Finding the Unexpected: Creative Accidents

A reader pointed me to creativity expert Michael Michalko’s blog, and it’s terrific. One of his recent posts speaks to something I have thought and written about:

Whenever we attempt to do something and fail, we end up doing something else. As simplistic as this statement may seem, it is the first principle of creative accident. We may ask ourselves why we have failed to do what we intended, and this is the reasonable, expected thing to do. But the creative accident provokes a different question: What have we done? Answering that question in a novel, unexpected way is the essential creative act. It is not luck but creative insight of the highest order.
Absolutely. The key, then, is to do stuff to allow such creative accidents to happen.
Even when people set out to act purposefully and rationally to do something, they wind up doing things they did not intend. John Wesley Hyatt, an Albany printer and mechanic, worked long and hard trying to find a substitute for billiard-ball ivory, then coming into short supply. He invented, instead, celluloid— the first commercially successful plastic.

So don’t hold too rigid to your business plan or life plan — they can become straitjackets which prevent you from seeing the new opportunities on the sidelines. Here’s my post on wandering without a map and on agile software development mapped to life.

B.F. Skinner advised people that when you are working on something and find something interesting, drop everything else and study it. In fact, he emphasized this as a first principle of scientific methodology. This is what William Shockley and a multi-discipline Bell labs team did. They were formed to invent the MOS transistor and ended up instead with the junction transistor and the new science of semiconductor physics. These developments eventually led to the MOS transistor and then to the integrated circuit and to new breakthroughs in electronics and computers. William Shockley described it as a process of “creative failure methodology.”
When to drop everything else and study it is the tough question. When to throw massive amounts of energy behind a project. Until then, maintain a diverse portfolio of activities and don’t focus too much.
Richard Feynman, a Nobel Laureate physicist, had an interesting practical test that he applied when reaching a judgment about a new idea: for example, did it explain something unrelated to the original problem. E.g., “What can you explain that you didn’t set out to explain?”and, “What did you discover that you didn’t set out to discover?” In 1938, 27 year old Roy Plunkett set out to invent a new refrigerant. Instead, he created a glob of white waxy material that conducted heat and did not stick to surfaces. Fascinated by this “unexpected” material, he abandoned his original line of research and experimented with this interesting material, which eventually became known by its household name, “Teflon.”
 
In principle, the unexpected event that gives rise to a creative invention is not all that different from the unexpected automobile breakdown that forces us to spend a night in a new and interesting town, the book sent to us in error that excites our imagination, or the closed restaurant that forces us to explore a different cuisine. But when looking for ideas or creative solutions, many of us ignore the unexpected and, consequently, loose the opportunity to turn chance into a creative opportunity.

In other words, expose yourself to randomness. Take a different route home from work. Pick up the chance book. Start reading blogs outside your field.

Does Experience Have a Negative Correlation with Success?

Scott "Dilbert" Adams says so:

If you look at the great achievements in history, they are usually accomplished by younger people. Those people continue to acquire relevant experience throughout their careers but their successes do not continue at the same rate. For anything important, experience probably has a strong negative correlation with success. If that weren’t true, all the hit songs, hot startups, and new inventions would be coming from geezers.

Yes, but the ideal situation is some experience but not too much experience. To quote an old post of mine:

We theorized the best time to start a company was around age 27. On the one hand, you have acquired enough knowledge and experience to do something meaningful. On the other hand, you aren’t weighed down by the baggage of too many experiences and the tendency for such baggage to reinforce preconceived notions. And you aren’t overly jaded. And you probably don’t have a family to care for. Also, when you’re 27, you’re still free from the status worries that bedevil adults — you don’t give a shit what the neighbor thinks.

(hat tip Jeff Nolan)

When Hiring Recent Grads, How Should You Factor Grades?

An experienced entrepreneur and friend asks:

So now that you have a semester behind you: If you get an A in a subject do you really understand it? Can you get a B or C and still get the material? I have a problem hiring folks that got C’s in college – did they not try or were they pre-occupied? I make the exception with sales and marketing folks. It always depends on the individual but if I ask someone their college GPA and it is 2.75 I grow more skeptical. I know GPA doesn’t equal success in life, but I think it indicates a person’s ability to focus on a task and accomplish a goal. If it doesn’t matter then why measure it? I’m looking at hiring some recent grads for entry level stuff – should I change my filter?

The larger question of filtering when trying to hire someone is key — we all develop filters and rules of thumb for sizing people up. Most employers use academic performance as the chief filter for hiring people fresh out of college. My thoughts:

1. For most jobs, especially in business or start-ups, whether you really “got the material” is irrelevant. Most of the material studied in college seems to have little direct application to a job, especially an entry level job.

2. High grades to me indicate an ability to focus, understand and follow rules, obtain a basic competency in a topic area, and please your superior (teacher). All these things can be important in job settings so in this sense grades serve a useful predictive purpose.

3. If someone has a 2.75 GPA in college, I’d ask the question, “Why the low GPA?” If the answer is the person decided to screw around vigorously on other projects or hobbies that sound worthwhile, I’d give him credit and worry only about his ability to take and follow direction. If someone has a 4.0 GPA in college, I’d ask the question, “Did you do stuff other than try to get high grades?” If the answer is no (of course their answer is going to be yes), then I’d be concerned that he lacks a creative urge, or is too much a rule-follower / pleaser.

4. The reason the question makes exceptions for sales and marketing people is that sales and marketing people need to be scrappy, creative, high on people skills, and so forth — all things not usually captured in a GPA. Engineers, on the other hand, tend to be workhorses who can executive specs and rules given to them. That’s why the GPA of a would-be engineer seems especially useful. So: depends on the type of person you’re trying to hire. A secretary? GPA all the way. Engineer? GPA. Future CEO? No way. Salesperson? No way.

5. Over-reliance on GPA as a filter can be a sign of laziness. It’s generally agreed, right, that time-intensive activities like talking to references (and calling the candidate’s professors in school) or even having a 45 minute in-person conversation with the person would yield far more insight than a glance at a GPA? It’s just that as a hirer, you don’t have that kind of time? Maybe so. Or maybe you should invest more in hiring — after all, great people are five times as valuable as good people, and if you’re a start-up, there’s no room for mediocre people and no time to hire and fire a bad person.

6. The average GPA of self-made millionaires in America (at least in one sample) is 2.92 out of 4.

7. My friend Cal says in an email: “Some smart, focused people with good work habits don’t get good grades. But they’re difficult to identify. Grades are a good rough indiciator that a person has [the important] traits. It’s not the only indiciator. It’s not a necessary indiciator. But it’s a sufficient indiciator. So it’s used.”


Related Link: The Rules of Thumb – Human Resources page contains hiring and people hacks like “A bad reference is as hard to find as a good employee” or “Never hire a salesman you’d want your daughter to marry” or “Reinforcement ought to be specific, incorporating as much information content as possible. Reinforcement should have immediacy. Reinforcement should be unpredictable and intermittent.”

When Trying to Improve an Idea Does More Harm

Legendary executive coach Marshall Goldsmith has an interesting post about the connection between offering feedback on someone’s idea and reducing that person’s commitment to follow-through by robbing him/her of idea ownership. Excerpt:

One of the classic interpersonal challenges I see in brilliant, technically gifted people is their desire to "add value," especially to other people’s ideas.

When does this occur? 

Imagine that you are an entry-level employee. I am your manager. You come to me with an idea — which you think is great. You have been working on this idea for months and are really excited about what you have developed. I like the idea.

Rather than just saying, “great idea!” — being the brilliant, technically gifted person I am, I may well say, “That is a very good idea. Why don’t you add this to it?”

This could well be a case of trying to add "too much value," and here’s the problem: the quality of the idea may go up 5% with my suggestions, but your commitment to its execution may go down 50%. It is no longer your idea; as your manager, I have now made it my idea.

It’s a good point. Even though I’m not a "brilliant, technically-gifted person," I’ve still fallen prey to the tendency of trying to "add too much value": When someone comes to me with an idea, and I agree with 95% of it, I offer my enthusiasm but also try to refine his thinking about the other 5%. Stupid.

A great idea only matters if someone executes on it, so if someone comes to me with a great idea I should focus on motivating them to execute, not trying to optimize a minor aspect of it. Later, details can be hashed out. But it’d be a pity to quash a creative spark early on.

In other words, I need to remember The 80% Rule: If you’re at least 80% in agreement with someone, you’re solidly "with them." And when it comes to new ideas, if you’re solidly with the person, all energies should be focused on increasing the chances of follow-through, increasing the chances that the person who generated the idea will commit to executing on it.

Related Post: Doers vs. Talkers

Thanks to Ramit Sethi for the pointer

Some of the Best Speaking Advice Ever

MIT Professor Harry Winston every year gives a famed lecture on "The Art of Speaking". Cal Newport attended the lecture this year and posted the notes. They’re awesome – some of the best advice on speaking I’ve read. Read the whole thing, excerpted below are my favorite parts. In particular, I found the advice "don’t thank your audience at the end" pretty interesting.

How to Start

Some advice for starting your talk.

  1. Don’t start with a joke. The audience is not accustomed to you or your speaking style yet. Humor will be difficult at this point.
  2. Do start with a menu. Tell them exactly what you’ll be speaking about and in what order.
  3. Do provide an empowerment promise. Explain why your audience will come away from the talk better than when they entered.

The Big Four

A collection of four heuristics that make a talk work.

  1. Cycling. Deliver ideas first in brief, then in detail, then in summary. To use the lingo of artificial intelligence: let your audience load the schema, then fill in the details, then let them know what’s worth indexing for future reference.
  2. Verbal Punctuation. Provide a mechanism to help people who “fogged out” to easily rejoin the talk. For example: “We have just finished talking about the first heuristic, cycling, I am now going to talk about the second heuristic for helping to make your talks more interesting…”
  3. Near Miss. When explaining an idea, also describe other ideas that are close but not quite the same. This will help people understand what the important points are that define your idea.
  4. Ask Rhetorical Questions. Don’t make them too easy. Don’t make them too hard. Wait 6 seconds for an answer.

The Tools

Four tools that can make or break your presentation.

  1. Time and Place. If it’s in your control: mid-morning is the best time. Choose a location that will look full with your expected audience size. Make sure it is well-lit. Don’t let them turn down the lights. (“It’s easier to see slides in a light room then to seem them through closed eyelids.”)
  2. Slides. Don’t use anything less than 24-point type. If you can’t fit the information at this font size then you have too much. Follow these four rules:
    1. Don’t read the slides! “A special circle in hell for those who…”
    2. Don’t stand far away from the screen. This requires divided attention from your audience.
    3. Have one meaningful picture per slide. If it’s found in Microsoft’s clip art gallery, it’s not meaningful.
    4. No pointers. Laser or otherwise. These are distractions. You’ll play with them. They’re annoying. Stand by the screen and point with your hand or refer to visual anchors on the slide.

How to Stop

Some things to keep in mind about concluding a talk:

  1. Deliver on your promise made at the beginning. Remind them what it was and summarize how you satisfied it.
  2. Tell a joke. They know you now. And if they leave happy they will assume the entire talk made them happy.
  3. Call for questions.
  4. Don’t thank the audience. It makes it seem like they did you a favor by listening to your boring babble.
  5. End with a salute. Compliment without thanking. (i.e., “You’ve been a great audience, I hope you learned a lot about how to give a great talk.”)