Synopsis
Why do corporations say they
want and need creative ideas, but then reject them when the ideas are ambiguous
and make them feel uncertain.
By Michael Michalko
Does
society really value creativity? People say they want more creative people,
more creative ideas and solutions, but do they really?
The
Greek philosopher Democritus (460-370 BC) promulgated the atomic theory, which
asserted that the universe is composed of two elements: the atoms and the void
in which they exist and move. Many contemporary historians of the philosophy of
science consider Democritus to be the "father of modern science"
because of his stunning insight about the universe centuries before our
understanding of atomic structure, which did not occur until the early 19th
century.
All
of his ideas were rejected by all of the Greek philosophers and scientists at
the time because his beliefs contrasted with those of Aristotle who, according
to his followers, was the ultimate authority about the universe. Their
commitment to Aristotle and his theories about the universe caused them to feel
a great uncertainty in imagining any other possibility. Plato is said to have
disliked him and his atomic theory so much that he wished all his books burned.
Democritus was ignored by the Athens intellectual community for the rest of his
life.
Did
the ancient Greeks desire creative ideas? Yes. They prided themselves for their
creativity in the arts, science and society. They proclaimed Greece as the "enlightened
society," and built architectural monuments to their creativity. Yet the
rejection of Democritus is just one of many historical examples of breakthrough
ideas that were automatically rejected because of their novelty and their
nonconformance with existing beliefs which caused a general feeling of
uncertainty.
History
also recounts how physicists could not see Einstein’s theory of relativity
because of their established, accepted views. For years, they tried to
incorporate his view into the established view without success. Interestingly,
the skeptical physicists never did accept his theory, instead they eventually
died and subsequent generations of physicists who were not prejudiced by the
past were able to accept and understand Einstein. What we learn from history is
that our established view interferes with our perception and understanding of
new ideas and concepts.
Do
people desire creative ideas and innovation today? Most us would answer with a
loud ‘YES, OF COURSE’ asserting that creativity is the engine of discovery in
the arts, science and industry, and is the fundamental driving force of
positive change, and is associated with intelligence, wisdom, and goodness.
Still
while most people strongly endorse a positive view of creativity, historians
have discovered that scientific institutions, business, education, medical, military,
nonprofit, political organizations, and leaders and decision-makers in all
fields routinely reject creative ideas much like the Greeks rejected atomic
theory.
Robert
Goddard, the father of modern rocket propulsion, endured ridicule and derision
from his contemporary scientific peers who stated his ideas were ludicrous and
impossible. The New York Times even chimed in with an editorial written by
scientists that Goddard lacked even a high school understanding of rocket
propulsion. This example is not unique. Apple Computer Inc. founder,
Steve Jobs, attempted, without success, to get Atari and Hewlett-Packard
interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer. As Steve recounts,
"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even
built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll
give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary; we'll come work for
you.” And their experts laughed and said, ‘No.’ So then we went to
Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got
through college yet."
Ken
Olsen, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., thought the idea of a
personal computer absurd, as he said, "there is no reason anyone would want
a computer in their home."
Other
examples are:
ᴥ Pierrre Pachet, a renowned
physiology professor and expert declared, "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs
is ridiculous fiction."
ᴥ Every major corporation in the
country rejected Chester Carlson’s invention of xerography. They said, "Why
would anyone buy an expensive copy machine when carbon paper is so cheap and
plentiful."
ᴥ Fred Smith’s Yale University
management professor gave Fred a ‘C’ because Fred’s paper proposal to provide
overnight delivery service was not a feasible business idea. Fred’s proposal
became Federal Express. Incidentally, every delivery expert in the U.S. doomed
FedEx to failure as they said no one will pay a fancy price for speed and
reliability.
ᴥ Charles H. Duell, Commissioner,
U.S. Office of Patents, 1899 said, "Everything that can be invented has
been invented." He urged the closing of the patent office as there no
longer was a need for it.
ᴥ Western Union president William
Orton, rejected Bell’s offer to sell his struggling telephone company for US$100,000.
He said "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously
considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to
us. What use could this company make of an electrical toy?"
ᴥ "The wireless music box
has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody
in particular?" said David Sarnoff's associates, in response to his
urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.
ᴥ "TV won't be able to hold
on to any market it captures after the first 6 months. People will soon
get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." (Darryl F. Zanuck,
head of 20th Century Fox, 1946).
ᴥ "Airplanes are interesting toys for
hobbyists but of no military value." (Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of
Strategy, École Supérieure de Guerre / French commander of Allied forces during
the closing months of World War I, 1918).
THE WATCHMAKER
Frank
was a watchmaker. The watches he made consisted of 1000 parts each. Frank would
handle and inspect each part and think about where it should be placed. Each
watch was constructed in a slightly different way which made each watch unique
and special.
One
day, a teacher arrived and taught him a new way of watch making. He showed him
how to make watches by categorizing all the parts and putting together
subassemblies of about ten elements each in a certain order and each with a
certain label. Ten of these subassemblies could be put together into a larger
subassembly and a system of ten constituted 100 parts and, eventually a system
of 100 groups would constitute the whole watch of 1000 parts. He became very
efficient and could now make watches in a fraction of the time it took before
without much thinking at all.
His
system of watch making by identity, classification and categorization was
carried on by his descendants and became the accepted system of making watches
throughout the world. All watches were made the same way and things were good.
Everyone was comfortable and secure as they robotically continue to make
watches using Frank’s system, which they all agreed was the only way to make
watches profitably.
One
day a man who had little knowledge about Frank’s system decided to invent a new
watch. At first he tried combining the subassemblies in different ways but
nothing seemed to work. He gave up and tossed all the subassemblies against the
wall where it fell apart into 1000 parts.
Instead
of thinking about improving the watch, he thought about the concept of time and
how people throughout history kept track of time and how animals and birds understood
time. He suddenly had a "mind popping idea" for a new concept of how
to measure time. Working hard, he created a unique and novel watch.
All
the watchmakers looked at and thought it was indeed a novel concept. Yet none
would accept it as a watch because it didn’t look like a watch, feel like a
watch, sound like a watch, made of gears and wheels like a watch and wasn’t
made the way watches are supposed to be made. None would accept it so they
continued to make watches the way they are supposed to be made. This forced the
inventor to start his own company and became the richest man in the world.
The
above is, of course, a fable. In real life in 1968, the Swiss dominated the
world watch industry. The Swiss themselves invented the electronic watch movement
at their research institute in Neuchatel, Switzerland. It was rejected by every
Swiss watch manufacturer. Based on their experiences with watches, they
believed this couldn't possibly be the watch of the future. After all, it was
battery powered, did not have bearings or a mainspring and almost no gears.
Seiko executives, with no background in the watch industry, took one look at
this invention that the Swiss manufacturers rejected at the World Watch
Congress that year and took over the world watch market.
Once
people establish a hypothesis about the way things are, they develop a
deeply-rooted bias against anything that causes them to feel uncertain, anxious
or confused about their pre-established hypothesis. The novelty of the new
watch caused great uncertainty in the minds of the watchmakers. This bias
against uncertainty is activated when people are asked to evaluate new, novel
ideas and interferes with the participants’ ability to recognize a creative
idea. The insidious nature of this bias is that there is strong societal
pressure to endorse creativity and its products and a strong social
desirability bias against expressing any view of creativity as negative.
The resulting state is similar to that identified in research on racial bias; a
conflict between an explicit preference towards creativity and unacknowledged
negative associations with creativity.
So
we say we strongly support creativity while routinely rejecting creative ideas
and never admitting it. This is because creative ideas are novel and different
which makes us feel uncertain and afraid.
Originally
published in The Creativity Post
Michael Michalko is one of the
most highly acclaimed creativity experts in the world and author of the best
sellers Thinkertoys (A Handbook of Business Creativity), ThinkPak (A
Brainstorming Card Deck), and Cracking Creativity (The Secrets Of Creative
Genius).
As an officer in the United
States Army, Michael organized a team of NATO intelligence specialists and
international academics in Frankfurt, Germany, to research, collect, and
categorize all known inventive-thinking methods. His international team
applied those methods to various NATO military, political, and social problems
and in doing so it produced a variety of breakthrough ideas and creative
solutions to new and old problems. After leaving the military, Michael
facilitated CIA think tanks using his creative thinking techniques.
Michael later applied these
creative-thinking techniques to problems in the corporate world with
outstanding successes. Michael has provided keynote speeches, workshops,
and seminars on fostering creative thinking for clients who range from Fortune
500 corporations, such as DuPont, Kellogg’s, General Electric, Kodak,
Microsoft, Exxon, General Motors, Ford, USA, AT&T, Wal-Mart, Gillette, and
Hallmark, to associations and governmental agencies. In addition to his
work in the United States, Michael has worked with clients in countries around
the world.
No comments :
Post a Comment