6 ms·

Creativity seems unimpeded when the one being creative is at the very top of the hierarchy. It doesn't really work for anyone else unless they have a direct con

Creativity seems unimpeded when the one being creative is at the very top of the hierarchy. It doesn't really work for anyone else unless they have a direct contribution and connection to the dictator though. Any requirement that new stuff be reviewed by committee (e.g. a board of directors) will tend to destroy anything truly innovative. Why? Because the creative people can see much further than the (much less involved) committee. They seem like crazy people talking about a world that doesn't (yet) exist. Elon Musk is doing so well because he has such an iron grip over his companies. If he ever becomes subject to real oversight he'll fail as hard as Jobs did under Scully.

icebraining 9y ago
Elon Musk does have oversight, in the form of his investors. His creative vision had to pass through the scrutiny of the boards of those companies and individuals which invested in Tesla and SpaceX. There's also plenty of cases of actual employees being innovative. The work produced by employees of SRI (e.g. Douglas Engelbart's team) and of Bell Labs eclipses Tesla and SpaceX in terms of innovation.
- fsloth 9y ago
  "There's also plenty of cases of actual employees being innovative." Uh, I don't think that was being questioned here. Englebart did not have a committee to gauge his budget, only the low-bureaucratic ARPA system where he had to convince only one technical person, and not a commitee of generals to get his funding. I presume ARPA itself was under more traditional guidance. The question was not that there can always be only one protean creator in an organization. The point was that a crowd adds no value to the divergent thought process of innovation. Only a productizes output can be sanely evaluated by a large group. At this point the question is not 'could this work' but rather, does it. The former is subject to mere opinions, whereas the latter is more or less a matter of objective measurement (if done honestly).
- valuearb 9y ago
  Musk has nominal oversight, but that has nothing to do with his creativity. The BOD didn’t come up with how to reuse boosters. People are creative. Groups are not. Elon and Englebart likely developed new ideas that were sparked by conversations with others, but that’s far different than committee meetings.
nabla9 9y ago
Very good point. Good creative collaboration is never democratic or equal (counterexamples?). Great projects must have a lead architect. The innovation must fit inside one head that balances all aspects and makes the decisions. 'The lone contemplation' works in all levels if you have good hierarchy. You don't need to fit your ideas to everyone else's and compromise. Creative collaboration and innovation has always existed and flourished in hierarchical settings. Architectural firms, advertisement agencies, industrial design firms, and scientific and technical R&D labs all have group of creative people working together in groups. In my personal experience it's easier to convey idea first to the lead, then you both explain it to the whole group for the feedback. Eventually the lead decides what happens. Pitching to the group usually waters down the idea (brainstorming is different).
- js8 9y ago
  > Good creative collaboration is never democratic or equal (counterexamples?). Great projects must have a lead architect. Funny, I think it's precisely the opposite. I don't think most creative people can thrive under a strict hierarchy (some famous creative people had even trouble to keep a normal job). It's true that groups of creative people sometimes cooperate, but almost always like equals. One of the famous counterexamples I can give you is the Monty Python collaboration, which was strictly democratic. There are also plenty examples of creative collaborations between two people. In open source software, where there is a hierarchy, it is rather informal. Linus is not a single "lead architect" of Linux; would he enforce a bad decision that most developers would disagree with, he would be forked away. He has no choice than to respect meritocratic wishes of other developers, if he wants to stay "in charge". There were open source projects that tried a more heavy handed way of architectural management, and they failed - such as GCC or XFree86.
  - feikname 9y ago
    > There were open source project that tried a more heavy handed way of architectural management, and they failed - such as GCC A lot of people have been moving to clang, but I'm quite sure GCC is still strong. What do you mean by failed? A link backing this claim would be nice too, as I couldn't find any (although I just probably didn't search it right).
b0rsuk 9y ago
This old blog post argues that wisdom of crowds works well for estimating facts, but poorly for creative thinking, even so far as to say: "Votes become vetoes". Because people don't choose what they like the most, they choose against thing they like the least. "Ignoring the wisdom of crowds" https://blog.asmartbear.com/ignoring-the-wisdom-of-crowds.html https://blog.asmartbear.com/ignoring-the-wisdom-of-crowds.ht...
- api 9y ago
  Choosing against is how I've voted in every presidential election. I have never really felt good about a candidate, only that they were less bad than the other. E.g. I voted Clinton even though I can't stand a lot of her policies because I thought Trump was worse. Vote as veto.
giggidygig 9y ago
Is there such a thing as a non-creative person? I.e a person who actually thinks/knows/conscientiously decides they are not creative?
- js8 9y ago
  I think there are plenty people like that. In open source software, we see lot of people writing "exact clone" of some software (usually a game). And often, they get the job done. They decidedly don't want to be creative, they just want the clone of the thing. Actually, it's often how you get the work done. Too much creativity is a problem. Linus started his work on Linux kernel because he wanted a Minix clone. It was as creative-less act as it gets.
  - empath75 9y ago
    I think you’re overestimating how creative even creative people are. Quentin Tarentino’s entire career has been remaking other people’s work, for example. There is a lot of room for creativity in copying.
    - js8 9y ago
      No, I am talking about people who decide to make an exact replica. Sure lot of creativity is remixing, but these people don't want a remix. Take somebody who wrote OpenTTD, open Transport Tycoon clone. It was an exact replica of the original game (later of course people got more creative with it). The same time could have been spent creating, for instance, Stardew Valley. The author didn't decide to make just a Harvest Moon clone. That is roughly a difference between a non-creative project and a creative project.
  - capisce 9y ago
    > He wrote the program specifically for the hardware he was using and independent of an operating system because he wanted to use the functions of his new PC with an 80386 processor. Even if judging by surface appearance something is a clone, there might still be a lot of creativity involved "under the hood" i.e. in the implementation. In the case of Linux it was originally optimized for 80386 and is a monolithic kernel while Minix is a microkernel design. Fine-tuning it to run fast on 80386 must surely have involved a lot of creativity?
nova22033 9y ago
>Elon Musk is doing so well Is he though? http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-issues-causing-dangerous-cash-problem-2017-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-issues-causing-... "Tesla is spending more than $1 billion per quarter to sustain its existing business and ramp up production of its troubled Model 3. "
api 9y ago
I've come to the conclusion that this often also applies to the founder / VC relationship. The best angels and VCs are relatively hands off, providing counsel when asked, hook ups and intros, and other resources but otherwise letting the founder steer the ship. Activist VCs tend to destroy anything innovative.

icebraining 9y ago

Elon Musk does have oversight, in the form of his investors. His creative vision had to pass through the scrutiny of the boards of those companies and individuals which invested in Tesla and SpaceX. There's also plenty of cases of actual employees being innovative. The work produced by employees of SRI (e.g. Douglas Engelbart's team) and of Bell Labs eclipses Tesla and SpaceX in terms of innovation.

fsloth 9y ago
"There's also plenty of cases of actual employees being innovative." Uh, I don't think that was being questioned here. Englebart did not have a committee to gauge his budget, only the low-bureaucratic ARPA system where he had to convince only one technical person, and not a commitee of generals to get his funding. I presume ARPA itself was under more traditional guidance. The question was not that there can always be only one protean creator in an organization. The point was that a crowd adds no value to the divergent thought process of innovation. Only a productizes output can be sanely evaluated by a large group. At this point the question is not 'could this work' but rather, does it. The former is subject to mere opinions, whereas the latter is more or less a matter of objective measurement (if done honestly).
valuearb 9y ago
Musk has nominal oversight, but that has nothing to do with his creativity. The BOD didn’t come up with how to reuse boosters. People are creative. Groups are not. Elon and Englebart likely developed new ideas that were sparked by conversations with others, but that’s far different than committee meetings.

nabla9 9y ago

Very good point. Good creative collaboration is never democratic or equal (counterexamples?). Great projects must have a lead architect. The innovation must fit inside one head that balances all aspects and makes the decisions. 'The lone contemplation' works in all levels if you have good hierarchy. You don't need to fit your ideas to everyone else's and compromise. Creative collaboration and innovation has always existed and flourished in hierarchical settings. Architectural firms, advertisement agencies, industrial design firms, and scientific and technical R&D labs all have group of creative people working together in groups. In my personal experience it's easier to convey idea first to the lead, then you both explain it to the whole group for the feedback. Eventually the lead decides what happens. Pitching to the group usually waters down the idea (brainstorming is different).

js8 9y ago
> Good creative collaboration is never democratic or equal (counterexamples?). Great projects must have a lead architect. Funny, I think it's precisely the opposite. I don't think most creative people can thrive under a strict hierarchy (some famous creative people had even trouble to keep a normal job). It's true that groups of creative people sometimes cooperate, but almost always like equals. One of the famous counterexamples I can give you is the Monty Python collaboration, which was strictly democratic. There are also plenty examples of creative collaborations between two people. In open source software, where there is a hierarchy, it is rather informal. Linus is not a single "lead architect" of Linux; would he enforce a bad decision that most developers would disagree with, he would be forked away. He has no choice than to respect meritocratic wishes of other developers, if he wants to stay "in charge". There were open source projects that tried a more heavy handed way of architectural management, and they failed - such as GCC or XFree86.
- feikname 9y ago
  > There were open source project that tried a more heavy handed way of architectural management, and they failed - such as GCC A lot of people have been moving to clang, but I'm quite sure GCC is still strong. What do you mean by failed? A link backing this claim would be nice too, as I couldn't find any (although I just probably didn't search it right).

b0rsuk 9y ago

This old blog post argues that wisdom of crowds works well for estimating facts, but poorly for creative thinking, even so far as to say: "Votes become vetoes". Because people don't choose what they like the most, they choose against thing they like the least. "Ignoring the wisdom of crowds" https://blog.asmartbear.com/ignoring-the-wisdom-of-crowds.html https://blog.asmartbear.com/ignoring-the-wisdom-of-crowds.ht...

api 9y ago
Choosing against is how I've voted in every presidential election. I have never really felt good about a candidate, only that they were less bad than the other. E.g. I voted Clinton even though I can't stand a lot of her policies because I thought Trump was worse. Vote as veto.

giggidygig 9y ago

Is there such a thing as a non-creative person? I.e a person who actually thinks/knows/conscientiously decides they are not creative?

js8 9y ago
I think there are plenty people like that. In open source software, we see lot of people writing "exact clone" of some software (usually a game). And often, they get the job done. They decidedly don't want to be creative, they just want the clone of the thing. Actually, it's often how you get the work done. Too much creativity is a problem. Linus started his work on Linux kernel because he wanted a Minix clone. It was as creative-less act as it gets.
- empath75 9y ago
  I think you’re overestimating how creative even creative people are. Quentin Tarentino’s entire career has been remaking other people’s work, for example. There is a lot of room for creativity in copying.
  - js8 9y ago
    No, I am talking about people who decide to make an exact replica. Sure lot of creativity is remixing, but these people don't want a remix. Take somebody who wrote OpenTTD, open Transport Tycoon clone. It was an exact replica of the original game (later of course people got more creative with it). The same time could have been spent creating, for instance, Stardew Valley. The author didn't decide to make just a Harvest Moon clone. That is roughly a difference between a non-creative project and a creative project.
- capisce 9y ago
  > He wrote the program specifically for the hardware he was using and independent of an operating system because he wanted to use the functions of his new PC with an 80386 processor. Even if judging by surface appearance something is a clone, there might still be a lot of creativity involved "under the hood" i.e. in the implementation. In the case of Linux it was originally optimized for 80386 and is a monolithic kernel while Minix is a microkernel design. Fine-tuning it to run fast on 80386 must surely have involved a lot of creativity?

nova22033 9y ago

>Elon Musk is doing so well Is he though? http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-issues-causing-dangerous-cash-problem-2017-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-issues-causing-... "Tesla is spending more than $1 billion per quarter to sustain its existing business and ramp up production of its troubled Model 3. "

api 9y ago

I've come to the conclusion that this often also applies to the founder / VC relationship. The best angels and VCs are relatively hands off, providing counsel when asked, hook ups and intros, and other resources but otherwise letting the founder steer the ship. Activist VCs tend to destroy anything innovative.