Lightning in a Bottle

Dr. Stephen Walls stole my thunder. Before the lecture yesterday I had a pretty good idea of what I wanted to write for my blog on creativity, but in class we covered most of what I initially planned to discuss. In particular, creativity is all about making connections (maybe Steve Jobs was actually the one that stole my thunder). The most useful creative ideas rarely come out of thin air, they are just a new synthesis of previously disparate ideas or products or whatever. In the rare instances when creative ideas do come out of thin air they often cannot be realized; no matter how good they are, nobody else can understand them and they end up being too far ahead of their time. 

In class we also discussed the idea of mastery and the 10,000 hour rule in relation to creativity, and that is something I find particularly interesting. Having started out as a performer in the music industry at a fairly young age (and being totally obsessive) I got my 10,000 hours on the guitar in pretty early, and I certainly believe there is a lot to the idea that mastery of something leads to creativity. If you don’t understand every little nuance of something, then how are you supposed to make these disparate connections and create something new and original? But on the other side of the coin, if you have spent 10,000 hours doing something how can you possibly see it in a new light? This was actually a major motivator in my decision to enroll in the MBA program at McCombs-I was bored. My hands could do just about anything I wanted them to on the guitar, but my brain often wouldn’t tell them to do anything very interesting because I was playing so much of the day I often wasn’t paying much attention. Since I started school I have had a lot less time to play, and it is the best thing I have ever done for my guitar playing. I may not have the same chops that I did before, but the music I make is often way better and for the first time in years I am really engaged virtually every time I play.  

In class, we also discussed the benefits and pitfalls on working on creative projects in a group, which is something I have also done a lot of. I’ll focus on my music experience here since that is probably the most relevant. Recording sessions and performances are the two places that you most frequently do creative group in music, although they are very different. Performances are interesting because everything is in the moment and you can’t stop or discuss much. As interesting as they are, I think the creative process in the studio is much more applicable to our discussion here. Every session is different, but in one typical type of session the singer will play a song for everybody once and their might be a little discussion on the general feel they are looking for, and then the musicians will start playing through it (musicians are very good at rapid prototyping and failing quickly, although you would never hear those terms). After a couple of passes through when everyone has their parts worked out then you start recording until you get a version you like. One thing that I have really learned is that it is important to know who you are working with, for a number of reasons. For one, once you have established trust with people you can question their ideas more easily and point out the flaws in order to improve the idea. Also, you start to understand someone’s world view, and when they put forth an idea it is easier to see where they are coming from. This “E.S.P.” makes it a lot easier to fully understand someone else idea and saves a lot of time, and eventually broadens your own world view.

Continually to work with the same people and develop this sort of telepathy is great, until it is not. After a certain point, you know what somebody is going to say (or play) before they even do it, which does not do much for creativity. The creative benefits of working in a group come from having someone else make a connection that you didn’t see, which in turns allows you to make a further connection that someone else didn’t see. When you know somebody’s idea before they even articulate it, the group is probably not making more creative connections than they would have otherwise. What the group is doing is working more efficiently, which obviously has its own, although different, benefits.

There is a pattern developing here that was also prevalent in class; mastery fosters creativity until it doesn’t, group work fosters creativity until it doesn’t, tight timelines foster creativity until they don’t, etc. There is a good reason for this, new situations foster new connections. Stephen Bruton used to say his job as a producer was capturing lightning in a bottle, and that is exactly what harvesting creativity is like. The problem is lightning doesn’t often strike in the same place twice, which creates a major dilemma in the business world. As any good Ops guy will tell you, variation is the enemy of efficiency. Unfortunately, variation is also the key ingredient to creativity. Your company needs creative solutions? No problem. They want them fast and efficiently this year? No problem. They want them fast and efficiently for the next five years? That’s a problem. Variation is going to have to be introduced at some point in the system if you want to maintain creativity, at which point you will start to lose speed and efficiency.

Creativity is making new connections, and creating new connections requires a new situation. Expecting new connections out of a mature situation is foolish. In fact, I believe that has been called the definition of insanity.