How were you raised to argue/debate for your points of view, your ideas, or were you one who learned to 'go along to get along'? Were you someone who could see a better way of doing something and bring it up? If so, was there a recognition that it might work and was implemented, and later the results measured to see if it had worked? Did you not bring something up because the way it was being done was the way it has always been done?
These are just some questions that I'm thinking about after reading an article about using 'creative abrasion' as a source of energy. It is an interesting perspective from two men - principles of bringing 'The Incredibles' to the screen. Their working relationship is based on a tension between them of creative abrasion. It's where they both have differing strong ideas/opinions they weakly hold. That means they can debate (and maybe argue for) their ideas/opinions that they willingly entertain changes to in order to reach a more satisfying, and likely better, path forward.
In reading the article, I'm reminded of the various work places in my career. In some places when you're not leadership, there is an expectation that leadership knows more. So we don't necessarily offer better ideas, even if they are better. But why? In some places, the work culture is such that employees may believe that because things have always been done one way, that it's the only way to do them or they should be done. (That's even if there are ways of working that could be improved upon.) But why?
There are reasons creative abrasion as described in the article can be difficult (things I would find hard to do as well). Creative abrasion works by focusing on task content not the personal. I take the 'personal' to mean that when we are married to our ideas and opinions, changing or improving upon them may diminish how we feel about our skills and abilities in our position, our value to the company, ourselves, or our personal worthiness. It's as if there is a part of ourselves that is at stake if our ideas or opinions are not fully embraced by others.
I think the hardest part of the working in a way where you challenge yourself and others to come up with the 'cream' of the best ideas/opinions -- is first, providing a clear message that this is the way you value working with teammates and that it is a work value. That said, it's also being authentic in what the idea or opinion you put forward and argue for but hold your commitment to weakly. This gives you the ability to listen and hear others who offer constructive evaluation (not devaluation) and build upon good ideas offering ways to improve your concept and/or spin it off into something totally exciting and new prompted by the dialogue that happens. Could regular people do this? It calls on being brave in bringing up an idea or opinion, getting comfortable with constructive argument, and not taking things personally including not feeling insulted or belittled if one's idea isn't accepted or has taken on a new form.
So, what do you think of this article? Can you envision this working? Would you want to work for an employer that valued creative abrasion?
From Science of Creativity: Use 'Creative Abrasion' as a Source of Energy
Comments
Post a Comment