How does what I observed in the summit breakout sessions look in light of established thoughts on creativity (or lack thereof) in groups? There are two superficially competing views of the group creative process. There is the whole-is-more-than-the-sum-of-parts school popularized by Stephen Covey. In opposition, is the creative-acts-are-individual-acts school. William Whyte's The Organization Man provides an extensive denial of useful creative genius in groups, and a call for renewed focus on the dignity and efficacy of the individual contribution. The former I'll call the Synergy School, the latter the Solitary School.
Here's part of Whyte's criticism of the consensus building group,
Think
for a moment of the way you behave in a committee meeting. In your
capacity as group member you feel a strong impulse to seek common
ground with the others. Not just out of timidity but out of respect
for the sense of the meeting you tend to soft-pedal that which would go
against the grain. And that, unfortunately, can include unorthodox
ideas. A really new idea affronts current agreement -- it wouldn't be
a new idea if it didn't -- and the group, impelled as it is to
agreement, is instinctively hostile to that which is divisive. With
wise leadership it can offset this bias, but the essential urge will
still be to unity, to consensus. After an idea matures -- after people
learn to live with it -- the group may approve it, but that is after
the fact and it is an act of acquiescence rather than creation.
I have been citing the decision-making group, and it can be argued that these defects of order do not apply to information-exchanging groups. It is true that meeting with those of common interests can be tremendously stimulating and suggest to the individuals fresh ways of going about their own work. But stimulus is not discovery; it is not the act of creation. Those who recognize this limitation do not confuse the functions and, not expecting too much, profit from the meeting of minds.
Others, however, are not so wise, and fast becoming a fixture of organization life is the meeting self-consciously dedicated to creating ideas. It is a fraud. Much of such high-pressure creation -- cooking with gas, creating out loud, spitballing, and so forth -- is all very provocative, but if it is stimulating, it is stimulating much like alcohol. After the glow of such a session has worn off, the residue of ideas usually turns out to be a refreshed common denominator that everybody is relieved to agree upon -- and if there is a new idea, you usually find that it came from a capital of ideas already thought out -- by individuals -- and perhaps held in escrow until someone sensed an opportune moment for its introduction.
Togetherness
I have been citing the decision-making group, and it can be argued that these defects of order do not apply to information-exchanging groups. It is true that meeting with those of common interests can be tremendously stimulating and suggest to the individuals fresh ways of going about their own work. But stimulus is not discovery; it is not the act of creation. Those who recognize this limitation do not confuse the functions and, not expecting too much, profit from the meeting of minds.
Others, however, are not so wise, and fast becoming a fixture of organization life is the meeting self-consciously dedicated to creating ideas. It is a fraud. Much of such high-pressure creation -- cooking with gas, creating out loud, spitballing, and so forth -- is all very provocative, but if it is stimulating, it is stimulating much like alcohol. After the glow of such a session has worn off, the residue of ideas usually turns out to be a refreshed common denominator that everybody is relieved to agree upon -- and if there is a new idea, you usually find that it came from a capital of ideas already thought out -- by individuals -- and perhaps held in escrow until someone sensed an opportune moment for its introduction.
Togetherness
The scientific conference exemplifies Whyte's informational exchange meeting. No one attends to make decisions (or vote with dots), the attendees are looking to share their work, and learn about their colleagues' work. These meetings are an important part of modern scientific progress. This years' updayton meeting did have information exchange components, which I'll get to later.
The Synergy School might argue that the updayton breakout sessions can provide an opportunity for synergistic collaboration, where alternative solutions emerge that are better than any of the individual solutions brought by group members. The Synergy School's three levels of communication are
- The lowest level of communication coming out of low trust situations is characterized by defensiveness, protectiveness, and legalistic language which covers all the bases and spells out qualifiers and escape clauses in the event things go sour.
- The middle level of communication is respectful communication -- where fairly mature people communicate.
- The highest level of communication is synergistic (win/win) communication.
However, the acknowledged goal of the updayton
summit is 'stimulating like alcohol' and 'engagement' rather than
synergy. So, while I went looking for evidence of high-level
cooperative action I should have paid closer attention to the marketing
materials and lowered my expectations accordingly. There was no effort
at establishing group trust (we didn't even introduce ourselves at the
start of the breakout). We jumped right in to the scripted consensus
process. Low-trust communication among mature professionals leading to
compromise (consensus) is the best we can hope for from events like
these, and, unsurprisingly, that's exactly what we got. This naturally
raises the question: why bother? If all we can reasonably hope for is
second tier communication then why invest the effort? The gist I get
from a closer look at the promotional material is 'to get buy-in for
the projects which will excite YCs to stay'. Which, in a moment of
cynicism, might strike one as rather manipulative. Instead of manufacturing
radiators, now we're manufacturing community-spiritedness. We might not be able to offer you gainful employment, but you can volunteer to weed our sidewalks!
In support of the Solitary School's idea about the capital of individual ideas, the winning project from the entrepreneur interest category was the one option that wasn't a website. The young man whose idea formed the core of this project said, "this is something I've been writing about for years". Something he was clearly passionate about, something that he expended his individual creative effort to flesh out beforehand on his own, and subsequently pitch to the group. The other options presented by the members of the group were relentlessly mashed into web-sameness by the gentle actions of the facilitators and the listless shrugs of individual acquiescence from well-meaning group members searching for common ground. When a thoughtful member of the breakout session asked the only really important question, "how do you create an innovator?" His question was met with more shrugs around the room followed quickly by redirection from the facilitators. Clearly that question cannot be packaged into a public relations project.
What about the skills sessions? Surely these have redeeming aspects, the Solitary School would appreciate these as information exchange, and the Synergy School might appreciate them as 'sharpening the saw'. The most interesting aspect of the panel discussions was the incipient frustration I observed in some of David Gasper's comments. Roughly, "there are so many great resources for entrepreneurs in the Dayton region. Why don't we have more entrepreneurs!? Dayton needs more entrepreneurs." Some of the resources mentioned by the panelists were Dayton SCORE, EntrepenuerOhio and Dayton Business Resource Center. As Theresa Gasper observed, "People seem to want the information PUSHED to them, but then feel overwhelmed with all the information coming at them. No one seems to want to PULL the information – meaning, many don't want to search for the info." This is consistent with the majority of "needs" identified in the entrepreneur breakout sessions. These folks are looking for checklists, guarantees of stability and someone to tell them what to do. In fact, one participant in my session thought that the biggest barrier to entry for entrepreneurs was the lack of the safety net offered by nationalized health-care! If you were to ask me what is the opposite of the entrepreneurial spirit, I could not have come up with a better answer. Probably the opposite of the definitions the panel members gave of entrepreneur too:
Please don't misunderstand my criticisms of this updayton process (or cooperation in general). I am in agreement with both Covey and Whyte that our biggest challenges require innovative cooperation to solve.
[In support of the Solitary School's idea about the capital of individual ideas, the winning project from the entrepreneur interest category was the one option that wasn't a website. The young man whose idea formed the core of this project said, "this is something I've been writing about for years". Something he was clearly passionate about, something that he expended his individual creative effort to flesh out beforehand on his own, and subsequently pitch to the group. The other options presented by the members of the group were relentlessly mashed into web-sameness by the gentle actions of the facilitators and the listless shrugs of individual acquiescence from well-meaning group members searching for common ground. When a thoughtful member of the breakout session asked the only really important question, "how do you create an innovator?" His question was met with more shrugs around the room followed quickly by redirection from the facilitators. Clearly that question cannot be packaged into a public relations project.
What about the skills sessions? Surely these have redeeming aspects, the Solitary School would appreciate these as information exchange, and the Synergy School might appreciate them as 'sharpening the saw'. The most interesting aspect of the panel discussions was the incipient frustration I observed in some of David Gasper's comments. Roughly, "there are so many great resources for entrepreneurs in the Dayton region. Why don't we have more entrepreneurs!? Dayton needs more entrepreneurs." Some of the resources mentioned by the panelists were Dayton SCORE, EntrepenuerOhio and Dayton Business Resource Center. As Theresa Gasper observed, "People seem to want the information PUSHED to them, but then feel overwhelmed with all the information coming at them. No one seems to want to PULL the information – meaning, many don't want to search for the info." This is consistent with the majority of "needs" identified in the entrepreneur breakout sessions. These folks are looking for checklists, guarantees of stability and someone to tell them what to do. In fact, one participant in my session thought that the biggest barrier to entry for entrepreneurs was the lack of the safety net offered by nationalized health-care! If you were to ask me what is the opposite of the entrepreneurial spirit, I could not have come up with a better answer. Probably the opposite of the definitions the panel members gave of entrepreneur too:
- some one who has put something of value to them at risk
- some one with significant "skin in the game"
Many of today’s young adults seem temperamentally unprepared for the circumstances in which they now find themselves. Jean Twenge,
an associate professor of psychology at San Diego State University, has
carefully compared the attitudes of today’s young adults to those of
previous generations when they were the same age. Using national survey
data, she’s found that to an unprecedented degree, people who graduated
from high school in the 2000s dislike the idea of work for work’s sake,
and expect jobs and career to be tailored to their interests and
lifestyle. Yet they also have much higher material expectations than
previous generations, and believe financial success is extremely
important. “There’s this idea that, ‘Yeah, I don’t want to work, but
I’m still going to get all the stuff I want,’”Twenge told me. “It’s a generation in which every kid has been told, ‘You can be anything you want. You’re special.’”
In her 2006 book, Generation Me
, Twenge notes that self-esteem in children began rising sharply around 1980, and hasn’t
stopped since. By 1999, according to one survey, 91 percent of teens
described themselves as responsible, 74 percent as physically
attractive, and 79 percent as very intelligent. (More than 40 percent
of teens also expected that they would be earning $75,000 a year or
more by age 30; the median salary made by a 30-year-old was $27,000
that year.)Twenge attributes the shift to broad changes in parenting
styles and teaching methods, in response to the growing belief that
children should always feel good about themselves, no matter what. As
the years have passed, efforts to boost self-esteem—and to decouple it
from performance—have become widespread.
These efforts have succeeded in making today’s youth more confident and individualistic. But that may not benefit them in adulthood, particularly in this economic environment.Twenge writes that “self-esteem without basis encourages laziness rather than hard work,” and that “the ability to persevere and keep going” is “a much better predictor of life outcomes than self-esteem.” She worries that many young people might be inclined to simply give up in this job market. “You’d think if people are more individualistic, they’d be more independent,” she told me. “But it’s not really true. There’s an element of entitlement—they expect people to figure things out for them.”
Seeking
'solutions' which enable this emerging neurosis, rather than healing
it, is probably not the answer to a more dynamic Dayton. In her 2006 book, Generation Me
, Twenge notes that self-esteem in children began rising sharply around 1980, and hasn’t
stopped since. By 1999, according to one survey, 91 percent of teens
described themselves as responsible, 74 percent as physically
attractive, and 79 percent as very intelligent. (More than 40 percent
of teens also expected that they would be earning $75,000 a year or
more by age 30; the median salary made by a 30-year-old was $27,000
that year.)Twenge attributes the shift to broad changes in parenting
styles and teaching methods, in response to the growing belief that
children should always feel good about themselves, no matter what. As
the years have passed, efforts to boost self-esteem—and to decouple it
from performance—have become widespread.These efforts have succeeded in making today’s youth more confident and individualistic. But that may not benefit them in adulthood, particularly in this economic environment.Twenge writes that “self-esteem without basis encourages laziness rather than hard work,” and that “the ability to persevere and keep going” is “a much better predictor of life outcomes than self-esteem.” She worries that many young people might be inclined to simply give up in this job market. “You’d think if people are more individualistic, they’d be more independent,” she told me. “But it’s not really true. There’s an element of entitlement—they expect people to figure things out for them.”
Please don't misunderstand my criticisms of this updayton process (or cooperation in general). I am in agreement with both Covey and Whyte that our biggest challenges require innovative cooperation to solve.
Our
most important work, the problems we hope to solve or the opportunities
we hope to realize require working and collaborating with other people
in a high-trust, synergistic way...
Interdependence
Interdependence
Let
me admit that I have been talking principally about the adverse aspects
of the group. I would not wish to argue for a destructive
recalcitrance, nor do I wish to undervalue the real progress we have
made in co-operative effort. But to emphasize, in these times, the
virtues of the group is to be supererogatory. Universal organization
training, as I will take up in the following chapters, is now available
for everybody, and it so effectively emphasizes the group spirit that
there is little danger that inductees will be subverted into
rebelliousness.
Over
and above the overt praise for the pressures of the group, the very
ease, the democratic atmosphere in which organization life is now
conducted makes it all the harder for the individual to justify to
himself a departure from its norm. It would be a mistake to confuse
individualism with antagonism, but the burdens of free thought are
steep enough that we should not saddle ourselves with a guilty
conscience as well.
However,
what Dayton lacks towards its success is not more resources from
government, more focus on community, more committee meetings or trendy bohemian culture to attract jobless hipsters. In fact, if the attendance of the updayton summit is any indication, Dayton has no lack of optimistic joiners. However, coddling these agreeable, cooperative, and risk-averse Organization Volk is not the answer if what you are seeking is a flowering of 1000 new entrepreneurs in Dayton. As Whyte argues, we lack a recognition that "[t]he central ideal -- that the individual, rather than society, must be the paramount end [...] is as vital and as applicable today as ever". Lower
the barriers to entry (taxes / zoning / regulation / government
subsidized competitors), and the passionate individuals uninterested in
paternalism will exploit the opportunities that emerge to deliver for
Dayton's future.The winner of the 'best swag contest' was MetroParks with their D-ring key fob:
]
