Creative Conspiracy. Leigh Thompson

or just downright selfish!).

      I warned you that some of the ideas in this book would not be politically or organizationally correct. This is one of them. For years, we’ve been told to act more like team players and put self-interest aside. In fact, that advice does not make sense for creative teamwork. People who are pro-self and have a high concern for their own interests are actually more creative than people who are pro-social.

      How do you know if you are pro-self or pro-social? Well, as a start, do you resonate more with the statements like, “I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects” or statements like, “Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I avoid an argument”? Are you more likely to state, “I do my own thing, regardless of what others think” or “It is important to maintain harmony within my own group”? What about, “I prefer to be direct and forthright when dealing with people I’ve just met” versus “I usually go along with what others want to do, even when I would rather do something different”? If you tended to agree with the first statement in each pair, chances are you are primarily pro-self. If you tended to agree with the second statement in each pair, chances are you are primarily pro-social. Don’t misunderstand me—being pro-social is very advantageous in many, if not most, of life’s situations. It is just not conducive to thinking creatively.

      However, this book doesn’t advocate creating a culture of self-centeredness. Rather, it points to ways of temporarily putting pro-social, communal concerns aside during a focused brainstorming session in order to activate or ignite a pro-self orientation for increased creativity. In my research with social psychologists Wendi Gardner at Northwestern University and Elizabeth Seeley at New York University, we’ve used a technique to temporarily engage pro-self views. To prompt people to be self-absorbed, we have them write or read statements that contain a lot of personal pronouns such as I, me, and mine. Conversely, to get people to focus on others, we have them read or write statements that contain pronouns such as we, us, and ours. We find that this simple mind exercise can temporarily activate either pro-self or pro-social concerns.

      Myth #8: Calming, relaxing, peaceful deactivating moods lead to more creativity than activating moods.

      There is a widespread belief that creativity is best served through inner peace, serenity, and calmness. One of my colleagues was convinced that her own creative writing was best when she had no distractions, quietly sipping tea in a peaceful setting. However, after three months of such languid writing days, she produced nothing that she was proud of. Shortly thereafter, her first baby was born and her schedule went from long, open, peaceful, unstructured days to tightly orchestrated, minute-by-minute slots, punctuated by extreme activity. The result? She became prolifically productive. In her words, she was “wired.” The way she put it to me was, “I have ninety minutes when Sam is napping, and I run to the computer and write like crazy. I’m totally focused.” Turns out, my colleague is onto something. In fact, it is better to be aroused when attempting to think creatively.

      In my research with Brian Lucas, we interviewed people about how they structure their environment when they want to be creative. Common responses included doing yoga, meditating, taking a nature walk, and looking at pleasant art. So, we put this to the test: we had some people listen to their favorite music, but we made others listen to a (boring) political speech. As you might expect, when people were listening to the speech, they became annoyed, frustrated, and agitated. Those listening to their favorite songs grew more relaxed and serene. We then examined their behavior in a creativity challenge and found that those who had listened to music dramatically underperformed in comparison with those who had been frustrated by the annoying political speeches!

      Assess Your Team’s Creative Know-How

      Now that we’ve poked holes in some of the big myths surrounding creative collaboration, what can we do to make sure our own teams don’t get ensnared by practices that limit their creativity? First, we need to set the stage by seeing where you are in terms of creative collaboration competence.

      Think about the last meeting you had in which the task called for creativity. What did you do to set the stage? If you are like most people, you did not do anything different—or maybe you brought in the doughnuts! Most teams run every meeting the same way, no matter what the business at hand is. High-performance teams, however, constantly change gears so as to optimally meet the challenge of the day. If that challenge involves brain surgery or a SWAT mission, then clearly defined roles, top-down leadership, and a strong prevention focus (i.e., focus on what can go wrong and avoiding bad outcomes) is necessary. However, if the challenge of the day calls for brainstorming a new product idea or new ways of engaging customers, then the team must organize itself to be at its creative best, which will call for a different set of norms and behaviors. Establishing the ground rules that allow these norms and behaviors to occur is the part and parcel of the creative conspiracy.

      Most people float into meetings and conference rooms that look strangely similar to one another, no matter what the true business at hand it. Why? In the Creative Collaboration Assessment that follows, we ask you to think about how your team conducts itself. Where do you meet? What are the spoken and unspoken rules of engagement? And how about these questions? Does anyone facilitate the meeting? Are any special props or materials brought in for the meeting? Are ground rules discussed? Sadly, most of the time, the answer is no, no, and not really. This suggests that leaders are not making most efficient use of their scarcest resource: people’s time.

      I developed a Creative Collaboration Assessment that invites you to examine your team’s creative meetings—which, if your organization is like most, absorb at least 25 percent of your time, and often up to 50 percent or more. Once you have taken stock of just how you are using your own and other people’s meeting time, turn to the scientifically tested best practices for optimizing the creative meeting contained in the assessment below. I suggest that you begin by completing the assessment yourself and then conduct an open-ended conversation among your team’s members. Does everyone see the group’s process in the same way? Where are the points of agreement? Disagreement? What works well in terms of your group’s process? What does not work? What practices should be added? What processes should be abandoned? What needs modification?

      The Creative Collaboration Assessment contains twenty items. As you consider them, imagine that a team psychologist is observing your team’s every move through a one-way mirror. The psychologist is well trained and has studied thousands of teams. How would that psychologist describe your team? In short, take an objective look at your team.

      The Creative Collaboration Assessment

      1 With regard to ground rules and norms in our creativity sessions, my team … operates with dysfunctional rules and norms (0) really does not have any clear rules or norms (1) has knowledge of effective ground rules, but does not regularly use nor enforce them (2) regularly operates with at least the four cardinal rules of brainstorming (i.e., expressiveness, no evaluation, quantity focus, and building on ideas of others) (3) regularly operates with the four cardinal rules of brainstorming as well as additional rules that we have found to be particularly impactful (e.g., no storytelling, no explanations, encouraging those who are not making a contribution to contribute, etc.) (4)

      2 With regard to conflict, my team … is not very nice; we engage in openly rude behavior—venting frustrations, jeering, personal attacks, and harsh criticism (0) is too nice; we actively avoid conflict (1) sometimes expresses conflict, but we try to separate the people from the problem (2) routinely engages in open, spirited debate, much as scientists do who hold different theories; we passionately attack the problem, but we respect our people (3)

      3 With regard to a group facilitator, my team … has attempted to sabotage an outside (or inside) facilitator (0) has never used, nor is open to, using a facilitator (1) has used an untrained facilitator (2) has used a trained facilitator practiced in the art of creative teamwork (3)

      4 In terms of external memory and recording aids (e.g., whiteboards, flip charts, cameras, videos, etc.) my team … meets in a room that is largely impoverished (no whiteboards, no flip charts, no note-taking, etc.) (0) meets in a room that has blackboards, flip charts, writing surfaces, etc.; we may occasionally use them but not regularly (1) actively uses the