Wired to Create: The Chaos of the Inventive Mind

The New York Times: “Creativity is a process that reflects our fundamentally chaotic and multifaceted nature,” write Scott Barry Kaufman and Carolyn Gregoire, authors of Wired to Create. “It is both deliberate and uncontrollable, mindful and mindless, work and play.”

“While creative people run the gamut of personalities, Dr. Kaufman’s research has shown that openness to experience is more highly correlated to creative output than I.Q., divergent thinking or any other personality trait. This openness often yields a drive for exploration … These are people energized and motivated by the possibility of discovering new information.”

“It’s the thrill of the knowledge chase that most excites them,” the authors write, while also noting that turning that knowledge into ideas can be an uncomfortable process: “Those murky, ambiguous places, as highly imaginative people well know, are quite often where the creative magic happens,” they advise.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Does The Jump Shot Wreck Teamwork?

The Wall Street Journal: “It’s impossible to name any one creator of the jump shot, but once it appeared, it brought chaos to a previously controlled game. In the early 20th century, basketball offenses featured weaves and passes until an open player could fire a set shot—both feet firmly planted on the ground—with two hands … Many of the first jump shooters … redefined what was possible. They held the ball over their head as they leapt, making their shots impossible to block.”

“As the popularity of the jump shot spread, basketball turned into a high-scoring spectacle … Consider the impact of the shot on college basketball. Starting in 1939, the first 11 NCAA national championship games featured an average score of 49.1–39.2. By the following decade (1950-59), scoring had increased by an order of magnitude, with the title game averaging 74.9–66.2. Yet critics still ridiculed the tactic.”

“Hall of Famer Dick McGuire … believed that the jump shot gave individuals too much power, robbing the game of teamwork … Former Notre Dame coach Moose Krause … believed that basketball became too easy by 1957 and ‘gets less and less interesting every year.'”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

When Collaboration = Interruption

The Economist: “Why have organisations been so naive about collaboration? One reason is that … any fool can record how many people post messages on Slack or speak up in meetings, whereas it can take years to discover whether somebody who is sitting alone in an office is producing a breakthrough or twiddling his thumbs … A second reason is that managers often feel obliged to be seen to manage: left to their own devices they automatically fill everybody’s days with meetings and memos rather than letting them get on with their work.”

“About 20% of company stars keep themselves to themselves. So organisations need to do more to recognise that the amount of time workers have available is finite, that every request to attend a meeting or engage in an internet discussion leaves less time for focused work and that seemingly small demands on people’s time can quickly compound into big demands. Helping people to collaborate is a wonderful thing. Giving them the time to think is even better.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Loyalty & The Late Adopter

Those who are slower to adopt new products or services tend to be more loyal to their choices, reports The Wall Street Journal.

Typically, a late adopter is “a person who buys a product or service after half of a population has done so. Late adopters tend to share certain characteristics: They are skeptical of marketing and tend to point out differences between advertised claims and the actual product. They often value a product’s core attributes, ignoring the bells and whistles intended to upsell the latest model. They may not try something new until weeks, months or even years after the crowd has moved on.”

“It takes a long time to change late adopters, but once they’ve done all that research, and once they are convinced about a product, they are going to stay for a long time,” says Sara Jahanmir of the Nova School of Business and Economics in Lisbon.

Late adopters are also believed to have “important things to tell companies about the role new products should play. Because they tend to be highly critical, late adopters can be useful to companies perfecting their wares … By listening to late adopters of the old version of a product, developers can create a new version that is quicker to be adopted.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Is The Deck Stacked Against Disruptive Innovation?

The Wall Street Journal: “Anshu Sharma, a venture capitalist at Storm Ventures, thinks he knows why so many companies that should have all the resources and brainpower required to build the next big thing so often fail to do so. He calls his thesis the ‘stack theory’ … the mistaken belief that” building something new is a simple matter of “moving up the stack.”

The “stack” is a “layer cake of technology, one level of abstraction sitting atop the next that ultimately delivers a product or service to the user.” IBM, for example, “moved up the stack from making things that compute to selling the services that computation enables … Google tried to move up the stack from search to social networking.” Apple apparently hopes to move up the stack to make electric cars.

According to Mr. Sharma, failure to move up the stack happen when the company lacks empathy for its customers and doesn’t understand its customers’ wants or needs. It’s generally easier to move down the stack (e.g., Tesla builds its own batteries because it knows its own requirements). Uber would be more likely to succeed at building its own cars than General Motors would be at creating a ride-sharing service. That’s because “Uber has the advantage of knowing exactly what it needs in a vehicle for such a service.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Volvo Promises a Death-Proof Car by 2020

Christian Science Monitor: “Volvo says its “vehicles will be death-proof by 2020, making good on industry promises that autonomous vehicles are not just cool, but life-saving … Volvo’s 2020 plans will bring together sensor technology like adaptive cruise control, which can work in stop-and-go commuter traffic; it’s already an option in its XC90 SUV, which won the North American Truck of the Year award and a Top Safety Pick Plus from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.”

“The company’s supposedly death-defying cars will also use sensing and alerting technology to let drivers know when it senses the car is going off the road, turning into oncoming traffic, or about to hit a cyclist or large animal — and if that doesn’t work, they’ll put on the brakes automatically. The vehicles will even keep an eye out for sleepy or distracted drivers, sounding a warning if erratic driving suggests someone’s nodding off behind the wheel.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail