The story of Wegener represents one of those groundbreaking paradigm shifts trigged by a newcomer. Experts did not simply reject his ideas about continental drift because they challenged the prevailing paradigm. Undoubtedly, the resistance to his ideas existed, in part, because he had not been trained as a geologist. Outsiders often drive paradigm shifts because they do not exhibit a bias toward the status quo. However, their outsider status and lack of specialized training makes it difficult for them to gain acceptance for their theories. How can an astronomer and meteorologist overturn centuries of thought in the field of geology? It's simply not possible! Max Planck, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918, once remarked on the challenge of overturning a scientific paradigm. He commented, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”22
Double Talk on Creativity
Many creative individuals working in corporations today encounter the same type of resistance that trailblazing artists, scientists, and inventors have experienced throughout history. Experts reject their ideas and prefer to defend the status quo. Technical specialists exhibit closed-minded behavior when newcomers challenge the conventional wisdom or question established practices. Newcomers experience pressures for conformity. Leaders create an environment where people with new ideas fear speaking up. The organizational culture does not promote experimentation and risk-taking behavior. Rewards and incentive systems focus on efficiency and productivity, and they discourage learning and exploration.
At the same time, corporate leaders speak often about the need for creativity and innovation. They claim that creativity has become their highest priority. Several years ago, IBM conducted a Global CEO Study. The technology giant surveyed 1,541 chief executives, general managers, and public-sector leaders across 33 industries and 60 countries around the globe. Approximately 60 percent of these executives cited creativity as the most important leadership attribute needed for future success (see Figure 1.1).23
Figure 1.1Three Most Important Leadership Qualities in the Next Five Years
Source: Data extracted from 2010 IBM CEO Study.24
Chief executives say the right thing when it comes to creativity, but do they walk the walk? In 2016 the O.C. Tanner Institute surveyed approximately 3,500 employees from firms in five countries around the world. They found that most employees did not feel supported and inspired by their leaders. While executives named innovation as a top priority, most employees felt that they were not encouraged to develop new ideas, and they did not have the time and resources required to do so. The O.C. Tanner Institute concluded that many employees become disheartened and cynical when they perceive leadership calls for more creativity and innovation as “largely empty talk.”25
Creativity Bias
Unfortunately,
