Get creative, counter-intuitively

I'm in Boston - well, closer to Worcester, actually - this week for some work-related training and, in referring to some new technology (UEFI) being better then some old technology (BIOS), one of the instructors said:

"You could never innovate (with the old technology) because you didn’t know what the bounds of compatibility were."

Specifically, he was referring to the fact that the old technology did not have very many industry-wide rules about how an engineer was actually supposed to build the system - a system that needed to interact with many others. And this meant that most designers were afraid to go outside the bounds of legacy implementations because they did not want to be incompatible with everyone else's.

I mean, you'd think that such an open system would be filled with all sorts of creative whimsy, but that certainly did not pan out here; inertia took over and basically the same computer code was being used over and over (and over - decadesworth). Pretty counter-intuitive, huh? That's not to say the opposite - total micromanagement - leads to good design or seamless collaboration (quite the opposite.. another discussion altogether), but, still, one could better say that a proper framework and set of agreements up front might be a better approach to "free your team's thinking".

And that is exactly what Stanford professor and Aspen Institute consultant, Chip and Dan Heath, respectively, argue in their book "Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die". While I, *ahem*, haven't read the book, they did write about this particular topic in a Fast Company article a few months ago:

Get Back In The Box
By Dan Heath and Chip Heath
Published December 2007

The authors mention a few specific instances of when and where a "well-constructed box can help people generate new ideas", but I liked this one the best:

"Improv actors are taught to be specific," (Keith Sawyer, author of the insightful book 'Group Genius') says. "Rather than say, 'Look out, it's a gun!' you should say, 'Look out, it's the new ZX-23 laser kill device!' Instead of asking, 'What’s your problem?' say, 'Don’t tell me you're still pissed off about that time I dropped your necklace in the toilet.'" The paradox is that while specificity narrows the number of paths that the improv could take, it makes it easier for the other actors to come up with the next riff."

It seems most minds work best when there are agreed-upon reference points to jump off of. Interesting observation, for sure. And so next time you're having trouble being creative - and this is a process that may happen subconsciously for some - try being more specific in your questions. For example, instead of asking, "How can we improve our business in 2008?", try, "How can improve the customer experience?; how can we provide everything the customer would need to be successful before they have to ask for it (and therefore improve our business in 2008)". There are certainly other ways to ask those more specific questions, but I think you get the idea (or at least you will after reading the article).

The approach seems to be all about demystifying complex systems and asking people to make smaller mental leaps towards solutions. In any case, it may not be the right course of action *every* time, it's nice to have these new options in your mental toolbox.

On a related note, the NYTimes published an article last month on some of the, again, counter-intuitive, reasoning that goes into making decisions; some research concluded that "people are willing to pay a price to avoid the emotion of loss". So, people try to keep as many options open as possible - where removing options from the table seems like a "loss" - even if the very act of keeping all the (sometimes conflicting) options open means a decline in the overall quality of life or work, or both. Read on:

The Advantages of Closing a Few Doors
By John Tierney
Published: February 26, 2008

Both articles are worthwhile reads, maybe for debate over this Easter weekend?