Creative Reaction

In an NYT article entitled Even the Giants Can Learn to Think Small (free subscription required - don’t bother) we see another nail in the coffin of the “if you’re not growing, you’re dying” mantra.

Part of the “thinking smaller” movement is a desire to provide better service through personalization, and part of it is the need to be leaner in an increasingly global marketplace. In the Times article, Professor Thomas W. Malone of MIT’s Sloan School of Management offers another reason - employees’ “noneconomic goals” like freedom, personal satisfaction and fulfillment. “How much energy and creativity might be unlocked if all the members of an organization felt in control?” he asks. Thinking back, this ties in perfectly to other times we’ve mentioned globalization making good talent harder to attract and keep.

Being smaller and agile has competitive advantages as well; companies as a whole tend to be more entrepreneurial. Philip Rosedale, founder and chairman of Linden Lab (Second Life), says optimizing a company for creativity involves helping all employees regardless of position develop an entrepreneurial spirit. “Most companies erroneously focus on competition and on differentiation from their competitors…the business opportunity lies in turning creativity into productivity.” And as most entrepreneurs know, ideas are worthless unless they are executed.

(If you do read the article, you may pick up on some similarities between Linden Lab’s and Pixar’s philosophies. And if have a really good memory, you’ll remember some similar posts on company and team size here, here, and here)

So, focus on fostering a collaborative, entrepreneurial spirit company-wide, and not growth for the sake of growth, for your business’ success.

On The Official Google Blog last week, there was a post entitled Our Googley advice to students: Major in learning, where Google outlined what it looks for in its employees. (The post was written by Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior VP, Product Management.)

I found this line intriguing; “At the highest level, we are looking for non-routine problem-solving skills. We expect applicants to be able to solve routine problems as a matter of course. After all, that’s what most education is concerned with.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, Rosenberg is saying that Google is looking for problem solving skills beyond what most education provides.

After reading the ChangeThis manifesto Turning Learning Right Side Up I imagine its authors would agree; “traditional education is about teaching, not learning” they say. 

Both Google’s blog post and the Turning Learning manifesto dovetail nicely; Rosenberg’s post is about the lifelong process of learning, and not simply earning a degree; “keep on challenging yourself, because learning doesn’t end with graduation… success is inexorably determined by the lessons you glean from the free market. Learning, it turns out, is a lifelong major.”

(I won’t summarize the manifesto’s content. I’ll only say that after reading it, managers will realize they will need to focus their training on the educational system’s gaps!)

So finally, what is Google looking for aside from problem-solving skills?

1. communication skills
2. a willingness to experiment
3. team players, and
4. passion and leadership.

I would argue that the very same skills should be sought by every creative company; after all, being creative within a business setting is largely about working within numerous constraints.

*if you are to deliver a breakthrough product or service.

I am not talking about a culture of sloppiness or irresponsibility, but one of difference, change, and creativity. Our society, our educational systems and our workplaces stress rewarding what we do correctly, yet it is experience, and, yes, making mistakes, which allow for the biggest opportunities for personal growth and innovation.

Two items I recently read support the above statements. The first is a ChangeThis manifesto, Turning Learning Right Side Up, a free .pdf report and an excellent read for “students” of any age. The second is an NYT article (free subscription required) explaining the importance of being “growth-minded”; the mindset of lifelong learners and entrepreneurs. If You’re Open to Growth, You Tend to Grow, talks of managers who hire the “best & brightest”, only to hamstring them by placing them in an environment of high expectations and fear (of failure).

The best part of the article details how Scott Forstall, an SVP at Apple, put together the team which developed the iPhone’s software. First, Forstall “identified a number of superstars within various departments at Apple and asked them in for a chat.” During the subsequent interview he explained that though he could not reveal the details of the project, he said to each recruit, “(we may) make mistakes and struggle, but eventually we may do something that we’ll remember the rest of our lives”. It is important to note that these people would be walking away from their previous successes and positions. Those who jumped at the opportunity made the team; Forstall was looking for people willing to stretch themselves, rather than rest on previous successes.

A post I wrote about Google back in September ‘06 also addresses this way of thinking. And 10 Ways to Foster Innovation in Your Company ties the room together.

So… Be great! Encourage greatness!

A stunning post on the Mavericks at Work blog on the measures that Zappos (online shoe store) takes to ensure it’s employees are the right people for the company. Zappos is well known for its outstanding customer service, and hiring the best employees is integral to this. So much so, that Zappos will offer cash bonuses to buy (and thereby weed) people out. 

What measures do we have in place to attract and keep only the best talent?

Why, it was just a few days ago when I mentioned a company which had adopted a four-day workweek, and today I read in eWeek (print) magazine about Google’s version of this.

(Interestingly, eWeek’s own  - always frustrating  - search engine could not find the online version of the article, even though I typed three very specific phrase in quotes; It was the top result using Google. I always feel lucky.)

Google’s version, as you may already know, is “20 per cent time” - Google’s technical employees are encouraged to spend 20% of their time on projects that interest them. (Yes, they measure it. Google measures everything.)

What I did not know was that cash prizes can be involved. Now some of us might be able to imagine a $10,000 bonus for making some sort of amazing increase to a company’s bottom line. Well how about a $350,000 bonus?! For someone low on the totem pole! As Keanu Reeves is fond of saying, “WHOA!”

Of course, Google has a bigger bottom line; everything is proportional. And, as I’ve mentioned before, Google’s “crazy ideas” make good business sense. This is how they came up with Google News, Gmail, and Adsense.

On our scale, at our companies, what are we doing to encourage BIG thinking? Cash prizes as a tool for creativity? Why not? It’s actually not so crazy.

What is the fixation with Google and money?! In this train wreck of an article, which is hard enough to follow without its questionable math and numerous corrections, the author, as well as about half of the readers leaving comments, seem to miss the fact that Google is an innovative business which treats its employees well. Who cares what the cost is?! It’s all proportional! Certainly, Google must be weighing the cost of feeding its numerous employees excellent food, and deciding that the benefits outweigh the expense. Commenter “Dave” jumps all over this and applies the proper perspective, “Seems like a small price to pay to keep your employees well fed and happy. Not to mention there are probably productivity gains to be had by not having the workforce filter out of the building each day for an hour.” I like to compare Google to Thomas Edison’s labs. All the more reason to encourage mealtime collaboration, offering brilliant people the opportunity to interact with other brilliant people. How can you put a price on that?

This recent Fast Company interview with Gartner (IT) researcher Tom Austin articulates something that I’ve been preaching for years - IT is a business tool that should enhance human interaction and collaboration. Favorite Quote (italics mine): “There’s a recognition that if you relax some controls — not all — you’re probably going to get more creative behavior out of the individuals than if everything is locked down. The organization gets far more flexible as well.” WARNING: This article contains cringe-inducing buzzwords.

I’ve had this bookmarked for quite some time and it’s a story I return to again and again. This NYT article, which came out ahead of a book by the same authors, chronicles Pixar’s unprecedented success. It’s a shame that it seems to have been published to ride the coattails of the big news story that Disney was to acquire Pixar; because it detracts from the main point. Pixar’s success is built upon a creative, even nurturing environment, collaboration, and long-term relationships. And at the center of it all - Pixar University - where everyone, “whether an animator, technician, production assistant, accountant, marketer or security guard is encouraged to devote up to four hours a week, every week, to his or her education”. It’s no wonder Pixar employees talk of working at Pixar for the next twenty-five years. Every creative business should aspire to this!

Bob Kodzis knocks another one out of the park in this article written for Create Magazine, where he reviews the best-selling creativity book, “The Medici Effect”.

“By intersecting diverse fields, cultures and disciplines we approach our creative challenges from a surprising variety of directions, making the possibilities almost limitless.”

Download a .pdf of the article here.

Seth Godin has a great post on The two things that kill marketing creativity. No point in summarizing - it’s short and to the point. Just read it and come back.

And, now some choices. How can we shape our workplaces to dispel fear? How can we foster imagination? Are we causing others to be afraid? Are we encouraging imagination or squashing it? We owe it to ourselves, our companies, and our employees to ask these questions on a regular basis. Jot them down somewhere.

This Fast Company article asks, “…what happens when rivals become so numerous, when markets become so unpredictable, when technologies move so quickly, that no individual leader, no matter how inspired, can possibly think of everything?”

Then answers itself, “ …it becomes necessary to invent a new model of innovation… a world in which ‘nobody is as smart as everybody.’”

Translation:
No matter how brilliant a company’s leader is, he or she can’t be the sole source of ideas. In the age of the Internet, ideas are plentiful and cheap.

Again quoting, “the companies that are most likely to dominate their business are the ones most adept at harnessing the collective intelligence of everyone with whom they do business.”

Especially, I might add, their own employees.

You are standing over an “idea reserve”, not far below the soil. What are you doing to tap it?

In a short, worthwhile article, Fast Company explains how nearly-bankrupt Puma retooled itself.

Instead of waging an uphill battle against Reebok, Nike, and Adidas, Puma flipped it’s priorities, emphasizing style over performance to become the fourth-largest athletic apparel company in the world.

After some drastic business changes to become more efficient, the CEO of Puma did something unbusinesslike - putting an “unrestrained 21-year-old skateboarder named Antonio Bertone in charge of a new division called “sport lifestyle” to incubate experimental fashion projects”. There were plenty of skeptics, yet the risk paid big dividends, ultimately saving the company.

The risk of failure is small compared to the risk of irrelevency. How are we encouraging our staff and co-workers to take chances and risk “failing”. Do we encourage them for making a best effort? We should - we learn far more from our failures than our successes.