Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • FEMALE SPEAKER: Hello and welcome to today's talk

  • at Google.

  • We're incredibly pleased to host David Burkus, who

  • is the author of "The Myths of Creativity",

  • "The Truth About How Innovative Companies and People Generate

  • Great Ideas".

  • David is a contributing writer for "Forbes" and "Psychology

  • Today", and has also been featured

  • in "Fast Company, Inc.", "Bloomberg Business Week",

  • "Financial Times", and even on "CBS This Morning".

  • So I'm sure that you're all excited to spend time

  • with him over the next 40, 45 minutes.

  • He'll be sharing a little bit of insight about his book,

  • and then opening up to questions.

  • So without further to do, over to you.

  • DAVID BURKUS: So, thank you, thank you.

  • Yeah, the CBS thing, it was cool.

  • I saw a couple people nod, there, quite cool.

  • Unfortunately, I was on the Saturday edition.

  • So I did not get to meet Charlie Rose.

  • But life goal for the next book.

  • So I want to talk to you a bit about this book now.

  • And really I want to tell you a bit

  • about the story of a realization that I had.

  • The weird thing about writing a book

  • is you learn things after you publish it.

  • After you send it to the publisher

  • people then start discussing you.

  • And you realize that, I set out to write a business book,

  • or I thought I was writing a business book.

  • And I found I've written a book that has I hope a little bit

  • broader implications for how we rethink things.

  • And it's this one sentence that I didn't really

  • figure out until after I had published,

  • which was, the stories we tell ourselves are true,

  • even if they're not true.

  • So the things that we tell ourselves

  • are true even if they're totally false,

  • even if they have no basis in reality.

  • Because if we tell it to ourselves enough

  • we eventually start to believe it.

  • And there's a psychological principle

  • called confirmation bias that confirms this.

  • Confirmation bias that confirms this, that's funny.

  • What confirmation bias essentially does

  • is it says that you filter out things

  • that don't conform to what you already believe.

  • And you willfully seek out things

  • that will conform to what you already believe.

  • It will confirm your beliefs.

  • So, you probably have realized this.

  • If you've ever been car shopping you

  • have found confirmation bias at work, right.

  • Who has been car shopping recently?

  • And what kind of car did you decide on?

  • AUDIENCE: A Ram 1500.

  • DAVID BURKUS: A Ram 1500.

  • How many RAM 1500s did you see shortly after you bought it?

  • AUDIENCE: Oh, a lot.

  • DAVID BURKUS: They're all over the place, right?

  • And it's not like anything changed, I mean,

  • unless you decided to drive through Texas after you bought

  • it.

  • It's not like anything changed.

  • It's still a Ram 1500.

  • There were still just as many on the street as before.

  • But your mind is drawing attention and flagging

  • and signaling you when it's there.

  • And interestingly, the things that you chose not to buy,

  • it sort of just fades to the background.

  • Now if you really, really want to get a taste of this wait

  • until this fall, because we have an election season coming up.

  • And this is when confirmation bias

  • is on display for the world to see.

  • So if you still don't believe in the Ram 1500 example,

  • get into a political argument with someone who thinks

  • differently than you on some social network, via Twitter,

  • Google+, Facebook, whatever.

  • It has to be a social network because it

  • has to be asynchronous.

  • You have to give them time to find some blog that supports

  • their world view and then come back to you.

  • So it can't be a face to face discussion because then it'll

  • be like human and you'll find common ground.

  • We don't want that.

  • We're showing confirmation bias at work.

  • But what eventually happens is the stories

  • that we tell ourselves become true because of confirmation

  • bias.

  • And this happened in this case with this book.

  • I used the term myths because myths are stories.

  • And myths are stories that we make up

  • to try and explain things that we can't really explain fully.

  • And what happens over time is those myths

  • become true, even if they're not true.

  • So I set out, actually, to write a leadership book.

  • I did my Doctoral work on strategy and leadership.

  • And I set out wanting to know, what

  • is it that the leaders of amazingly

  • creative organizations do that other people don't do.

  • And it came down to this idea of stories.

  • And it really-- the deep dark secret-- it

  • wasn't all that much about the actual leader.

  • It was just about what are the stories

  • that people are telling themselves.

  • So we tell a lot of different stories, lots and lots

  • of different stories.

  • One of my favorites is, if you pay attention

  • to the way we describe creativity,

  • we tell an almost religious story around creativity.

  • It almost feels like it's some religion.

  • And if you go to certain parts of the world-- San Francisco,

  • Austin, Texas, parts of New York-- creative people

  • actually look like priests of some near eastern religion

  • you've never heard of.

  • Piercings, tattoos, things that you're like,

  • wow, you really could be a guru on a mountain somewhere.

  • But you're a barista.

  • But you know what I mean.

  • So we talk about it in these weird, almost religious terms.

  • And I think we do that to our detriment.

  • Because in reality it's something

  • that's sort of accessible to everyone.

  • So we talk about creativity like it's a gift from the gods.

  • We talk about innovation like it happens in a flash.

  • In reality it's actually a little simpler to explain.

  • I can do it with a picture.

  • So a woman by the name of Teresa Amabile

  • did this amazing series of research

  • and came up with what she calls the Confidential

  • Model of Creativity.

  • Which essentially says, every creative insight

  • happens when four things are at play together.

  • Now I already know what you're thinking

  • because I see people's eyes.

  • There are only four circles on the slide.

  • We'll get to that.

  • So four things essentially in play, expertise,

  • creative thinking, skills, and motivation.

  • Expertise, you actually have to know something

  • about where you want a creative insight in.

  • Interestingly enough, too much expertise

  • can sometimes be a bad thing.

  • We'll get to that.

  • Creative thinking skills.

  • Do you actually know the processes,

  • especially in groups, for coming up with lots of great ideas?

  • Or are you just sort of winging it?

  • Or are you throwing yourself in a room

  • and doing what we call brainstorming but looks nothing

  • like what its creator intended?

  • So creative thinking skills, I think,

  • we have a hard time thinking that expertise,

  • in particular, and creative thinking

  • skills are two different circles.

  • Most of the time we use this term creatives a lot.

  • We use this term creatives.

  • We describe advertising copy as creative copy now.

  • And what I think is interesting about that

  • is that's actually merging these creative thinking

  • skills with expertise.

  • But you can use creative thinking skills

  • and, even in fields of expertise,

  • that no one would call creative, like accounting.

  • Now sometimes you do that at the detriment of the world.

  • But, I mean, I use mint.com every single day.

  • It's an amazingly creative product.

  • So the last one is motivation.

  • And intrinsic motivation is generally better

  • than extrinsic motivation, things

  • like bonuses and incentives.

  • But there are things we can do to structure and align

  • those two to actually have an even more powerful force.

  • But in general intrinsic motivation works really well.

  • It's often been said necessity is the mother of invention.

  • I'd say necessity is the mother innovation.

  • Why?

  • Necessity is a really good intrinsic motivator.

  • If you have a problem that desperately needs to be solved,

  • you have a lot of motivation to solve said problem.

  • Now three circles, four components.

  • The fourth component is the social environment.

  • What is the environment in which you are actually operating in?

  • Is it generally supportive of new and creative ideas?

  • Does it squelch ideas?

  • Does it support idea sharing?

  • Does it support what a friend of mine calls little bets?

  • Does it support the idea of taking lots of little risks,

  • deferring judgment?

  • All of these sort of things help shape a social environment

  • that can harbor creativity.

  • And what I think is interesting is

  • when I think about the perfect social environment,

  • I actually think about a kindergarten classroom.

  • Does anyone have kindergartners or younger kids?

  • So I have a two-year-old and a two month old,

  • which means we're looking at the beginner

  • programs-- preschool programs, working our way up.

  • And if you go in and visit a kindergarten,

  • you'll see a classroom of 25 people and maybe four really,

  • really frazzled looking teachers.

  • But you'll see 25 kids, little people.

  • All of them are incredibly creative.

  • I teach college most days out of the year,

  • and when I get a classroom of 25 students,

  • if I asked them if they think they're creative, two of them

  • will raise their hand.

  • And both of them are marketing majors.

  • That doesn't even count because they just

  • think they're giving me the right answer.

  • So we go from 25 to two.

  • And I just think this is incredibly depressing.

  • And the reason that we do is that the social environment

  • changes.

  • As you move through life you become more and more

  • aware of the fact that not everyone loves your crazy,

  • off the wall ideas.

  • And eventually it becomes easier to just not bring them up.

  • You learn that regurgitating the right answer back to a teacher

  • is just easier.

  • And even if you have a very forward thinking,

  • progressive school, we still have a society

  • that doesn't really value creative, new ideas.

  • And we'll talk about that at the tail end

  • because I think that's the most devastating story that we

  • tell ourselves.

  • But again, to go with this idea that the stories we

  • tell ourselves are true, there's a lot

  • of stories I've found that we tell ourselves

  • around creative people, creative companies,

  • that we use to discount ourselves.

  • One of my favorites is this Eureka story.

  • And I'm indebted to a lot of people.

  • I'm not the first person that's taken aim at the Eureka story.

  • One of the most fascinating examples of this

  • is Newton and the apple.

  • How many people have ever heard the story

  • of Newton and the apple?

  • Tell it to me, Newton and the apple.

  • So Isaac Newton is sitting under an apple tree.

  • What happens?

  • Apple falls.

  • Isaac Newton discovers gra-- no.

  • Does something related to gravity, right.

  • Great story.

  • Great lesson for aspiring, creative people.

  • What's the lesson?

  • Sit under a tree and wait for stuff to happen.

  • Now, I can tell you because I've searched

  • lots and lots of sources.

  • The Story is not actually true.

  • There's a version of the story very similar to it

  • that does involve an apple that has already

  • hit the ground and Isaac Newton talking about apples.

  • But the actual hitting never-- we can't source that story.

  • Over time, of course, so Isaac's over here

  • and he's talking about the apple falling to the ground.

  • Over time we retell the story.

  • And the apple levitates and Isaac moves closer to it

  • and eventually we arrive at this moment.

  • And it's a good story.

  • But the lesson is a terrible one.

  • I don't have time to sit under apple trees

  • and wait for stuff to happen.

  • But again, if you remember, myths

  • are things we tell ourselves because they sort of feel true

  • and then the confirmation bias takes over.

  • So there is some truth to the story.

  • And fortunately a researcher by the name

  • of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, whose name is so awesome you

  • should say it any time you get a chance.

  • It's like plus 10 on perceived IQ if you can say it.

  • So he did this amazing study where

  • he surveyed outstandingly creative, renowned

  • creative people in a variety of different fields.

  • Essentially he asked lots of different people

  • in different fields, who do you admire?

  • And then when they sort of aggregated around a name,

  • he went out and sought that person out.

  • And he just asked them, describe to me your creative process.

  • And then he did sort of a qualitative factor analysis.

  • And he arrived at, everybody's creative process,

  • as he described it, goes through these five different stages.

  • So we start out with preparation.

  • This is where you're doing research on the problem.

  • You're gaining expertise.

  • And then most people who have these insights go

  • into a period of incubation.

  • So they actually set it aside.

  • They don't just plow right through the problem

  • and try and prepare and prepare and prepare

  • until they arrive at a solution.

  • They take some time off.

  • They grab a Google bike and they go for a ride sometimes.

  • They sit under an apple tree sometimes.

  • More often than not they actually just switch projects.

  • So while one project is incubating

  • they're working on a different one.

  • And so sometimes you can move into the third stage,

  • which is that insight.

  • That's the aha moment.

  • And sometimes it really does happen directly out

  • of incubation.

  • So if you think about a story like Newton

  • and the apple, Archimedes in the bathtub,

  • I think there probably was some sort of aha moment.

  • He was incubating and then it came to him.

  • And then gradually over time the story just

  • gets better if you merge those two events.

  • And we've all had those moments, right?

  • We think about it.

  • My best ideas come to me in the shower or when I'm jogging

  • or when I'm doing something that forces that incubation.

  • But the thing I think is really interesting

  • is you can deliberately incubate.

  • And when you get done with an incubation period

  • you can deliberately set back to it.

  • So research supports the idea that if you

  • work on a problem for a while, then you incubate, then

  • you return and do something like a brainstorming or an ideation

  • technique, you will generate more and better ideas

  • because you spent that time incubating.

  • So a lot of times I get asked, great, but how do I do that?

  • And one of the things that I've started doing

  • is, I use email as a form of incubation.

  • Because most of the emails I get are not important.

  • No offense.

  • But there are things like, come to this address at this time.

  • There are things like, hey can you confirm this meeting?

  • They're just little things that I need to click through.

  • They're not all that important.

  • And so I turned on my phone.

  • I turned off all of my notifications around email.

  • My email on my computer does not automatically update.

  • It does it when I do it.

  • And I do it when I need to take a little break,

  • when I need to feel or look productive.

  • And I need to take a little bit of a break

  • and then I need to return to what I'm working on.

  • A lot of times I'll write a piece.

  • I'll write an article.

  • Then I'll check email.

  • Then I'll return to the article.

  • And then if I have enough time, if I

  • didn't wait till the last minute,

  • I'll actually print it out, wait a day, and read it again.

  • But most of the time it's write it, email, proof read it.

  • And I find that it actually sort of works.

  • You get newer ways to phrase things

  • just by taking that little bit of time off.

  • So the question isn't sit under an apple tree

  • and wait for something to happen.

  • The question is, how can I structure into my workflow

  • these actual periods of incubation?

  • Now I know what some people are doing.

  • They're looking at the fourth and fifth egg and going,

  • OK, I already want to know what those are.

  • You're the same people who wanted

  • to know about the circles.

  • It's the fourth and fifth egg.

  • Evaluation, you actually have to judge whether or not

  • the idea is good.

  • And then you have to elaborate on it.

  • You have two externalize it, you have

  • to bring it out into the world.

  • All right, so those are all parts of the process.

  • But what I think is really interesting

  • are stages two and three because most

  • of the time those are not in our normal work rhythm.

  • We don't actually work in this idea

  • of how can I incubate to get better ideas.

  • So one of the other myths that I think

  • is particularly devastating is this breed myth.

  • I joked about it earlier with my Near Eastern guru barista.

  • But a lot of times when we describe

  • creativity or creative people we say things like,

  • oh, they're just naturally a good whatever.

  • Which is sort of a damaging thing for two reasons.

  • Assuming it were true would be great.

  • But it's not.

  • It's damaging for two reasons because what you're doing

  • is you're essentially, presumably,

  • taking yourself off the hook.

  • They're just a natural blank.

  • I'm not.

  • Therefore I don't have to work hard.

  • The other thing you're doing is you're

  • insulting that person because they worked ridiculously

  • hard to get to the point where you called them

  • a natural, which is a little insulting.

  • And we've tried hard to verify this breed myth.

  • We've looked at a lot of different places.

  • We looked at genetics.

  • We looked at personality.

  • Personality essentially, there are five personality traits,

  • the Big Five.

  • And we've tried to correlate every type

  • of creative expression to personality types.

  • Can't do it.

  • Actually, one of the Big Five is called openness to experience.

  • And that correlates a little bit, which kind of makes sense.

  • If you're open to new ideas and new experiences

  • you'll be more creative.

  • That makes sense.

  • The rest of them don't correlate.

  • Introverts are just as creative as extroverts, All of that.

  • And the other thing we tried to do is genetics.

  • We've looked at studies of identical and fraternal twins.

  • We've compared them to each other, to the baselines.

  • We can't find anything that suggests

  • there's a creativity gene or creativity

  • combination of genes.

  • The way that I describe it is that nature has yet

  • to disprove nurture.

  • But some of us still love to believe in the idea of nature,

  • because if somebody drew an incredibly

  • creative genetic hand and I didn't, I'm off the hook.

  • It's over.

  • And I think this also has lessons

  • for how we perceive interactions with other people.

  • Because if we think that some people are naturally creative,

  • when we need an idea who do we gravitate to?

  • But who do we need to be gravitating to?

  • Probably everybody.

  • And especially the people who aren't necessarily

  • experts in that field.

  • And we'll talk about that in a little bit.

  • But first, let's take a pause around this expertise idea.

  • One of the things I think is interesting

  • is, expertise is sort of a double edged sword.

  • Because there's this idea around originality and creativity,

  • that creative ideas are incredibly original.

  • And so if they're incredibly original

  • then you need tons of outsiders and you need no experts.

  • And that's not actually true because almost all new ideas

  • are combinations of preexisting ideas.

  • In no place is this more aware than in software, right?

  • It's why we have so many intellectual property

  • debates, is where is the line between copying and infringing

  • and true original things.

  • But we see it everywhere.

  • Anybody in here a fan of "Star Wars"?

  • I know, it's sort of a trick question.

  • I know, I know.

  • So "Star Wars" is an incredibly wonderful combination

  • of Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces"

  • mono-myth plot line, some Akira Kurosawa samurai films,

  • some spaghetti westerns, and then

  • a couple "Flash Gordon" and "Sinbad" movies

  • thrown in just for good measure.

  • A lot of people say it this way, it's a total remix.

  • And that's OK, because it's a very original remix.

  • And it's a very wonderful set.

  • And it's probably going to be ruined with the next three.

  • But whatever, right?

  • The original one is still a great combination.

  • We do this in music all of the time.

  • We do this in literature all of the time.

  • Mark Twain actually has this amazing quote

  • about how the entire concept of plagiarism

  • is a farce because no writer just sat down and wrote

  • and came up with anything worth reading.

  • Instead they studied all sorts of other works.

  • And they incorporated different ideas and techniques.

  • And their voice is really just an original combination

  • of their influences.

  • Music, I think, at least has a little bit

  • of intellectual honesty around this idea.

  • Because you can ask a musician, who are your influences.

  • And that's code for who did you listen to a lot of times

  • and who did you copy.

  • And that's OK as long as you copy too.

  • I teach college so one source is plagiarism

  • but multiple, that's just research.

  • Right?

  • So it's cool.

  • It's about those sort of combinations.

  • And what I find is really interesting

  • is your brain is actually wired to do this.

  • Your brain is designed to combine.

  • So your brain is essentially two fundamental structures.

  • And this, I have to apologize to a gentleman named Rex Young who

  • I borrowed a lot of insights from

  • and probably ruined with gross oversimplifications.

  • Because he is a neuroscientist and a neurosurgeon.

  • And I'm a management professor and a writer.

  • So I'm probably not describing this perfectly but it works.

  • So your brain essentially has two things, gray matter

  • and white matter.

  • Gray matter is that spongy stuff we

  • think about when we think about thoughts.

  • It's kind of what we think about when

  • we look at an image like this.

  • And gray matter is where your thoughts are stored.

  • But then there's this other white matter

  • that's like strings, almost like wires and cords

  • that connect all these different things.

  • And the way that your brain works

  • is by connecting different areas of gray matter

  • in different times.

  • One of the most interesting things.

  • If you ever read an article that says,

  • oh, we have found the spot in your brain

  • responsible for blank.

  • That will be proven out of date within the next 10 years.

  • Because what we're finding is it's

  • not about this little area.

  • It's about combinations of areas in your brain

  • that light up because of the white matter.

  • And right down the center of your brain

  • is a thing called the corpus callosum.

  • And it is the thickest area of white matter in your brain.

  • And it's the reason we thought about this left brain,

  • right brain thing, and why they need it to communicate.

  • In truth that whole analogy is coming out of vogue,

  • because we're understanding that this white matter is incredibly

  • important.

  • Because the white matter connects different ideas.

  • So if the gray matter is what you think,

  • the white matter is almost how you think,

  • because it's the connections.

  • Now this is why if you've ever lost your train of thought

  • and you try and redo it, you feel

  • like you're zig zagging all over the place.

  • It's because your brain doesn't think linear.

  • It thinks in connections.

  • This can also be used to your benefit.

  • Has anybody watched the BBC version of "Sherlock"

  • where the mind palace idea comes from?

  • It basically comes from connecting a visual image

  • of a house to something you want to remember.

  • It's not like it's stored right next to it in the gray matter.

  • It's that the white matter is firing

  • in that right combination.

  • So our brain is actually wired to combine.

  • And this, I think, has incredible implications

  • for you.

  • What are you consuming?

  • What are you putting in there?

  • The more and the more diverse an amount of gray matter

  • you're putting in, and the more you're

  • experimenting with original new combinations

  • of that gray matter, the more your white matter

  • could be growing.

  • We don't actually know for sure, but we

  • do think that white matter is very elastic

  • and it can grow over time with expertise.

  • There's actually a factual error in my book.

  • Because before it was published we thought that Albert

  • Einstein's brain looked like everybody else's.

  • And now we actually know from some photos of his brain

  • that was, against his wishes, taken out of him after he died.

  • We know from photos that he had a very, very thick corpus

  • collasum.

  • He had an unnatural amount of white matter.

  • We don't know if he was born with it or if he grew it.

  • The evidence is leaning towards the idea

  • that you can actually grow additional white matter

  • connections.

  • You can strengthen those connections

  • the more you play around with combining ideas.

  • And I think this has interesting implications

  • because the other side of the coin of this expertise thing

  • is what I actually call the expert myth.

  • That when we have a problem we need to seek out experts.

  • We need to seek out people who have

  • studied the most in their field.

  • And it's generally a good idea, but it turns out,

  • it kind of falls apart over time.

  • In essence what happens, we've studied the careers

  • of lots of different creative professionals, playwrights.

  • There's a joke in physics that if you

  • don't do Nobel Prize winning work by the time

  • you're 30 you should just retire at least from research.

  • And it's kind of funny because the aforementioned Albert

  • Einstein won the Nobel Prize at 46, but for a paper that

  • was published at 26.

  • And if you look at the ages of when publications that

  • won the Nobel Prize in physics were,

  • the ages of the authors when they were published it,

  • actually does sort of aggregate around 30.

  • There's some truth to the joke.

  • What's going on here is that a lot

  • of times as your expertise goes up your creative output

  • can actually go down.

  • It can look like an inverted U instead of just an ever rising

  • screen.

  • The reason for this, we think, is

  • that there's two parts to an idea.

  • Remember there's coming up with the insight.

  • We call that an ideation rate.

  • And then there's also evaluating it and elaborating on that.

  • We can call that an elaboration rate.

  • And as your expertise grows your ideation rate does go up.

  • But you're elaboration rate goes down.

  • If you study the careers in a variety of different fields

  • of creative individuals, their elaboration rate

  • goes down over time.

  • What we think is essentially happening is,

  • as they're coming up with ideas they're coming up with reasons

  • why not to even bother trying that idea.

  • I have all of this expertise so I know it's not going to work.

  • It was a fun idea but it's not going to work and here's why.

  • And what happens, I think, in physics

  • or in any other field like that, is that you know around that 30

  • time you just got out of grad school,

  • maybe you're in a post-doc.

  • You're playing around with new ideas.

  • You have enough expertise to be able to come up

  • with new combinations of ideas, but not enough

  • to know it'll never work.

  • So you test it.

  • And most of the time you waste your time.

  • But every once in a while you find something

  • nobody else bothered to test.

  • And we fly you to Scandinavia.

  • We give you a metal.

  • We tell you you're amazing.

  • We see this all of the time.

  • And I think this is not a death sentence.

  • I don't believe that this is always,

  • everyone who has more expertise always

  • has their creative output go down.

  • Earlier I talked about it.

  • Expertise is a vital part of that creative process.

  • But I think the key is to really take a look at our influences,

  • to be someone like Paul Erdos.

  • Does anyone know who Paul Erdos is?

  • Do I have any mathematicians in the room?

  • Do You have an Erdos number?

  • AUDIENCE: No.

  • DAVID BURKUS: No?

  • AUDIENCE: No, no, no.

  • DAVID BURKUS: No, no, no.

  • So he and I just had a conversation, none of you

  • know what we're talking about.

  • So let me elaborate.

  • So an Erdos number is essentially--

  • Paul Erdos has more peer review publications than anyone ever.

  • We lost count around 1,500.

  • I have like 12.

  • He's 1,500.

  • 20 will get your tenure anywhere you want.

  • 20 in reputable journals, I should say.

  • 1,500, and the reason was the man was an intellectual nomad.

  • So he would study in his field.

  • And he'd read a paper by somebody

  • who was in a different subset.

  • And he would show up, usually at the office or sometimes

  • the house, of the author of that paper.

  • And he would say "my brain is open."

  • He actually has a biography written about him.

  • It's that title, "My Brain is Open."

  • And he would move in to the office, sometimes

  • into the house, of that person.

  • And they would work together.

  • And they would share insights.

  • They would publish a couple papers.

  • Then when he got bored he would move on again.

  • So as a result, what you have is an Erdos number.

  • What you have is a number that represents how close you

  • are to have published with Paul Erdos.

  • If you have an Erdos number one, you published with him.

  • Two, you published with someone who published with him.

  • It's like "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", but for nerds.

  • Actually, "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon"

  • is also for nerds, just a different kind of nerd.

  • So Paul Erdos is sort of this intellectual nomad

  • that is constantly moving around.

  • And I think we can take that same approach,

  • but so often we don't.

  • Our area of expertise is really comfortable.

  • And to admit that we don't have an expertise somewhere

  • and begin to study that is really uncomfortable.

  • It takes a lot of guts to show up at the door of someone else.

  • Especially-- think about when Paul Erdos arrived

  • at, oh I don't know, 600 publications.

  • Think about the kind of courage it

  • takes to show up at the office of somebody with maybe six,

  • but is doing new stuff.

  • And to say, I want to learn from you.

  • That takes a lot of courage to admit that like,

  • I'm not going to play this comfortable expertise

  • card that I have developed over time.

  • I'm going to take on this beginner's mindset all over

  • again.

  • And I think so often we don't do that, but we can.

  • And when we do that, we think back to the originality myth.

  • We fill our mind with more gray matter

  • and more potential connections.

  • So we fill our mind with more raw material

  • to make combinations out of it.

  • But it takes a little bit of courage.

  • Now, one other way that you can get really good

  • in a very short period of time, like Paul Erdos did,

  • is by collaborating.

  • And we live in a world that's getting better

  • at collaboration.

  • But we still tell ourselves what I call the Lone Creator Story.

  • We tell ourselves stories about Thomas Edison.

  • Thomas Edison invented the---

  • AUDIENCE: Light bulb.

  • DAVID BURKUS: Sort of.

  • Some people are like, I know it's a trick question

  • so I'm just going to sit there and shake my head.

  • Thomas Edison did.

  • He was the 22nd or 23rd-- depending

  • on how you count-- person to invent the light bulb.

  • Not bad, not bad, right.

  • His patent for the light bulb is actually

  • called improvements in electric lights.

  • So at least he, like, even he admitted it.

  • But when we think about Thomas Edison,

  • think about his great story about trying thousands of times

  • to try out different filaments.

  • What do you envision?

  • You picture Thomas Edison alone in a room somewhere trying out

  • lots of little different fibers.

  • But it didn't happen like that all.

  • I would submit to you that Thomas Edison's greatest

  • invention was actually his Menlo Park workshop.

  • He had some of his initial funds from patents in the telegraph

  • industry.

  • And he used that to build a workshop.

  • And he invited sort of, Thomas Edison the Super Friends.

  • They actually called themselves the "Muckers",

  • but that feels like a dirty word.

  • So I prefer Thomas Edison and the Super Friends.

  • So he invites all of his friends.

  • And there are about 15 to 20 people in there

  • at any given time, working on lots of different stuff.

  • Most of them actually share space

  • on the patents, their name space on the patent with Thomas

  • Edison.

  • Some of them worked on their own stuff.

  • Some of them worked on projects outside of Edison.

  • But eventually they actually kind of found out

  • that the money was in promoting this myth of Thomas Edison.

  • Thomas Edison became the marketing mouthpiece

  • of this broader organization.

  • So they basically found a way to take advantage of two things.

  • That we love this lone creator story and that

  • we all benefit from collaboration.

  • Now sadly the damaging thing they did

  • is they propagated this lone creator myth.

  • But they're also, if you know the truth,

  • they're a testament to this power of collaboration.

  • And there's a lot of researchers that are doing work

  • showing, OK, so we know collaboration works.

  • But how do we do this?

  • What's the right level of collaboration?

  • And one of my favorites is a study

  • by two guys, Brian Uzzi and Jarrett Spiro.

  • Sorry, not "Uzi", Uzzi, like the gun.

  • I had the opportunity to talk to Brian a little while ago

  • much more in depth about his study.

  • And I learned that I've been mispronouncing

  • his name for several years.

  • But anyway, so their study looked at Broadway,

  • because Broadway is an interesting ecosystem.

  • To put on a Broadway show you need six people in you're

  • senior leadership team.

  • You need a composer, a librettist, a lyricist,

  • a choreographer, a director, and a producer.

  • You don't have to know what all of those things do,

  • but you need all six of them.

  • And so at any given time you can have

  • a show that has all six people who have worked together before

  • or have been totally new.

  • So you think about red, all new connections,

  • and black, all old connections.

  • So you can have people who have worked together

  • on projects before and be incredibly successful.

  • They're a super team.

  • Or you can have a team of total newbies and strangers.

  • Now which team would you want to put your money on?

  • Let's number them.

  • So like a scale of one to five.

  • You want to put your money on one?

  • You want to put your money on five?

  • of course not.

  • You know it's a trick question.

  • How many people want to put their money on three?

  • You're also wrong.

  • 2.6, that's how you know it's true.

  • That's how you know they did proper analysis.

  • It didn't magically work out to be three.

  • 2.6.

  • So what they found is that in any given year--

  • essentially this 2.6 number is what

  • they call small world quotient.

  • And it's representative of how many different combinations

  • in the entire year for Broadway that they had.

  • They found that the best years for Broadway

  • were when if you graphed this phenomenon, you arrive at a 2.6

  • on a scale of one to five.

  • And so I said earlier I had a chance

  • to talk to Brian about this study.

  • And one of the questions that I asked him was,

  • hey, I've read about your study before

  • and I'm not the first person to write about it.

  • What's the most frustrating thing about your study

  • that people, when they write about it, that people do?

  • He said the most frustrating thing

  • is that people assume that means we need 2.6 teams, right.

  • We need teams that are at 2.6.

  • Our study is not about that.

  • Our study is about something much broader.

  • Because they didn't graph the team.

  • They graphed the network.

  • So at any given year for Broadway

  • we give it a score of a 2.6 and it's

  • going to be one of the better years.

  • And that's a really interesting ramification

  • because here's the thing if you think about it.

  • A 2.6 team doesn't stay a 2.6 team for very long.

  • You can arrive at building a 2.6 team, a great combination

  • of old colleagues and new fresh ideas.

  • But it won't stay that way.

  • Eventually it'll devolve into a one

  • as people get too experienced.

  • So the question isn't how do you find and build a 2.6 team.

  • It's how do you build a network that allows a 2.6 team to form,

  • and then at the right moment disband.

  • The beautiful thing about a Broadway show

  • is that if it's not "Cats" it will eventually end.

  • And those connections, those ideas, they

  • will all go to a different show.

  • So how do you structure a company,

  • how do you structure an organization,

  • how do you structure a society that

  • allows for those connections to be made and then disband

  • after the mission is complete?

  • Now that's an interesting question.

  • And we could think about it at an organizational level.

  • How do we do this in a company?

  • But I think much easier and much more important

  • is to think about it on your own individual level.

  • Are you currently in a network that

  • allows for you to form a 2.6 team around people

  • when you have a need?

  • When you need an insight do you go to the same six people?

  • Or do you have a network that allows

  • you to tap some people who have no experience in the field

  • and you don't really even know all that well and some people

  • who are old friends?

  • Most of us, I would argue, go to the old friends,

  • go to the people we know, we trust.

  • Even inside an organization, we have a problem,

  • we go to the person we know we trust.

  • Most of us don't think about, hmm,

  • I need a 2.6 team around me.

  • So I think that's a really interesting question to sort

  • of audit your own life, your work life, career with.

  • Is am I in a network, a small world network,

  • as Uzzi and Spiro would call it?

  • That allows for 2.6 teams to be formed and disbanded properly.

  • Now, you can do all of this stuff right

  • and still not get it.

  • The most devastating story, I talked about this

  • a little bit earlier, that I think we tell ourselves,

  • is the story that I call the Mousetrap story,

  • the Mousetrap myth.

  • And it's taken from this phrase-- you've all heard it--

  • if you build a better mousetrap--

  • AUDIENCE: The world will beat a--

  • DAVID BURKUS: The world will beat a path to your door.

  • It's a catchy saying, right.

  • It's total rubbish, total rubbish.

  • The actual mousetrap, right.

  • So everybody picture a mousetrap.

  • Picture a mousetrap.

  • You're picturing a wooden board, a metal spring, some cheese,

  • because there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.

  • You're picturing a device that was invented in 1899.

  • And every year since then 400 patent applications

  • come in to the US Patent Office for new and better, supposedly

  • better, mousetraps.

  • Some of them actually are better.

  • About 20 of them have been developed

  • into commercially viable products.

  • You call an exterminator, they will not

  • bring spring loaded mousetraps.

  • You'll buy them.

  • But they won't bring them.

  • Maybe it's that expertise thing, who knows.

  • But you're picturing something that was invented in 1899.

  • Interestingly enough, this is a total coincidence

  • but it's a fun one.

  • In 1899 Charles Duell, the chief of the US Patent Office,

  • actually told the government we should close up shop.

  • Nothing new is going to be invented.

  • Those both happened in 1899.

  • What's going on here?

  • Why does this happen?

  • We live in-- you live, we live, I

  • live in the middle coast of America.

  • But you all live in a valley built on the idea of so and so

  • invented it, didn't develop it, somebody else did.

  • I drove by the Computer History Museum

  • and it's basically that story.

  • The same thing happens in a variety of other fields.

  • And great ideas get rejected all the time.

  • My favorite example, actually, comes from music.

  • Anyone a fan of Igor Stravinsky?

  • I have a two-year-old son which means

  • that I watch a lot a "Little Einsteins."

  • Which means I am now a fan of Igor Stravinsky.

  • Igor Stravinsky's greatest work was what?

  • "The Rite of Spring."

  • How many people have heard "The Rite of Spring"?

  • Actually, all of you, because I'm

  • going to guess at some point you watched Fantasia.

  • And it's in there.

  • "The Rite of Spring" is famous not just

  • for shifting the history of ballet and musical composition.

  • It's famous for causing not one, but two riots on it's

  • opening night in Paris.

  • So the show went on.

  • It was very different from a traditional ballet at the time.

  • Some people loved it.

  • Other people hated it, loathed it.

  • And those people began to argue, didn't

  • wait to go out for coffee afterwards

  • and discuss the pros and cons.

  • They started arguing while the show was going on.

  • Arguments turned into shouting, turned

  • into pushing and shoving, turned into fistfights,

  • turned into riots.

  • Parisian police actually storm in,

  • separate out the two parties.

  • And then on with the show.

  • I have no idea why.

  • Brief intermission, and then on with the show.

  • Same thing happens.

  • Stravinsky, himself, actually fled

  • the theater, feared for his life,

  • never got to see the curtain close on what

  • would become his most famous piece.

  • History is filled with great ideas.

  • They get rejected.

  • They get rejected all the time.

  • There are the literal mousetraps,

  • and there are metaphorical mousetraps.

  • What's happening is that for an idea to be innovative,

  • for it to be a disruptive innovation,

  • for it to be a great idea, it has to be new

  • and it has to be useful.

  • And it turns out we're really bad at reconciling those two

  • things.

  • Because if something is new, by definition,

  • it diverts from the status quo.

  • But if something we want to judge is useful,

  • what do we rely on to judge whether or not

  • something is useful?

  • Status quo, older ideas, our past expertise.

  • This is that expertise myth, sort

  • of all over again, but on a societal level.

  • And what you get, what we find in research, especially

  • in times of uncertainty and in situations of uncertainty,

  • we may say we love new ideas.

  • But we will always cling to the comfort

  • of what appears to be useful.

  • And so on the surface we say, I hear this all the time

  • from organizations.

  • You can title a book about how companies generate great ideas.

  • And people read it.

  • Then you give them this last chapter,

  • mousetrap myth thing about, it's not actually

  • about generating great ideas.

  • Odds are your people are already doing that.

  • It's about how bad we all are at recognizing

  • the great ideas that are coming out.

  • And there are a bunch of different tools

  • that you can use.

  • So there are companies that have internal stock markets.

  • And there are other companies that

  • allow for a little, sort of, hackathons.

  • There are other companies that allow for sort of a burn fund.

  • We know we can lose this much money on new stuff

  • and we'll just write it off.

  • And I don't want to talk about the techniques

  • because the techniques are great,

  • but unless we actually talk about the psychological bias we

  • all have against great ideas.

  • It's sort of like an Alcoholics Anonymous.

  • Call it Creatives Anonymous.

  • Hi I'm Dave and I have a bias against great new ideas.

  • And until you actually become aware of that bias,

  • and when you're presented with a new idea--

  • even if it's something small-- until you become aware of it

  • and you realize that I am evaluating this idea based

  • on my past experiences and that might not be the right thing.

  • Until you come to that we run into a big problem.

  • See I talked earlier about, you have a Kindergarten classroom.

  • 25 kids, they're all creative.

  • They get to college, two of them are.

  • And even they're cheating.

  • So what is it that happens in those years?

  • It's not necessarily the education system.

  • We can tweak the education system all we want.

  • It's that we as people, when we're

  • evaluating the ideas of these kids who are coming up,

  • we are suffering this bias.

  • And they get a new idea that doesn't

  • jive with our status quo.

  • And we say, that's a terrible idea.

  • Maybe it's a good idea.

  • Maybe it's a good idea for where that person is.

  • And then we graduate into work.

  • And, by the way, it's not all that different, right?

  • I used to get a report card.

  • Now I get a performance evaluation.

  • It's the same system.

  • The letters changed.

  • That's about it.

  • The competencies might change.

  • I haven't had to solve for x in a long time.

  • But that's because of where I work.

  • So the competencies change, but it's still

  • an evaluation system.

  • It's an evaluation system based on this idea

  • that our old experiences define what good looks like.

  • And when you present a new idea that

  • doesn't jive with our old experiences

  • it's not going to work, until, of course, it does.

  • See the beautiful thing that, the lesson

  • that I like to really emphasize in the mousetrap myth

  • is that you all heard "The Rite of Spring."

  • You all, presumably, have used a personal computer,

  • another great idea that got rejected at first.

  • You all have used a digital camera.

  • That got rejected by the people that developed it.

  • How may people have been to Disneyland?

  • That was rejected 301 times for a loan.

  • Legend says.

  • I actually had a hard time sourcing that.

  • But it's too good to not be true.

  • So you all have presumably been to Disneyland.

  • All of these great ideas that are truly great

  • eventually persist.

  • And so I think the best place to begin--

  • there's a much broader long term discussion

  • we need to have about structure and organizations in societies.

  • But the best place to begin is if you've ever had a great idea

  • and it got rejected, take heart.

  • You're in really good company.

  • You're in the company of Igor Stravinsky.

  • You're in the company of Walt Disney.

  • You're in the company of people who eventually did actually

  • arrive at that.

  • So take heart.

  • Know that they're doing that with-- they had that bias.

  • They're suffering.

  • It's their problem.

  • But at the same time realize this means

  • I need to work on mine too.

  • Because most of the organizations

  • that I talk to start with this idea of how do

  • we get more great ideas.

  • And for most of them the truth is all the same.

  • We don't need more great ideas.

  • We just need to get better at recognizing

  • the great ideas we already have.

  • We need to tell ourselves that story.

  • We need to make sure that that idea spreads.

  • So thank you so much.

  • I know we covered a ton of different stuff in this.

  • And there's a lot of different ideas to spread and myths

  • we need to rewrite.

  • But we also covered a ton of stuff.

  • And I want to know what questions do you have for me.

  • AUDIENCE: So is this your next book?

  • Or how do we get better at recognizing

  • the ideas that we've already gotten?

  • DAVID BURKUS: So I talk about a couple companies

  • that are really good at it.

  • My favorite in the book is a company

  • called Right Solutions that actually has an idea stock

  • market.

  • So you can basically invest in virtual currency

  • and different ideas that people post on this internal market.

  • And that doesn't necessarily counteract

  • our psychological bias.

  • But it sort of spreads out the pain of being wrong.

  • If I green light an idea and it cost me 10 virtual dollars.

  • And it turns out to be a terrible one,

  • I didn't lose much.

  • But as you think about a traditional hierarchy

  • organization, the higher up you go in an organization,

  • the more-- let's be honest-- the more your job is just

  • to not get fired.

  • You get to that top, top level.

  • And this is pretty sweet.

  • You think about-- the Fortune 500 list just came out.

  • Every Fortune 500 CEO is like, this is a sweet gig.

  • I don't want to lose it.

  • So I don't want to take big risks.

  • That's the sort of psychological thing, I think,

  • that's behind much more empirically proven

  • concepts like Clay Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma."

  • We're just trying to not get fired.

  • In marketing there's a saying that nobody ever

  • got fired for running a Super Bowl ad.

  • It's good advice.

  • If you don't want to get fired.

  • If you want to do a disruptive innovation,

  • you got to think a little bit differently.

  • So it's actually not the next book because I wish I knew.

  • I'm hoping to start a much bigger conversation.

  • And maybe it's the third book because there's

  • a lot more talk that needs to happen.

  • I will say there is some interesting work by Everett

  • Rogers.

  • He's actually the guy that came up

  • with the diffusion of innovation curve.

  • And he has some interesting research

  • on-- there are five factors that ideas,

  • that make it all the way through that curve, all share.

  • And so it's kind of a good guide of when you have this idea,

  • does it have these five things.

  • Well, then maybe I should green light

  • even if it says it's crazy.

  • And so those things are, is it easily try-able?

  • Even if it diverts from the status quo

  • can you see the connection between what you use to do

  • and what you do now?

  • Are the results easily observable?

  • So can the improvement be seen really easily

  • or does it take forever?

  • And I'm blanking on the other two.

  • But they're there.

  • So Everett Rogers is the author of these five factors.

  • I actually wrote a piece about it for "99U."

  • And I'm blanking on the other two.

  • But that's OK.

  • They're there.

  • Why bother to remember when Google can tell me?

  • AUDIENCE: So in the Amazon reviews

  • that I peeked at shortly before coming--

  • DAVID BURKUS: Wow.

  • That's incredibly intimidating.

  • OK.

  • AUDIENCE: It's not bad.

  • No, I saw some stuff about the creativity process

  • at Pixar that you had written about.

  • Can you talk a little bit about that?

  • DAVID BURKUS: Yeah.

  • So I don't want to steal too much of Ed's thunder.

  • Ed Catmull just wrote an amazing book

  • called "Creativity, Inc." that's his, for lack of a better term,

  • opening up the kimono and saying here's how we do it.

  • And what's funny is I tried really

  • hard to get more than what had been previously written.

  • But because Ed was working on that book

  • I didn't really want to talk to somebody else writing

  • about their process.

  • But there's a lot that's already readily shared.

  • And the thing that I think is most telling,

  • the most useful thing I think about when

  • I think about the process of Pixar's, Ed

  • is fond of always saying that every film at Pixar

  • sucks when its first idea comes out.

  • And then they go through a process

  • of going from suck to non-suck.

  • And presumably when it non-sucks enough they ship it.

  • And that process is actually using criticism.

  • So there's a chapter in the book that I

  • call the cohesive myth, because we have this idea that it

  • always works out happy go lucky, free food, all

  • that sort of stuff.

  • And from an outside perspective looking in,

  • you just feel like these people never fight.

  • Well, at Pixar they fight all the time.

  • They fight at these things called dailies.

  • They're not personal fights.

  • But they are, I don't like this about this frame.

  • And the thing that Pixar does a lot of times

  • is they steal from improv.

  • Anybody ever taken an improv class?

  • So first rule of improv, always accept an offer.

  • I always say yes and--.

  • So they do this thing called plussing,

  • where even if you're criticizing you are building off

  • of that criticism with a suggestion.

  • So Even if you're criticizing you're still staying positive.

  • And when your complementing, you're still building off of.

  • The idea is you're criticizing people.

  • You're not doing the compliment sandwich.

  • Has anybody ever eaten a compliment sandwich?

  • They don't taste good.

  • You're not saying like, here's an unrelated thing

  • you're good at.

  • Here's where you suck.

  • Here's an unrelated thing you're good at.

  • But it's this part sucks.

  • And by the way, it's not you suck, but this thing sucks.

  • And here's my idea to fix it.

  • And I accept or reject that you can take it.

  • But I accept that if I'm going to criticize

  • I have an obligation to give you a suggestion to make it better.

  • Unfortunately I wrote about this too much.

  • I don't like to share it because then when I criticize,

  • people look back at me and go well, you owe me a plus now.

  • You're under an obligation to give me back it.

  • And sometimes I just don't have them,

  • because we're really good at criticizing.

  • But it takes time to really get it into your head

  • that every time I'm going to criticize something I also

  • have to offer a solution, or a potential solution.

  • AUDIENCE: Have you witnessed any meeting structures

  • or organization layouts, they way they set up

  • the company, that destroy creativity?

  • DAVID BURKUS: Hierarchy, cubicles, lots of stuff.

  • No, I mean, a particular one?

  • I think one of the really interesting things

  • is, I think what we have, and this interestingly enough--

  • he ran off-- is the subject of the next book.

  • At least for me, is I think we have, in general,

  • a philosophy of management and a philosophy of leadership that's

  • based on making a car, or making some product in an assembly

  • line format.

  • And gradually, over time, some more enlightened companies

  • with multi-colored logos have come to the realization

  • that you can't use that stuff over here.

  • But at a worldwide level I don't think

  • we've gotten to that awareness yet.

  • And even inside of those companies

  • I don't know that they've gotten to the idea

  • that we need to think about building

  • systems around the needs and the capabilities of people

  • and not of the product.

  • Because when you have a knowledge work economy

  • your people are your product.

  • There's this phrase, our people are our greatest asset.

  • You've heard it?

  • I hate that phrase.

  • I loathe it because assets can be bought, sold.

  • Assets have systems to control them, to leverage their value.

  • Your people are your greatest source

  • of competitive advantage.

  • And that's a much different approach

  • because that's not something you can buy, sell, and trade

  • like a stock or a major league baseball player.

  • Those people might be assets.

  • But normally our people are our source of competitive advantage

  • or our source of ideas.

  • And any system that doesn't start with the idea of here

  • are the people.

  • And now based on what we know about the needs

  • and capabilities of people, we'll

  • build the system around them.

  • I wish I could say this system is bad and this one's great.

  • And everybody should do holacracy or whatever

  • the current management fad is.

  • The point is to build a system of management and leadership

  • around the needs of your people, and then go from there.

  • And never be afraid to tweak as those needs change,

  • because they will.

  • AUDIENCE: So at the beginning you

  • mentioned society or the environment that

  • might be encouraging creativity or not or a lot of judgment.

  • So I wonder, like Silcon Valley is

  • famous for a lot of projects, exciting companies, and so on.

  • But what happened other places that the culture is totally

  • the opposite.

  • How can you still succeed in that kind of environment

  • or what suggestion do you have?

  • DAVID BURKUS: So we have two layers to that question

  • if I may.

  • So there's the idea of what about these other companies.

  • First of all, how did that happen?

  • Some really interesting research that basically

  • non-compete clauses and some other stuff.

  • Essentially you have this culture

  • of secrecy in a lot of places.

  • Like why did Silicon Valley beat out Route 128 decades ago?

  • Well, one was about keeping ideas secret,

  • very, very secret.

  • Other was about open sharing of ideas.

  • There are always exceptions that prove the rule.

  • One is not far from here.

  • The rest of them are-- usually you

  • have the more your open with sharing of ideas

  • around an organization and the more tolerant

  • you are of those new ideas.

  • So what do you do if you're stuck

  • in one, if you're stuck on Route 128?

  • First of all you may not be there for long.

  • I grew up not far from there.

  • I remember in Lowell, Massachusetts there's

  • this massive building, the Wang building.

  • And it was empty for years.

  • And it was a testament to like, this doesn't work.

  • And I never forgot that.

  • I moved away fairly often but I never forgot that idea.

  • You're smiling because you've probably seen

  • the Wang building, right.

  • AUDIENCE: Yeah, right off [INAUDIBLE].

  • DAVID BURKUS: Yeah, yeah.

  • Exactly, exactly.

  • So testament too that the social environment matters.

  • So what do you do if you stuck-- first

  • of all if you're stuck in a company like that you

  • won't be there for long.

  • It'll fold up and you'll go somewhere else.

  • The other thing, I think, is a lot

  • of us don't appreciate that we have this work life balance

  • approach of like it's two different things,

  • and we need to balance the two instead of integrate and merge

  • around.

  • And there are obviously legal limits to how much

  • you're supposed to share.

  • My wife's an ER doctor so there's

  • some stuff she's not legally allowed to share.

  • But there's other things that she comes home with

  • and we talk about.

  • And so I think if you're stuck in a company that doesn't allow

  • that, find some other way to at least

  • be in a social environment that supports that,

  • even if you know it's not going to work in your company.

  • And build an exit plan.

  • It's a sad thing.

  • But the fun thing.

  • There's a woman by the name of Orly Lobel who's

  • done a lot of research on talent that moves around,

  • non-compete clauses, and that sort of stuff.

  • And she encapsulates this idea that talent wants to be free.

  • Not free in the sense that they don't want to work for anyone

  • and they just want to be freelancers.

  • But they want to know that when they have an idea

  • they're free to pursue it.

  • If they need to move to a different organization,

  • if they need to share it with people outside,

  • that they have freedom.

  • So if you are talent and you want to be free and you're not,

  • get free.

  • Now if your an organization and all your talent's leaving,

  • there's a lesson for you in somebody else's book called

  • "Talent wants to be Free" that will help you a lot.

  • But first, of course, read the one with the monkey

  • on the cover.

  • AUDIENCE: You made a comparison between Kindergarten

  • and college classes.

  • And I was wondering if you've come

  • across any individuals or any stories

  • about people who've actually retained

  • the same level of creativity they

  • had when they were in kindergarten.

  • DAVID BURKUS: So I like to bridge

  • the gap between what I can empirically prove

  • and what I can turn into a good story.

  • And in this case I can't.

  • But I can tell you that a lot of people's stories or ideas

  • flow around.

  • This is, I think, why we actually

  • associate certain disciplines as creative and others as not.

  • So if you were that free spirit that the traditional system is

  • kind of crushing, there are places

  • where you find solace and sanctuary, the art

  • classroom if it still exists in your public school, theater,

  • music.

  • There are just certain disciplines

  • where that environment is there and so you naturally

  • gravitate towards it.

  • And because it supports that you begin to practice.

  • And practice really does, well deliberate practice,

  • really does make perfect.

  • So I think, one specific story, no.

  • But I think the reason people gravitate

  • towards certain fields sometimes is just that.

  • They feel like they have this desire to express themselves

  • and they find sanctuary somewhere.

  • As a story on a personal note that sort of resonates with me.

  • I have two siblings.

  • One is a musician.

  • The other's in music theater.

  • And I'm a writer.

  • And all three of us were sort of attracted to that early on.

  • All three of us did terribly in the school systems

  • until we arrived at that place of study

  • where we could actually do what we wanted to do

  • and then thrived.

  • So it happens.

  • AUDIENCE: The talk it out.

  • I'm kind of curious about the idea of the 2.6.

  • I feel like the inverse U of how if you

  • have too much kind of difference or too much unity like those

  • could be kind of limiting factors.

  • And I'm curious whether you have any thoughts on how

  • either companies or things should structure themselves

  • according to that.

  • Because in the political system you've

  • got political parties switching in and out.

  • There's elections so you can get new people in,

  • old people out and stuff like that.

  • Do you feel like companies--

  • DAVID BURKUS: That'd be ideal but I

  • don't know that that happens.

  • So what you have is you have your party

  • that's in and then when they're voted out they'll move over

  • to this think tank and they wait for another cycle.

  • And they all come back in.

  • So you don't get the 2.6.

  • I mean I would love for that to happen.

  • There is, interestingly enough, from right here,

  • it started in San Francisco.

  • There's an awesome nonprofit called Fuse Corps that actually

  • works to sort of build 2.6 teams.

  • What they essentially do is they place fellows.

  • They hate when I use this analogy but it works.

  • They're sort of like Teach for America

  • but for city and state governments.

  • So they try and place mid-career professionals and entrepreneurs

  • into city and state governments in order

  • to bring those fresh ideas in.

  • The other thing I think a lot of industrial design

  • and consulting firms have a structure

  • that allows them to do that.

  • Roger Martin from the Rotman School up in Toronto actually

  • had this great article a couple months ago in the Harvard

  • Business Review around, even economically there

  • may be a case for the consultancy firm model,

  • where people are always moving around to different projects.

  • Because when you have an economic downturn, if you've

  • structured boxes and lines in a traditional hierarchy then

  • you look and go, this segment's not performing.

  • We spit it off.

  • But if you have a much more fluid structure than you

  • can adapt quicker and possibly not lay as many people off

  • and then have to scramble to find new people when

  • it comes back.

  • That's where it sucks.

  • So there's maybe even an economic case

  • to be made for that little bit more fluid.

  • We're really at the beginning of figuring out

  • what does this model look like, because it doesn't look

  • like boxes and lines and factory assembly lines

  • and that sort of stuff.

  • AUDIENCE: So some of the stuff you talked about reminded me

  • of The Smart Stranger, which I think

  • you kind of started to allude to.

  • But this idea that someone who's smart--

  • the mathematician that you were talking about.

  • DAVID BURKUS: Paul Erdos.

  • AUDIENCE: Erdos.

  • OK.

  • So he was--

  • DAVID BURKUS: Our only mathematician already left.

  • Shame.

  • AUDIENCE: Like he was playing the role of the smart stranger

  • where you're a smart person and then

  • you jump into an environment that you're not familiar with.

  • And that that actually sparks innovation and creativity.

  • Since it sounds like you're also in business school

  • stuff probably?

  • So is anyone looking at the opportunities

  • of formalizing a smart stranger as like a role,

  • almost, in companies to spark innovation?

  • This is like kind of wild, but--

  • DAVID BURKUS: What?

  • AUDIENCE: Like 20% of the time it's kind of like that.

  • DAVID BURKUS: Similar in the idea

  • you play around with something you're new at.

  • I think you're talking about a deliberate role.

  • Almost like you have a devil's advocate for criticism.

  • You have the smart stranger for like-- I'm

  • really hesitant because obviously this

  • is being recorded and will be world wide

  • and I want to pretend like this is our idea and trademark it.

  • And then we'll spin it off.

  • But it's actually a really good idea.

  • AUDIENCE: We'll talk later.

  • DAVID BURKUS: Yeah, for sure.

  • It's actually a really good idea in a formal role.

  • I don't know of anything.

  • One of the things I love again, this

  • comes out of Roger Martin again and Michael Porter

  • and the consulting group that they started years

  • ago in strategy.

  • One of the really common questions

  • that doesn't get asked often enough when you're building

  • a strategy, is what assumptions have to be true for this

  • to work?

  • And really just taking the deliberate,

  • did we remember to ask that question.

  • Because even that's like OK, let's

  • assume all of our assumptions are wrong and then prove them.

  • Some of them may not be true.

  • And so you can arrive at that same sort of expertise thing.

  • I think the other thing, the thing that we especially-- I'm

  • an American so I'm terrible at-- is just

  • stop pretending to be an expert in everything.

  • I think it's really interesting.

  • I walk in sometimes to organizations or conferences.

  • And we do a prep call.

  • And sometimes I've researched them and other times I haven't.

  • Mostly just ran out of time.

  • And I used to like pretend that I had researched them.

  • Now I'm on Wikipedia while I'm on the phone.

  • But this amazing thing happened when I said,

  • no, I really don't know much about your company.

  • Tell me about it.

  • And it's amazing because when you sort of swallow your pride

  • that you don't know everything, they'll

  • tell you the stuff that isn't necessarily

  • factual but the stuff you actually need to know.

  • So this is an amazing thing that can happen when you just go,

  • no I'm sorry.

  • I tried.

  • I didn't have the time.

  • Tell me about it.

  • You don't even have to say, tell me what's important to you.

  • They just will.

  • So it's, yeah, smart stranger thing.

  • I really need to go to a trademark search on that.

  • We'll talk.

  • FEMALE SPEAKER: But thank you so much for your time

  • and we've really enjoyed hosting you.

  • DAVID BURKUS: Thank you.

FEMALE SPEAKER: Hello and welcome to today's talk

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it