Outbursts of Creativity

Cornelius's post on his recent low frequency of blog posts was very interesting. Since my blogging frequency has also gone down, I look back at 2007 and wonder the same thing: What helped me blog so much then? To some extent, Cornelius is right in saying that the less structured one is, the more output one can produce. But that explanation does not really solve the problem, because the trick is: How do you produce quality in greater quantity, at least in accordance with one's own definition of quality?

I feel that the biggest requirement of any creative work is the availability of time, or more accurately, the assumption of uninterrupted time. Creativity, by definition, means doing something that has never been done before or never been done quite the same way before. Because of its uncertain nature, it is difficult to estimate how much time it would take to complete a creative endeavor. To start a creative task, a person must have some confidence that he or she would be able to complete it, and what they need most, apart from tools, is the feeling that they will have sufficient time to complete that task.

Now strictly speaking, time is always available. It is possible to find gaps of unallocated time in the midst of other tasks that one is doing, but such time segments are useless for creative work. Creative work requires a significant focus of the mind to achieve a state called "flow". Flow is achieved when the mind is fully knowledgeable about the critical pieces of the creative work and at the same time, heavily processing that information to make new decisions. Until the first stage (knowledge-acquisition) is achieved, the second stage (decision-making) is very inefficient. The first stage always requires some time, and the more complex the creative work, the more time it consumes.

When you have a short time segment, you don't have enough time to achieve the first stage, even though the actual work accomplished in the second stage could have been completed in that time. When you are interrupted in your creative work, you have to start all over from the beginning. When you feel that you are likely to be interrupted, you decide not to start something because of the same reason.

There is sometimes a "zeroeth" stage (if I may use the term) of "desk-clearing". Sometimes, a person will go out of his or her way to dispose of other totally minor tasks like replying to emails or taking out the garbage, even though the more urgent work is pending. To an outside observer, this behavior can be ridiculous and frustrating. But what the person is doing is to remove all possible distractions and create a solid chunk of time that can be spent on creative work.

High performance in creativity comes when the person has achieved flow and can count on not being interrupted. This usually means very early hours or very late hours when the chances of being interrupted are very low. Another option is, of course, a physical location where one can work in peace for long periods of time.

I don't want to confuse this with workaholism, which is about spending more hours per day. A more creative person may or may not spend less hours than a hard-working person, but they spend those hours with more focus. Creative passion can lead to voluntary workaholism (at work or as a hobby), but that is a different topic, some aspects of which I have discussed previously.

One technique around the constraints of uninterrupted time is to convert creative work into mechanical work. For example, one could design a mechanical way of writing blog entries, such as post the most interesting link you read all day and write a couple of paragraphs outlining your views. Sticking to a well-defined structure can reduce the need for greater analysis and ramp-up time. However, the quality is the production-line type of quality with less deviation from the norm. So even though you are unlikely to produce total failures, you are also less likely to produce hits.

The other technique is to maximize the use any sufficiently long time period at the risk of being less productive. This article on sleep deprivation by 37 signals is pretty accurate, but it misses the point that when it comes to creativity, you are usually operating (without sleep deprivation) nowhere close to 100% unless you are well isolated from interruptions. If you are doing mechanical work, it does not make any sense to stay late hours, but if you are doing something creative, it may pay off to continue to produce until your brain drops off the flow state.

---

Technorati tags: creativity

The Wrong Lessons from Mistakes

Whether we like it or not, we all make mistakes. Failures, big and small, are a part of our life. Although we don't welcome them and although some failures can be harsh, they can be very educational. Learning from mistakes is part of building experience and knowing what works and what doesn't. There is a saying, "Fail early". If you make mistakes when they are less critical, you can avoid making them later on when it would be more expensive to clean up.

But for all that, sometimes we learn the wrong lessons from mistakes. The first problem with mistakes is that in many cases, it is not easy to pinpoint the exact cause of the failure? Was it a wrong idea? Or was it a good idea wrongly executed? Did the failures lie in the process used? Were some of the people involved wrong for the job? In many cases, answers are hard to come by. Most people fall back on the simplest or most non-controversial reason, hiding the true nature of the failure.

For example, a project failure may be blamed on a technical challenge that was difficult to solve, but the real reasons may have been elsewhere: misunderstood requirements, wrong architecture or design, insufficient exploration of alternatives, unskilled personnel and so on. Not understanding and fixing the root causes keeps them alive to disrupt future endeavors.

Another mistake is to assume that the conditions under which the failure happened to be constant and never-changing. Many failures occur because of wrong timing. For example, a product may be unsuccessful because its demands on infrastructure (hardware or software) may mean that it is too slow or too expensive. But in time, as technology becomes faster and cheaper, the same unsuccessful technology could become a bestseller. Consider the timing of YouTube. A few years earlier, it would probably have gone nowhere.

It is not just technology, either. People (users and other decision makers) change too. People who previously exhibited skepticism about something (and caused its downfall) may be more amenable to it today. Even people who were adamantly opposed sometimes change their views because they have learnt something new or positive about it in the meantime. The other possibility is that the most vocal opposition has left the decision-making table for other ventures. In any case, people or technology, what this means is that a mistake yesterday may not be a mistake today, even if you do the exact same thing.

The third and most important mistake is to lose heart and become disillusioned because your efforts are not paying off. Most people have great ideas. But great ideas need the right environment and care to flourish and succeed. So when those ideas fail to prosper, those people sometimes stop dreaming and having new ideas.

The key to overcoming such disappointment is to understand the greater goal behind those ideas and become less attached to the ideas themselves. If one path to the vision is blocked, you have to find a detour. This could provide the inspiration for new ideas as well as maintaining your enthusiasm. Never let mistakes destroy your spirit.

---

Technorati tags: mistakes, lessons, unlearning

Change and Emotion

At the risk of stating the obvious, every change needs a status quo, because there is no change if there is nothing to change. And every status quo has supporters, without which it would not exist. Supporters may favor the status quo because they benefit from it, or they may approve of it because other options seem risky or costly. Faced with a proposed change, these supporters worry about their existing benefits, their new risks, their potential loss from the change and their status in the new order created by the change.

Even though such concerns are based on self-interest, they are legitimate. Ultimately, change is about the people it affects, positively or negatively. If more stakeholders are adversely affected by the change, then perhaps the proposed change is not an improvement and must be dropped. But assuming that you are honest about your facts and you sincerely believe that the proposed change is beneficial to the community or organization, your challenge is to convince the status quo supporters.

When you propose a change, you are essentially creating a conflict with the supporters and beneficiaries of the status quo. In a purely intellectual debate based on facts and reasons, you could win (at least theoretically) every argument by presenting the facts. But in real life, people seldom evaluate costs and benefits as if the situation were a simple math problem. You must consider the emotional attachments and grievances of the evaluators. So, if you want to convince people of the change, you have to take emotion out of the equation and get people to focus on facts. Here are some ways to accomplish that:

1. Look forward, not behind: Put forth your change as a better approach for the future, instead of criticizing the status quo. Post-mortems only makes people defensive. Many change leaders mistakenly assume that everyone would oppose a policy when its flaws are pointed out. However, criticism can make many practitioners dig their heels in harder, because change would point out to the rest of the world that their initial judgment was wrong and that they were ignorant of the flaws.
   
   It takes courage and humility for people to willingly admit that they were wrong. Forcing them to accept their mistakes is humiliating. So why put them in a difficult spot in the first place? Instead, suggest that the older policy may have made sense in the past, but changing circumstances requires a new approach. This tactic offers people a dignified way to support the new policy while silently erasing past mistakes.
   
   
2. Make people feel important: Change often results in real or perceived loss of power and control. People don't know what their role in the changed environment will be. To avoid this feeling of helplessness, give due importance to all stakeholders. Ask them for feedback. Involve them in the key meetings. Communicate often and regularly. You may not be able to accept everyone's feedback, but they should feel that you had considered them in your decision making.
   
   At the same time, de-emphasize yourself, so that the change you advocate does not come off as a power grab. This is not just important for convincing your opponents, but also to gain the trust of your allies. Give opportunities to both your supporters and detractors to participate in and contribute to the change process. Lead, but also delegate. Try to ensure a fair distribution of the benefits accruing from the change.
   
   
3. Listen and answer criticism: People will put forward different arguments to counter your assertions. Some of these may seem silly or irrelevant to you, but there are important to those people. Listen to their reasons, and understand why they are important to those people. Provide a fact-by-fact counter-argument to those arguments, but take care not to dismiss something high-handedly or insensitively. Sometimes, a criticism is valid and must be acknowledged.
   
   For example, suppose you want to move a desktop application to the web. A valid criticism would be that the desktop application is a much richer client and hence more user-friendly. This argument cannot be countered by putting forth a false argument that the web application can provide the same user experience. But it can be countered by pointing out the advantages of the web application that outweighs this particular disadvantage. Acknowledge the costs of the change and your argument will be more honest. 
   
   
4. Make it easy, but not simplistic: People are overwhelmed by complexity. So you have to present your change proposal in a way that is easy for people to understand. But people are also afraid of making a mistake. So if they think you are simplifying the question and not paying attention to details, they will think you are hiding something or don't have a clue. So, you have to balance presentation and content.
   
   One commonly used technique is to provide executive or visual summaries of your proposal, with additional (voluminous) research or data (by you and others) made available online. You could have some short meetings that provide high-level information and other longer voluntary meetings for providing additional information with Q&A sessions for those interested in learning more. Use various communication channels (email, blog, memos, etc.) appropriately to cater to information demands from different types of stakeholders.
   
   
5. Get rolling: The larger the change, the more resistance you will encounter. So, sometimes it is better to start implementing a smaller part of the change, than waiting for approval for the whole package. Usually every change will have some incremental change that is non-controversial and perhaps even offers immediate benefits. Start there, show progress and obtain credibility for greater changes.
   
   Incremental change can sometimes drive away more passionate supporters who are tired of waiting. Nevertheless, it does serve to calm down people's fears of failure. It also provides minimal disruption, a key factor for buying the support of people (like middle managers) who are responsible for positive short-term results in their department. Incentives (financial or otherwise) are more powerful in incremental change.

All these steps take negative emotions out of play and introduce positive feelings of respect, importance, confidence, belonging and success, taking you a long way towards acceptance.

---

Technorati tags: change management, stakeholders, involvement

Strengths vs. Weaknesses

When it comes to managing one's strengths and weaknesses, there are different schools of thought. Some people are of the opinion that weaknesses are areas of improvement and it pays to work on them. The contrary point of view is that we should focus on improving and taking advantage of strengths rather than trying to reduce weaknesses.

Focusing on strengths and working at a job where you can utilize your talents and skills makes sense on different levels. You can be much more productive and have a greater chance of obtaining successful results. Success at your job can provide greater satisfaction in both tangible and intangible ways. Strengths usually have a snowball effect, i.e., the better you are at something, the more you are likely to learn and improve upon them.

Of course, you don't have to be dependent on your job to receive satisfaction. Many skills can be used at hobbies, which provide an outlet for greater creativity and fun. Many personal qualities can be channeled into productive activities within your community, helping people in the best way you know.

But let us look at the limitations with only focusing on improving strengths:

1. The snowball effect does not continue forever. At some point, you hit a point of diminishing returns from improving your strengths. This is usually a function of external circumstances. For example, while the best programmer may be 10 times more productive than the worst programmers, they never get paid at the same ratio. High rates of improvement may not be possible because of stagnation or lack of innovation in your industry. This is not true of the technology industry, but many other sectors are conservative and not receptive to or do not generate new ideas.
   
   
2. People often confuse managing their strengths and weaknesses with managing other people's strengths and weaknesses. As a manager, it is advantageous to place people in situations which make maximum use of their strengths and reduce any risks caused by their weaknesses. All things considered, you cannot force people to change their personality and hence this is your best option. But when it comes to you, you do have a choice to do something about your weaknesses, such as creating a process around you to prevent problems.
   
   
3. You cannot expect other people to accept your weaknesses and put you in a situation where only your strengths matter. That may be the wise thing for those people to do, but often, they don't do it and you don't have a choice. Nobody loves you for what you are. They always love you for what you will become (or what they imagine you to be). And that means change. There will be many aspects of your job that will require you to overcome certain weaknesses. A new opportunity that closely matches your strengths may also mean managing some of your failings. You cannot be perfect, nor can you improve upon everything, but you may have to work hard on some aspects of your personality.
   
   
4. Many people also tend to confuse strengths and weaknesses with likes and dislikes, leading to premature dismissal of anything distasteful. Some jobs or tasks may take great advantage of the person's strengths, but the person takes time to realize this. Often, the cause is bad training or a bad trainer. You can see this in the school system where some students fail at everything, even though it is conceivable that they may succeed in jobs requiring one or more of those subjects.
   
   
5. Knowing one's strengths and weaknesses is an imprecise science. For example, consider the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and its different personality types. Even setting aside concerns about reliability and accuracy, people may end up making mistakes in answering an MBTI questionnaire, and think that they have strengths and weaknesses that they do not possess. This may drive them to make incorrect choices about their career and what they do at their jobs.
   

Nothing is ever static. As industries evolve and the nature of jobs change, strengths that may have worked for you in the past are no longer as helpful. Long-term neglect of weaknesses may create a crisis situation. To avoid that, pay some attention to your weak spots regularly. Constantly evaluate your strengths and weaknesses with respect to your present career path and make necessary adjustments to avoid big corrections in the future.

---

Technorati tags: personal learning, strengths, weaknesses

The Distinct Types of Workaholics

Jason Calacanis, CEO of mahalo.com, recently generated some heated controversy over his statement “Fire people who are not workaholics” as part of a longer post about how to save money running a startup. While many people criticized him for not understanding what work-life balance means, a few others supported him for suggesting what startups require to succeed. Calacanis later changed his statement to “Fire people who don’t love their work” and wrote another post attempting to answer the question of whether one can have a life and work at a startup company.

I felt that neither his posts nor the various reactions (positive and negative) carefully considered the different types of workaholics and the circumstances and motivations under which a workaholic operates. In this essay, I would like to explore the difference between voluntary and involuntary workaholics and also the relationship between being a workaholic and liking one's job. Let us also take a look at the benefits vs. costs of such behavior.

A workaholic can be defined as someone who spends extraordinary time or effort at his or her work. The similarity with the word "alcoholic" provides a negative tone, meaning that the person is "addicted" to his or her work and would rather spend time at work rather than activities that most people find enjoyable. However, in some work environments, being called a "workaholic" can be positive because it means someone who is dedicated to and loves their work beyond everything else. Such a person is committed to the goals of the organization, and hence is a team player who can be relied upon.

In this context, the term "involuntary workaholic" can seem puzzling because it conflicts with the general belief that workaholics derive pleasure from what they are doing. This confusion arises from the problem that we associate the behavior of working longer with the intention of working longer. We think that just because someone works longer, they want to work longer and hence they must be workaholics. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Involuntary workaholics are those people who are driven by external forces to work longer, even though they would rather be doing something else. Insufficient staffing, inflexible deadlines, lack of planning, improper prioritization, bad estimates, poor quality and unforeseen risks can create circumstances where employees and managers have to work harder and longer. Many workaholics are actually victims of situations created by themselves or other people or processes in their organization. They are working harder because they have no other choice.

A second type of involuntary workaholic is created by managers who wrongly associate more effort with more output, and reward or encourage workaholic behavior. Such managers are themselves busy all the time and they want to see everyone put in as much effort as they do. Such a direction puts pressure on everyone to demonstrate their "dedication". However the proxy for more effort is simply “more time spent in the office” or “more face time with the manager”, not necessarily actual work.

Quality is the first casualty in a workaholic environment as people hit biological limits on their body and brains and start making elementary mistakes. Then, the rate of work getting done starts decreasing, because people get too tired to contribute as effectively, and also need time to fix the mistakes that they made. In the end, there is only a very short-term improvement in productivity coupled with major quality problems and a long-term decline in productivity and increase in attrition due to employee resentment.

Another problem often ignored in this situation is that only some employees are better placed to be involuntary workaholics and can produce more if they work more. For example, unmarried young employees have generally fewer responsibilities than married employees or employees with children. When everyone works longer, some of them may contribute more while others may resent the situation and contribute less. So overall, there is no gain, even temporarily.

Now, let us look at voluntary workaholism. Some people object to this term because they cannot imagine someone being addicted to their work. But like any passion or mania, it is difficult for people who don't have the same feelings to understand those who have it. Voluntary workaholics spend incredible amounts of time and effort on their profession. Their interest does not seem to decline once they are outside the office. If you ask them, they love their work and enjoy the time spent at doing it.

From an organization's standpoint, there are significant advantages to having voluntary workaholics over involuntary ones. Voluntary workaholics are more knowledgeable and produce high quality of work consistently. They tend to be more flexible with changing needs because they have more time at their disposal. They are willing to take on more responsibilities, even if they sometimes overestimate their capabilities.

Many organizations seek out such people and try to reward such behavior. As mentioned previously, that carries the risk of increased involuntary workaholism by other individuals, so a little care is necessary. The first thing to understand is that there is no substitute for proper estimation and planning. That creates your baseline for measuring individual productivity as well as setting standards for quality. When you do this, you can measure the extra effort by the individual in meeting targets in schedule and quality. That may be the basis for a reward system.

It is also essential to understand how your organization motivates the voluntary workaholic. Remember that one's love for the profession and one's love for the tasks done in the profession may not have a linear correlation. For example, a programmer may be excited and animated when talking about their work in general, but they may be periods of time when they have to work on tedious, boring and repetitive tasks. Sometimes a workaholic may be working late just because that is the only uninterrupted time for the tasks they enjoy doing.

Another problem is the decision making on the project. A voluntary workaholic likes the creative aspect of work. So when their work environment is dominated by a few senior people who evaluate options and make all the decisions, they may decide to spend greater effort on some personal project (related to their profession) where they get to play the boss. So it is important for managers to understand how to channel the workaholic's enthusiasm towards the work at hand.

A twist on this entire situation is that workaholics can turn into involuntary workaholics. During uncertain economic times, the workaholic may decide to spend more effort than usual to preserve their job. Alternatively, a new situation in the workaholic's life, like a marriage or a new child, can reduce the effort they can spend. This happens more frequently than managers realize. The issue here is that workaholics fear that reducing their effort would be viewed negatively and thus they have no exit strategy.

So far, we have been talking about workaholic employees. But there are also workaholic employers. The motivations which drive them are very different from the workaholic employees. They have a direct financial incentive towards working longer hours, because usually additional effort from them results in more positive results for the organization such as increased revenue or better products. So there is a certain level of involuntary behavior here, because business reality demands them to spend more hours until they find good people to delegate to.

Some (though not all) business owners have already achieved financial security and consider their business an additional investment in something they enjoy doing. This may be contrary to their employees who need the job to survive and pay their bills, even if they love the job. The employer would be mistaken in his or her assumption that employees share the exact same feelings about the job situation. The ongoing success of the business concern can play a huge part in the motivation of employees.

A final word: Workaholics are seldom understood by other people, who always tend to project their feelings on them. Some people admire them and call them passionate, dedicated and hard-working. Others mock them for not worrying about their health or personal relationships, as well as missing out on other things in life. Very few truly try to comprehend their internal motivations and their circumstances. I hope this article changes that attitude to some extent, at least.

---

Technorati tags: business management, workaholism, hard work