Imagine, Possible, Test, Prove

by

Questions

I was trying to understand a paper by a friend who does evolutionary algorithms. I approached it several times and finally it was clear enough in me to spark a new awareness about the world. It was one of those moments where I saw so much more clearly how the very things in front of me relate to each other. Was this already obvious to all of you?

Prove it.

So a map of information in my head shifted. Are evolutionary algorithms within the domain of science or math? It uses both. Lots of science uses math, of course. But what I didn’t feel clear about was that math has different criteria than science. Math is deductive. Math is axiomatic. It is a field built of arguments on what is self evident, becoming ever more abstract, perhaps, but always building on what can be logically proven from what is self-evident. Math is a field for what is absolutely proven. And thus the old doesn’t get tossed out when a new piece of math becomes accepted. It is accrued and should continue to be logically coherent. Math is evolutionary by accrual.

Test it.

Science is not. I am not saying science is not logically coherent exactly. Oh wait, yes, I am. We can see that in how the explanations that we currently accept about large scale objects (astronomy) are not consistent with the explanations on the small scale (particle physics). Science is about developing explanations of the world that can be tested. Science is inductive. And current science theories are accepted under the condition that, when another theory gets presented that applies in more cases and especially in more edge cases, then the new explanation should be adopted as a more thorough and useful one. So science will replace old explanations with new – more nuanced – explanations.

These explanations are called theories. And they are built of hypothesis that are then tested using specific criteria determined by the field and traditions of science. Science is itself evolutionary by repair or replacement, not just accrual.

Sums

So Math is the realm of what is proven. And Science is the realm of what is tested. I was deliberating on that distinction, which started to seem obvious to me – as if I had known it since I was a child. Somehow as an adult, the information seemed like a revelation.

Great, but I want to know how this is useful.

For example, if we are discussing climate change, and you want to have the conversation from the criteria of math, then I need to make some computations that can be derived from self-evident axioms. And once those are known, then they are true. Period. Not up for debate, really. The proof is there or not there. But if we are discussing climate change, and I want to have the conversation from the criteria of science, then you need to form a hypothesis about some observable phenomenon, and then we can test it. The more times I can test it and get the same result, the more my explanation will be taken seriously. Right now climate deniers are denigrating climate science by saying that it fails to meet the criteria of Math – proven. And the scientists are at a loss, because of course man made climate science is a theory – a story we are testing out that isn’t proven or even provable. It is “just a theory” like gravity is “just a theory” too.

Possibilities

I was contemplating all this when I picked up “Tarrying with the Negative: Kant, Hegel, and the Critique of Ideology“ by Žižek to read on the plane to Paris. As one does, of course. Žižek is perfect plane reading (not). Watch his videos instead. I like his RSA Animate as a gateway to his work. In any case, he is ranting about philosophy and critical theory, and he says philosophy is about the possible. Again, click. Here I am a philosophy major, and I had not thought of philosophy being about how we explore what might be possible. But now it makes sense to me.

So then I started to imagine that Logic might exist on a plane or dimension between Math and Philosophy. And that Epistemology – the study of what can be known and how we know – might exist on the plane between science and philosophy. A foam of fields started to emerge in my head, all bubbly.

And I wondered what might be missing.

Imagine

Art is the realm of what we can imagine. It doesn’t have to be proven or tested or even be considered as possible. It orients toward imagination. The Art world is having a large conversation about imagination across cultures and time periods.

Imagined, Possible, Tested, and Proven

Imagined, Possible, Tested, and Proven

 

Jay Standish has developed an alternate visual at open door.

Now what?

Chewing on all this and not seeing where to bring it up at the Climate Science event Transformations, where I was speaking in Europe, I continued to mull it over. After several conversations with people in San Francisco (Keki Burjorjee – the Evolutionary Algorithms person, John Hagel, and several others) I am sharing it with you here. What I gathered from those additional conversations is how to apply this understanding.

1. What conversation are you having? If you are struggling to make progress on a conversation, ask which domain each person is coming to the conversation from. See the climate science example above.

2. What narrative do you want to be creating? Is your narrative about tests, provability, possibility, or imagination?

3. What is the dominant narrative or where do you put yourself on the various planes? For example, I primarily come from a mix of philosophy and science. I like to consider what is possible and then I like to test it. I am only interested in the possible that can then be tried out. It is a bit like a personality quiz.

 

Friction is Your Friend: Why Sharing Values isn’t always Valuable

by

I hear about it all the time… Collaborate with people who share your values. Really? You know why they say this? Because it is pleasant and easy. When you are around people who share your values you can agree all the time, because you are using the same basis for your judgements. There isn’t much friction. Maybe people who like writing about collaboration find it easier to achieve flow states when they are not experiencing friction. Maybe.

FrictionFireFriction Friend

But friction can be your friend. And not just when you are applying the brakes. You want to make a spark or start a fire? Friction. Friction can be your friend when you are trying to be creative. Friction can be your friend when you are trying to start a business. Friction can be your friend when you are trying to spark dialogue with your community.

Let’s take business for example. I have seen startups where two partners may as well have shared one head they were of such like mind. And neither of those minds had much business sense. Both were visionary. They valued the exploration of ideas. They seemed to struggle to come up with a way to generate revenue to keep going and reach some lift. Neither had much talent or interest in operations. On the other hand, you can take a very profit-centric person and team them with someone who values customer and community and away they go. That is not to say they don’t experience conflict or even strong conflict. They do. But they learn how to balance it. They don’t confuse sharing values with being valuable.

Share

Sharing is great. Share something with your collaborators. Values is just one axis. You might share a goal: keeping your neighborhood clean. But you might have different values driving the goal. One neighbor, Samuel might value the number otherwise known as property value which they believe is impacted by how clean the neighborhood is. Another, Joan, believes that “broken windows” talk from Tipping Point and feels that a cleaner neighborhood breeds less crime. Joan values being safe. And a third, Sandeep, simply values tidyness. Fine. They all want it clean. Share the goal. From different values.

A friend of mine, Steve Crandall, worked at Bell Labs. In one of his delicious storytelling sessions Steve mentioned working with someone – for years – who had a polar opposite political perspective. And yet, in the creative innovation space, the two of created well together. They didn’t need to share values to be innovative together and enjoy the pleasure of that work together. They shared a practice of innovating.

Value Time

There are certainly times when you should connect on your values. It can help reinforce your identity and give you support that you need. But if you want innovation or you want to connect a neighborhood or you want to create dialogue across political boundaries, work with the friction of different values and connect on some other dimension.

As I learned from Valdis Krebs, “connect on sameness and profit from your differences.” Please be intentional about which dimensions of difference and which dimensions of sameness.

Co-Created Solution Design Workshop at Chicago Bioneers

by

I hope you will join me November 2nd in Chicago for a workshop on Co-Created Solution Design at Chicago Bioneers.

This workshop is for you if:

  • you work with others that you don’t have total control over to come up with new ideas or actions
  • you want to tap into the wisdom of a group and go beyond what any could do alone
  • the same old problems are present and you know you need to approach them differently to get better answers

My goal for the workshop is two-fold:

  • give people ways to redirect conversations to be more co-creative
  • offer several different approaches to achieving co-created solution design

Why Co-Created Solution Design?

Since January 2011, a small group of facilitators working on social entrepreneurship and international development have come together to find ways to impact the system of social innovation globally. We call ourselves ci2iglobal, which is short for Collective Impact and Innovation Institute. With a collective 100 years experience in the area, we pooled our experiences together to figure out where we can be most useful. We believe a crucial part of the difference we can make is spreading the work of co-created solution design.

Collaboration might be the hot word of today, but we believe co-creation gets closer to our intent to help solutions arise from group creation. Too often gatherings come together and the path or outcome has been pre-determined. And it limits the engagement of all stakeholders, which is vital to successful social innovation. Co-created solution design provides a method – a process – to create solutions, but it does not presume answers. It opens questions to be answered by the group.

While much of what we do is about getting something done together, what actually gets done depends heavily on the relationships between the participants and their commitment to action.

I remember very vividly learning first hand the difference between advice and self-generated solutions. On the second day of my coach training, we were asked to provide advice to our partners on how to achieve one of their goals. We talked at them for 30 minutes. Then we were asked to listen as they thought through another challenge.  The difference startled me. I am a quick thinker and prided myself on my ability to offer useful advice. However, the solutions my partner came up with had deep understanding of all the forces at play. Most importantly, my partner hesitated in implementing my solution, whereas the partner eagerly looked forward to testing the self-generated solution. The difference in engagement and commitment was tangible for me.  I have tried to listen more and advise less ever since.

Co-created solution design is just like that, except it is working with groups and even groups of groups on larger systemic issues.

Strategies

I will be highlighting three different strategies for doing co-created solution design:

  • Engaging Exploration – Use when there is not much of a time limit and a need to see and act within a large landscape of possibilities.
  • Flash – Use when there is very little time and a strong base of existing knowledge and awareness.
  • Creative – Use when you need a very well fit and very novel solution.

So, how do we do it?

Come to the Co-Created Solution Design workshop to find out! After the workshop, I will share some of the materials from the workshop here for those of you who can’t make it.

 

 

We_b2 and Ci2iGlobal

by

I am incredibly excited to announce our affiliation with ci2iglobal, the Collective Impact and Innovation Institute. We have been hard at work behind the scenes for over a year, working together to share our wisdom, create useful tools, and facilitate powerful events and laboratories. Our event, We_b, in January at the HUB Brussels brought together some of the inspiring innovators we know in the social sector to test out our individual offerings as a collective.

Standing on the wisdom of that experience, we will be having We_b2 in Brussels June 16-17.

Are you (or someone you know) looking for new ways to:

  • Break through some big challenges that have been baffling you?
  • Play with new ideas in a collaborative, cross-cultural context?
  • Explore frameworks that help you make decisions and navigate risk?
  • Expand your own impact?

If so, then make plans to come join us.

Why am I incredibly excited about this collective and our events?

Because this is the most phenomenal team I have ever been honored to work with. We are 6 women with a cumulative experience of over 100 years in facilitating social change in global contexts! How often are you in a room with that much experience? More than that, we live and work on three continents now, but we have lived and worked on 6 continents. It doesn’t get better than that until you go to Antarctica!

We have experience scaling up social initiatives around the globe, fostering international collaborations, bringing micro-finance to developing countries, measuring impact for Ashoka fellows, and working with the European Council. 

I think it is also important that most of us are old enough to have had long careers in international development while being young enough to be early and eager mavens in social technologies. We get social technology. We get cross cultural dialogue. We get impact assessment. Not just ideologically, but practically and experientially.

The power and capacity that puts in the room when we hold an event is enormous, but that isn’t all. There is more! All of us have done enough of the personal development and group process work to show up in these spaces with egos in check, curiosity in front, and driven by purpose focused on the group outcome.

Somehow the magic combination of this led all of us to explore system sciences and thus we come at our social change work with a core value being the health and evolution of ecosystems – be they human or environmental.

I find that to be incredibly exciting. Intoxicating, in fact. come get intoxicated with wisdom for your life and social change efforts. June 16-17, Brussels HUB for the We_b2 Co-Creation Lab.

The Art of Dialogue in Public Space

by

019You know when something bugs you enough, you just have to give voice to it. This is one of those moments. I guess I make some pretty big judgments about public speakers based on their ability to answers questions in public forum. Often based on standards I am not sure I could meet, but so it goes. Today, I will play the critic.

Creative Commons License photo credit: MilitaryHealth

Bugs

Last fall I had a chance to see Tufte speak at his art gallery. I arrived a tad late and snuck into a chair off to the side. He took questions at the end. As he answered each question, my jaw lowered closer to the floor. I slouched down in my seat, feeling defeated. My hero! He was failing me! Later I was able to come back to an appreciation of his work, even if I don’t appreciate his ability to respond to questions. But let’s look for a minute at what triggered me to sit there aghast.

1. Asked a question about infographics for social media, Tufte basically responded that professional journalists do a good job of creating ways to understand this data. This answer completely fails to understand the nature of the medium… the publsihing by anyone should also be data-fied by anyone and not left to the old world of media.

2. Asked a question about infographics for biologists by a biologist, Tufte said that Scientific American and another magazine have great infographics by biologists. For all he knew the questioner was one of those published in said journal looking for more help! He didn’t do anything to narrow down the question to respond to the specific needs of the person asking, and thus made a vacuous circuitous answer that provided nothing of value. And it took him seven minutes of pontificating to do it.

Part of this issue is that many of us are not good at asking questions. It isn’t just Tufte being dull.

 

Fascinating

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of seeing the totally fascinating Alain de Botton speak on his latest book, Religion for Atheists. First, let’s be clear that Alain demonstrates fabulous speaking talent. His stories are delightful, the logic of them disruptive and curious, and the pattern he uses is both refreshing and at the same time clear enough that you know that you too can repeat what he is doing with other cases you think of. The success of his talk comes from the alignment of layers of skill. He asks interesting questions that makes you see something familiar in an unexpected way. He selects stories that take you on a journey of experiencing to see for yourself. He has an emotionally engaging and comfortable presentation style that works for his presence of being. All those things we love in a compelling speaker, and more than that he can answer questions. Or things that are offered as questions but aren’t indeed questions.

People who said things during the question period at the end of the talk did one of several things that drive me totally nuts with that kind of slow-down-for-the-accident fascination…

Let’s make a list of all the fascinating car-wreck ways to “ask” questions:

  1. Minutiae. Pedantic. Make a statement adding something minor and unimportant to the topic for broad audience. Shows a profound disregard for other people’s time as well as lack of being able to discern relevance and importance. Usually publicly perceived as someone over-ambitious to be acknowledged as adding value.
  2. Evangelist. Affirm the topic of the talk and add a personal quip to it. Again, shows a lack of regard for time constraints and relevance. Usually publicly perceived as a narcissist or pawning for affection.
  3. Contrarian. Finds any random point to disagree with. I say random because the effort seems so clearly to be an attempt to spark verbal brawls and so little to do with finding deeper understanding. Whether they admit it or not, the goal seems to be to diminish the speaker. Usually publicly perceived as a bright individual with a vengeful need to upset others through their talents.
  4. Wanderer. Means well, but can’t focus their thoughts well enough to offer any clarity in their inquiry. You wonder, did they ask a question? What was it? How many parts did it have? How are those things related? Reveals disorganized thinking. Associative thinking is great for brainstorming, it isn’t appropriate in public questions responding to a prepared talk. Usually publicly perceived as a naive fool, harmless beyond the time consumed by their traveling story/statement/question.

What other characters have you seen show up?

And I can certainly think of times I have played most of these roles. It is hard to meet someone you revere and think clear enough to ask a decent question.

Alain did a brilliant job of dealing with each of these characters as they showed up to “ask” a question. For bonus points he would even answer a two part question to completion, even if answering the first part led him through a story. He was gracious and good natured. A model of elegance. If I achieve such a level of skill when I am twice his age, I will be quite happy.

 

How to Ask a QuestionThis person can dig it
Creative Commons License photo credit: quinn.anya

When I read How to Ask a Question in the Chronicle, I thought it would be useful to summarize for you here:

  1. Pick one thing you want to know – that you think others might want to know to.
  2. Check to see if you are coming from curiosity. If not, be quite until you are.
  3. Whether you agree or disagree with the points stated, does your offering to the dialogue add value and display respect?
  4. Does it feel like improv? a) does the content feel fresh or new? b) do you “yes, and” to allow the speaker ground to stand on even if you qualify a statement or clarify a concept? c) does it feel like we are here together, sharing the stage for a larger audience?
  5. As the article linked above suggests, avoid the meta-speech. I wonder if this point involves meta-speech already? Say the point, not the internal dialogue you have.
  6. If you are going to disagree or start a debate, begin by voicing respect for the speaker. Say what you like abou their perceptiveness or viewpoint, then ask about the point where your view diverges from theirs.
  7. Watch the “I am a” statements. Identity politics is obscures how different we each are. You are you, speak from that and for only yourself unless you officially represent a group.

We are here to learn from and with each other. Let’s foster a question/answer culture that promotes it.

 

ps. most of these “ask a question” points also apply to conversations and apply broadly. 😉

Creative Productivity is not Mechanical

by

I was an efficiency nut as a kid. I remember figuring out that 9 bites was the most efficient number of bites to eat, politely, a piece of bread or to cut french toast. I love being really, really productive. And I can be so quick and effective that the dishes are done and the kitchen cleaned while you slipped into the bathroom for 2 minutes.

However, being productive when we are talking about creative acts is completely different. It is not a matter of having a system to handle all the details of things to be done. It is not a matter of staying focused. So much of this seems to be left-overs from the factory world. Start the clock, run the system, get the output. Right, well the rewards for productivity of mechanical tasks need to be different than the rewards for creativity. So it shouldn’t be surprising that the productivity process for creative tasks differs significantly from mechanical tasks.

Creativity is a matter of grace and the muse. Yes, there are tricks to bringing the muse to you. I say muse, because this just seems magical. Not because it necessarily is magical, but because we just don’t know enough about it. So, what do you do about it?

Yes, you can just sit there until something comes out and keep working it until it gets decent. But that is, in my experience, a paltry second to the brilliance of the muse when she arrives. GTD is not going to help me get a poem written, an innovative approach to approaching my market, nor a creative solution to the challenge in my business. It will help me deliver on the tasks I put into my plan.

So I have other games and techniques. This is what works for me. Your mileage… may vary… of course.

.

Take the pressure off

You know when you are trying to remember a word or reference and you can’t do it? Then you shift your attention elsewhere, and suddenly the answer comes to you? Yep. Take the pressure off. I walk, do the dishes, or otherwise occupy myself until the insight comes. Creativity seems to often be a background process – it isn’t about focusing the conscious mind on it. It is about letting the rest of the mind make the connections.

.

Hold Space

When the slightest hint of muse is present, I put other things on hold and listen. I regularly juggle my tasks for the day to accommodate the muse when she arrives. If now is the moment to draw the graphic or write the article, then I do it now. If it doesn’t feel like now is the moment, I move onto other things until the feeling hits me to do it. I know that seems passive or irresponsible. Too bad. Do what works.

Last summer I got stuck trying to figure out how I wanted to facilitate an event. I was stumped the day before the plan was due. The client wanted a lot of work across different dimensions pushed into a short timeframe. I slept on it. I woke up still unsure. I walked away from my desk, and I did something else for awhile. I felt nervous that the idea might not come, but I decided to trust myself that it would. In my walk down the hallway back to my desk – boom, insight, and the whole plan came into my mind ready to be written up. It was done with an hour to spare. After the event, the client gave me one of the best testimonials I have ever received.

.

Give Yourself What You Need 

If you are an introvert, and I am, then allow lots of being alone time before expecting anything creative to emerge. It can take a whole day. I know it isn’t in the planning calendar, but trust the process. If you are an extrovert, go do that.

Time and again when I try to force myself to get work done on the clock, and that work is creative, it seems to take three times as long. I can’t focus. I resist myself. I have learned to just allow myself the hour of doing something else so that I will cooperate with myself when I attempt the task.

Not everyone has the luxury of doing this. And it does seem to me like a luxury. But I have learned to give myself that so that I can enjoy and be effective when I do the work.

.

Follow the Seasons

I allow myself a “winter” to let things percolate while I appear dormant. Then I get excited in my “spring” with the bursting forth of new ideas. Next, I care for them over “summer” and harvest in the “fall.”

I have had lots of conversations with colleagues about the emotional dip after a creative surge. When I offer the seasons metaphor, there seems to be a giant internal sigh of relief. As if we expected ourselves to, once we create output, to continue at that level indefinitely. Or we expect ourselves to get emotionally high from it. However, that doesn’t take into account what motivates you to be creative. If you want recognition, then you might get the emotional high once the work is out in the world being acknowledged. But if your motivation is connecting with others in a co-creative process, then your emotional high might be in the middle of the effort. Learn what gives you the emotional high from creative efforts, nurture that, and allow yourself space for the other emotions that flow in the seasons of your creativity. Your flow. Not the expectations of others.

.

Productivity-obsessed people seem to think they can have harvest season all year long, as if they are optimizing a factory. If they could just get the right mechanics in place, then they can perform at their top levels of creativity continuously. Nope. Not me. I don’t work that way. And I allow that and work with it. I think it brings my work freshness, aliveness, and vitality to not be pushed through some deadline-driven productivity machine.

Pragmatism

by

It may seem like I am an optimist and the whole thrivability effort is full of utopian idealism. I am sure, for me, that is not the case. I am a pragmatist. While I love exploring, if the exploration doesn’t result in something that matters and gets tangibly completed, I feel like I wasted the time. And I abhor wasted time.

Back in September at SOCAP, I was speaking with Whitney of Culture Counts. She has a personality assessment tool, and pointed out that I was primarily someone driven to learn, share, and do what matters. This, of course, flattered me, so I decided it was accurate.

At The Agency, which we just launched, I talk about being bold, pragmatic, and inspired. I carefully chose these three things because I think each alone is a lost cause, but together they are an unstoppable force.

  • Inspiration – infused with spirit, from a refreshing perspective, forward-looking.
  • Bold – a real stretch or leap, requires courage and fearlessness, significance.
  • Pragmatism – getting it done, working with what is.

Pragmatism is about creating a feedback loop from practice to theory and back to practice again. Looking at whole sections of my life, I can see my drive for this. Like when I decided to leave academia because it wasn’t enough about practice in the world at large.

There is a figure eight, cutting back and forth between getting things done and reflecting on what is the right thing to get done based on what has worked.

I can only tolerate so much debate and minutiae before I have to ask: what are we doing? But then, I can only tolerate so much doing before I have to ask: is this the best approach? Is this thought through carefully? Are we using what is known to inform wiser action? I love process, but only process that leads to results and action. Being, and mindfulness feel very important to me. And yet, if being isn’t leading to doing, then it seems like a pretty narcissistic practice.

Dance. Hold the tension between. Watch for indicators of being too far in one direction or the other, then correct course.

Getting what matters done requires a solid focus on getting things done, and a wisdom to know what to do and how to best do it. And that is what The Agency is all about catalyzing.

Encouraging Creativity

by

After the last post on Catalyzing Creativity, Curtis Faith asked me to answer the question on Quora – How do you incentivize creativity. Here is how I answered.

1. Disney creative strategies –

  • phase 1: wild brainstorming (divergent thinking)- this is the phase to make room for lots and lots of ideas without criticizing or considering plausibility of any of them – just generate, which needs to be distinct from phase 2
  • phase 2: editor (convergent thinking and refining) move through options and sort for most interesting, see if they are plausible…whatever criteria you establish for a good outcome.
  • phase 3: critic – rip to shreds. consider minimum viable product, test for market interest, be rigorous. To that, I would add a social gathering phase after the critic period, so there can be shared appreciation for the ideas generated, refinement, and polishing. Close the process with good team morale.

2. Don’t incentivize with money (Pink on Drive)

3. See conditions I listed on Catalyzing Creativity.
4. Celebrate mistakes and failure. Congratulate people on trying. Ask for what wisdom was learned.
5. Generate interesting questions and ask for help generating more questions.
6. Have leaders and influencers model creativity.
7. Consider how you can apply Cialdini’s 6 key principles of persuasion.
8. Acknowledge play-masters. I don’t mean play ping pong. I mean play with the real things there. Thank people for

9. Go to making and play and prototype soon and often.


10. Rule #6 (Art of Possibility) – Don’t take yourself so god damn seriously. Do something to get perspective on risk – think about how lucky you are not to be x. Encourage lightness of being.

Catalyzing Creativity

by

While I am not sure I quite agree, a recent article in The Atlantic proclaims that there are two ways to save the economy: innovation and inflation. Inflation sounds like a postponement of the issue, so let’s focus on innovation. As I wrote Innovation Types a few weeks ago, I had in mind the processes that we use to go about these different types.  Before we explore how they are different, let’s look at the conditions for creativity and innovation that they share.

Conditions. Not a formula. This is about emergence. It doesn’t happen in a linear fashion. It isn’t clearly causal. It is something that we can increase the probability of rather than directly ensure. Creativity could happen without these conditions, but most of the time it happens with some of these conditions. Increase the conditions and you may increase your chances.

My insights here come from conversations with Valdis Krebs and Steve Crandall among others. Valdis approaches the subject as a social network analyst, watching for the characteristics of networks that give rise to creativity. Steve… well, Pip Coborn says of Steve that he “is one of those rare Bell Labs genuises that when I was growing up people spoke of in hushed tones.” My relationship with Steve is as an amazing friend rather than a creative collaborator/innovator/partner. And, I am aware that he has given significant attention to what gives rise to creativity and has deep experience creating very forward thinking innovations. I have heard his stories. I will share a few with you.

So when Venessa Miemis asked

I knew it was time to write about what I have learned from Steve and Valdis. There are two other groups I also learned from – conversations here and there over the last five years with many people and a deep devouring of written information. And then, my years in the creative fields of art, theater, and literature.

Let’s begin. What conditions contribute to creativity and innovation? My response to Venessa was:

And Valdis added:

In no particular order, then:

Randomness – I say randomness because things, even in hindsight, seem to look a bit random. Steve talks about developing the idea for MP3 technology by trying to figure out how mother bats can find their baby bats in a cave of thousands. Ah…they screen out sounds other than the sound of their baby. Bats? When I first heard this story, I was shaking my head, thinking who would have guessed that bats led to MP3s? The path to innovation is not a straight line or a clear flow chart. It is a jumble of odd experience that a creative brain makes note of and creates meaning from. Creative people are ones who can take the random bits and make something from some of them. Encourage randomness. Go for walks in nature and notice things. Visit an art museum or take an odd dive into history. Look elsewhere than right in front of you.

Time – Innovation doesn’t happen on pre-determined timelines. In fact, time pressure can undermine creativity. Time pressure and monetary incentives both trigger analytical thinking instead of creative flowing. Time also works in two ways for creative outputs. There is often a tremendous amount of time gathering all the information relevant to a creation. It is as if the warehouse of the unconscious mind must be filled with all the relevant parts but you have no list of relevant parts to be adding to the warehouse, so you can’t know when what you need is in stock. However, the moment where those things are in stock and meaning is made – creation happens – can feel instantaneous. Sometimes the ideas emerge fully formed and plop into the conscious mind ready for action. That can’t be scheduled.

The other crucial element to time is having long enough stretches of it. When interrupted from deep mental activity, it can take 20 minutes to return to the same headspace. For creative activity, turn off phones, put away social media, and reduce your chances of being distracted. Steve says there are institutions that actively encourage this “offline” time for deeper creative activity. Give yourself the time to explore without distraction. Go deep into the warehouses of the mind and play there.

Right mix of Sameness and Difference – Valdis drew a Gaussian curve for me and said – I think the left side of the curve is something where people are so different they can hardly communicate at all. And on the right side of the curve, people are so similar that adding another person doesn’t increase information available – the homophily doesn’t generate creativity. He said he wasn’t sure what the numbers were or what the curve was precisely, but somewhere between those two ends of the spectrum there is enough sameness to enable communication & trust and enough difference to generate something creative that the people involved couldn’t come up with on their own. Think of that warehouse metaphor above – if you have difference, then you have more inventory to be pulling from. And he had this nice phrase to go along with it: “connect on your sameness and profit from your difference.”

Play (lightness) – This might be the most important condition. A significant portion of creativity involves trying many different combinations of things together. Steve has this wonderful expression: innovation is like throwing yourself at the ground over and over again until you finally miss the ground and start flying. If you take yourself too seriously in the act of throwing yourself at the ground, you won’t take enough risks to generate something really creative. Instead you will try 100 small variations in a very methodical process. If you are afraid of hitting the ground, you won’t really throw yourself at it. Tickle the fear out of yourself and play with possibility and with your collaborators.

Steve also tells stories of Friday creative jams at Bell Labs. He and several others would gather together. One – a catalyst – would listen and encourage them, then, later in the session, sort and summarize their best ideas. I call it a jam because, like jazz, it was each person knowing how to play with others and giving forth their best pieces in a space of play. The vast majority of the ideas generated were tossed away. We should ask Steve for some of the outcomes from these jams. When he describes them, he is focused on how much fun they were and how creative they could be instead of what they led to. This is a sign of play – that the process is alive and enjoyable (even when challenging).

Aesthete (deep sensitivity) – Steve was explaining to me, after many conversations about creativity and innovation, that serendipity is not only the seemingly random connection of things in a meaningful way, it is also noticing that the connection is significant. If you create something incredibly original, but no one realizes it including you, then it is lost. What does it take to notice that a new connection is made that could be significant? A deep sensitivity. I surround myself with really brilliant and creative people. And what I notice about them is that they are “noticers” by which I mean they are giving their attention to details – the flavors used in foods, the unique sound combinations in music, the way light moves through a water glass. Whatever their passion, they devote significant time to building up that warehouse of data in their minds using a great deal of discernment in their sorting. They have a deep awareness of and sensitivity to the topography of their interest areas.

Trust/Safety – Whether this is trust and safety we perceive in ourselves or between us and our collaborators, the trust and safety acts as the ground of creativity. If we don’t have it, we can’t try things. We become afraid to fail or look silly. Our mind-time focuses on social dynamics instead of playing with ideas. If we happen to be in groups where trust is missing, the only course is to trust ourselves. But trust must be there. Question everything…but not all at once…and not without trusting yourself to figure it out. Safety is also important. Sure, I mean physical safety as possible. But I also mean things like financial safety.

Deep curiosity – I almost forget this one because I tend to have it as a pre-requisite for people I share time with. When I was in the humanities, I noticed that those most dedicated to their work shared a trait – a deep curiosity about some question or another. Curiosity is the fuel for exploration. It is what feeds us in a space of profound un-knowing – the vast realms of unmapped possibility. We ask “why?” And the asking leads deeper into the question. Steve says the best questions lead to more questions. Only the deeply curious are willing to go there. One of my favorite quotes is an anonymous one: “go out on a limb, that is where all the fruit is.”

Network poised for Serendipity – As mentioned above, serendipity plays an important role in creativity. A network poised for serendipity is more likely to generate creativity. Steve talks about how the buildings at Bell Labs were like a labyrinth. It was easy to get lost. People of different backgrounds were mixed together and chalkboards filled the halls. This encouraged random interactions between people with differences and tools for them to brainstorm together. Steve also says another creative organization he has worked with designed their building with too few bathrooms to encourage waiting in line so interactions happen with unexpected people.

Some luck – Creativity and innovation operate in that space of probability. We can’t methodically try all possibilities (this would take much too long). There has to be some sensitivity to what could work and an ability to catalyze innovation to increase that probability. Whether it is the humility of those I have spoken to who are deeply creative or truly a matter of what is required, it seems luck has a hand in innovation. (Mind you, I am a big fan of the Richard Wiseman’s research book: The Luck Factor.)

And with that, I wish you luck. Innovate!

Something Great Together Again

by

Thrivability is participating in something great together again.

Thrivability asks us – what might we achieve together that is great? What might we do to flourish? It asks us to move beyond the contraction and fear that resides in “sustainability” framing and create something fun, engaging, lively, creative, agile, resilient, enduring, and evolving.

We teeter on the precipice of the now, look back at all human culture and evolution itself has generated. Do we level up? Or do we fall over? Do we have it in us, together and individually, to co-create something worthy of that legacy? Or are we shame-faced at the errors of our past and retreat from our own creation and the consequences thereof?

If we step forward together, what is it that we create? How do we use what we have to create something more than what is there now? And do so responsibly? Responsibly to our ancestors? Responsibly to our future? Responsibly to each other? So we can collectively gaze back in the mirror on some future day and say we are proud of what we have done?

  • Did I connect people in ways that enriched their sense of meaning and purpose in the world?
  • Did I give them the information they need to make the best choices for our collective outcome?
  • Did I make a meaningful contribution to society? Did I improve the human condition?
  • Was I and am I a part of the breakdown or the breakthrough?
  • Did I dance gracefully with my follow beings and bring laughter and delight to human existence?

I have many questions. The answers are given each day, by each of us, knowingly or unknowingly.