I think one of the biggest problems people had with this article is that he wrote many lines in it generalizing creatives and many took it too literally. I think many of his one lines like "
Let's start with #1: "Spoil them and let them fail"
One problem I had with this whole article was that some of the titles for each section were more of a way to grab the reader than actually represent what the author is trying to say, however this heading seemed appropriate. Creative people, just like many of a firms employees, need encouragement and support. Letting them think outside the box without the disruption of a negative attitude I would certainly agree fosters innovation that any company, large, small, or especially a start up needs to compete in the market. In fact innovation is probably the leading force in creating and maintaining a successful business.#2: "Surround them with semi-boring people."
Many creative minds can be pretty egocentric, that's not to say all are. This one was criticized widely saying that some of the best ideas have come through collaboration of many creative minds. To me, this one has two equal sides.On one side, there are those creative leaders, that their vision is the only one and it is difficult changing course. My personal experience with this has been working for an architecture firm, where the main architect sketched up his ideas and passed it down to a draftsman (usually me) to draw up the plans and make it structurally work. Now that's not to say I'm not a creative person, which I would say I very much am, and many of these rules I would tend to agree with and there were certainly times where my boss and I clashed. However, I knew my roll as an employee and my bosses personality type so I sometimes rolled my eyes but just did as he asked to avoid conflict, and in reality he was the one who knew and was working with the client so I presumed that he likely knew better than I what the client was asking for.
This type of situation is likely very similar to many creative offices. Here the creative type in a more leadership role is likely to want his vision carried out over another employees and to him/her these "semi-boring people" are there to carry out their ideas. These employees may, even very likely are, the creative type themselves, they may be like me and roll their eyes, do their best to carry out what their boss had asked, but have their own ideas too. From experience when there was something that I felt really needed to be changed I just did it and explained to my boss my decision. If it was a small enough thing that didn't interrupt or still followed "his" design, it usually was accepted with little fanfare.
On the other side though there have been know to be great collaborations between creative types that have made amazing work. Musicians collaborate all the time (ever seen a song "featuring" another artist?) artists, architects, marketers, even engineers collaborate with one another. These collaborations usually are crosses between these many creative types; the artist Ai Weiwei (who by the way has many employees that are also artists) and architects Herzog & de Meuron teamed up for the 2012 serpentine pavilion; engineer Cecil Balmond teaming up with OMA to create the CCTV Headquarters in Beijing; Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker, and Eric Clapton teaming up to create Cream. These collaborations are not uncommon, and as you can see have created great outcomes.
So this is why this rule has led to controversy. In an office setting where there tends to be a leadership role, that leader can often want to carry out his vision and the "semi-boring people" help to support and mold that vision into a tangible thing whether it be architectural drawings, a marketing plan, or a large artist installation. In other cases where roles are split between creative types this can be very beneficial to the final product. In the CCTV Headquarters, Cecil Balmond was responsible for the design of the structure and it's engineering, while OMA were the architects in charge and designed the overall form of the tower. I think if both OMA and Cecil were in charge of design the outcome would be completely different and likely clashes in personality/vision would create a less impressive project.
#3: "Only involve them in meaningful work"
This rule likely applies to more than just the creative type. I would say many people want to feel like their work has meaning or is larger than just the task at hand. Personally, for me what leads to my best work is passion. Working for someone else and carrying out their vision certainly does not make me excited to go to work every day, but talk to me about my own designs and I'm hooked. Passion is what drives the creative type and if they are not passionate or feel that their job is not meaningful to a larger picture they lose interest. Passion leads us to staying up all night trying to solve the problem rather than pack it in at 5pm, it drives us to fight with our own professors over what their project means (I have see break downs in school over this). Not only the creative type but entrepreneurs have this same passion, it gives them the ability to take the risk of starting something of their own.Passion leads to humanity's best, and maybe worst is some cases, but certainly the creative type is extremely driven by his or her passion for their work.
#4: "Don't pressure them"
Coming from an architecture background where deadlines are always an issue pressure is constantly being placed on me or my bosses by clients to get things done fast. And it likely has had an inverse affect on the work coming out of the firm. The author says to let creatives not follow structures or processes or ask where they are or what they have been doing. Now, I agree the creative mind tends to work best when it is free to think without many constraints but from a business aspect sometimes a little structure is needed to stay focused and create communication between the creatives and other parts of the company. However this rule I would say goes in tandem with rule #3. If someone is passionate about something they will likely be pressuring themselves to solve the problem, finish the project, or make the product. Passion leads to self motivation.#5: "Don't overpay them"
This one probably led to the most controversy. No one likes to be told that they are overpaid or should be paid less, and thus many were upset. Another poorly worded title but I have to agree with the main idea: money is not a driving force for the creative type. This also goes with the idea of passion. A creative person likely will do whatever it takes to get his/her vision perfect, not because they are getting paid to but for their own sake. Now if that's combined with a vision of profitability that can lead to a great business but many times money is still not the driving force to stay up all night. Some of the greatest products, services, businesses were created by people that believed in the idea not it's profitability, and the best businesses instilled this idea into their customers, making them as loyal as ever. I'm looking at you Apple.#6: "Surprise them"
I completely fall into this category. I am always seeking change and the phrase, "They take a different route to work every day, even if it gets them lost, and never repeat an order at a restaurant, even if they really liked it" struck awfully close to home. Now I wouldn't say I normally get lost on my way to work but certainly will take different routes places just for the enjoyment of seeing a different setting. I would also say that many other creatives are the same way, at least from my personal experience. Being naturally curious about our world leads us sometimes to wander. Change is good to us creatives and it also leads to amazing innovation.#7: "Make them feel important"
Duh. Who doesn't like to feel important? I think almost everyone is searching for some meaning of importance in their lives. This goes for both the extrovert talking up a storm asking for attention and the introvert quietly sitting doing their work in the corner. One may just be a bit more obvious that they want to feel important. This goes back to rule #3, where to the creative meaningful/innovative work is important to them and recognition or a display of how it is important is necessary to keep creatives motivated for the next problem.The authors final words here also got a lot of outcry, "even if you are able to manage your creative employees, it does not mean that you should let them manage others."In particular people called out his reference to Steve Jobs. I found that interesting because I am currently reading his biography by Walter Isaacson where it talks about his management style. Many of his employees found him very difficult to work for, he yelled, was irrational, stole others ideas claiming them to be his. What he did though was instill an idea that not only did Apple create powerful products, but it created beautiful products, and that the inside was equally important as the outside. His vision is what drove his employees to do their best work but was likely not the best manager. This holds true for many entrepreneurs who's passion is what drives employees, not their management. Many start ups as the author states tend to plateau because these innovators were left in charge to manage rather continue their job and innovate, what many people don't realize is that Apple became so successful because Jobs, while he did manage people, also was never in charge of managing the whole business. Originally Mike Scott was brought in as president and later on Tim Cook would be brought on to manage the multibillion dollar corporation allowing Jobs to carry out his vision for how people would connect with their world.
No comments:
Post a Comment