Sie sind auf Seite 1von 55

THE FEMININITY OF

PRODUCTIVITY &
CREATIVITY

By Richard Tabor Greene


EMAIL richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu
Professor of Design, Creativity, & Innovation
Grad School of System, Design, & Management
Keio University, Japan
Master of Innovation,
DeTao Masters Academy, Shanghai
Founder, Dimensions of Difference Designs

Getting Real

about Creativity in Business


The FEMININITY of Productivity & Creativity

BOOK OF BOOKS by RTGreene


First 50 pages of 24 Books

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STEP 1--use links below to download FREE 1450 page PDF file of
the first 50+ pages of EACH of Richards 24 books below.
STEP 2--choose titles below to order, email me at address at bottom
of this page, I send PayPal fund request $20/title, you PAY with
your Paypal, instantly I send you LINK to book download = 3 min. total
1. Your Door to Creativity--42 models summarized 8 in detail--PAGE 4--86
2. Are You Creative? 60 Models--worlds most comprehensive--PAGE 88-142
3. Are You Creative? 128 Steps--to becoming creator & creating--PAGE 143-192
4. Getting Real about Creativity in Business--measures tools--PAGE 193-245
5. Your Door to Creativity, Revised--42 general 12 deailed models--PAGE 246-303
6. 72 Innovation Models--a grammar of changes that change history--PAGE 304-367
7. Creativity Leadership Tools--intructors manual & student text--PAGE 368-420
8. Creativity Leader--managing creativity of self & other, everywhere--PAGE 421-468
9. Thinking Design--160 approaches, tools, leading design, designs that lead--PAGE 469-538
10. Designs that Lead, Leaders who Design--an article collection--PAGE 539-594
11. Are You Educated?--an empirical science-based definition as 48 capabilities--PAGE 595-657
12. Are You Educated, Japan, China, EU, USA--300 capabilities from 5 models--PAGE 658-728
13. Managing Self--128 Dynamics--redoing Plato, Freud, Sartre, Kegan,Zen--PAGE 728-805
14. Power from Brain Training--exercises for 225 brain modules--PAGE 806-866
15. Knowledge Epitome--200 new face to face tools from revising ancient media--PAGE 867-933
16. Your Door to Culture Power--the shared practiced routines model--PAGE 934-989
17. Culture Power--what can be done with it, models & articles--PAGE 990-1055
18. Global Quality--24 approaches, 30 shared aims, quality soft-&-hard-ware--PAGE 1056-1129
19. Are You Effective?--100 methods from the worlds top performers--PAGE 1130-1193
20. A Science of Excellence--54 routes to the top of nearly any field--PAGE 1194-1242
21. SuperSelling--tools, methods, cases from 150 best at ALL forms of selling--PAGE 1243-1304
22. Managing Complexity--3 sources, 3 paradoxes of handling them--PAGE 1305-1370
23. Taking Place--creative city theory & practice via 288 city-fications--PAGE 1371-1431
24. Innovations in Innovation--& in 29 other creativity sciences--PAGE 1432-1491
All page numbers are PDF not print page numbers.
FREE download of this entire book of books via either LINK below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9XSvwJ-xErSSkoyMGU0azN0eFk

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9XSvwJ-xErSYVZJM3lXNUgwbm8

EMAIL--richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu

CONTENTS
PREFACE: THE CULTURE-CREATIVITY CONNECTION p.3
The Ballpark This Book Plays In--13 Sizes of Creativity, 42 Models of Creativity, No Interest at All in Feminism, Humans are Not Necessary for Creation
The Culture of Business Publishing
Why This Book Got Written
Why a Book on Creativity in Business
Professors, Americans, Right Wingers, Techies, and Males Patronizing Businesspersons
The Culture of Publishings for Business
The Culture of Creativity in Business
The Prima Facia Case for Culture as Central to Creativity in Business
The Culture of Creators
creators are people struggling to stay awake in your presence, in your speech, in your organization
creators are people who are unstoppable--the issue: stopping them long enough to hang around your organization
creators are nasty people and they see the flaws in everything
the despair doorway to insight and creation

Getting Crystalizing Experiences--For You, Your Firm, Your World


nut farming--a workforce of nuts
home runs verus base hits

The Culture of Me, the Author of this Book


Family Cultures
Political Cultures
Ethnic Cultures
Hacker Culture
Engineering Design Culture
Gender Cultures
Business Cultures
Non-Profit and Religious Cultures
Japanese Culture
My Career as a Pain in the Ass & Why All Creativity is Always Uncreative
Using Culture Changes to Create--Exaptation and Reframings
reframing suggestion systems--the final adaptation layer
reframing slack time systems--the productivity foundation of later creating--learning to fight for free time
reframing failure tolerance systems--second chance career systems
reframing creative thinking tools--the greater creativity of root thinking systems
reframing silicon valley systems--flows of things seeking homes, being a flow, being a home
reframing firms and careers--the concept of social multiplier
reframing knowledge work--code versus action factorws
Globality = Creativity: If Your Global Assignments are Phony Your Creativity is Shallow and Wimpy
Culture, Creativity, Educatedness--Their Relations
Some Paradoxes of Creating
making it easy makes it hard -- supporting it eliminates it
creativity is not creative -- so supporting it prevents it
creativity is uncreative -- changes of frame turn the uncreative into the creative and vice versa and you and I do not control
frame changes
the uncreative is sometimes very creative -- by definition, is another new technology from the US creative? no, it merely
continues a well established trend
the creativity of error--mis-copying (bad copy and copying wrong thing), mis-implementing (doing wrong thing, doing it
wrong way)

A Model of Culture and Cultures Role in Creating


Tools for Upping Mental Granularity and Productivity
A Useful Model of Culture

PART ONE--CREATING CLARITY ABOUT CREATIVITY p.14


Chapter 1: The Uncreativity of Current Research on Creativity in Business p.14

some other flaws in academic research on creativity in business


a fair representation of the state of value of what academic researchers have found about creativity in busiiness

What to Notice in the Above Findings About Business Creativity

The Lack of Diverse Diversity


Tuning the Control versus Creativity Trade-Off
Missing Disguise
Avoiding The Power of the Negative and the Despair Doorway
Omitting Skepticism, Schizo, and Know Thyself
What are These Well Populated Spaces and Resources of Academic Research on Creativity in Business?
Missing Connections--Perseverence via Disguise
Curiosity, Interest, Drive, Persistance, Investing in Failing Lines of Action--What Does Instrinsic Motivation Hide?
Creativity Kills Businesses
Conclusion--Not Male Enough, Not Female Enough, Not Anything Enough

Chapter 2: Disillusioning Creativity--Stripping Illusions from It p.21


toys for boys, tools for fools, getting real about creativity in business
inauthentic reasons for interest in creativity--the career system distorts creativity
the costs of inauthentic interest in creativity--simultaneous overshooting and undershooting creativity
tampering--statistical, complexity, and creativity
the uncreativity of creating--neurotic creativity
reducing creativity by supporting it--(it is not an it)
educatedness as a primary route to creativity
defining creativity--using the word and concept carefully and consistently--clearing away conceptual brush
a one minute creativity courage test
relational and representational defining of creativity
the creativity implementation paradoxes
connection as a self limiting route to creativity
the recommendations and subcreations models of creating--what they tells us about business blocks to creating
managing by events--a primary route to creating in business
managers educated enough to spot creative persons and not get in their way
pulsed systems--enough isolation and enough connection at the right times
gthe impossibility of creativity in modern businesses argument
the inevitability of creativity in modern businesses argument
creativity as cultural work--5 cultures--american, male, technology, capitalist, monkey
create-analysis not tools
the paybacks from creating
Chapter 3: Errors in Doing and Handling Creativity p.36
error 1--Assuming that Environments Support or Create Creativity
error 2--The Disaster of Assuming that Creativity is One Thing
error 3--The Disaster of Missing Trade-Offs Between More Creativity and More Other Things That Your Business Needs
error 4--Slighting or Ignoring the Creativity of Surviving as a Business
error 5--Missing When Being Creative is Not Very Creative
error 6--Stifling Creativity Using Creative Environments
error 7--Excepting, Containing, Bounding Creativity
error 8--Toys for Boys, Tools for Fools
error 9--The Mental Illness Illusion--Same Inputs, Different Outputs
error 10--Missing Infrastructure-Based Immense Innovations
error 11--Confusing Base Hit Democratic Creativity Systems with Home Run Elite Creativity Systems
error 12--Trying to Get Creativity from Non-Creators
error 13--False, Exaggerated, Biased Attribution
error 14--The Creativity of Hassle Handling
error 15--Being In the Flow With it
Chapter 4: The Femininity of Productivity and Creativity--Why This is Both Obvious and Inevitable and a Result of the Cultural Work that All Creating Amount
To p.42
Creativity as Moral and Culture Work:
How & Why Gender Work Gets Disguised as Technology and Technique Work
The Femininity of Productivity
The Femininity of Creativity
Creating Leadership--The Minimal Unit of Competent Cognition--The Heterosexual Pair
Chapter 5: Measuring Amount and Quality of Creativity p.47
The Relativity of Creativity and the Paradox of Turning Increments into Leaps
Resolving the Paradox Using 13 Sizes of Creativity
Environments Supportive of Different Sizes--Assessing Sizes

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 2

Environments Supportive of Different Models of Creating--Assessing Models

PART TWO--CREATING CREATORS p.51

Chapter 6: Total Quality as Eliminator of Uncreative Creativity p.51


total quality and elimination of uncreative creativity
total quality, TRIZ, and standard innovation operators

DEMASSIFICATION break a long, big, risky thing into a population of fast, small, riskless things
DEGENDERIFICATION take hierarchical, status concerned, competitive things and turn them into egalitarian, intimacy
concerned, cooperative things
DENEUROTICIZATION identify the costs of all talents and develop slighted capabilities caused by existing talents

Chapter 7: Creativity, Total Quality, and the Culture of Professionalism--Should Creation be Done by Professionals in It or by Everyone? p.53
Bledsoe and the Culture of Professions
Total quality as Un-professionalizing Work, Un-professionalizing Creativity--that is, Doing Creativity Without Creators
Towards Total Quality Creators and Total Quality Creating
The Paradox of Creative Ends Obtained by Uncreative Means
Chapter 8: Can I Personally Become Creative Alone or in an Environment Hostile to It? p.90
Creating Creators on All Size Scales
How to Become a Creator and Create in Hostile (that is Normal) Business Environments
Getting Creators, Once You Create Them to Create on All Size Scales
Supporting the Models of Creating Appropriate and Chosen by Each Size Scale
Synergies--Between Organization Levels, Between Creativity Size Scales, Between Creativity Models
Chapter 9: 45 Models of Innovation p.95
Chapter 10: From Psychoanalysis to Create-analysis p.155
create-analysis-ordinary people never create,
subcreations for creating,
creative lives do creating,
42 models of creating not one or a few, u
sing the recommendations model,
create-analysis,
using 42 models

using 42 models of creativity in business--two diagrams, empty and filled in


the creativity of educatedness--a short cut, believe it or not, for advanced organizations and leaders
Chapter 11: From Total Quality Creativity to Global Quality Creativity p.158
The Social Vehicle of TQ Applied to Creativity
Evolving Increments into Leaps
Devolving Leaps into Increments
Statistical Control of Creative Thinking and Creation Doing
Statistical Control of Creating Creators
From Total Quality Creating to Global Quality Creating

PART THREE--CREATING CREATIONS p.159


Chapter 12: Know What You are Talking About and What You are Doing p.159
Creativity, a Non-Human Process

lessons from the most creative process known in this universe


the process that created you and me, natural selection,
the process that produced natural selection

relational defining of creativity--the orthogonal disciplines research program


representational defining of creativity--a model of 42 models of creativity
Chapter 13: The Model of 54 Orthogonal Disciplines p.160
Chapter 14: The Model of 42 Models of Creativity p.169
(Chapter 15: 3 Out of 42 Models of Creativity
the recommendatioins Model--a model of the 64 steps of becoming creative and the 64 steps of creating: neutral drift and exaptations (gene
reuse in new frames/contexts)

the subcreations model


the culture mixing model)
Chapter 16: A Model of the Business of Creativity--Managing Invention, Discovery, Art, and Creators p.228

a model of the creativity of business--the next profound abstract model of business after total quality--globalizing all dimensions of business
the art of business, the business of art--emotional capitalism--femininizing: selves, systems, the earth and its future

how to ruin creativity in business--

1. patronizing publishings to businesspersons--dumbing down for wider markets, bigger sales, greater profits, while getting
less interest, less reading,
2. praising the easy--gradually lowering standards of what gets called creative till nothing is not creative
3. making creating easy--reduces challenge and victory, reduces creativity
4. off site rope climbs and rapid rides--experiencing how good life outside the rules is merely makes people hate the organization more, not less; businesses as communities = Japan

the software of creativity and the creativity of software systems and people--

tongue cramps from speaking mind to mind with software people


procedural embedding as a core creativity thinking skill
abstracting a minimal grammar of operators that do what is wanted as a small subset of a new combinatorial world
from programming codes to programming strategies, products, persons, careers

PART FOUR--CREATING CULTURES THAT CREATE p.248

Chapter 17: A Model of the 10 Components of Any Culture p.249


Chapter 18: Creating a Culture that Creates--How to Use the Model of Culture to Create a Culture of Creation p.278

APPENDIX--ASSESSING ALL OF CREATIVITY (NEARLY) p.280


Chapter 19: 1500 Item Creativity Checklist p.280
Chapter 20: 1000 Item Creativity Questionnaire p.313

PREFACE:
THE CULTURE-CREATIVITY
CONNECTION
Before reading this Preface, scan the chapter below titled The Model of 42 Models of Creativity. That chapter introduces you to the thoroughness and ambitions of this
book.
This book was writtten by someone with a successful career in global corporations, in non-profit third world development, in politics, in university research, in artificial intelligence software development and in the arts. His career took place in the US, in Europe, and in East Asia, particularly, Japan and China. Therefore, this book will be uncomfortable for people used to and liking their own experience and point of view. This book will be comfortable for people who have mastered living inside points of view
completely different than their own for years. This book argues that trusting your self and your own experience and point of view is the beginning of the end of creativity of
all sorts. Your identity and your comfort are twin enemies of creating. This book will not be a comfortable read for most people. It will attack, in some cases, relentlessly,
things most readers depend on for confidence, pride, and feeling superior to others. This book will in most cases be a humiliating experience--as all true learning experiences
are. In particular, this book counters the culture of all normal business publishings, for a reason.
This is a feisty book. It throws usual business commonsense out the window. It throws an entirely different, harsher light on business as usual. It looks at office and factory,
system and businesspersons the way anthropologists see them, the way visiting aliens might see them. I use emotionally loaded phrases, where it is normal to, instead, use
sanitary euphemisms in polite society. This book aims to be impolite. For too long too many in business, in academia studying business, and in the business press and publishing, have kissed ass to business--for they all want money from business. I do not seek money. I am, in this book, seeking truth. There is power in truth, great power,
even power to make money, and I am after bigger game than little increments of money and little increments of creativity. For that, I have to break conventions of thought and
talk, and use expressions that put usual business things in a new context, a context that often reveals the cupidity, stupidity, and torpidity of what businesses are and do. That
does not mean that all that they do is cupiditous, stupid, or torpid. Seeing negatives and flaws more deeply and comprehensively, is an essential step toward creating--it has to
be done, however painful it is--because it shows us where and how to improve. There is a method behind my madness of expression in this book, for cultures that you readers
are now happily controlled by and embedded in, hinder your attaining great creativity. To see those cultures inside you, after decades of denial and self obfuscation, I have to
wake readers up, make them cognizant of cultural hints and results, that normally they bleep over or pretend are not there. This book gets real and that means, if you have been
exaggerating your own worth or the worth of your business and its systems, this is going to be an extremely painful read for you. Beware! On the other hand, if you find the
pablum common to most business publishing a bit trite, boring, and hard to keep awake in front of, this feisty book may be just what you ordered!
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 3

I said above I wanted to deal with the culture of business books and their publishers (and how that affects creativity), but before doing that, there is one small other thing I want
to do. I want to show readers the scale of creativity this book deals with--because it is quite different than the scale of creativity of most famous university professor-consultants on innovation and creativity, and because it is quite different than the scale of creativity most corporate leaders, and their cultures, aim for and achieve.

The Ballpart This Book Plays In


If the creativity of Procter and Gambles Corporate New Ventures program interests you, this is not the book for you. This book considers that program approximately 5% of
what normal companies do when implementing programs for creativity (to be fair, the managers I know inside P&G also consider that program only a fraction of their
approaches to enhancing creativity). This book considers that P&G program, based as it is on Harvard University consults, one of the lower, simpler levels of creativity
implementation. The size of creations it aims at are small fractions of the size of creations semiconductor companies have to achieve every two years, small fractions of the
creations systems biology ventures have to propose to get funding, and small fractions of the creations that most large organizations will have to achieve to continue in existence another 20 years. The size of results from the Corporate New Ventures program are, in this books opinion, dangerous, extremely dangerous. The results of the P&G
Corporate New Ventures program are far too modest to meet the criteria of this book. This is a book for people with a lot more ambition, a lot more capability, and a lot better
consultants than that P&G program. This is one way to estimate the ballpark this book plays in.
A more abstract and accurate rendition of the ballpark this book plays in can be gotten by considering a very important aspect of creativity, overall. Creativity comes in sizes,
just like dresses, pants, drinks, and a lot of other things. There are small sizes of creation followed by middle sizes then large sizes. The Procter & Gamble Corporate New
Ventures program is either size 2 or size 5 out of 21 listed below, depending on how strict one wishes to be. If you are satisfied with that, I and a lot of other people, will not
want to invest in you or your management. This book is about achieving all the below, simultaneously. Indeed, this book demonstrates that you cannot do a good thorough
lasting job of achieving any one of the below without also achieving many others of the below. Creativity in businesses is a natural selection evolution process that evolves
suggestions into revolutions and devolves revolutions into suggestions. It is top down and bottom up and middle out all at the same time, whenever and wherever it achieves
large sizes of creativity, sizes far beyond P&Gs Corporate New Ventures program and far beyond the IBM-P&G retiree network for research outsourcing. If those, or similar programs elsewhere, are your creativity benchmarks you are too wimpy for this book--go buy a simpler, easier, more conformist book that does not stretch you at all.
This book is for the ambitious, the very ambitious. Actually, it is for the very best. If you want to be the very best in global creativity attainment, this is the book for you.

TWENTY ONE SIZES OF CREATIVITY:


The twenty one sizes of creation listed below are in order from small to large. This is not just a dimension of size differences. It is also a dimension
of increases in abstraction--small size creations are more concrete, local, and faster than large size creations. Large size creations are very
abstract, global, and time-consuming to implement. There are two super-layers: improvement and revolution. Improvements have to be sought
out and benchmarked as best practices; revolutions do not have to be sought out, they force themselves on everyone in an industry or economy.
There are two ordinary layers--tangibles and frameworks--that apply to both the improvement and the revolution super-layers. That makes for
four layers overall, that are increasingly abstract, general, and time-consuming as you progress through them in the order found below. The examples beside each item below, come from the history of total quality--since most business readers will be familiar with this global transformation
in business theory and practices as implemented worldwide over the last 30 years. Note Six Sigma does not appear in the below examples because
it is merely a rewording compendium of diverse old established quality techniques plus more stringent variance requirements on process attainments. It represents failure of total quality people to mesh and learn from software people (the old, analog, hardware blue suits versus the young,
digital, software T-shirts culture divide within persons, economies, firms, policies).
THE IMPROVEMENT LAYER

1. suggestions--lubricating omnipresent adaptation (Example: any corporate suggestion system having robust implementation)
2. improvements (kaizen) in practices--same outputs for fewer inputs, better outputs for same inputs (Example: process
enleanment via waste elimination to expose process determinants)
3. improvements (kaizen) in approaches--changes in abstract aspects of how things are done (Example: getting processes in
statistical control)
4. improvements (kaizen) in systems--changes across boundaries, vertical or horizontal, physical or physic or social (Example: root cause analysis exposure of managerial social class and status boundary causes of poor processes and outcomes)
5. improvements (kaizen) in infrastructures--changes in substrates all functions work upon, use, or depend on (Example:
machine tools with statistical control controls built in by their manufacturers)
6. improvements (kaizen) in directions--changes in human nature, feelings, goals, aspirations, boldnesses attempted (Example: Ph.D. workgroups--all ordinary workgroups doing Phd. level statistical research projects on process
improvements and automations; also, statistical control and improvement of software systems and processes of
invention)
THE FRAMEWORK IMPROVEMENT LAYER

Improvements (kaizen) in governing framework assumptions--changes in the following:

7. a. elaborating existing paradigms and their anomalies (Example: Statistical Process Control separation of
special and common causes; root thinking replacing folk attribution of causes)
8. b. challenging existing paradigms (Example: Management by Fact--evidence-based policy and strategy)
9. c. proposing alternative paradigms (Example: Policy and Quality Function Deployment campaigns)
10. d. establishing new winning paradigms (Example: process, internet, & social binding of company, suppliers, customers)
11. e. finding and specifying anomalies in new winning paradigms (Example: diversity (of idea, human
attributes beyond gender/age/ethnicity) management best practices)
THE REVOLUTION LAYER

12. revolutionary practice inventions--practices forcing all others to copy or capitulate (Example: JIT inventory)
13. revolutionary approach inventions--approaches forcing all others to copy or capitulate (Example: Knowledge management: total quality processes along with internet-implemented software-intelligent enhanced self-organizing processes)
14. revolutionary systems inventions--systems forcing all others to copy or capitulate (Example: firm cluster-izations, outsourcing knowledge, research, and creativity work; firms as plural, diverse, competing-within-the-firm homes
for ideas/creators)
15. revolutionary infrastructure inventions--infrastructures forcing all others to copy or capitulate (Example: JIT managing, the agile economy of automatic net-built firms)
16. revolutionary direction inventions-- human nature, feeling, goal, aspiration, boldness inventions forcing others to copy
or capitulate (Example: cognitive competitiveness, continual statistical improvement of benchmarked internal-tothe-individual mental processes)
THE FRAMEWORK REVOLUTION LAYER

Revolutionary governing framework assumption inventions--changes in the below forcing others to copy or capitulate

17 a. elaborating existing paradigms and their anomalies (Example: from quality circles to high technology
circles)
18. b. challenging existing paradigms (Example: managing by events: departments and processes replaced by
events, social communities across internetted networks maintained via mass workshop event types)
19. c. proposing alternative paradigms (Example: quality globalizations)
20. d. establishing new winning paradigms (Example: total quality creativity; global quality creativity)
21. e. finding and specifying anomalies in new winning paradigms (Example: sizes of creativity).

Another ballpark this book plays in is this--this book, unlike all the 300+ other books now published on creativity and innovation in business (I have personally read, recently,
600 of them, only 300 are worth remembering), assumes that creativity is not one thing. In fact, nearly half of this book is taken up with a model of 42 different models of
what creativity is. Creativity is at least 42 different approaches to creating, not one. Therefore, when consultants sell you an environment that supports creativity which
model does their environment support and which models does it hinder? The consultants do not know because they assume that creativity is one thing so one environment
that supports it can be found. Those consultants could not be more wrong. I built expert systems for ten years, using artificial intelligence programming I learned in high
school before going to MIT. I interviewed personally 8 of the worlds greatest designers and managed my employees interviewing over 69 other expert designers. Many of
these people were best in the world and their corporations were terrified that disease or traffic accidents would take them suddenly away. We got mental contents every 15
seconds, during dozens of hours of design work we observed these people doing--making huge transcripts of mental operands they used and mental operators they applied to
those mental operands. This constitutes a deeper, broader, more detailed exposure to creativity of the design sort, than any other professor or consultant now selling creativity classes or consults. This book is founded on things that are both obvious and validated by research, that are omitted by all other books on creativity in business, namely:

1. There are 21 sizes of creativity--all of them have to be implemented at once for any one to last and have impact.
2. There are at least 42 different models of how to create--supports that help any one of them hinder many others.
Penultimately, the subtitle of this book, about the femininity of productivity and creativity may mislead some readers. I am not a feminist, I do not like feminists, I am disgusted by political correctness of the American sort. Nevertheless, I am a scientist and my research data, has, again and again, revealed that most of the transformations and
solutions applied in business, today, end up feminizing work systems. This is undeniable, from a statistical standpoint. There is, I have to admit, a certain important support
in this for feminist positions--but only for some positions by some feminists, and the data do not support all the additional feminist ideas, rigidities, inflexibilities, nastinesses,
self destructive self praising, and intellectual dishonesties found all over feminism and academic departments for gender studies. This book dislikes all of that while affirming
scientific research results showing that most changes to improve business systems feminize those systems. What this ultimately means for creativity in business is dealt with
in detail later in this book. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this book has a single sentence in it supporting feminists or feminism. This book in general, in principle,
and in specifics does not support feminists or feminism. Not a single sentence in this book, other than this paragraph you are now reading, concerns itself with feminists or
feminisms. They go entirely unmentioned in this book except this small proviso paragraph. Fear not, your time will not be wasted in rigid ideologies and new founded bigotries!
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 4

Though I intensely condemn feminism, feminists, and political correctness of all sorts, I have spent years, in Wellesley College, as an undergraduate, mastering female culture
to correct excess male attributes of MITs culture, and as a manager of artificial intelligence software development in 3 global US and 2 Japanese corporations, I have found
myself hiring more women than men, because female employees were more reliable than males (though, for some reason not entirely clarified yet by research, my best single
programmers were always males). This book deals with reality, however it falls on various ideological dimensions and personal preferences or beliefs--including my own. I
present what the data support, whether I like it or not. This is a book about getting creativity out of reality, not out of namby-pamby idealizations or dishonest whitewashing
corporate cultures for the naive. If you want to feel good all the time, constantly praise your self and your firm, and have a nice life, stop reading this book and pick up some
comics or novels--this book is about reality in all its glory and nastinesses--how to create in that. This is not a book for fools.
Finally, what is the most creative process known? Well, what, then, is the most creative thing in the universe? By most criteria it is human beings. What, then, is the process
that created human beings? It is Darwins natural selection process (religious nuts who believe otherwise have more basic problems to work on than creativity and should not
be reading this book). What created the natural selection process? It was something in life itself. What created all life? It was auto-catalytic sets among primitive RNA precursors, according to the best current knowledge in science (people who believe it was some magical being in the sky who wants people to have luxurious motor vehicles have
more basic problems and should not be reading this book). What created auto-catalytic sets among primitive RNA precursor molecules? It was the universe itself. The universe itself is, by far, the most creative process now known. Recent information physics theories of the reality of the universe as information take this a step deeper. Anyway, the most creative process known is the universe we are in. That means that most of the most amazing creation going on is going on outside of what humans think and do.
This book takes place within the modesty that recognizing that produces. Other books tend to forget that most of the most important creativity that humans experience is not
produced by human beings. This book, on the contrary, is modest about the role of humans in creating and the amount of creating they, thus far, have proven capable of. This
book is real and it is about getting real about creating in business.

The Culture of Business Publishing


Why This Book Got Written
I was in Singapore the other day, with an hour to kill, so I went to the terminal bookstore and browsed around. There was a large, prominent, out front business book section,
reflecting the ethos of Singapore itself. As my eyes scanned title after title I got this message--hey stupid! hey stupid! hey stupid! The titles were insulting little pieces of
tripe. The worlds publishers have decided, from some time, many years ago, that businessmen are stupid and need to be fed two distinct kinds of junk--over-simplifications:
7 keys to this and 9 ways to that; and books of egotistical self praise: how I, the great X, saved GE, how great X is and wisdom from our hero X.
This always puzzled me. The people I worked in businesses with were quite smart, mentally bright, fun to converse with, and filled with ideas and ambitions, trying out wierd
new things every few months and years. They regularly read research journal articles and Harvard University graduate school books on patterns in history and the history of
individualism. At parties at their homes, they invited Ph.d researchers, scholars and artists, as well as business men and women. All of them hated the bureaucratic structures
of most businesses and the pompous gangster CEOs who ran off with their money--and all of them had numerous tactics for getting around bureaucratic roadblocks and
greedy CEO distortions.
Yet the books for business persons seemed to be aimed at a group of people much stupider than the ones I met in business. The books seemed to try hard to teach the utterly
obvious using simplistic language, as if business persons were both unaware of bureaucracy around them and unable to understand sentences having more than one clause in
them. Somehow an entire publishing industry had decided that, to sell to business persons, a book had to be naive and grade school in content level. Where were all these
dumb business persons? I never worked in any part of any business filled with people that stupid. What were the publishers seeing that I was not seeing? The Harvard Business Review, for example, puts executive summaries at the back--these are advertisements for the limited mentality of CEOs. If you take them seriously, you have to conclude that CEOs are mental cripples. Everyone I worked with in business laughed at the unwitting error of the Harvard Business Reviews editors and the vapidity of those
executive summaries at the end of each issue. We never met a CEO that mentally stunted (to become CEO you need a fair bit of mental facility, not of the academic intelligence sort, as recent research found CEOs average in that area, but in social smarts and people knowledge founded on robust self knowing). I never heard a single person
not speak of the executive summaries with contempt. Board members I associate with promise to fire any CEO needing such pablum. But getting beyond CEOs, the fastest
growing and by some measures richest parts of modern business, worldwide, are high technology based--filled with Ph.D.s, researchers, edge of field graduate students and
their professors. Managers incapable of thought do not do well in such environments. There is a disconnect between the mental capabililty of people in business and the
view of them that the business publishing industry has. Finally, on a technical basis, executive summaries are not accurate summaries and drop telling details in favor of vapid
generalizations--not a valid summarizing strategy given what research has found about discourse and the dynamics of mental recognition and recall (see research by Kintsch,
van Dijk, and Meyer in the late 1980s and early 1990s). .
Much of this is an America only phenomenon. You find French middle managers reading philosophy books, literary criticism, anthropology, and the like. You find German
middle managers reading up on the physics and chemistry of tool design. You find American middle managers reading 7 Habits of Joe Millionaire and How to Persuade
Your Boss of Anything. It is as if Americans, in order to do business, have to pretend to be unintelligent, and advertize to everyone around them how mentally incapable
they are, using the output of New York business book publishers.
One reason that I wrote this book was to create one book that does not patronize business persons--that speaks to the full mental capabilities that they have, that respects the
immense churning of technology and system, globality and competition that every business faces, but, that does not pull its punches about flaws in businesses. It is time for
publishers to talk up to business persons, and stop talking down to them. If you are a person who finds existing business publishing just right, a good fit for your mentality,
then you will soon lose your job--your work will be outsourced to an Indian with a graduate degree. This book gets real about creativity in business.

Why a Book on Creativity in Business?


Truth is--first world employees and managers are running scared. At first it was boring mundane call center work that was outsourced to India, China, South America, and
Vietnam. Then it was audit and financial analysis, business programming and artificial intelligence software, and more professional types of work. Now it is just about
everything except the CEO position. Job security is gone, for the well educated upper middle class in industrial nations. This is an immense change and dire threat. The reason creativity and innovation are appearing in more and more businesses and business publishings is people in first world nations are fleeing to creativity as a last bastion
against the tides of outsourcing. If you want to keep your job, you are going to have to make it so creative, no one in another nation can compete with you to do it. There is
a quite profound and general interest in creativity in business for this reason.
Why did I write a book on creativity in business--there are lots of books on that already out there? Due dilligence required me to read up on all that was already published, out
there, before deciding whether another book was needed or not. I bought 600 hundred books on creativity and innovation in business, copied about 150 research articles on the
topic produced by the PsychLit database, grouped them by similar topic, and read them all. I had been researching creativity and other related matters for 20 years but had
never tilted my work towards business-only creativity. I had researched creativity in science, art, commerce, government, and all domains of life, not emphasizing business at
all. So comparing the many models and results from my own research with what current publishings about creativity in business said, was informative. I found that nearly
nothing in my own research was covered by existing business book publishings on creativity. I found that business publishings on creativity were missing the boat, missing
the big picture, concentrating on a few slight details. Most of creativity was being missed by existing business book publishings on creativity. Indeed, business aims and
imagination, for creativity achievement, were so slight, limited, stunted, modest, petty, constricted by conformities and bias-limited imagination, that books on creativity in
business, for the most part, read as jokes--unwitting comedies of gyrations and purturbations needed to achieve the pettiest imaginable levels of novelty and change.
Worse than that--most of the books on creativity in business were not creative themselves. The books out there were dominated by certain cultures--the same cultures that prevent creativity in most of business: academic culture, American culture, right wing culture, techie culture, male culture, monkey culture. To have a male, competitive, American, right wing techie professor tell us, in business, how to create is like asking Nazis to design Jewish community centers. The cause of low or difficult creativity is selling
us how to create.

Professors, Americans, Right Wingers, and Males Patronizing Businesspersons


One reason that books for businesspersons patronize them is many such books are written by professors. Many of these professors come from the publish or perish generation, who were made to generate a great number of trivial research articles, before getting tenure in famous universities. Many of these professors are made to generate
research funding from outside sources every year, even after getting tenure. The majority of these business professors have spent their entire adult lives in colleges--they
have never managed a business, except nominally, on the side, with business savy partners helping them out. They have an especially abstract, remote, pale, lifeless rendition of life and people, work and business. It reminds me of why white people cannot dance and why St. Paul had so much trouble dealing with women and sexuality. It
reminds me of Prof. Sacks, helping Russia ruin its economy by privitizing state enterprises to friends of Russias president, making Prof. Sacks guilty enough to tackle world
poverty, to make up for ruining Russia, some say. It reminds me of the Nobel Prize winner professors whose investment fund had to be bailed out by the US Federal Reserve
Bank, to prevent harm to the world economy, when the Asian financial crisis happened a few years ago. It reminds me of Harvard educated, Ford tested, McNamara measuring war via body counts, while support in the US population for the Vietnam war evaporated. The vast majority of books for business are written by such professors--you
heed what they say at your own peril, data or not. If you restrict yourself to what their data statistically support, you end up in trivia land; if you go beyond what their data support, you end up being bailed out by reserve banks and entering personal bankruptcy.
Professors think business persons are simple-minded and they generate books that talk down to their business audience.
Another reason that books for businesspersons patronize them is many such books are written by Americans. Paradoxically, America is filled with immigrants and the children of immigrants, while being largely ignorant of culture and the world, arrogantly swinging around its economic, cultural, and military might, making enemies everywhere,
president after president. From EuroDisneys decades of red ink to Lincoln Electrics finding its piecework pay system illegal after setting up European subsidiaries, Americans have mastered the art of ignoring culture around the world. International institutions like the World Bank, UNDP, and IMF routinely ignore culture, mores, social traditions, and anthropoligy preferring whatever Milton Friedman and Econ 101 say is good economic theory. P&G, lauded as a transnational corporate culture, keeps nearly
100 American managers in its Kobe, Japan East Asia headquarters, apparently finding that globality means posting Americans abroad to keep the culture global. That is
the same kind of globality that made the Iraq war such a shining success for American policy makers.
Books written by Americans, as if Europeans, East Asians, and others naturally have the American model to follow, talk down to their business audience.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 5

A third reason that books for businesspersons patronize them is most such books are writtten by right wing people. That means that a chip on the shoulder decides many
issues throughout the books--markets are good, governments are bad; wealth is good, care is an expense and bad; make elites wealthy, make the poor suffer (they are poor
because they lack effort, not because they lack parents, health, and education). Books that cannot discuss many issues because ideology automates their thinking on such
issues, tend to be a little bland. They tend towards a self congratulatory mood and feel--look, as usual, we are right and the public sector is wrong, look rich people deserve
everything, and poor people cannot be trusted. You end up with books from the right wing to the right wing telling them how right they are. Not exactly thrilling intellectual
material.
Books written by right wingers for right wingers omit discussion of all the fundamentals and concern themselves with working out the application of fixed ideological commitments to the nooks and crannies of a few new cases. At best you end up with books celebrating how right we all are. Such writers patronize business persons who buy
their books.
A fourth reason that books for businesspersons patronize them is nearly all such books are written by males. If you are male a lot of things are obvious and good that never get
challenged (attack, defense, pride, bragging, territory fights, status systems embedded in hierarchies of rank, the hunt for certain parts of womens bodies, egotism, ignoring
and minimizing emotions among many others). What men think of as rational and natural women notice as hormonal and coming from the glands that swing between
mens legs. Women notice that these things are not obvious and not good but who cares what they think? Again it is an in-group publishing thing--males publishing to males,
after all, only males really count in business. You get self congratulation--how, obviously, good we all are. Males take for granted lots of attitudes, habits, ways of work, and
aims of life and work that look and feel obvious to them, though females see these as dangerous flaws and at best, incomplete. America, recently, has invented a new type
of woman--one who fits in to male management structures by being more male than males. These renditions of femininity, rather than checking male excesses and delusions, actually exacerbate them, in their efforts to get ahead. That more and more women are dropping out of these roles and competitions for them, attests to, the partiality,
the incompleteness of present business cultures and to the wisdom of many women in them.
Books written by males for male business persons, either ignore completely or miss, insights and ways only females can see and value. Such books end up talking down to
business persons, assuming that male ways are all or right, obviously.
A fifth reason that books for businesspersons patronize them is the assumption by publishers and writers and professor-consultants that more technology is more progress,
that more connection equals more creativity. Men have glands beween their legs that make them all their lives dwell in and lust for toys (including the biggie toy that dangles beween their legs). Entire industries foist toys, in the form of software systems and hardware devices, onto, men customers in each business. The men foisting and
the men buying share a love of devices, toys, and all that is inanimate and without emotion. It is obvious and natural to them all that more and better and more sophisticated toys equals more money, more sex, more pride, more status, and more business success, all the things men like.
Books writtten by techies for techie customers assume benefits rather than measuring, finding, or creating them. These books patronize business persons by virtually being a
religion of belief in progress from toys.

The Culture of Publishings for Business


In sum, what we have is a business book publishing industry replicating all the cultures in the industry they publish to--the blind leading the blind. Non-professor views, nonAmerican views, non-right-wing views, non-techie views, non-male views are unpopular and unpublishable, so professor, American, right wing, techie, male views are
published to abstract, American right wing, techie, male readers in business. If you wonder why much publishing on creativity in business produces little impact on creativity
in business, you need look no futher than this--the blind are leading the blind. With non-academic, non-American, non-right-wing, non-techie, non-male views in practice and
in principle ruled out from the beginning, business book publishers recycle self congratulatory pablum--limited people telling each other how great we all are.
Businesses trying to create and innovate do exactly the same thing--our firm needs an abstract, American, right wing, techie, male way to innovate. Nobody says this but
everybody does this. To fit in, any innovation or creativity-promoting system must fit that nexus of intersecting cultures. Any way or method or approach that does not
fit that nexus of cultures, will not fly around here. Businesses, from the very beginning, rule out the kinds of departure from existing values, views, and practices, needed
to diversify their repertoires and make things in them creative. Businesses seek conformist, comfortable forms of creating. Most business books on creativity promote safe,
small scale incremental forms of innovation--departures from existing norms small enough that nothing fails to fit in, nothing has to change much, nothing requires personal
change or growth. Creativity that is made to fit existing cultures, values, and norms, is still born--dead on arrival.

The Culture of Creativity in Business


The Prima Facia Case for Culture as Central to Creativity in Business
I am going to list, below, some incidents, some telling ones, and let readers draw their own conclusions from them.
I was standing outside the main entrance of a Japanese restaurant in Rochester, New York, with some Fuji Xerox friends of mine, when another Fuji Xerox employee came to the door. I
greeted him but my two Fuji Xerox friends refused to acknowledge his existance. Puzzled by this, I asked them directly, what was going on--hes a printer guy not a
copy machine guy they answered. I was amazed, because digital West Coast Xerox employees disliked analog East Coast Xerox employees. I thought this was a US
phenomenon. To see the same conflict repeated 10,000 miles away in Japan was amazing to me. TECHNOLOGY CULTURES
Sematech was a consortium of semiconductor manufacturers in the US who had gotten together to leap frog Japanese competition. The founder of Sematech was a West Coast, digital
technology guy from a semiconductor firm in California. Later a new head replaced him--a guy from the headquarters of an East Coast firm. The old leader wore
T-shirts, answered his own email directly, had a cubicle like everyone else, and parked with everyone else. The new leader wore blue suits, hired a secretary to insulate him from the rabble and their emails, knocked down half a dozen cubicles, replacing them with a huge room in which a marble toped desk was installed, and
mandated special parking and exclusive dining rooms for executives. Within six months of his arrival, the 21 most capable technical staff had left the consortium for
other work. COAST CULTURES
I was killing time in Xerox PARC, after installing software for Xeroxs Liveboard product, written by my own software group. I saw a meeting announcement on the wall, and, out of curiosity, went to it--the head of Xeroxs world wide research was presenting an annual summary of research directions for the company to PARC researchers. I sat in
the back row and was amazed as dozens of audience members shouted abuse to the vice president of research up front. Not just one dozen but dozens of dozens, over
100 people in all, ended up shouting abuse at him--you just dont get it do you head in the sand, head in the sand love the suit, hate the mind and other clever
phrases filled the air. I knew that Xerox was famous for missing entire new industries that emerged from inventions in their own labs, but I never knew the utter contempt with which East and West coast employees viewed each other. RESEARCH CULTURE
My boss had just written an order, cancelling all computer orders for Sun computer from Sun computers largest customer, General Motors. My boss was head of workstation computing
for General Motors. Suddenly Bill Joy, the Sun executive, was interested in General Motors and willing to adopt software standards that, up till then, Sun had arrogantly ignored from customer requests by General Motors and other firms. Later, when things had been amicably resolved, I phoned my own Sun salesman, to
place an order with him. He insisted on coming over. When he arrived, I handed him a written, complete order--but he insisted on showing me a slide show on Sun
computers and their new capabilities. I sat, watching the slides while phoning Sun computer. At my request this particular salesperson was, in the next minute, reassigned to a smaller than GM account. I wanted to buy products, not slides. MALE CULTURE
Eight consultants, one after the other, made 20 minute presentations to 3 vice presidents of Johnson and Johnson, in New Jersey. My boss boss was sick, my boss was sick, and therefore,
the partner of our consulting practice had asked me to fill in, not expecting much. I was number 6 out of 8 presenting. The vice presidents were in deep sleep by
the time they got to me. I held up one slide in my fingers and said, loudly I will present only 1 slide, but first I need some feedback from our customers. I then proceeded to ask each vice president what he thought about the five prior presentations--all PowerPoint slide shows. It was like extracting teeth, but eventually, slowly,
they began to speak, telling us all what they liked, disliked, believed, and doubted about the previous 100 minutes of presentations. From that, I got core issues and
concerns in their minds, and chose one slide that centered on those things. That is the one slide I then presented, talking myself only the last 5 of the 20 minutes allotted to me. When the day was done and we went to a nearby restaurant to hear results, our partner, after consulting with the vice presidents, came back and
announced no new business for 7 of the 8 of us, and $6 million in new business for me. Apparently, being listened to outweighed in customer minds, being presented
to. Interestingly, the next Monday, on the elevator going to my office on the 44th floor of our Avenue of the Americas building in Manhattan, all the old white haired
guys greeted me by name--once a consulting company finds out you can sell, everyone gets interested in you. MALE CULTURE
I was peeing in the rain in Koreas poorest village, next to Thomas Jefferson Coolidge the Third, of Back Bay Orient Enterprises, grandson of US President Coolidge. This village had no
electricity, no running water, and no toilets--we were using a corner of the pig stye (a bad idea as pigs fed human waste generate lots of diseases, Mr. Coolidge and I
did not eat the pork there). I had just doubled per capita income in the entire village by ignoring men in the village and concentrating on women. Income had been
doubled by delivering backpack portable mowers, donated by a firm in Takatsuki, Japan, to village women, turning 7 weeks of hands and knees harvesting into four
days of standing up harvesting. The women had used their six+ weeks of free time to go to neighboring Jeju city, earning cash income from part-time work. The men
of the village, seeing their women with cash, got very upset--cash could buy sex and Korean men are very interested in alcohol and sex. This cash income of the
women and the envy it provoked is what got the men, for the first time in years of development projects in this area of Korea, serious about development work. Three
prior years of projects involving the village men had produced absolutely nothing except theft and dereliction. Suddenly after the women got cash income, projects
that had failed again and again before, now worked well. AMERICAN CULTURE, GENDER CULTURE
My employer, a major American manufacturer of office equipment, had a Japanese subsidiary and another Japanese firm as our most dangerous international competitor. Our Japanese
subsidiary developed a color copier technology and wanted to release a product based on it. However, American engineers in US headquarters were offended and
found excuses to ignore that technology in favor of a much more complex and expensive one being developed more slowly in the US. During the several years it took
them to develop this US version, our fiercest international competitor released their color copier technology and for the first time in history could visit all our customers offering a machine we could not match. In other words, a huge portion of our global sales evaporated in the two years while national pride caused us to ignore a
technology developed by our Japanese subsidiary, delaying release of color copier products that could have matched our competitors products. NATIONAL CULTURE
I was at the headquarters of a US high tech firm, hosting visiting Japanese for a technology exchange meeting. They stood up and presented one slide on their aims and goals for their
tech exchange visits. I stood up and presented one slide on our firms aims and goals for its technology development programs. I then sat down. After some flustered conversation among my Japanese guests, one of them, in imperfect English, asked me to continue. I said, since this is an exchange meeting, I will present one
slide for every slide you first present--lets see your next slide, please. They had no next slide so we ate sushi I had ordered up, in silence, and they left. This, to my
mind, was an entirely successful technology exchange meeting. The dumb Americans had not given away their crown jewels for nothing. A year earlier by eating
where one of the Japanese companies leading this visit ate, near their headquarters building in Tokyo, I had overheard significant bits of what they were doing in new
technology development--I did not need more exchanging. They did not expect to meet Americans fluent in Japanese. JAPANESE CULTURE
For 2 years 7000 salesmen from my own employer had succeeded in selling nothing to our biggest customer, General Motors. Only our chairman had made sales during this 2 year period.
In truth, the culture of my firm was military, male, aggressive, proud and both resisted and resented by better educated managers at General Motors who were used
to developing and using more sophisticated technologies for their product, cars, that my own company needed for its product, computer networks. I was not a manager, but had four 22 year old new hires to keeep busy, so we decided after drinking too many beers one night, to solve the biggest problem our own company now
had, namely, no sales to our biggest customer in 2 years. We invented a feminine event, where instead of presenting we listened, instead of bragging we asked for

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 6

help, instead of promoting how great our company was we promoted how great our customer General Motors was. Three one day long mass workshop events, at
three successive GM divisions, were held, at which GM engineers we had found proposed new software projects that my company could help with, in the morning,
matched, one for one, by demos in afternoons of working such systems in other companies. We transcribed remarks by made by GM managers viewing each afternoon demos, compiled and analyzed them, into a 500 page book, that we then printed and mailed to the top 2000 managers of each GM division where we held this
event. After our third such one day event, followed by such publishing, we were called in by GMs largest division, Truck and Bus, and told we had 12 million dollars for a trial project, and 2 weeks to tell GM how that money would be spent this year. In other words, without directly selling we made the first sale, by anyone
other than our chairman, by countering the military male culture of our own firm, and installing a female style event that charmed the customers into paying us
money. GENDER CULTURES
I had just come back from 7 years in Japan, working at Japans most profitable single research lab, Matsushita Electrics Wireless Research Lab (now called their Development Research
lab). I was working at a consulting firm that sold expert system software applications to Wall Street financial firms. My bosses were selling one or two $1 million
each projects per year. These projects took 2 to 3 years to complete, were complex to sell, and complex to complete, often late and with expenses that eliminated profits. If I followed my leaders I would sell, at most, $2 million in projects a year, with about half of such projects having no final profit for our firm. This I refused to
do. Instead, I decided to sell 30 smaller projects as a High Technology Circles program to New Jersey drug companies--each project 18 months long, simple to sell,
simple to complete code for, and 30 such circle projects scattered all over the firm. At $100,000 per circle per year, I sold $6 million in my first 8 months of work--with
all 60 circles projects coming in on time and under budget 18 months later. Joining Japanese quality circles with US high software technologies was natural to me--I
had worked in Japans best quality firm, Matsushita was a Deming Prize winner--and I had studied artificial intelligence computing years earlier at MIT. Though
my work appeared innovative or creative to outsiders; to me it was just the natural effortless combination of two diverse contexts from my background. CREATIVITY CULTURES
At Brunswick Corporation a business process, before being re-engineered, was sequential, with unchanging pre-planned flow, and performance measures that determined correctives for
steps done slowly or late. After re-engineering it was many parallel processes, flexibly changing in patterns that emerged from process interactions, with performance measures that determined which steps the entire process workforce analyzed and improved. At visiting consultant noticed that the movement from sequential
to parallel, from pre-planned to emergent form, from punitive measurement to solving measurement corresponded to the traits that female discourse type had that
male discourse lacked. Re-engineering had feminized work systems, using technology to reduce male-ness of system. GENDER CULTURES
I had just talked with several consultants at Delta Consulting in Manhattan and learned that their top salary was half what I was already being paid. One of them was telling the other
about a failed sale in the recent past. According to him, Delta had presented a re-structuring plan for a business unit that involved changing organization structure,
incentives, and the like injecting total quality and socio-tech system concepts from Emery, Thorsrud, Herbst, and the Tavistock Institute. The Delta proposal had
been rejected. What irritated this consultant was the winner, whose proposal was accepted, had proposed exactly the same changes, only less well articulated and
organized. He was lamenting that Delta with a better track record and better methodology of client engagement lost this job to a competitor who proposed the same
thing less excellently done. When asked why they lost he told his partner--X corporation proposed a new technology--workflow computing--system not a new organization system--this client was willing to change technology but not willing to pay for changing sociology. GENDER CULTURE, TECHNOLOGY CULTURE.

Add to the above EuroDisney losing money year after year, Lincoln Electric setting up piecework pay systems in European nations before finding out such pay systems violated national laws there, and other cross-cultural business learning experiences and you can sense that creativity and culture overlap to a considerable and interesting extent,
worldwide. Why?

The Culture of Creators


Creators are people who struggle to stay awake while you speak, who find your presence boring and your organization trite. Creators are people who ooze disrespect. Creators are intense and engaged people--chances are you will be perceived by them, nearly always, as a pain-in-the-neck distraction, a cost, an irritant to be avoided. Creators,
like centenarians, are rather nasty, self-interested people, willing to push others away in order to further what they are working on at the moment. Creators are not nice people
to be around. They are team players in the same way that lions are among sheep. You know a business person is insincere about creativity whenever he mentions creating
and teamwork in the same sentence. He is either deluded or pretending to care. Creators mock teams because they automatically without permission establish social networks much stronger than corporately mandated teams. Creators seek out value around them, even in the poor quality workforces and management layers of big organizations, building deep personal bonds with those few who can be found to have some decent amount of motive and capability. These invisible colleges within and across
organization boundaries are established by creators automatically and used to buffer them and their creative ideas from the vagaries, budgetting errors, management changes
of organizations they happen to be in.
Creators are also people who do not need your help and support. Whenever you hear a consultant or manager talk about better supporting creativity around here you know
you are in the august presence of a phony--someone who has never seen creativity and would not recognize it if it were to run over him or her. Creators are creative precisely
because they cannot be stopped. They do not ask permission and they do not give a damn whom they irritate and how irritated they be. They know that if they are fired from
a job today, they will be paid more in a better location by a better organization this afternoon. Firings propel the careers of creators--they damange the repute and careers of
non-creators. Creators are hated by CEOs and vice presidents, in large part, because of their fearlessness--you cannot intimate them into doing anything. Intimidation is
daily rain for creators--they send roots out into it and use it to grow. Creators do not seek support for their ideas from their own organizations because to them who needs
some dumb bunny throwing inept unfitting maladroit sneaky supports; at us all the time. The best support most administrations can furnish to creators is simply this--leave
them to hell alone.
Creators are nasty people--they see the negative in everything. Nothing around them pleases them--they see flaw, error, delusion, pettyness, and the like. They certainly
never see the pablum goodness and greatness and excellence that CEOs are always talking about in speeches and mission statements. Creators are the first to laugh out
loud at CEO pablum pronouncements about teamwork (for all except golden parachutes) and organizational excellence (numbers good enough to get stock options for a few at
the top). Creators are the sullen ones, cutting their fingernails during mandated corporate training sessions. While everyone around them builds teamwork while shooting the
rapids, they contemplate all the organizational obstacles, like rocks in the rapids in front of them, that shooting these rapids are not removing from real work and real workplaces everyone will soon go back to. Teamwork in nature is easy and fun and has nothing to do with building teamwork in a nasty bureaucracy where CEOs steal millions
from naive employees and stockholders.
There is a good reason creators are always so filled with negativity--because they see the flaw around them, they improve everything they touch. It is precisely because they
dislike everything they see so intensely, that they improve everything around them. Research shows that despair is the doorway through which personal change and creativity
emerge. Shut despair out of a person or workforce and you shut the door on all personal improvement and creativity.
Creators live in a different world than the rest of us. The talk, expressions, images, and explanations outside all around them in society, that tell us all what things are there
and which are important and the like, are not the talk, expressions, images, and explanations that creators use inside their own heads to explain the world to themselves. Creators maintain their own views of the world and work diligently to keep accurate personally-invented expressions for things, rather than borrowing or casually using expressions that society and persons outside them use. Those outsider expressions are seen by creators as just about totally bogus--lies, exaggerations, deliberate distortions,
unwitting stupidities, uneducated guesses, casual biases, and the like. Creators maintain inside themselves a rather nasty negative bitterly accurate vocabulary for all that is in
the world around them, never permitting the images and terminologies around them to become their own images and terminologies. Creators talk about the world in unique
personal ways that are much nastier, more accurate, and less driven by fad and fashion, crowd enthusiasms and conformities. A person can start out on the road to creativity
when they maintain an internal, inside-the-mind vocabulary and expression set, that differs drastically, from all the images and expressions for things, used by people and institutions around them.
Consultants and CEOs, together, all too often promote a nice goody two shoes version of creativity, creators who are team players, who speak respectfully of corporate missions and CEO golden parachutes, who love their work environments and supports there for creativity. Such consultants and CEOs merely advertise, thereby, their own complete ignorance of creators and how creators actually create. Banish despair from a workforce and you thereby banish creativity. You do not unblock processes for creators;
you get out of their way and clean up the messes they leave behind! The problem is uneducted CEOs of limited intellect cannot see and recognize creators around them--they
see instead disrespectful people who fail to demonstrate adequate loyalty to CEO gold parachutes and pablum announcements. Only highly educated CEOs, usually with
Ph.D.s are smart enough to distinguish creators from bad-minded rebels and laggards.
Indeed, creators are invisible people--you can never see them, unless you are highly abstract, that is, highly educated. They are around you, in your firm, but you cannot see
them. They are, for considerable portions of their existence, in disguise and their best projects and ideas are in disguise also. Van de Ven and others at the University of Minnesota studied innovation and creativity the hard expensive way--longitudinally, following particular ideas though changes of management, budget, organization, priority.
They found nearly everything taught about them was false--creative ideas and projects continually put on new disguises to hide from new enemies of change. They choose
temporary champions then spit them out when they get too proprietary and political--owning ideas too much. At times they connect to the organization and its resources but
most of the time they withdraw and hide. Like the football team, the L.A. Raiders of old, they take the discards of others and find value in them. They function as religious
orders in a secular company environment, to the extent that they are tremendous drive passing through generations of part-time participants in an evolving coalition around
some idea passionately held. .

Getting Crystalizing Experiences--Do Little Bits of Creativity Add Up to a Big One?


Most managers prefer a motivated person to a talented one. We can all turn motivation into great talent; we cannot turn great talent into motivation. Most creating work is
not creative--it is boring and a hard slog. Think of Edison testing light bulb material number 9997, 9998. Long strings of repetitious failure is what creating consists of for
the most part. Environments that support creating and creative things miss the boat--most of creating needs support for long strings of repetitious failing. Harvard famous
names are not given to selling supports for the tedious long uncertain mundane strings of work from which insights and inventions come. They would prefer to sell supports
for creative thinking--if Edison had gotten creative while testing light bulb material 7774, for instance, we probably would still be burning oil lamps.
MIT has researched inventions of all sorts, Prof. Hipples work. He found it was not customers of a product from which inventions came, nor developers of products, but
driven users--users who had great needs and drive who tinkered with a product inventing improvements in it that they needed. You do not make such driven users, you find
them. To make such an inventor, should you be so bold as to try, you would have to find someone just as they are falling in love with something--a problem, a possibility, an
idea, a technology, a device, a need. Crystalizing experiences are like the young Yo-yo Ma, hearing for the first time in his life, the sound of the cello--he fell in love with producing that sound and spent an entire life doing so. Creators are people who love something passionately, and, with ridiculous levels of drive and initiative, pursue it to a good
conclusion. No business even comes close to producing this level of dedication and passion, CEO pronouncements notwithstanding (unless you include CEO drive for stock
options and gold parachutes). You do not foster such love--you recognize it where it is, and get out of its way before it crushes you. Instead of this, all too common is tepid
creativity for sullen employees subjected to creativity support environments. We have ways to improve the creativity of rutted, tired, cynical, conformist, unenthusiastic,
incapable persons--improvement is something professor-consultants love to promote, but should businesses be spending money on improving very very low base levels of
performance to merely somewhat low levels? Why transform a rock into a partial human when you can find and hire a genius? It is time to get real about creativity in business.

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 7

Finding, it turns out, actually does outperform improving and creating creators--if you examine research results broadly, not narrowly. There is an agriculture of creating-finding good soil for particular seeds, finding good seeds for particular soils. Ideas are the seeds, creators are the fertilizer, and companies are the soils. You do not modify
companies to fit creators--you fiind companies to fit them. That is much faster. You do not modify ideas to grow in company soils, you switch to new ideas and try them out
in your soil. That is much faster. Creativity is very much a matching process--finding a home for an idea, finding ideas to home, to take root, in a particular firm. Companies
and consultants that sell themselves on the idea of making our firm a home to all creative ideas or most of them are living in an illusion. Most creative ideas will not fit any
one partiicular spot or home. You have to have a repertoire of spots and cycle the idea through many of them till suddenly you find one where it takes root. The method is
cycling lots of ideas past lots of potential homes till a match is found. That is how you make creativity flourish.
Trying to make one soil grow all creative ideas is a fools mission. Unfortunately many creativity consultants, professors, and company managers are involved in this illusion.
Please note that to the extent that a company is one uniform environment, it is a one home target for ideas flowing past, which means few chances for ideas to find something to stick to as their home. This suggests that companies serious about getting creative think about how to become many different plural cultures and communities under
one umbrella. The example of Silicon Valley suggests that companies become such clusters tech valleys. The power of Silicion Valley is the flows of person, resource,
funds, technologies, and ideas--five flows--woven together at spots called venture businesses. By flowing many ideas past many persons, many persons past many jobs,
many jobs past many firms, many firms past many funders, many funders past many technologies--homes for ideas, persons, jobs, technologies, and funds are found. It is a
matter of matching things--finding fits. For the changes in your one firms soil that you make to adapt it better to idea 1, necessarily adapt it poorer for ideas 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc.
Trying to adapt your soil to fit all ideas insures that it fits none well or for long.
From Edisons first R&D lab in New York to the latest technology venture in Silicon Valley, creativity in business is a matter of nut farming--managing a workforce of nuts.
Herding cats is the metaphor used to describe management of university professors. Herding cats refers to managing the unmanageable. Creators are just about unmanageable. Though there are lots of books about R&D labs and their management, they are pretty much filled with one long boring repetitious fight--executives wanting relevance
from creators and creators wanting resources from executives. As executives win--creators leave or fail to join up and as creators win--funds dry up and people whose ideas
require few resources are the only ones who prosper. If you review, as I have, seventy five recent such books on managing researchers and inventors, you find that overwhelming consensus today is incrementalism. This is a management strategy, a way to get creators pointed, where you want them pointed, as an executive, towards where
immediate funds are to be made. This incrementalism approach looks for faster, less risky, smaller scale, immediate inventions that can be strung together sometimes into
things larger and of more import. This makes new ideas small enough that they fit into executive heads--the Harvard Business Reviews executive summary strategy again-and it makes researchers take next steps that happen to add up to something that can be sold. When this is applied and when it works, executives as well as researchers succeed in getting smaller and smaller increments of innovation, till really infinitesimal ones are produced in a long long stream. It is a kind of calculus miracle of getting innovation by adding up little bits each of which is not at all novel. Unfortunately, organizations that master adding together infinitesimal amounts of novelty, end up achieving
creations of tiny size, and minimal impact.
Unfortunately, especially these days, little bits of almost novelty, never add up to enough to allow business survival. Our world is filled with revolutionary new technologies,
yearly if not monthly. As Kurzweil says, it all is growing exponentially so that in a few more years, it will be weekly and then daily that revolutionary technologies appear.
When your environment is filled with a stream of revolutionary technologies and innovations, answering back with a continual stream of little bitty ones is not enough. It
makes you a laughing stock, not a big player or survivor. Home runs--producing a string of home runs, not base hits--is the challenge. How does one do this? The incrementalism strategy of professor consultants and consulting firms, of managers and executives, does not help--it is not relevant.

The Culture of Me, the Author of This Book


The Ground This Book Grew From
Below I have rewritten my own biography as encountering a series of cultures. I do this, in some detail for me, because it helps readers, while reading the below, imagine
their own cultures encountered at similar points in their own lives. Each of us can be understood as the result of a number of shocking and self changing culture encounters.
Understood that way, each of us becomes closer to becoming a creator. Here goes.

Family Culture. I grew up in a family having a dictatorial father, trained in psychology by 14 years in military service to his nation. He did not attend college, and my

mother attended a small rural college in music, so I heard little about knowledge and university while growing up. He did found three venture businesses, one after the other,
none of them breaking into the big time, all of them eventually failing. A retired executive, hired by my father when his third mini-mill steel company went nearly bust, correctly diagnosed the problem--Mr. Greene, he told my father, you created your businesses for personal psychology reasons, to have people to boss around; you were never in
it for profit and therefore your businesses take a too casual attitude to and method for the pricing work that determines profitability of the business; when you get serious about
being a business person rather than just a boss, profits will quickly be found. He was exactly on target. My father created firms in order to not take orders, not salute. He
was correcting for 14 years of subservience sufferred while in the military. I watched my father deal with disgruntled investors, beg clients for further business, struggle to
meet monthly payrolls, and preside over the death of a business as computers automated away the work his employees were doing. My father enjoyed business even when it
was failing. He loved playing the game having the chance to succeed. The point was taking a risk and playing it out as well as you could.

To like men at all I needed examples beyond my own father and my high school girlfriends father fit nicely. He had a Ph.d. and I could discuss and disagree with him, unlike
my own father, without anyone getting angry or heated. He deftly took two, three, or more approaches to any issue, often combining incompatible views. Months later, when
the same issue came up between us, I found his views had evolved, based on reading or discussions he had had. Where my father got angry when his opinions were ignored or
attacked, my high school girlfriends father did not seem to mind being disagreed with. He disagreed with his own opinions, not infrequently declaring that his own ideas
bored him and he wished he could update them more regularly but could not fit in enough reading to keep up with all the fields that interested him. I found this liberating and
enthralling after years of living with a grown man of adolescent opinions that, decade after decade, did not improve or evolve, and that were defended with vehemence out of
all proportion to what was at stake in the conversation. A psychology book by Kegan at Harvard, later explained this to me--my father was his opinions instead of having
them. He was stuck at an adolescent stage of psychological development, though in an aging body. My high school girlfriends father, on the contrary, had opinions that he
updated, doubted, and, in general, managed. His worth and confidence were not invested in them. You could dislike them, and attack them, without disliking or attacking
him, as far as he felt.

Political Culture. I took junior high school summer jobs at a highway design firm, plotting dots from surveyor books onto graph paper (work now done in seconds by

computers). My first job had rules about when I could eat, when I could go to the restroom, how I had to dress, where I could eat lunch. I found work entirely dictatorial
though America, in schools, was explained as a democracy. Apparently the democratic part evaporated when you worked for a salary someone else was paying--you sold your
political worth for economic sustenance. I found this less than enthralling as a junior high student, and, reading Montesque under the guidance of a nice teacher there, found
that Frenchmen of several hundred years earlier agreed with me in this impression. Also, the petty tyranny of low level managers whom I reported to, impressed me. When,
in college at MIT, I experienced McNamara sending Vietnamese and Americans and others to their deaths, under his Harvard-developed management skills, and Martin
Luther King demonstrating unmistakably how entire sections of the US had used laws to strip the right to vote from ethnic groups, this issue of democracy being real or not
and extending to all of life or just tiny parts of life, became rather weighty as an issue for me. The lack of democracy in my father, in my state laws, in my nations prosecution
of wars, in my first jobs in business, in my bosses--all blended together.
The state and city I grew up in were backward, past-looking, based on tobacco and slavery, rooted in suppression of blacks, women, and all minorities. Ultimately they produced stunted people, themselves, they stunded, ironically, themselves--me and the people I grew up with--low achieving, conformist, bigots. My high school principal had
forbidden me, on our debate team, from debating at a black college. I went anyway after giving interviews to a local newspaper that spawned a federal investigation of my
principal and our states system of high schools. This made me famous in a nasty way--the principal never recommended me to MIT and Princeton when I applied there.
Fortunately his reputation went before him and his lack of recommendation was taken by both colleges as positive evidence of my worth. It impressed me that, to go to college, I had to overcome the resistance of my own high school principal to letting whites debate at black colleges. Democracy was just for some people, where I grew up.

Ethnic Culture. My sister and some friends had been pestering me to attend music concerts at Tantilla Gardens in the downtown area of my city. I delayed for months

and years but finally bought tickets to the second concert, from 9 to 11 p.m.. As was my wont I showed up early, catching the last minutes of the first show. As the first show
audience left and the second show audience arrived I noticed something strange--all the first show audience were white and all the second show audience were black. I was
one of only half a dozen white people in the audience for the second show. Something even stranger happened. The performers--the Four Tops--who had been demure and
boring for the all white early performance were vivacious and shining with passion in their second performance. An even bigger difference was in the audience. The all white
audience had sat still, politely tapping their hands together in applause after each number. The black audience, from the start, swayed in their seats, danced in the aisles, sang
along with the choruses, and got into the spirit of the whole thing. As I drove home I pondered this--all my life I had grown up among and been influenced and educated by
those pale, static, lifeless white people. Look at all the passion in life I had missed as a result. I was stunned with another way of being in the world right there all along next
to me but unseen until that night. It reminded me of H. G. Wellss novel about the elohim, flower strewing wimpy lifeless ones above ground, supported by dirty nasty brutish
powerful passionate workers below ground in some future world.

Software Hacker Culture. I chose MIT and was accepted. In high school I had three summer vacations, each spent building software--a Fortran I program that
expanded the stress integrals of bridge design binomially and integrated them, keeping integer coefficients throughout (on an IBM 1401 with 8 digit limits on numbers), a Lisp
1.5 program that controlled a crystal growing machine, and an APL program that plotted star maps taken off photos from a large telescope. By the time I got to MIT I found
their first programming course--building a Cobol compiler in PL1 (course 6.251)--a waste of time. However, my roommate, Al Baisley, taught me Lisp, the early artificial
intelligence language--it was amazing. Even a beginner could build programs that learned from whatever it was that they did. Even beginners could create programs that had
no definite procedure of execution, no main routine; instead, hosts of little conditions sat around checking a blackboard for whatever was true about present conditions, and
when a present condition matched a software conditions rule, it fired, taking some action, including, possibly posting a new situation on the blackboard for other routines to
react to. In this way you could write programs whose overall behavior neither you not any machine could predict--yet the program did powerful and useful work. Lisp was
wonderful. We worked in a place, the Project MAC basement in Tech Square, where a bunch of PDP computers were covered with cables. The only rule was--you can plug
in new cables, but you can never unplug any old cable, because no one really knew what the old cables were connecting and they were so twisted together, it would take half a
day to trace any one of them. All sorts of people, not studying computer science, not taking engineering, even not related to MIT were in that basement doing early artificial
intelligence programming, day and night. Later words for that amorphous community of the intellectually curious appeared--nerds hackers. I later learned I had been in
hacker culture during my college years.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 8

Engineering Design Culture. The rest of MIT amazed me, outside that Tech Square basement. Suddenly all the adults I met were adult, not adolescents defending

unchanging opinions. Suddenly everyone had multiple points of view, not the same point of view. Suddenly people around me changed views monthly as they read new
things. The region around me, at MIT, made money without killing people with tobacco, and did not harken back to the good ol days of slavery. I was fully liberated there,
finding the people around me, like me, interested in ideas and in trying them out to change bits of the world. For one specific thing--all our homework was designing things.
Unlike Harvard and Wellesley, MIT homework was useful and innovative at the same time. Since designing was intellectually fun and challenging, we all started inventing
our own homework and doing it, beyond any assigned work from courses. This amazed me--all of us ended up doubling and tripling our homework load, voluntarily, because
it was fun inventing things that did useful work and innovative functions never achieved in human history before. I grew to love and respect the culture of engineering itself.

Gender Culture. After two years at MIT I noticed an excess male-ness to things there. Famously students drew circles on sidewalks to be targets for suicides. They

thought that was funny but I sensed an excess of male hormones. Though Japanese engineering methods were becoming world famous, at that time, 1966 to 1971, MIT
courses did things the good old American engineering way, with no inclusion of interesting alternative ways from Japan. I found that wimpy in a not invented here male territory sort of way. In these and lots of other ways, I got the sense that MIT was too male, hurt by being only male in culture. Of course MIT had admitted women decades
before other colleges, but they still were a token presence on campus and faculty. To correct this I cross-registered for courses at Wellesley, a famous womens school, for two
years. Courses, I found, at Wellesley, were harder than MIT courses but in a different set of dimensions--instead of hard math and design, they had hard interpretation and
composition. I liked Wellesley because it was a sexual paradise for me, as a young man, and because it was mentally challenging, by being emotionally challenging. Students
there were feeling responsible for all of Western culture and saw themselves as carriers of that culture who transmitted it, for better or worse, to next generations. MIT lacked
that sort of cultural centrality and responsibility atmosphere. MIT, on the other hand, had a direct sense of power and we can do anything that Wellesley lacked. By living
at Wellesley for two years I could be a minority in female culture and observe what was different there.

Business Culture. My father refused to pay tuition for me, after exchanging views on Vietnam, so I desperately needed money--at first to eat, later to pay tuition. A
girlfriend of mine at Wellesley suggested a weekend romantic weekend childcare school, on a creativity theme, for children of Harvard, MIT, Radcliff, and Wellesley faculty. This would take care of kids from Friday dinner to Sunday dinner, allowing parents a child-free weekend, while exposing the kids to a full creativity curriculum,
designed in a spiral manner for four age groups--5 to 7, 8 to 10, and 11 to 13, and 14 to 16. I formed such a school, averaging 42 kids per weekend the first months and ending up, almost two years later averaging 140 kids per weekend. To avoid state liscensing regulations, I changed facility to a different state every two weekends, using donated
facilities (free tuition was offerred to 8 kids per each donated facility) though I took teacher education at Wellesley to qualify me to head such a school, bought lots of insurance, and hired a physician to be on call to help the children. Each weekend had a theme--Beethoven and Einstein, Mozart and Maxwell, Picasso and Darwin--from the arts
and sciences, so I recruited kids to each theme--so you are not interested in having your child engage Picasso and Darwin this week? To control the kids, the first two hours,
Saturday and Sunday morning, were filled entirely with running games, to use up the physical energy of the kids and get them outside before the heat of the day. After lunch
another one hour running games period worked off calories of lunch and prepared them to sit and study later in the afternoon. We comissioned expensive deserts from Bostons most prestigious and expensive patisserie for dinner and punishment for crimes was missing these dinner deserts. Parents were astonished at the mood of their kids Sunday at 6 then the weekend ended. We had a strategy of having a teenager on staff, as a full time, all day, photographer, for all three days, Friday evening, Saturday, and Sunday.
We sold booklets of these photos, to parents when they picked up their kids. All proceeds from these sales went to the teenager managers of each group of six kids.
Building a business was tremendous fun. I trained teenagers from the same families who gave children for us to care for, as my staff, paying them 4 times more than any parttime work they could usually get. If they did not perform well, they got fined, and if that failed to work, they lost their job and other teenagers were hired--eager because of
the great pay. The staff and I researched each weeks geniuses, an arts one and a sciences one, creating exhibits, slide shows, games, and software simulations. If I got the
teenagers interested in the geniuses of the week, I knew they would pass that interest onto the kids in their teams.

Non-Profit and Religious Culture. I was so happy at the education I had received at MIT, at Wellesley, taking courses at Harvard, that I decided to rebuild Western

civilization without pay for a few years, to pay the world back. I asked a professor for the name and address of some organization doing that--he gave me a contact. I ended
up in an experimental ecumenical religious order of corporate vice presidents and CEOs, queens of Australian aborigines, French landed gentry, and Berlin artists. For six
years I helped the world. Two of those years I spent fund raising, visiting a different city in North America every week, asking 20 families for donations. Two of those
years I spent designing workshop procedures for mass workshop events--2000 people for 30 consecutive days in 400 workshops per day, for example. Two of those years I set
up participatory town meetings and quality cabarets of many arts, composed by community people, in Korea and Japan, doing village development work as well.
By my fourth year in this group, I realized that underneath all its groovy new values and tactics, people and tasks, were the same old political machinations and discrepancies.
The old elite who had founded the group controlled everything and as the organization grew, their control anxiety caused them to strengthen controls till near dictatorship
level. At my fourth year, therefore, I determined to leave, but it took me two years to arrange for departure--I wanted to get shipped to someplace outside the US and not like
the US, and leave there. So I managed to get an assignment to set up participatory town meetings in Japan and Korea, and two years after arrival there, I left the organization
and was on my own for the first time since graduating from college.

Japanese Culture. My first problem was making a living as a foreigner in Japan. Direct selling of my MIT artificial intelligence skills did not work as Japanese firms

were not all that interested in skills. They also were in the midst of worshipping machines and felt sofware was a US delusion (they have recently changed their minds about
this, 30 years too late, (an example of male culture making Japanese pride-filled and stubborn)). So I got a job teaching English, knowing the dead end nature of that profession. I was smart enough to find a school filled with beautiful young women who wanted to meet foreign men and to become airline stewardesses. I was smart enough to
negotiate teaching all of my 8 weekly classes on one day, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. That gave me $3400 a month and a six day weekend every week. I have maintained that tradition, keeping a five day weekend tradition all my life, from this time on. No corporation ever asked me to do work I could not finish completely in two days a week work
(and often I could finish it in two hours of work Monday mornings). I learned to negotiate deliverables to provide at 6 month intervals, (with the corporation, in the contract,
losing the right to advise me (manage me) as long as I met my deliverables promisses). This irritated my bosses terribly and I liked that.
I had adequate time and income, now I needed status. I found the most famous brain surgeon in Japan, befriended him, and through him got introduced to the leader of Matsushita Electrics Wireless Research Lab, the most profitable lab in Japanese industry at the time. Matsushita hired me to teach languages, in this case, artificial intelligence
and object oriented ones, nicely bypassing visa restrictions, two days a week. Again, I thrived on five day weekend lifestyles. Matsushita Electric was a Deming prize winner,
for best quality in Japan, and while I was there, I researched their quality methods. A few years later I switched to Sekisui Chemical Company, Japans largest plastic manufacturer, as they were just applying for the Deming Prize and wanted desperately to know how Matushita had won it.
After Japan, I got two masters and a Ph.d. degree from the University of Michigan, did consults for a dozen defense and other firms in the US and Europe, published homework from University of Michigan classes as two books by McGraw Hill, set up 9 new business units for 3 global US corporations--EDS, Coopers & Lybrand, and Xerox
PARC, got my first teaching job as professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business for five years, then joined Japans 8th ranked private university as Professor of Knowledge and Creativity Management, teaching Japanese and hundreds of Chinese students yearly, building a network across China and Japan. You have the
entire picture now, but most importantly, you have a series of cultures, seriously encountered. You can rewrite your own background as a series of cultures thusly encountered.
I could write this entire book presenting my own inventions and innovations, my own compositions and creations, as deft technical accomplishments due to my great skill.
That would be utterly distortive. Nearly all my innovations and creations were effortless and not creative to me--others responded greatly to them as creative. I myself was
merely applying normal moves in one or more of the above cultures I had encountered, within another culture. To me, this was doing things my normal way. To others, not
familiar with that other culture from my background, it looked amazing. Much innovation and creation is of this sort and this book elaborates that better than any other book
currently published, I believe. When professor-consultants suggest erecting creativity support environments by supporting better creative types of thinking (which they
all concentrate on) they assume all creativity comes from thinking that is somewhat creative, to the creator and others. However, much creativity, though not all, may instead
come from normal cognition by someone having diverse unusual intense environments and backgrounds working within him or her. Creative thinking types, if supported
and generated, might distract from this persons ordinary cognition with its already creative results. In other words, this is another way that creativity support environments
may stamp out more creativity than they foster--all due to professor-consultants working with illusory, unitary, cosmically inclusive single models of what creativity is.

My Career as a Pain in the Ass


The paragraphs above about the cultures I encountered, are a whitewash of sorts. My life has never been nice. It has never been smooth. I am older now and compared to the
younger me, I am quite smooth and easy-going, but underneath, the same fires still burn and the same stunning authority-perplexing stunts usher forth from me, even in institutions I have been working around for years. I was born with DNA for impertinance, for going my own way, for tying authorities in knots, for pleasure. A psychiatrist once
told me this was my reaction to an authoritarian uneducated father--perhaps so. But I have constantly encountered authoritiarian uneducated men in positions of authority and,
like my father, they get in the way. Fortunately, as my career put me in more and more creative positions, the people working with me shared my contempt for uneducated dictatorial buffoons in positions of authority. Dilbert seems exaggerated only to the deeply naive, we say.
Just as my encounters with white people wimpily singing in churches turned me off of their distant, remote, conceptual dis-embodied ways of living, my encounters with black
people criticizing their kids for whitey like thinking when they used metaphors they learned in school, turned me off from their passionate, full bodied ways of living.
Every culture I met was deluded, partial, incomplete--and arrogant, because it pretended it was right and enough. It is not one culture I hate or prefer. I dislike all cultures.
They all pretend to be complete and healthy while they all are incomplete and dangerous, taken by themselves. You cannot have a decent safe life while participating in any
one culture--the only way to do it is to combine elements from half a dozen cultures, that each compensate for weaknesses in the others. Great portions of the entire population of various mid-East countries, of the Phillipines and other East and South Asian countries, of various South and Middle American countries work abroad and eventually
come home having mastered a different culture and language and way of life. The US does not have this and it hurts. I was in Japans poorest single neighborhood--Kamagasaki in Osaka--some years ago, to do social welfare work with the poor there. The neighborhood is composed of day laborers for construction companies who have no
fixed job. Instead daily they go to a hiring hall where construction contractors choose laborers for that particular days work. Many of the inhabitants of this poor neighborhood in Osaka are old and hence are rarely picked for day labor, therefore, they have little money coming in monthly. They eat at local stand up sake bars, bars that avoid air
conditioning in the summer so as to up beer sales to these poor customers. I ate with them nightly, watching Wajima and Kitanomi fight it out in sumo tournaments. I could
not speak Japanese and these poor workers could not speak English--so we all talked together and sang together in French! Here I was, nightly, in Japans poorest neighborhood, speaking and singing French with the least educated, poorest workers in all of Japan. Poor people in most of the world work abroad and master foreign languages and
cultures--poor people in the US, nearly alone, do not do this. These Japanese day laborers had, when young, gotten construction jobs for Japanese firms doing business in
North Africa and the Middle East, where there are a lot of French speaking nations. They mastered daily life French and French songs there. So I could talk with them and
sing with them, fluently. Night after night, this stunned me--poor people, indeed Japans poorest people, literate in French novels, great at French chansons, and able to converse about cultural encounters in workplaces in half a dozen nations they worked in. Such quality to poverty! Later in life when I regularly met CEOs less culturally experienced and competent than these Japanese workers, I developed not a little doubt of these overpaid buffoons of cultural laziness (and the business disasters their cultural
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 9

ignorance generated). Any CEO not as culturally adept as the poorest of all workers in Japan is not worth much--and certainly not worthy of holding my personal investments
in his hands.
Every corporation I worked for had a culture and I sensed around year two in the company, that culture pressing itself onto me, wanting my assent and compliance. I resisted
that because the cultures were stupid, belittling, designed for sheep, and beneath contempt. They were chirpy little happy songs ignoring deceit, theft, sloth, laxity, and all the
other failings in danger of killing off the organization. Americans, especially, have fallen for positive thinking by which they mean, lets forget our failings. This sounds
like a slight thing but it is not. Entire sets of corporations, entire industries, in the US, tell stories, that everyone who hears them, mock, instantly. The stories have no reality
or believability to them because all negatives are avoided, dropped out, and only positives are included, advertising the timidity of leaders in these firms and industries. You
sense a failing of the American spirit and a new kind of timid wimpy American leadership in these examples of positive thinking. Positive thinking of that sort is merely
ineffective thinking--stories that no one believes or cares about, stories that motivate no one. The result of such positive spin stories by Americans, is shining paragons of
American virtue in action, like the Iraq war. America may have once been democratic and may have once been well intentioned, but all that died some time ago and the current generations of Americans are some sort of new low point in human history--the worlds fattest asses and egos--this is the commonest view I hear on the streets of Paris,
London, Tokyo, Singapore, Sidney, Shanghai, Otawa, Amsterdam, Stockholm. Many people born and raised in the United States do not realize that other nations, instead of
looking up to the US and worshipping its media and wealth, denigrate the US, abhorring the low quality of daily life, food, care, sexuality, sensuality, and human feeling there.
An entire nation, hiding from reality in religiousity, most foreigners think. The US is a great economy embedded in a disgusting way of life, to many in the world, outside the
US. Americans, so insulated by their own media and constant self praise, often do not realize how little they are respected and looked up to in the world as a whole. Indeed,
corporate cultures are much like American government pronouncements about all the progress being made in Iraq. Believable stories, stories that motivate people, are
tough, showing awareness of all the failings, challenges, weaknesses that must be overcome in order to prevail against a present challenge. Positive thinking is a wimps
story--a wimp afraid to look at what must be overcome, what must be faced, and what personal growth and change will be required to prevail. Most corporate cultures, by this
criterion, are as sick as US results in Iraq. A CEO with positive spin is dangerous to invest in.
The corporate cultures I faced were self congratulatory little bombastic boring statements by fat, aged men whose minds were firmly on retirement. I verified this with our
Information Technology vice president, at each firm, who privately told me keystroke counts of executive information systems showed all executives of the firm only used the
system to access their personal investment portfolios, several times a day--no executive ever used the system to access customer satisfaction, product release, or other business
data. I never have met a human being dumb enough to like or respect the culture of any corporation I worked for. Dilbert has it about right--though everyone in the organization laughs at how stupid the corporate culture is--leaders continue to generate and propagate it--apparently these leaders have nothing better to do. It is the Office effect-bosses unable to understand the feedback they receive, their own egotism or psychotic-ness causing them to mistake contempt for them as praise of them. Any culture that
omits the failings of and dangers to a group of people is suicidal and assumes its members are stupid. Such corporate cultures patronize their own members. They are a daily
message from the CEO to each and every employee telling them I think you are a buffoon.
I am reminded of some utterly stupid Dodge commercials now running in the Japanese media--touting Dodge as the worlds best car--who is going to believe that? If you
have a middling product from a failing company like GM, a company failing for 30 consecutive years now, and you market it as worlds best, who do you think you are
kidding? It shows how phony and deluded all the managers of Dodge are--a culture of lack of self awareness is propagated to customers, making customers leery of anything
you do or produce. Kia and Hyundai, with commercials that acknowledge, cleverly, their existing faults in the context of their ambition to reach world top ranks, do the job
correctly--if only Dodge had managers as hard working and smart as those Korean managers of Kia and Hyundai. In general, in this book, any culture that lies about reality is
doomed and the people propagating it are either stupid or sneaky--deliberately generating a lie to cover sneaky stuff they are doing. I want readers, right from the start, to
know I am on Dilberts side--the reality of most leaders, managers, and corporations is dismal and all their protestations, in their corporate cultures, that they are shining
knights saving the world, are just jokes. If you are foolish enough to believe their cultures, you are too foolish to create anything, and you might as well stop reading all books
as well. There are exceptions, mostly on the US West Coast, in Nordic Europe, and in East Asia--corporations whose corporate cultures are educated, include dangers to the
organization, include past failings of the organization, and, in short, deal with reality. But these really are exceptional--your average corporation has a corporate culture fully
capable of killing the organization all by itself, it is so deluded and psychologically dishonest. For real humor, buy any book by a major business school professor on corporate
culture. You will find hundreds of pages of extenuation, excuses for the very delusions and psychologic dishonesties that kill off corporations. It is a healthy reminder of the
danger of putting your personal investments in the hands of business school professors! I worry about the fate of the children who have these professors as parents.
I am so extremely negative about all cultures that some readers may get me wrong. Do not do so. I dislike most of Americas culture, that is true, but I dislike most of Japans
culture as well, and most of male culture, most of female culture, most of French culture, most of absolutely all cultures I have encountered. A principled reason for this is
given in chapters below. Indeed, nothing makes Americas culture more appealing than solid encountering of Japans culture, and vice versa. Truth is--and only expatriates
of various nations will understand this intuitively--all cultures are partial and dangerous--the only safe culture is a combination of several of them that compensate for each
others weaknesses. This book will show how any one culture, taken by itself, undermines and hinders most ways of creating. If you want to be creative you are going
to have to do lots of cultural work--that is intimate, feminine, emotional work that men are not comfortable talking about or doing. Most men do not have the emotional guts
to do the work that makes things creative. If you are a man and reading this book and have the courage to change yourself you have hope--this book can make you vastly
more creative than any of the men you now compete with. But it is going to take work--intimate, emotional, interior--work.

Using Culture Changes to Create: Exaptation and Reframings


Why do pain medications--CoxII inhibitors--cause heart valve disease? Why do anti-osteoporesus drugs cause heart arythmia disease? The answer is exaptation. The most
creative process known is natural selection, the process that created human beings and all living things. It is the most creative process known because it created the most creative product known--human beings. There is a process that is more creative, however, than natural selection. It is the process that created natural selection. I will deal with
that latter process late in this book because I have another book covering that topic. Here I want to introduce some very basic aspects of how natural selection creates
because much of business effort to create has to work the same way. Exaptation is a major part of this story of creation, as natural selection does it and as businesses do it.
Anyone who is not a professor and who has actually done work in a large organization knows there are two forces that make business professor prescriptions about how to create and improve things jokes--the inertia of large organizations, and the continual changes of context in large organizations. Here is what all of us who actually do work in
large organizations face--our bosses tell us to be patient it takes time for an idea or solution or some other benefit to percolate its way through the layers and departmental
boundaries that segment large organizations. On the other hand, while we are being patient as requested by our bosses, the CEO is replaced, strategies change, a new competitor technology or two appear, government regulations change, outsourcers appear, our budget gets cut, and we are merged with a similar organization in Katmandu. This
is similar to the product development paradox--to design it right takes time but the longer product development processes become the more customer specs for what to produce
change. Professors tend to not understand this and if they mention it, they do not give it the weight of respect and analysis and attention it deserves (there has never been a
single serious academic study of this omnipresent eroder of tactics and plans in any research journal!). This paradox, large organization patience causing instability of contexts, is an immense eroder of all the solutions bandied about by business school professors in their books, and in their reviews (Harvard Business, Sloan Management, California Management, etc.). Of course consultants will leave before things are actually completed, so what do they care. Of course professors are more entertainment than
instructive for most companies who hire them--some fresh ideas to ignore.
The implications of this large organization patience causing instabililty of contexts for creativity are immense. What we judge creative now and a few weeks from now will
differ if contexts change greatly. That means any creative project that starts out in one context but passes through very different contexts as it progresses towards completion,
will most likely end up not creative. That is because what is creative depends on external viewpoints applied to it. Creativity is a social judgement, made by some qualified
judges about the work of others. When contexts change around the judges, their criteria, what they look for and like, change. Therefore, what they judge to be creative
changes. Large organizations are incapable of large creativity because of this principle of large organization patience causing instability of contexts. For most of you reading this book, this sentence is all you will need to get huge paybacks from your reading experience. If you properly focus on this problem you will not be wasting your creativity efforts.
What does this have to do with natural selection, the second most creative process in the known universe?
Professionals who research natural selection used to view it as a process of survival struggles between organisms and between them and their environment selecting out a few
adaptive traits. We now know this is rare. Instead, most mutations in organisms generate selectively neutral traits--traits that do not help survival much and do not hurt
it much at the moment. What happens is the genomes of organisms accumulate lots of these neutral traits, that do not do much one way or the other, untill some drastic environment shift occurs, whereupon, some few of the up-till-now neutral traits become powerful aids to survival in the new circumstances the organisms find themselves in, and
some few others may become powerful detriments. For the few organisms having more traits aiding survival than hindering it, those up-till-now neutral traits will dominate
the population of the organism as it survives into the new circumstances. It is shifts in environment that turn neutral traits into adaptive ones.
Another mechanism is important in understanding how natural selection creates. Exaptation is natural selection using the same mechanism in a different context, usually a
different kind of system having somewhat similar functioning needed in it. Take reaching motions. The elbow motion of reaching takes place in the context of the larger
scale shoulder reaching motions. The wrist motions of reaching take place in the larger scale elbow motions of reaching. In this way, the motion of each joint is contexted
by motions of larger scale joints. Motions are embedded in larger scale motions. Instead of some central controller controlling such reaching, each joint, simultaneously
informs adjacent joints of its motions and real time adjustments among them all result in accurate reaches. Next, in the brain, to the part that controls such reaching, is the
grammar areas for language. Recent research found that great apes have a rich gestural reaching language, with the least aggressive and violent monkeys combining facial
expressions, voice noises, with hand gestures. It is the judgement of researchers now that language, the part of human language most unlike ape language, used the embedding of motions inside motions, mechanisms of our brain, in a new pointing to meaning pointing to my state of affairs context where those brain mechanisms became
grammar, the embedding of one gesture within another gesture, the embedding of one clause within another clause. The embedding mechanism within reaching parts of the
brain got exapted--used in a different context--by the language part of the brain, so embedding of motions in reaches became embedding of clauses in sentences. Natural
selection in just this way constantly finds new uses for existing chemical pathways and operations in the organism. A mechanism developed in one context gets used in
entirely different contexts, one after another. This is why a drug that slows bone loss hurts heart rhythms--because bones and heart have somehow been using the same functional mechanism in different contexts, due to past exaptation of a bone mechanism in a heart context or vice versa. (Note, this also explains, in part, why most DNA is junk
DNA that does not directly encode the generation of specific proteins; such junk DNA encodes many of the different contexts in which a non-junk gene DNA segments
operate).

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 10

We have, now, two mechanisms of creativity within natural selection--neutral traits accumulating in a kind of passive library till changes of context turn some of them nonneutral--and--constant reuse of existing organism mechanisms for new contexts-uses so genomes code a few mechanisms and many different contexts for using them for different purposes. A corporation that mimicks natural selection mechanisms for creativity would therefore:
1. build up huge repertoires of neutral traits that changes of context can turn into winning capsabilities in the new context
2. seek out changes of context that allow existing already built up capabilities to make powerful results in those new contexts.

Creation would come from maintaining huge repertoires of capabilities, to become non-neutral when unforeseen and unforeseeable context changes occur, and from seeking
out and exposing oneself to new contexts, to spawn reuse of existing functional excellences to produce powerful results in some of those new contexts. A dual set of huge
repertoires is required--repertoires of capabilities, and of contexts for using them.
Now we can link the large organization patience creating instability of contexts principle with creativity in corporations in general. The constant stream of new contexts that
large organizations find themselves being and in, helps creativity, if it becomes a repertoire of contexts for possibly turning neutral capabilities into adaptive discoveries, but
hurts creativity by changing what the criteria for judging something creative are. Streams of context changes work both to help and hurt creativity--this is where corporate
response to such changes and management of them can make a huge difference. Second, the patience to build nascent capabilities into full grown ones helps creativity by
adding capabilities to the corporate repertoire, so that future changes in context might turn some of them from neutral to highly adaptive. However, changes of context
increase when patience-exercised becomes long time periods--so it is virtually impossible to sustain efforts through many changes of corporate context--unless lies are told
and disguises are developed. Innovations are nearly always hidden and disguised, the Van de Ven longitudinal studies of innovation demonstrated--because capabilities, powerful interesting ones, take time to develop and changes of context make sustaining such efforts in one direction impossible unless they are hidden. You can see an area here
where corporate approach, treatment, and management can make a huge difference. Tolerating the disguising of long efforts for capability build up and invention fosters later
creativity but at a cost of not really responding to some changes of context around the organization or within it--changes of CEO, strategy, budget, market, technology.
The two points for leverage on creativity just outlined are: one, using streams of context change to discover adaptive strength in existing capabilities while minimizing the way
such changes of context reduce what is judged creative; two, keeping new capability efforts going when contexts change using disguise so corporate capability repertoires continually expand making adaptive discoveries more likely.
Below I illustrate application of these two points for leverage:
1. reframing suggestion systems--these are not innovation or creativity systems at all--they are adaptation systems that update them, continually, to accomodate inventions and creations
developed from more powerful processes--they are also ways to continually reduce the overall inertia of big organizations so that continual adaptation at the bottom
layers, the most massive ones, speed up overall organization adaptation to changes of capability and context; this allows less patience as new ideas and practices can
be adapted to faster, allowing changes that would not be creative if inertia stretched out implementation of time long enough to allow changes of context to declare
something no longer needed or creative, to instead, be installed so quickly they are judged creative in the existing contexts that first noticed them
DO NOT EXPECT CREATIVITY FROM SUGGESTION SYTEMS, INSTEAD MANAGE THEM SO THEY REDUCE INERTIA OF ADAPTING THE ORGANIZATION TO CREATIONS, SO CREATIONS CAN BE INSTALLED FAST ENOUGH THAT CHANGES OF CONTEXT DO NOT MAKE THEM NON-CREATIVE
2. reframing slack time--giving slack time to teams and talented or driven employees eliminates the first subcreations of becoming a creative person at work--that is the hard thought of
inventing on ones own how to make slack time for more creative work--creators by struggling to invent more productive ways of work to make time free for more
thoughtful rewarding forms of work, invent personal productivity improvements, and much evidence points to great personal productivity being a key component in
becoming a creative person--if companies give slack time to employees, they reduce the invention of productivity improvements by them, and thereby reduce, long
term, creativity from them--a paradox!
DO NOT GIVE SLACK TIME TO EMPLOYEES--INSTEAD LET THEM KEEP SLACK TIME THEY GENERATE BY INVENTING MORE PRODUCTIVE PERSONAL WAYS OF
WORK (Good creators typically can invent their way to doing all their assigned work in just 2 hours of effort each week, if you let them keep the 4.5 days of free time
they thereby invent their way to, their creativity soars)
3. reframing failure tolerance systems--people love being superior to others so a failure gets remembered and used against you by all who know you--to give people second chance lives and
careers, you have to have systems for putting them into new contexts where no one knows about their past failure--any company that does this, by transfers to equivalent work in distant centers or nations, by isolating creators so failures never get widely known, create many isolated soils, environments, in which people can start
over, allowing many tries to be tried, fostering greater creativity
DO NOT EXPECT KNOWN FAILURES TO NOT PREVENT FUTURE CREATIVITY, INSTEAD CREATE ISOLATION POCKETS, MANY ENVIRONMENTS THAT DO NOT
KNOW ABOUT EACH OTEHR, SO FAILURE IN ONE OF THEM IS NOT KNOWN ABOUT IN THE OTHERS--THIS ALLOWS PEOPLE TO HAVE SECOND
CHANCE CAREERS IN MANY SPOTS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION--LACK OF ISOLATION KILLS CREATIVITY BY KILLING SECOND CHANCES IN
CAREERS
4. reframing creative thinking tools--most of creating work is not creative in feel and content so tools for clever thinking do not foster creativity but foster looking creative, the tools for
thinking that foster creativity are root thinking tools--defining root problems, defining root causes, defining root solutions, defining root implementations
CREATIVE THINKING IS NOT A BIG PART OF CREATING SO TOOLS FOR DEEPENING THOUGHT AND DISTRIBUTING THOUGHT MAKE FOR MORE CREATIVITY
THAN CREATIVE THINKING TOOLS (Going beneath automatic contexts for defining problems, causes, solutions, implementations and finding entire system contributions to problems, causes, solutions, implementations make for more creativity than brainstorming, wierd association, and other conventional tools for creative
thinking)
5. reframing silicon valley systems--ideas, people, technologies, funds flowing between possible homes (ventures) allowed Silicon Valley to soundly defeat route 128 in Boston--East coast
mindsets of hoarding idea, hoarding people, hoarding technologies, hoarding funds killed creativity because flows slowed, allowing too few ideas, people, technologies,
and funds to find homes where they were loved and lovingly developed into their full potentials--you create by fostering generosity and sharing not hoarding--by
matching ideas/people/technologies/funds with possible homes for them
IF YOU TRY TO BECOME A GOOD HOME TO ALL THE IDEAS FLOWING TO YOU, YOU FAIL UTTERLY, YOU BECOME CREATIVE BY RECOGNIZING GOOD MATCHES
WHEN THEY APPEAR--MATCHES YOUR PLACE AND PEOPLE CAN LOVE AND LOVINGLY GROW UP--CREATIVITY IS FINALLY JUST A FORM OF
LOVE
6. reframing firms and careers--the industrial world is full of multipliers, industries that take single ideas as inputs and turn them into huge changes and products and distributions and
impacts--creating is merely linking people, ideas, and careers to the multipliers in our societies appropriate for them
A GREAT CREATIVE IDEA, PERSON, OR CAREER IS MERELY ONE THAT FINDS THE MULTIPLIER APPROPRIATE FOR IT--PUBLISHER, VENTURE CAPITAL, MEDIA
PROGRAM, ETC.
7. reframing knowledge work--everyone underestimates the power of getting codes right--the world is divided into code factors and action factors, the latter are big well funded implementation machineries that impress us all, the former are modest specifications of idea combinations--all the big impressive action factors in the world do nothing unless
they are based on good quality codes--American Idol, the TV show, is a good example--it was just a one paragraph idea that became owner of the entire world music
industry and TV industry--code determining action factor fate
INVEST IN CODE FACTORS NOT ACTION FACTORS--THE LATTER WILL COME RUNNING WHEN GOOD CODES HAVE BEEN INVENTED.

The principles above are all rather obvious applications of the two principles from natural selection presented earlier in this section. There are many more implications for
creating that I present later in this book. Here I am looking at changes of culture, changes of context, and how these have the power to create, how managing them determines how creative you are and become.

Globality = Creativity: The Cost of Costless Mental Fluidity and


Breadth of Association
Going out, Joseph Campbell wrote decades ago, requires going in. That is, to handle the diversity of ways around the world you have to realize your own limited ways, the
deep emotional unconscious underpinnings put inside you while growing up somewhere. This is intimate, emotional, self analysis work--not something males excel at, not
something that Americans excel at, not something that capitalists excel at, in sum, not something that all the cultures of business tolerate, foster, or are good at. A business
ability to go out, to globalize, depends on its ability to do feminine, caring, non-Western, egalitarian non-business-culture types of work. Businesses not able to go global
well, are not able to get beyond the common cultures of business well, which greatly reduces their ability to create.
Consider an American business executive assigned to Japan for a few years of work for his corporate affiliate there. He lives in special housing near other expatriate American executives. His kids go to international schools with other executive children. He goes to a local church with other expatriates. After four years in Japan he knows
roughly what a repeat tourist knows. He has never lived in Japan among Japanese doing things Japanese ways. Most of the global corporations of the world do this--they
pretend to global exposure, while using and generating enclaves of isolation to make sure that foreign exposure never produces change in culture, mentality, or outlook. To be
honest, most American corporations are afraid of no longer being American enough and their executives share that fear of foreign contamination. Culture shock going
home from a foreign assignment often is larger and more dangerous to careers than culture shock going abroad. This is mostly an American and Japanese problem. Europeans, having longer histories of global operation, do things differently. The British military, for example, unlike the American one, sends it middle rank officers to foreign
nations for several years of learning to master a different culture. They require mastery of the local language of these officers. N. V. Philips, with more than 40 nations represented among its offices and subsidiaries, hires people who have worked for seven or more years in nations foreign to them, to make them leaders of offices in particular
nations--rather than hiring locals to head local offices and rather than foisting Dutch nationals on the world. Such companies put the average US global corporation to
shame. This is an example of mental fluidity and breadth of association attainment by corporations that are so-called global. Mental fluidity, that is, deploying ideas in
many diverse contexts in short amounts of time, and breadth of association, each idea calling to mind many diverse ideas from very different domains--are two of the most
important types of thinking involved in creativity. That is not entirely true, but researchers have long believed it (more on this proviso later in this book). Nearly all standard
tests of creative thinking ability measure mostly these two types of thought--that is one reason they lack validity and reliability--they do not predict who will create and how
creative anyone will be. Why?
Tests have questions you have to respond to, with or without, mental fluidity and breadth of association. To be mentally fluid in responding to a test question, alone in a room,
without consequences, is easy and totally unlike the mental fluidity that real creators do. Real creators exercise fluidity of thought by how they work and live, making people
around them change or get angry, even become lifelong enemies, by changes of context and thought the creators exert. Divorces, fights with bosses, violations of budget constraints, lies about killing off particular projects--all these are forms of real life mental fluidity as exercised by real creators. Tests measure wimpy dis-embodied forms of
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 11

mental fluidity, without consequence. So test results have no ability to measure creativity in situ. Similarly, for breadth of association, real creators exercise it by changing
jobs, changing nations, attending meetings forbidden to them, snooping around, trying out competitor offerings and praising them. These sorts of actions have consequences
and require a bit of courage to do, in real companies and situations. Tests measure wimpy consequence-less forms of associative breadth. They fail to measure creativity, as
a result.
Now lets tie the first paragraph above, about expatriates abroad, with the second, about mental fluidity and breadth of association. Being sort of, safely mentally fluid and
safely, sort of broad in association does not cut it. Most global corporations, especially American ones, are nominally global and quite nationalistic, defensive about their
culture by which they mean doing things the traditional American way. Mental fluidity is not expanded at all by foreign assignment experience in such firms--it is only
nominal encountering of things foreign that goes on. Breadth of association is not expanded at all by foreign assignment experience in such firms--it is only nominal encountering of diverse contexts that happens there. You cannot expect a pretend global firm to be anything but pretend creative. P&G is a good bad example--they are global
everyone says, but have over 100 American managers in their Kobe, Japan East Asia headquarters office, and, those 100 are ensconsed in a American-like island, called
Rokko Island, with their own American doctors, stores, import-export suppliers, schools, church, athletic clubs, social clubs, and the like. It is all designed to minimize learning, change, exposure, and mental fluidity and associative breadth changes. Pretend globality leads to and comes from pretend creativity. Companies and mangers too wimpy
to change mentality in foreign assignments are too wimpy to change mentality when back home running headquarters. Their unwillingness to learn and change abroad merely
proves and demonstrates their inability to create back home. Corporate cultures that turn foreign assignments into pretend foreign encouters fear creativity and deliberately
undermine and prevent it, back home.
Having a corporate culture at all nearly insures no creativity, for most firms. High tech Silicon Valley firms, so proud of themselves technologically, repeat this fleeing from
learning when abroad, just as famous old American firms now do. The Culture of Doing What is Hard is foreign to such firms. They have to white wash the world as a place
where easy effort produces stupendous results, as a place where they have always been excellent and face few or no problems in being excellent in the future. Hollywood
story tellers point out that stories about how nominal obstacles were easily overcome by people and groups automatically superior to all others in nearly all ways--are terribly
boring stories, incapable of motivating anyone, and rightly are mocked by one and all with contempt. Corporate cultures are such stories for the most part. Great elite us did
another great thing easily due to our superior greatness--this is the kind of program TV remotes were designed to help us click past. Most corporations, by promoting corporate cultures of the good doing the good (again easily), proudly advertise they want to be clicked past in just this way. Why? What drives adult men to advertize their own
boring wimpyness, proudly declaring it to one and all by printing it on all sorts of their publications? This book will later delve into why people act this irrationally, destroying
creativity by denying the tough work and failure and obstacles that define it. What makes people unable to see that they are advertising their own stupidity to one and all?
Dodge, the best car in the world!--a great convincing story if ever there was one. This book helps such companies get real about creativity in business (and abroad).

The Culture-Creativity Link: Educatedness


If culture and creativity are tightly linked, if creating requires doing lots of culture work, then this book has to present a world best model of culture and how to do the kind of
cultural work that creating requires. Below I show the link between culture and creativity with some precision. Then I show a surprising name for what that link actual is and
comes from. A vital powerful avenue to major increases in creativity comes from this discussion--one missing from nearly all companies and large organizations of our day
but one that could readily be installed in them with benefits not only for their level of creativity but for many others areas of their work.
Creativity requires doing culture work because culture is all that easy, automatic stuff inside of all of us--it is routines that, though they may once have required careful thought
and deliberation, have long since, via repetition and practice, become automatic and unconscious, operating quickly inside us before we are able to think. Most of these quick,
easy, automatic routines inside us were not chosen by us, with consideration. They were put into us as children growing up in some one particular place and time or when
joining one or another group and adapting to fit in with it. We never evaluated and carefully chose these contents inside of us--most of what we are we did not make or
choose. That is a vital insight and the beginning of wisdom. It also is the link to creativity--if most of the reactions, preferences, views, expectations, ideas, images, metaphors and the like inside you are happenstance unchosen contents put into you while growing up somewhere or while joining some group and adapting to fit into it, then you
do not have conscious ability to control your own self and reactions. Most of your self and reactions are beyond your conscious control. This poses an immense barrier to
creativity for all ordinary people--most of what they are they did not choose and they absorbed, while growing up somewhere. The ability to depart from, diverge from, be
distinct from, surprise, be novel, take another viewpoint--all of which are core parts of any sort of being creative--is small in ordinary people because they have not chosen,
are not fully aware of, and cannot easily change who they are, their own mental and emotional contents. Thusly, unconscious contents inside them make their reactions,
preferences, expectations, and so on just like those of the people around them.
Consider now the five cultures of business--if you share those, most of the contents of which are unconscious to you, so much of you is like everyone else in business, that
you have only 1/100,000 of you with which to diverge depart differ, that is, with which to create. It is hard to create while being identical to everyone around you
(especially in unconscious ways not recognized or consciously examined). Similarly, inability to differ from oneself, dooms one to new work like ones past work because
informed by similar views from a similar you. A common form of mental illness is expecting creatively different outcomes from the same or similar inputs. Inability to
differ from others and differ from oneself dooms creativity attempts in a person or group. Frank Lloyd Wright, the architect for the Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan,
is a good example of a person being creative by differing from himself--he had three distinct careers, each of which failed, resulting in him going back to basics again, reinventing his aims and means, and slowly, crawling his way back to clients and fame. Culture, when promoted consciously by companies, foists a common identity on people in the company--insuring that they do not differ from themselves (or each other). Companies achieve control via culture, to avoid achieving control by older more
oppressive means, command and punishment. Culture is a primary barrier to creating of all sorts and therefore, when people labor and work to become creative, what they
are doing, in large part, is:
1. uncovering unconscious routines inside them
2. stopping the automatic execution of those routines in key situations
3. scouring the best in history and in the contemporary world for better routines
4. replacing routines inside them now with these consciously chosen better routines from the worlds best.

There is a name for the four steps above--leaving home and determining your self. They are not exactly parts of creativity, not parts of being effective, they are parts of
becoming an educated person. Educatedness, in the form of the above four steps, is thusly, an essential foundation for creating. It allows you to replace automatic routines
inside you that make you just like everyone else, with better routines consciously chosen from the best in history and in the contemporary world. The purpose of college, as
an experience, is to expose you to the best in history and in the contemporary world, while you are away from home, so you can make your self a product that you yourself
have made, rather than keeping as your self, something that was made by unconsciously copying whatever was around in the environments you grew up in.
Childhood trauma has been found to be predictive of who will later be creative. It predicts that a lot of people who have it, will fail in life and be destroyed by relicts of that
trauma, but for those who are not destroyed by the aftereffects of trauma, something quite wonderful occurs--they become creative. Why? Childhood trauma splits kids into
having two simultaneous lives--a real life that, during the trauma period, is rather unhappy and not filled with joy--and a watching themselves and others life of intense questionning and scrutiny to figure out some happier way of being in the world. At age 20 or so, these people have two lives where the rest of us, with happier childhoods, have
one. These traumatized people, now no longer kids, have watched intensely themselves and others all throughout their childhoods and have figured out paths to personal happiness for them. They are driven to make their own way, because the easy, automatic, culturally sanctioned ways brought trauma to them, that made them intensely unhappy.
So going with the flow, is not something, these people are going to do, trust, or tolerate. You can see how childhood trauma in these ways prepares people for creativity if and
when it does not destroy them.
College, then, is designed to be a sort of positive trauma for the rest of us who did not have traumatic childhoods. College takes us away from home, mixes us with people
from all nations, ethnic groups, social classes, and outlooks, and makes us, with all those diverse people, find and discuss the best ideas in history and in the contemporary
world. This makes us doubt out backgrounds, examine our backgrounds and the contents those backgrounds put inside us, and eclectically choose new, better contents from
the best in history and in the contemporary world, to replace contents inside us from our backgrounds. Childhood trauma and college end up educating people in the same
way.
If you like who you now are, your present gender, your nationality, your profession, your social circle, your ideas--you cannot create. Only people who depart from who they
now are can create. Picasso, in his later years, remained Picasso, staying his old self, and hence, history has judged the works from the last third of his life, derivative, Picasso
copying Picasso, uncreative Picasso. He failed to differ from himself and lost creativity as a result. Only people who are educated---who have examined all the 90% unconscious contents inside them operating all the time to guide and direct them--and replaced those happenstance contents unconsciously absorbed while growing up with better
consciously chosen ones, can create. Your identity--who you think you are--is a primary block to creating from most ordinary people. Most ordinary people rebel--I am
American and proud of it--that attitude prevents all creativity. I am a man and proud of it--that attitude prevents all creativity. I am a woman, a powerful woman, and proud
of it--that attitude is enough to prevent all creativity throughout all of your life. People who are their identity cannot create because their identity is mostly unconscious stuff
inside them, culture, and that unconscious stuff makes them similar in many ways to possibly millions of other people who grew up in similar or the same environments. It
also, by being left in place, unchanged, makes a person similar to himself at later times.
All of us know this--we all have known kids in our own high school who all the other kids gossipped about--that guy will either win a Nobel Prize or shoot his brains out after
college. These were people on the edge--usually because of childhood trauma--who lived with us other kids and who lived apart from us other kids, all at the same time. We
all recognized in high school that living on that kind of edge prepared one to create or to be destroyed. We all sensed that creativity grew from departure from ones self.
Therefore, all readers of this book who seek to become much more creative while keeping their present self--are liars and hypocrits--you will fail and fail badly! Forget it! If
you are not willing and able to dislike your own gender, your own era, your own nation, your own family, your own values, your own profession--you are too wimpy both to
create and to ever reach psychological adulthood. Your body will age but your mind will be uneducated, stuck, usually, at some teenage stage of development--loving your
own ideas and view, perhaps, or loving your own social circle of friends, so that people who have different ideas or friends are threats to your rightness and make you
uneasy. Research shows, unfortunately, most adults are only biologically adult--psychologically, most adults are stuck at teenage levels of character development, too
attached to personal opinions or circles of friends to ever reach adulthood.
This book is tough on readers because it does not tolerate or pamper such giant babies--if you are afraid to depart from your own identity, you are too wimpy to create anything. Put down this book and crawl into some hole where, for the rest of your life, you can hide from wonder and growth, impact and history. Recently in the US, political
parties have become good holes for such people, in Europe, certain amiable lifestyles have become such holes. Every culture and tradition has good holes for hiding in--enjoy
them but at the cost of never creating anything.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 12

A Model of Culture Good Enough for Our Purpose--Creating


In my own career I spent time in Japan teaching artificial intelligence programming at Matsushita Electrric, Sekisui Chemical, and some other companies. These were all
Deming Prize winners, for best-in-Japan total quality results and programs. I studied total quality in Matsushita and when Sekisui later was applying for the Deming prize
they wanted to hear about Matsushita systems for total quality and Matsushitas presentations to examiners for the Deming prize. I was able to do this for them. Later, I came
back to the USA and as a manager in Coopers & Lybrand noticed bosses selling large, slow, risky expert system project to Wall Street firms, that took a long time to both sell
(explain) and finish (otten running over-schedule and over-budget, negating profits). So I combined Japanese quality circles, substituting for quality statistics methods
advanced software methods--High Tech Circles I called this. Instead of selling one big, slow, risky project per client, I sold 30 small, fast, riskless projects to that client--selling much faster and completing work much faster and, at $100,000 per circle per year, getting $3 million per High Tech Circle program sold where my bosses got $1 million
for selling, in the same amount of time, one big, slow, risky project taking 3 years to complete and often with no profit. To me I was merely taking two big parts of my own
background--artificial intelligence programming from high school and MIT and quality circles from Matushita and Sekisui--and combining them in a simple and obvious way.
To Coopers & Lybrand and it clients, however, I was revolutionizing advanced technology delivery--spreading it faster, getting learning of it deeper, lowering risks and costs,
and making it more visible getting promotions for the client firm managers that I worked with. I was creative and an innovator from the point of view of everyone else,
but I myself, was doing only normal, obvious things given the background experiences I had chosen and collected. Creativity, in this way, is nearly always not creative. It
is doing something in one cutture (in this example, in US culture) from the standpoint of doing things in another culture (in this case Japans culture). I did a technology the
US was interested in using social tactics Japan had invented. It appeared creative to others merely because they were not intimately familiar both with artificial intelligence
programming and total quality statistics and social methods. The software types in this world denigrated total quality stuff from Japan and felt superior to it; the total quality
folks were old and conservative and fear and therefore shunned advanced software technologies. I was that rare software person not denigrating total quality and that rare
total quality person not so old and decrepit that I feared new software technologies. Creativity, in this way, is nearly always doing culture work.
If creating is largely the doing of moral and cultural work, as I assert here but demonstrate in the following portion of this book, the we have to understand culture well in order
to create well. Culture is a word, like creativity, that everyone uses and bandies about, but when you examine what people actually are saying with such words you find
great slop and distortion, inconsistency and inaccuracy. Words like creativity and culture, for one example, suggest that creativity is one thing and culture is one thing.
Careful thinking and research, by 200 scholars, on creativity demonstrated that it was at least 42 different things, not one thing. Similar thinking and research, by 200 scholars, on culture demonstrated that it was one thing, in spite of all the diversity of how to eat, what to worship, when to fight, found around the world and in our galaxy (Star
Trek, etc.). We need deep, careful, comprehensive models of creativity and similar models of culture. This book is the first book to furnish both.

Tools for Upping Mental Granularity & Productivity. One chapter, below, in this book, presents a model of 42 models of creativity. This overwhelms some

readers. I want to explain why such readers have to deal with the personal growth needed to not be overwhelmed by that. First, I am a professor, and at my present university
in Japan, for 13 years or so, I have been training hundreds of Japanese to expand their personal list limit. This is an unconscious mental trait that we all have. If I ask someone what activities we might do together this coming weekend, what are good books on economic growth, what is wrong with US government immigration policy, and just
about any question whatsoever, that person will respond with answers for each such question. I am focussing here not on what those answers are and whether they are good or
up-to-date or the like, instead, here, I am focussing on how many such answers, unprompted, they generate. How long are their lists, their naturally produced lists?

If you do the research, as decades ago I did, you find that Germans average 7.7 items per list, Italians average 5.0 items, Japanese average 6.3 items, and Americans average
3.4 items. These numbers are across all social classes and educational strata in a national population, and across all age groups and professions. Since these are averages you
will find that highly educated Germans average an astonishing 11 items and highly educated Americans average 12.8 items. Education attenuate national difference effects in
many but not all cases.
So what? Who cares! Well there is a so what here--people who, dozens of times every day of their lives, consider more alternatives when making choices, attend to more
details when viewing situations, imagine more possibilities when looking into the future, end up discovering better solutions--to every part of their lives. The excellence of
German exports, the products they export, the skills of the people who make those exports, the people who develop those high skill levels--the excellence of all that German
stuff is, in part, based on considering dozens of times every single day, nearly twice the number of things that average Americans consider. A similar argument explains part
of Japans export power versus the US. Differences in cognitive list limit have powerful economic, political, cultural, and social change implications.
Decades ago, I put before myself the following problem, therefore: how can people drastically improve their own cognitive list limit? how much improvement in cognitive
list limit can the average person make in a reasonable amount of time, say, six months? This is not a book on my structural cognition methods (see the references of this book
for my books on structural cognition), so I will not devote space to any details here. Suffice it to say that I developed several tools and exercises for extending personal cognitive list limits. This book uses some of them, in particular, fractal concept models. These are highly regularized polygons of concepts--categorical models academics call
them. So instead of a book presenting 6 or 8 models of creativity, I have this book presenting 42 such models. If that overwhelms you consider the following:
1. hundreds of Japanese students have been trained by me at applying ordinary mental operators not to five or 10 ideas at a time, but to 64 or 128 ideas at a time
2. in 3 US corporations, I rose, within a year, from level 12 out of 21 management levels, to level 20, in large part based on offering bosses 64 well ordered alternatives where peers/competitors offerred 6 to 8 alternatives, and my 64 included all of their 6 or 8
3. your creativity in large part, depends on how much detail you can adapt to, how many alternatives you can imagine and consider, and how many simultaneous tasks you can manage
without getting lost or confused--all of which expand when using some of my tools, like fractal concept models presented in this book.

Therefore, this book has a side benefit for those who read it well--by stretching to master the large number of levels of abstraction and large number of details at each level of
the fractal models in this book, your personal cognitive list limit will expand, to German and Japanese levels and beyond, making you capable of creativity levels beyond
them. That is a worthy profit from reading one book well, I believe.

A Useful Model of Culture. There are typical kinds of bad books on topics like creativity and culture. One kind of bad book is filled with one cosmic right view,

and an attempt to argue and persuade that other views are useless and wrong. Such books are arrogant, rather stubborn, and less useful than books that welcome many models
and views of any one phenomenon like creativity or culture. Another kind of bad book is filled with lots of alternative explanations and models, but with not enough depth
and detail about them to actually apply and benefit from exposure to them. A third kind of bad book about such topics is filled with little tools and tricks, marketted as fast
and easy for everyone. You can be sure a book for everyone is filled with worthless commonsense and utterly shallow tripe--editors invent such books for gullible ignorant
parts of the general public, knowing there is a vast layer of uneducated buffoons who will buy books on advanced sounding things that present nothing hard or difficult to
understand. Vague, general topics like creativity and culture invite such bad book treatments by publishers. I was determined to never write such junk myself and this
book consistenly avoids the above faults. The way I treat creativity and culture demonstrates that throughout this book.

Therefore, I had to treat culture seriously yet make such a valid, rigorous treatment accessible to a large audience. I could not write for professors but I had to write with the
accuracy and carefulness that professor audiences require. The model of culture in this book reflects those opposing needs--to communicate to a wide audience carefully
defined and used concepts that actually work in reality. You will not find some cosmic one right view, some catalog of shallow alternatives, and some compendium of little
tricks that are fast and easy, for creativity and for culture in this book.
I am going to introduce my model of culture here, and in several other places in this book, so that readers can ease into it, rather than be intimidated by it. Keep in mind that
you readers are not being asked to master the entire model, at any one of these places introducing it. Rather, I expect that repeated introductions to it will accumulate in your
mind so that, by the time you get to full presentation of the culture model, at the end of this book, you will be comfortable with all its main purposes, concepts, and outlines.
The repeated visiting of the same topic, at several spots in this book, is there for a purpose. I had to persuade my editors to keep this repetition in the book.

Culture Space

Culture Results

Uses

Operations

Tools

Traits

Dimensions

Processes

what we
think culture is
determines
how we use
it

once we know
how we wish to
use a culture
trait we can
choose operations to apply to
it

we operate on culture traits


(strength, coherence, etc.) using
tools to enable
such operations on
such traits

tools enable us
to perform
operations we
want on particular traits
that cultures
have

the traits that


cultures have
are found in
specific dimensions that distinguish
cultures

the dimensions
that distinguish
cultures from each
other are found in
certain processes
of society

the result of operating


on particular traits (as
found in dimensions
and processes) is
changing the type of a
culture

particular
change how we recognize
culture maps of the
distinctions live;
dimensions, traits, stages of penewe make in
etc.
trating any culhow we live;
ture;

coherence of a
culture--how
well its bits fit
together;

humans are first


among species versus humans are
equals to other species of animals;

conserving novelties-- sex denying cultures--sex is cultures vastness--it is innovate radically


defending innovations dangerous and to be carefully everything humans think within chosen form
from old established controlled
and do
powers

different
change what type strengthen
types
of of excellence we traits
excellence
achieve
achieved;

exception recognition--how
much a culture
tolerates
and
acknowledges
exceptions to
its rules/ways;

my circumstances
cause my situation
versus I cause my
situation;

polis processes--spaces
for appearing among
peers to exchange word
and deed and contribute
to collective well being

culture response stopping--stopping


our easy automatic responses
to situations;

Types

Powers

each type of culture has a


when someone emphadistribution of weighting
sizes some powers of
across the nine powers of cul- culture and de-emphature, so changing types also
sizes others, the result
changes this pattern of
is achievement of a difemphasis of the various pow- ferent type of high perers of culture
formance

market pricing--the value of


everything is determined by
what others are willing to pay
for it in some currency

High Performance
Traits
all cultures are high performances (things we do fast, easily, and well from practice);
and all high performances are
cultures (things that work
when in a particular group or
context, not when outside it)
but

only

cultures unconscious- use others rejects as star players;


ness--we do not know scarf resources others dismiss
what controls our own
beliefs and habits

The Culture
Itself

example 2

example 1

causal links from


one item to the next

items

Culture Aspects
Definitions

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 13

The Cultures
Theory of Itself

The above table, from another book I have written, summarizes the most accurate and sophisticated model of culture I have been able to compile. About 50 years ago, professors published books presenting 50 or 100 different definitions of what culture is. The word culture is used to refer to all that people are and do, in some places by some
persons, and to refer to rites and rituals of life in other places by other persons, and at least 98 other definitions are found in publishings on culture. I personally assumed
that most definitions of culture were sloppy and since never tested by real applications, not worth taking all that seriously. What point of view, I wondered, allowed one to
focus on why people cared about culture and why culture had enough power to deserve respect?
EuroDisney is one example--a major successful corporation that loses billions and billions and billions across more than ten years--due in large part to imposing American cultural assumptions in France. If something has the power, when slighted or ignored or handled badly, to cost a corporation billions for more than ten years, it deserves our
respect. Lincoln Electric is another example--subsidiaries set up in Europe before headquarters figured out that the piece-work pay system at the center of them all, was illegal in some of those nations. Ignoring or slighting or handling culture badly costs money, lots and lots of money. Culture deserves respect for this reason.
I investigated other powers of culture to frustrate, cost money, enable victories, invent technologies, make failing systems work, and the like. I eventually found 9 powers of
culture that each had enough umpf to get our respect for culture and the power of culture to affect human affairs. Weak, vague, wimpy, intimate, and emotional as culture
appears--if you mess with it sloppily, it will ruin you. Therefore, in the above model, the powers of culture are important, more important than they appear as the 9th out of
10 components of culture in my model. The powers are why treating culture carefully and practically are important.
My model says that culture has aspects that get realized/implemented in a culture space, to produce culture results. The aspects are definitions that determine uses that determine operations that are enabled by particular tools. The operations, enabled by tools, get applied to culture space--which consists of traits of a culture that we wish to modify, and those traits are found in dimensions of culture which are evident in processes that all societies have. By applying an operation to a trait as found in a dimension and
social process, we get changes of a culture from one type to another, which changes the power we get from the culture, producing high performance.
A corollary of the above model is this insight--all cultures are merely high performances and all high performances are merely particular invented cultures. If you think about
your own encounters with different cultures this becomes clear. Remember your first dinner, as a teenager, at a girlfriends house with her family. Remember the hidden pitfalls and treacherous conversational territory of that dinner--what would disappoint the girls mom, what would provoke the girls dad, what toadying up to parents would
alienate the girl? That dinner was your family culture encountering someone elses family culture. Your girlfriends family had mastered certain assumptions, mental routines,
and certain rites and rituals, physical routines, doing them instantly and expertly--you could not keep up or follow these routines. That was a high performance that your girlfriends family had created by years of repetition of the same attitudes or motions, repetitions that made things instant, effortless, and automatic, as well as effortlessly coordinated among her family members. Your remarks and motions, in that context, looked labored, slow, slightly mis-fitting. You could not join their high performance. Culture,
because it is unconscious contents inside us all, unconsciously determining our expectations, reactions, preferences, and the like, from years of practicing the same things
together with a group of people, is always a high performance of such shared routines. You do things faster, easier, and more specifically, in a more coordinated way that outsiders do those thngs. All high performances, are, conversely, just particular cultures people built up together. Consider an NBA basketball team dynasty such as the Chicago
Bulls when Michael Jordan was playing with them. Their high performance together was unconscious, effortless, execution of routines they all shared---but that high performance came from hours and weeks and years of repetition in practice together. Routines at first wooden and consciously labored over, by repetition became instant, unconscious and effortless as well as well coordinated. The slightest gesture or wink sufficed to shift players into a different mode, that opponents could not anticipate. All high
performances are just shared cultures and all cultures are just very particular high performances. There is literally no difference between culture and high performance. When
companies say we want to be the high performance players in our industry they are saying we want to establish an intense unique culture of operating in our industry.
Note where that leaves us--desire for high performance drives companies to establish their own cultures, which greatly limit and reduce their creativity. High performance
reduces creativity; creativity reduces or blocks high performance. The rest of this book shows us what can be done about this paradox.

PART ONE:
CREATING CLARITY ABOUT CREATIVITY
The Uncreativity of Current Research On
Creativity in Business
Money distorts truth. You have to be pretty naive to not acknowledge that. Creativity research in general is robust and healthy; it is that part of it that deals with creativity in
business that is not too healthy. It is sickly because it is being distorted by money. For just the most obvious example, professors in leading business schools are not free to
tell the truth in lectures. Their deans are hitting up companies all year long for donations and companies will not donate where a professor is saying bad (though truthful)
things about them. Deans tell leading professors, at the worlds top business schools I am not asking you to lie, I just want a judicious toning down of your expressions, so
that people are not unnecessarily offended. A few schools of business, hire new clinical professors, for a couple of years, who bad mouth particular corporations, telling
inconvenient truths. Then those schools, having offended a few particular corporations, thusly, do not renew the contracts of the truth-telling clinical professors. To restore
these particular corporate reputations on their campuses, they approach the offended businesses with proposed donations that would highlight their corporate greatness on
campus in the next few years. You get attention by hiring a temporary truth teller, then you go to the corporations, thusly awakened, and hit them for donations to raise their
salience on campus. It is an extortion racket, in effect. I love it. Another force, is the children of business executives, sitting in classes and coming home to daddy talking about truths their professors let slip about their dads companies. The dads, irate that truth is found on campus, cancel donations as soon as possible. I love it. However,
these forces mean you cannot find anything like truth in the lectures of the worlds top business schools. Truth and business do not go together. That is because truth and
career do not go together. Indeed, perspicacious people notice that an entire industry of lying has arisen to service business--the advertising industry. I remember being asked
to describe a dinky distant smog-covered mountain range, miles away from a hotel as the magestic Rokko range frames our master suites in natural splendor--for an advertising assignment I did decades ago. Lying, if paid for, is business and creative apparently. I, like many other professors, teach my students to simply reverse the main
message of any advertisement in order to get its actual truth content--if the message says our airlines is friendly to customers and arrives on time you can be sure the actual
situation is this airline is nasty to customers and arrives late. People with standards that low are creative indeed (sarcasm here for unperspicacious readers).
In the above context, research on creativity in business has been made to pretend that businesses are honest, upright, sincere, goodboys in society trying to help people in many
specific ways. Professors researching creativity in business publish studies with results showing how tweaking this and that will improve creativity--they fail to publish that
the improvement is from a terribly low base level and that the amount of the improvement would not pay for the postage stamps on the research reports sent out. You get studies showing how all sorts of changes, in business environments foster or hinder creativity. What is never mentioned is all of these changes are well within comfort zones of
existing executives and managers throughout the business so nothing substantial ever gets changed and tested for effects on things like creativity. These studies should be
titled one or another version of this--The effects of popular slight easy changes of marginal work environment aspects on producing unimportant amounts of change in terribly low creativity levels of software firms in Silicon Valley California--a longitudinal study by Susan Asskisser and Curt Conformist. What you do not find, ever, are studies
like the following: Financial effects of immense morale declines in the most talented employees of companies having immensely large CEO retirement payouts--a longitudinal study by Sam Suicide and Betty Burnout. All the marginal incremental safe stuff gets laboriously studied with immense social science method thoroughness while all the
heavy hitting factors go unmentioned, unresearched, and unpublished because companies are offended by truth, especially central big powerful ones. Ah, the human race,
what an inspiring bunch of creatures!

Some Other Flaws in Academic Research on Creativity in Business. Most of the academics who publish research on creativity in business have spent all

their lives in academia studying and researching, or, if they have worked, it was in a Ph.d role in a lab somewhere, or in a low level job early in their career. As a result, these
academics, continually, in their published research articles and reviews discover effects that all people in business from age 22 to 30 learn as commonsense about business. As a result, academic articles, on creativity in business, announce saliently as discoveries things that are embarrassingly commonsensical to everyone alive in business. In effects, these academics are discovering the basics of any business, the same basics that hundreds of millions of people new to work discover every year. To see
such discoveries backed by solid data under the name of world famous universities, somehow demonstrates a debasing of our universities themselves. They have so
much become narcissistic, determining their own worth by themselves comparing each other to each other, that the continual discovery of the absolutely obvious, does not
bother them. I am not talking, here, about all social science research, in academia, or all natural science research in academia--I restrict these comments to academic research

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 14

on creativity in business. In that area, most published articles discover what the academics writing them would have discovered by working in some ordinary job for
five or six years. It is nice to see academics catch up with 28 years olds in the worlds businesses--more power to them--but it does not help the rest of us very much.
There is a more general and serious problem, that goes beyond being a weakness just of academic research on creativity in business. This is a weakness in all empirical
research on society in general. If you read thousands of research journal articles, as I and many others have done, over years, you find all of them examine how the world
now is and how it now operates getting data by experiment, survey, or simulations based on experiment and survey data. They analyze this data and discover the causes of
effects going on now in the world. Many readers will be puzzled here--what is wrong with that? What is wrong--and it is a big big wrong--is what the world now is and
how it now operates are extremely tiny slivers of a much larger space--how the world might be and how it might operate. Empirical research is fine--it debunks lots of junk
and dangerous opinions that you and I build our lives around--it tests them. However, it points people, institutions, funders, and eventually everyone in entire societies
towards--learning how to do things by studying only how people now do them. This is great if the variation and examples in place in the world of how people now do things
are doing things well and competently enough to handle our challenges and needs. But what if present ways are pretty bad and not doing much to help or change humankind
and humankinds destiny? Then getting better data about poor practices--though publishable as great research--will not help anyone.
Finally, and readers will laugh with me at this, every time a major business journal changes editors, the new editor writes an opinion piece lamenting that no actual business
people read the research academics do on business. Indeed, research by some somewhat cynical academics has shown that most academics in a field do not read articles in
the journals covering their own part of the field. The articles bore both practitioners and other academics. No one is reading all this academic research. Why? Journal editors explain it in obvious ways, but subtly they imply that practitioners are at fault--they do not realize how bad they are and how bad their practices are. Also, they imply that
businesses are reluctant to give access to their businesses and the data in those businesses to academics for research. However, both of these can be read in reverse--practitioners of academic research may not be realizing how bad their research is, and businesses may be justified in being reluctant to share data with people who publish research of
that bad level of quality. I do not want to beat up on academics or on business practitioners here--rather, my point is this--academic research on business in general is not a
great success story, or even a moderate success story, or even a little success story--it is a no success story. Therefore, in that context, it may not be surprising to find that
academic research on creativity in business is not a stellar resource for us all.

Some Limitations of Academic Research Results on Creativity in Business. The analysis above of the cultures of business and the culture of academics
studying business leads us to the following provisional conclusions--anticipations we could call them:

1) academics researching creativity in business mostly discover what any beginning employee to a business discovers
during their first three or four years of work
2) that is largely because they themselves have been in colleges all their lives and know not business in practical reality, so they discover its basics in their research
3) academics study only based on data from how things presently are done so they cannot research changes beyond
current practice = boring results that are copies of what people now do
4) academics narrowly educated in one field--lacking philosophy, history, physics, engineering, quality, etc. training-cannot frame the creativity-in-business question well enough to make their research questions and results
uncover valuable stuff.
5) businesses pay lots and lots of money to top ten colleges so none of their research and professors reveal strong negatives about business in general and about particular firms
6) those researching businesses share nearly all the cultures that limit and hinder and constrict businesses (and hence,
that generate most of their problems and failings, particular recrudescent problems that slough off all solving)-the blind researching the blind effect--white, right wing, American, males researching white, right wing, American, male businesses and business systems
7) a culture of avoiding all negatives infests leaders, CEOs, boards, researchers, and general business cultures so big
emotional reactions and defenses distort attempted researching of what fails, what causes failure, what obstacles
are likely and similar questions
8) an illusion of control dominates businesspersons, and infects those researching them, so research, like businessmen,
pretends that executives influence many or most aspects of doing business--when careful empirical work demonstrates quite the opposite--policy changes, on average, have undiscernable effects on outcomes and most leadership solidly takes place as taking credit for luck and avoiding credit for bad luck
9) strong national and gender cultures fostering attibuting all outcomes to heroic male individuals, constantly distort
actual business operations and research findings on business in the direction of gross exaggeration of the influence of individuals and their actions on outcomes of interest.
In other words, there are profound forces making the problems of academia similar to the problems of business, the weaknesses of academia like the weaknesses of business,
the blind spots of academia the same as the blind spots of businesses. Europeans and East Asians have long noticed that academics in the West at the same time and in the
same way as businessmen in the West took all of total quality and:

individualized it
made it analytic and complex
turned it into numbers and tools
eliminated social and power distribution changes in it.
I wrote a doctoral dissertation, at the University of Michigan, that showed, in parts, how academics in the US were busily individualizing, analytic-izing, and elite-izing total
quality team, simplie, and egalitarian aspects--assimilating total qualitys culture to the culture of academia and US businesses. Just those components of total quality that
required fundamental change in values and ways were stripped out and replaced with comfortable fits to present practices (and hence, that improved little and made outcomes similar to past outcomes). MIT, for example, still gets Taguchi technique entirely wrong--missing, in a neurotic male US way, Taguchis emphasis on optimizing free
energy out of designs (MIT optimizes away traits that bother customers instead), missing Taguchis emphasis on experiments to find tuning factors (MIT experiments to find
optimal trait values instead), missing Taguchis emphasis on optimizing to find linear functions of reliable values (MIT optimizes to find best point performance values
instead). In each case, MIT distorts Taguchi to fit past business-academia culture in the US. Business and Western academics share the same values, cultures, and blind spots-

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 15

-so Western academic publishing on creativity operates within the same 0.00001% of consciously recognized alternatives and opportunities--the rest being ruled out by routines operating inside them both unconsciously, from the cultures that they share.

The Illusion of Individual & Leader Influence & Control


Male gender culture

Business and its


research operating
within five common
cultures, shared
between them,
means most alternatives, causes,
opportunities are
missed, ruled out
by unconscious
preferences &
views operating
inside of leaders
& followers alike.

90% of this cultures contents are unconscious

National culture with or without tinge of Americanisms


90% of this cultures contents are unconscious
Right wing pro-capitalism culture
90% of this cultures contents are unconscious
Industry and technology culture
90% of this cultures contents are unconscious
Business culture in general and
Individual institution culture
Personal CEO culture &
Corporate culture of belief in
Individual influence & control

Unexamined
Uncontested
90% Unconscious
Unmeasured
10% of Content
for each of 5 cultures =
0.00001% possible for
being controlled
or influenced

The Blind Leading the Blind


Academic Research on Creativity in Business
Academics and Businessmen Share the Same Cultures and Blindnesses from Them
In the context of the above, I present, below, two reviews of a typical academic work on creativity in business from an unimpeachable publisher of long renown. The first
review identifies main points only from each article in the work, dropping all secondary points and rewording main points to sharpen their focus. The second review examines
what portion (of all types of creativity insights) each of the twelve creativity-in-business approaches, in the work, covers.
If, like me, you have spent more than a decade working with creators and reading hundreds of books and research journal articles on creativity in general, a cursory glance at
the two tables below reveals huge portions of creativity research completely unmentioned. The ideas presented below represent an extremely small slice of overall known
research results on creativity. Either academics studying creativity in business are narrow and unread, or what they study--businesses--are narrow and unread in how they do
creativity and what amounts and qualities of creativity they achieve.

ACADEMIC RESEARCHER RESULTS: Increase Creativity How


from Harvard Business Review, On Point, The Creative Company,
Paul Barker in Whats Stifling the Creativity at Coolburst?
use the past and present to build the future
do not confine creativity to one or a few departments
tap into every employees creativity
safe, step-by-step ideas existing people will be comfortable with
ask employees to identify areas needing improvement
ask employees to view the company as competitors see it
get employees out of the office for a day or few days to change contexts
Teresa M. Amabile in Whats Stifling the Creativity at Coolburst?
apply the fact that all people with normal human capabilities can be creative; believing that only special people can be creative reduces overall levels of creation; expertise, creative-thinking skills, motivation
create an atmosphere that will allow creativity to bubble up freely; changes in the physical environment do not affect creativity much
set aside some resources specifically for innovative projects and allot time for them
create workgroups composed of diverse sets of skills and perspectives
have managers not display a knee-jerk protection of the status quo
celebrate breakthrus
achieve the right balance between freedom and creativity
want people to work hard because they are challenged by hard problems they care about not because of arbitrary deadlines; arbitrary deadlines stop much creativity, in part because pressure stops creativity, time pressures stops it, and some creating
requires much time
have managers take some risks and extract failure value from failures
Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries in Whats Stifling the Creativity at Coolburst?
inject fear of a real threat
do away with command and control culture
create culture having transitional space where people can play because rules are minimal
Gareth Jones and Elspeth McFadzean
identify and build on existing strengths
grow creativity out of a sense of accomplishment
promote mavericks who tried to create but were blocked
start a suggestion system
get out of the company context to refresh views
team members anonymously suggest new ideas then teams develop such ideas collaboratively
encourage employees to take more risks
use creative problem solving techniques: wishful thinking, brainwriting, object stimulation
encourage employees to challenge any process in place merely because that is how it has been done
hire a trained facilitator
encourage employees to think positively when presented with new ideass
encourage visioning alternative futures
hire people unlike people now in the company
allow time for innovation projects
ensure senior manager support for innovation projects
Robert McKee Storytelling that Moves People
two ways to persuade/motivate people: cost-benefit story and emotional story
good story explains how and why life changes: life in balance, inciting unbalancing incident, effort to restore balance forces expectations to dash against uncooperative reality
what it is like to deal with opposing forces: digging deeper, use scare resources, make diffiicult decisions, take action despite risks, discover the truth
story of a person dealing with conflict between subjective expectation and cruel reality
how do you imagine the future--create scenarios in your head of possible future events
display the struggle between expectation and reality in all its nastiness
accumulate antagonists because it creates suspense; do not sweep the dirty laundry, the difficulties, the antagonists, and the struggle under the carpet, do not present rosy scenarios
the irony of existence: what makes life worth living does not come from the rosy side, the energy to live comes from the dark side, from all that makes us suffer, struggling against those negative powers forces use to live more deeply and fully
position the problems in the foreground; positive images work against you--they create distrust

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 16

acknowledging the dark side makes you more convincing because you are being more truthful; we all live in dread, fear is when you dont know whats going to happen; dread is when you know whats going to happen and you cannot stop it--we
repress this dread (inflict it on others via sarcasm, cheating, abuse, indifference); we commit little evils that relieve the pressure and make us feel better, then we rationalize this; groups do the same, deny the existence of the negative while inflicting
their dread on other groups
a great leader is someone who has come to terms with his or her own mortality and as a result has compassion for others, expressed in stories; the golden rule of nature--do unto others what they do unto you
skepticism--sees the difference between text and subtext, seeks what is really going on, huns for truth beneath appearance and surface, the real thoughs and feelings of people are unconscious and unexpressed, looking behind the mask
discover a story by asking key questions: what does my protagonist want in order to restore balance in his/her life (desire is the blood of a story, a core need); what is keeping my protagonist from achieving his or her desire? doubt? fear? confusion?
personal conflicts? social conflicts? physical conflicts? forces of nature? not enough time? antagonists from: people, society, time, space, objects; how would my protagonist decide to act in order to achieve his or her desire in the face of these antagonistic forces? finally, do I believe this that I just wrote as a story?
childhood trauma makes you see life simultaneously 2 ways: direct real-time experience, but also recording it all as material to later ponder and understand
self knowledge is the root of all great storytelling: if I were this character in these circumstances, what would I do?
great leaders are people with enormous self knowledge, self insight, self respect, balance with skepticism
Richard Florida and Jim Goodnight
3 principles: keep employees intellectually engaged and remove distractions, make managers responsible for sparking creativity and remove arbitrary distinctions between managers and creatives, engage customers as creative partners
creative capital is not collection of individuals ideas but a product of interaction
do not bribe creatives with stock options, instead thank them with even more challenging project
find right intrinsic motivator for each group--beauty for artists, hunt for salespersons
send developers to conferences, let developers assemble in company events
encourage employees to collaborate on books and papers published
update tools of employees
outsource no job functions
survey research process for choosing which benefits to offer
the leader/ceo leaves the room when meetings become unproductive
discourage people from working long hours
establish egalitarian work cultures, make managers do hands on work
do not withhold criticism of higher ups, no overconcern with titles
bring groups of people together to facilitate exchange of ideas
managers clear away obstacles to creating for employees, procure needed materials
hire hard, manage open, fire hard
no penalty for honest mistakes
act on customer complaints and suggestions, solicit feedback, track suggestion handling with database
collect feedback at annual users conference
salespersons collaborate with customers to come up with new solutions
print names of software developers in manuals so they get phone calls
create bug free products
managers ask a lot of questions
Amabile Creativity Under the Gun
the more time pressure on a day the less creative thinking on that day (BUT what is creative thinking and does it result in creating?)
people perceive themselves as having been more creative on days with more time pressure but real data contradicts that
more time pressure on a day reduces creative thinking on that day and following days--called pressure hangover
creativity need time to create ideas to combine with others and time to combining
time to include exploratory activities within a task make the doing more creative; thinking through a task before doing it makes the doing more creative
creative days have a particular set of working conditions: focus from isolation (= less collaboration), real urgency not arbitrary imposed deadlines; little switching of modes, schedules, topics of work;
in absence of pressure when people explore and generate rather than identify problems to solve they had more creative thinking
communication, process checks, and interdepencency among roles at work all make the focus needed for creative thinking rare and hard to keep
first rule--avoid time pressure, it reduces creativity
second rule--when low time pressure encourage playing with ideas
third rule--avoid time pressure by articulate goals that are realistic and carefully planned (= be German)
fourth rule--protect time pressued people from interruptions, distraction, and unrelated demands
fifth rule--avoid arbitrary deadlines
sixth rule--avoid groups and meetings and any collaborations should be one on one
seventh rule--avoid schedule changes and goal changes
Amabile How to Kill Creativity
coordination, productivity, and control can be had along with creativity--a win win possibility exists but requires certain conditions
association of creativity with artistic creativity causes confusion about where to achieve creativity in businesses--creativity is needed everywhere including accounting (activity based example)
creativity has parts--creative thinkiing, expertise, motivation
expertise fosters bigger space of possible idea wanderings, large space =s more creativity possible
disagreement is tolerated or encouraged causes more creativity because departure from norms looks like disagreement and negation
combine knowledge from disparate fields
persevering through on a difficult problem increases chances for creativity
incubation--setting aside difficult problems while working on something else, then returning to them with refreshed perspective--helps creativity
intrinsic motivation makes for more creativity than extrinsic motivation--money often reduces intrinsic motivation
most creativity when people are motivated primarily by the interest, satisfaction, challenge of the work itself, not by external pressures (how benri--boss can keep all the profits himself!)
expertise and creative-thinking skills are more difficult and time consuming to influence, motivation is easiest and least time consuming to influence (if you are a wimpy social psychologist)
managerial practices that affect creativity--challenge, freedom, resources, work-group features, supervisory encouragement, organization support
challenge--match people to right assignemtns--ones that use expertise, creative thinking and ignite intrinsic motivation
freedom--autonomy about means, autonomy about ends not so needed (isnt that benri--leaders can control what people do entirely and still get creativity)
freedom--stable goals
resources--fake deadlines reduce time unnecessarily, tight resources redirect creativity into finding resources
work-group features--mutually supportive groups with diversity of perspective and background makes creativity (homogeneous teams kill creativity)
work-group features--members share excitement over teams goal
work-group features--will to help teammates through difficult periods and setbacks
work-group features--recognize unique knowledge and perspective of other members
supervisory encouragement--feel their work matters, via general recognition of their work before final financial results are in and known
supervisory encouragement--not layers of delay for evaluations and criticism; not punishing people whose ideas do not work out
supervisory encouragement--managers as role models of persevering and handling teams well
organizational support--mandating info sharing and colaboration, and making sure political problems do not fester
P&G corporate new venture--team members volunteered, team given enormous latitude about how, when, and where they worked (one product a heat pad copied from Japan!!!!!)
Dorothy Leonard and Susaan Straus Putting Your Companys Whole Brain to Work
logical versus intuitive, collaborate versus by self, study first versus experience first = cognitive preferences--avoid clones of self/others, seek creative abrasion
create by knowing own cognitive preference profile first
create by establishing whole brain teams combining all cognitive preferences (Nissan hire designers in polar pairs)
create by strategies that use teams full cognitive preference specturm
create by managing the creative process--acknowledge differences first, make guideliness for handling conflict/disagreement, keep goal salient, time for divergent and convergent, communications tailored to cognitive preferences of receiver not
sender, depersonalize conflicts
Thomas Davenport, Laurence Prusak, James Wilson Whos Bringing You Hot Ideas (and How Are You Responding)?
to create management innovation find idea practitioners who introduce new management practices to the organization now
recognize four functions in them--scouting for ideas in literature and conferences, packaging ideas in frames executive like, sell ideas to layers of rank, implement ideas via prototypes
recognize idea practitioner personality traits--optimis, passion for ideas in general, self-confidence
create roles for idea practitioners, set them loose with precise corporate values, encourage risk; reward them with intellectual stimulation
get CEO backing for ideas single greatest factor (if this is single greatest factor then hierarchy is ALL!!!!!)
create idea friendly culture that tolerates failures
Andrew Haragon and Robert Sutton Building an Innovation Factory
create by knowledge brokering--using old ideas as raw materials for new ideas via different contexts around the old ideas
create by systematizing generation and testing of fresh ideas
experiental exposure to diverse working good ideas--get your hands and self in their contexts of invention and use, learn why and how they work, their goods and bad, observe people using them
embed ideas in object displayed around for constant reminding/imagining
create by seeking analogies between new problems and old ideas displayed
quickly turn ideas into real product/service/business model--to test and make improvements
Robert Simons Control in an Age of Empowerment

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 17

trade-off between control and creativity--want both, how to get both


four control levers diagnostic monitors of performance, belief systems embodied by managers, boundary systems telling what not to do, interactive control systems sharing info collecting responses
Theodore Levitt Creativity is Not Enough
creativity--generatng ideas is easy, innovation--putting ideas to work is hard
innovation requires--present ideas to executives well
innovation requires--risk implementation failures, not all ideas work
innovation requires--balance flex with rigidity of organization
innovation requires--courage, energy, staying power--so many ideas hang around for years because no one took responbility for converting talk into action
present ideas plus what implementing it is likely to involve--cost, risk, manpower, time, particular people
organization can make innovating less risky--broad financial base and large pool of people = distributing risk across many people = lowers financial risk and career risk of involvement
recognize creative people who cannot implement and pair them with implementors
an ideas dress: rank of proposer, complexity of idea, nature of industry, job and attitude of person receiving idea (load),
organization permissive to new ideas often is less organized--conformity is a mission of any form of organization--so compartmentalize/ specialize innovation some where within it

What Kind of Thing Academic Research Reports on Creativity in Business Are Telling Us
The Example of Harvard Business Reviews On Point--The Creative Company
Twelve Creativity
Use All
Approaches:
all
supply
What Do They Share? approach: approach:

PROVIDE
SPREAD ISOLATE
OPPORTUNITY
RISK

FOSTER
SENSE

VIOLATE

Points that were main


points for each article
are put below, not
mere points mentioned on the side of
the argument.

DIVERSIFY

Safe Space
play
approach:

story
approach:
expectation
versus reality =
story of negatives enountered that if
suspensate outcomes,
acknowledging dark side
more = greater
morale/buy-in;
togetherness
from reality of
threat

past/future,
everyone,
incremental
steps

resources
(diversity, recognition. realistic deadlines,
extract failure
value)

inject fear,
anonymous
remove comsuggesting,
mand and con- outside viewtrol, set up play ing in, safe risk
space for transpaces
sitioning

Paul Barker in
Whats Stifling
the Creativity at
Coolburst?

Amabile
in
Whats Stifling
the Creativity at
Coolburst?

Kets de Vries in
Whats Stifling
the Creativity at
Coolburst?

direct experi- groups


of
ence of out of diverse skills
office views
and perspectives

Mental Life

spaces
approach:

Gareth Jones & Robert McKee


Elspeth
Storytelling that
McFadzean in Moves People
Whats Stifling
the Creativity at
Coolburst?

intellectual life
approach:

Un-Dis-Traction

whole
brain
approach:

domain & create skills hard


to improve,
motivation
faster to
improve by
stable, realistic, intrinsice
goals

map cognitive
preferences of
self and others,
message for
others CP not
own, mix CP in
teams, difference handling
process

Florida
and Amabile, Had- Amabile How to
Goodnight Man- ley, Kramer Cre- Kill Creativity
aging for Cre- ativity Under the
ativity
Gun

Leonard
and
Straus Putting
Your Companys
Whole Brain to
Work

distractors
THE enemy of
creation =
pressure, context/goal
changes, deadlines, meetings

promote mavericks who tried but got blocked;


encourage envisioning alternatives; ;hire people
unlike those now in company (spaces approach
column only)

COMBINE

Use/Combine Diversities

motive &
skills
approach:

keep all intellectually


engaged,
update tools,
cross borders,
enact suggestions

focus
approach:

bring groups combine


together
for knowledge
idea exchange from different
fields

DE-POLITIFY

do not let political problems


fester

DISESTABLISH

intrinsic motivation out-creates


extrinsic; most motivation from
challenge and interest in task
itself; motivation easier to
change than expertise/creativethinking skills; (focus approach
column only)
employees
challenge routines in place
cuz
thats
how we always
do it

-monitors,
by: experience
working ideas, beliefs, boundaries, informembed ideas in
ing--spread risk
displayed
but
create conobjects, seek
formity; find
analogies, turn
special
place
ideas into
inside structure
immediate
where
less
contests/prototypes
trol can be
safely tolerated

Davenport, Pursak, and Wilson


Whos Bringing
You Hot Ideas?

Hargadon and
Sutton Building
an
Innovation
Factory

Simons Control
in an Age of
Empowerment
and Levitt Creativity is Not
Enough

create whole
brain
teams
having all cognitive profile
types together

combine knowledge from different fields; mandate


info sharing and distribution (focus approach column only)

work hard cuz


hard challenge
not rewards

identify IPs,
identify & support functions:
scout, package, sell,
implement;
find roles for
IPs, CEO backing

experiential exposure to diverse working good ideas, get your hands


and self in their contexts of use, learn why and how they work, their
goods and bads, observe people using them (combinatorics approach
column only)

DE-BORDER

DE-MONIFY

Except

idea
combinato- embed
practitiorics
approach:
structure hurts
ner
approach: and
helps innoold ideas in
approach: use
new contexts vation: controls-

invent by analogies across


domains: between problems,
between solutions (combinatorics approach column only)

reward
idea
practitioners
with intellectual stimulation

position problems in the


foreground,
positive
images work
against
you,
create distrust

FOCUS

creative days = focus from isolation; real urgency not arbitrary deadlines; little switching of modes of
work, schedules, goals; communication-collaboration-process checks-interdependency all hinder focus;
avoid time pressure by clear realistic goals; stop interruptions/distraction/s; avoid arbitrary deadlines;
collaborate 1 on 1 not groups/meetings (this is focus approach column only)

PERSEVERE

make goals/schedules stable; persevering when stymied encouraged; innovation requires courage,
manager role models who persevere when big obstacles loom (focus energy, staying power = doing
approach column only)
organizational work (embed
approach column only last at
right)

LEAVE
ALONE

protect from distractions/interruptions/meetings/reportings (focus


approach column only)

ENABLE
RISK/FAILURE
INCREMENT

managers who
take
risks;
extract value
from failures

encourage
employees to
take more risks

safe, step by step, ideas present people will be start suggescomfortable with; employees spot areas needing tion system
improvement (all approach column only)

no penalty for
honest
mistakes

create
idea
friendly
culture that tolerates failure

act on customer complaints and suggestions; collect user feedback; sales collaborate with clients
(intellectural life approach column only)

TEST IDEAS

RECOGNIZE

quickly
test
ideas with prototypes-- talk
around prototype not just
around idea
celebrate
breakthrus

BACKING

USE ALL

OPEN

risk
implementation failure, not all
ideas work out

find idea practitioners in your organization; find their functions:


scouting, packaging, sellling, install via prototypes; (whole brain
approach column only)
ensure senior
manager support for innovation projects

use past and not few depts.;


present
to use
every
build future
employees
creativity

identify
and
use
existing
strengths;
grow creativity from sense
of accomplishment

get CEO backing = single


most important
single greatest factor
use old ideas in
new contexts

manager not eliminate comknee-jerk pro- mand and contecting of sta- trol
tus quo

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 18

What Kind of Thing Academic Research Reports on Creativity in Business Are Telling Us
The Example of Harvard Business Reviews On Point--The Creative Company

SUPPORT
CONCRETELY

RESOURCE

set
aside
resources and
time for creating

SPACE

establish play
space (transitional
with
minimal rules)

TOOLS

MANAGE KNOW EMBRACE


EMERGENCE SELF NEGATION

allow time for accumulate


innovation
agonists = creprocess
ates suspense-can we make
it? = creates
togetherness

time to create
ideas, time to
combine them;

create mental
life of individuals
and
groups = send
to
conferences, publish
together,
update tools;
no outsourcing, survey for
benefits, discourage long
hours, do not
pull punches
when critiquing higher ups,
egalitarian
work culture,
managers clear
away obstacles

when low time


pressure encourage playing with
ideas;
more
expertise
in
domain means
large space of
possible imaginaings; tolerate
disagreements as
departures from
norms
appear
first as disagreements and lack of
consensus; manager practices for
creation: challenge, freedom,
resources, workgroup solidarity,
supervisor
encouragement,
organization
backing

create roles for


idea practitioners

define difference handling


process for all
teams-acknowledge
differences,
guidelines for
conflict resolution, goals kept
salient,
time
for divergent
and
convergent thought,
communications tailored
to
cognitive
preferences of
receiver
not
sender, depersonalize conflicts

create
idea
friendly
culture that tolerates failure

wishful thinking, brainwriting, object stimulation; hire facilitator


(spaces approach column only)

DESPAIR
DOORWAY

display struggle between expectation and reality in all its nastiness


(story approach column only)

SKEPTICISM

see text/subtext, appearance/reality, espoused/enacted beliefs differences; peer behind masks (story approach column only)

SCHIZO

childhood trauma = doing experience + observing you experiencing


(recording it) (story approach column only)

NEGATION

embrace the dark side, elaborate it, from it comes vitality and truth and self transformation; dread unacknowledged becomes inflicted unconsciously on others (story
approach column only)

DISGUISE

SEE SELF

KNOW
THYSELF

embed ideas in
objects
displayed
for
simultaneous
viewing/scanning

anonymous
suggesting;
group applying

see selves as
others/clients
see us

present ideas well to executives; present likely costs of an idea--cost,


risk, manpower, time, particular people; idea dress--rank of proposer, complexity of idea, nature of industry, job and attitude of person receiving idea (embed approach column only--last column at
right)

get out of com- what makes life meaningful comes from the dark know
your
pany context to side, facing and struggling and making it against own cognitive
refresh views
all odds brings truth; great leader knows own mor- profile first
tality = compassion = connects to others (story
approach column only)
self knowledge root of all great storytelling: if I were X what would know your own
I do? leader = enormous self knowledge = compassion, insight, cognitive
respect, skepticism (story approach column only)
prefernces/
style

EMERGENT

creative capital comes from interactions not persons alone or capabilities alone (intellectual life
approach column only)

DISTINGUISH

tailor intrinsic incentives of type people wish-beauty for artists, hunt for sales, etc. (intellectual
life approach column only)

INCUBATION
TUNE CONTROL/CREATIVE
TRADE-OFF

set aside difficult problems, work on something else, then return =


unconscious does work while away (focus approach collumn only)
tilt to control or to creativity differently in different parts of organization; control via monitor, beliefs, boundaries, info sharingd
(embed approach column only, last at right)

What To Notice in the Above Findings About Business Creativity


For all readers there is the practical question--did I know all this stuff already? Are any of these ideas I am reading new to me? Are the ideas that are new to me new because
I missed something of value or are the ideas impractical idealisms from people not familiar with real obstacles and operating conditions in my situation?

The Lack of Diverse Diversity. The above work on creativity in business mentions diversity, almost in passing, almost as an obvious afterthought. A few articles
stated that homogeneity was bad for creativity, a few others suggested diverse backgrounds and perspectives were good for groups being creative, a few suggest promoting
mavericks not now promoted and hiring people not now hired. What is startling is the tiny diversity of possible diversities mentioned and the shallowness of treatment of
diversity in general in all the articles. That is the first problem--a lack of diverse types of diversity covered.

The problem with getting diverse people is obvious and is this--there are billions of dimensions for comparing people and by each of which they can be diverse--which of
these billions of dimensions fosters creativity the best, assuming creativity is one thing, and which of them fosters each of 60 different approaches to creating, assuming creativity is not one thing. That is the second problem--which of many diversity types to use. Then there is the issue of the amount of diversity along each of those dimensions.
That is the third problem--how much of a particular type of diversity to use. What sort of diversity, how much of it, is needed for creativity? What are the collateral costs of
that diversity, what does it hurt while it helps creativity of certain sorts in certain ways? Just getting some diversity and hoping it will help you create in any particular
way--is a fools paradise of illusion. That is the fourth problem--what happens, other than creativity benefits, when a certain amount of a certain type of diversity gets deployed
to up creativity?
The fifth problem is nothing is said about how to use diversity. Apparently you just get some and it kind of automatically sits there and spices up things in a creative direction. You have to be pretty naive to believe this--apparently academics know next to nothing about both kinds of diversity and how to use or do anything creative with them.
The five aspects to using diversity to create, mentioned here, are unexplored in contemporary research on creativity in business, and more unfortunately, unmentioned.

Tuning the Control versus Creativity Trade-off. Interestingly some of the articles directly address the issue that--what organization is and does is organize-

- that is, create certain things (made of people and systems) going in certain depended upon directions at depended upon speeds and costs. Bad nasty things that destroy playing around, being open and free, dancing among flowers--in other words, that hinder creativity--like deadlines, schedules, budgets, results achieved at certain times and costs- result from organizing because, in part, they are essential for getting a job done. Creativity in business is a kind of un-organizing--to be creative you un-organize. One
article above mentioned this point (in the except approach) but the others ignore it entirely. In practical reality, it cannot be ignored at all if you are serious about creating in
business.
Here is the crux of the issue, missed by all the articles above. There is a trade-off--creativity undoes some of the core things that organizing does, and vice versa, organizing
undoes some of the core things that creativity does. Trade-offs require tuning to find an appropriate intermediate value. Who is smart enough, broad enough, educated enough
to spot when a key crucial norm or boundary is being violated for a creative result of too little promise to justify the harms and consequences involved? Getting someone to
make this judgement who is great at operating an organization for continued business survival, is nearly impossible--the two domains require such different skills. Executives
good at profit and business survival are not well-practiced in risk-taking, boundary ignoring, and flower spreading. Business consultants and professors are flattering executives by pretending that they can, easily, by an act of will (or by merely purchasing a nice juicy consult by the professor involved) be excellent at running a business and managing departures from, undoings of, its more essential boundaries, rules, norms and the like in order to foster creativity from it. There are no such people--the skills of doing
the one are enormously different than, opposite to, the skills of doing the other! That is why we have Hewlets and Packards. It is why we have couples made of men and
women. Much more will be made of this split CEO phenomenon later in this book.
The only CEOs able to make this sort of judgement have Ph.D.s in hard sciences, or histories of being inventors themselves, and the like. Normal MBA finance or marketting
type CEOs simply cannot figure out when a violation is good and when it is bad, both for creativity and for the business staying organized enough to survive. Hannah Arendt
had it right--actions--injections of the truly new into history, are not works, things designed that function as planned, hence actions have unforeseen (because unforeseeable)
consequences.. CEOs who can see the unforeseeable are not possible; CEOs who know what to do about not seeing the unforeseeable are possible but are Phd.s themselves
in research fields or inventors for the most part.

Notice the backing function in the table above. Some articles emphasized that the single most important factor was CEO backing of innovative ideas. This intensifies the
issue treated immediately above in this section--are CEOs smart enough to manage organizing and unorganizings for creation? Can CEOs back the un-doing of what is their
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered
Page 19

own primary responsibility and accomplishment? Can CEOs back such violations and un-organizings when no one can know their consequences because they are actions
not works? If normal CEOs cannot handle this, yet some do, what traits are needed in CEOs who can handle this duality--organizing and un-organizing for creativity?

Missing Disguise. Since the Harvard Business Review is not an academic journal, it does not cite full references, listing a few readings instead. Nevertheless, it is strange

to cover innovation in business without mentioning Van de Ven at the University of Minnesota, who did one of the most serious longitudinal research studies ever done on
actual innovations flowing over years in and out of various departments, ventures, budgets, schedules, management changes, reorganizations, nominal champions of them, and
the like. Van de Ven found disguise was a major determinant of success. Innovations nearly always had to go through numerous clever disguisings. The above articles mention disguisings once and not centrally. The articles surveyed above are idealizations in this sense--they assume innovations will be popular, welcomed, and liked, when this
is nearly never true.
There is a further external-to-the-company dimension of disguise. New ideas have this trait of being stollen. People outside the firm like to steal them. They set up budgets
and industrial spying to get them. Several of the articles above suggest lots of information distributing, sharing, crossing of departmental and other boundaries, mixing and
combining of persons and functions. That is wonderful except it undoes the isolation that keeps ideas from being stollen. Disguise is needed in two ways, to protect innovations from hostile conservative and fragile-ego forces in firms, and to protect them from snooping competitors inside and outside the firm.
Finally, ideas have to surprise to be judged creative. If leaks and hints seep out all the time, about them, then everyone learns them by small un-impressive increments, and no
great surprise ever eventuates. Better by far, to attract the attention and resources to implement a great bold new idea, to amaze people with the announcement of something
robust, that has been developed in secret for quite a while, without hints leaking out.

The Power of the Negative and the Despair Doorway. As I hinted above, professors share so many cultures with businessmen as well as being bribed indi-

rectly to never criticize them, that we expect the omission of negativity by businessmen to appear fully, undiminished, in academic research on creativity in business--and it
does. The above articles had nearly no comments at all about the power of negation and the door to all insight requiring despair, absoluate despair over getting to your goal
with all that you now know. If the power of negation and the essential role of despair are removed from creativity, of course, all creativity evaporates as well, and you get a
namby pamby idealist adolescent distortion of creativity, creativity-ish-ness in analogy with truthy-ness. All the above articles are about creativity-ish-ness not about creativity, and we know this, absolutely know this, because only one of them deals with the power of negativity and that one leaves out the despair doorway into insight (the story
approach).
We can also easily see how the failure to deal with disguise, from the section above, comes from failure here to include the power of the negative and the despair doorway into
insight. It is telling that only the screen writer from Hollywood, among the writers in the Harvard On Point, admitted the essential core central role of negativity in creation.
It is the nasty, negative, biting, disagreeable one, who does not conform, who sees fault everywhere, who rebels, who mocks, who belittles higher ups--who creates. Only the
screen writer is prepared for this--the others are afraid of it and omit it--do not handle it. They are all good little boys and girls and have been all their pampered lives. Yes
you might get creativity out of them but only the conventional wimpy sort that Procter and Gamble gets from its Corporate New Ventures program--the result: all of Amabiles
environment supports installed in a special group so they can attain brilliant ideas like taking a hot pad sold everywhere for nearly ten years in Japan and adapt it to the US
market. It takes a giant new venture program apparently to get P&G to have the courage to copy a huge already successful product abroad in the US market. That is wimpy
creativity at work for you. Most of the West Coast CEOs that I know would consider such results the proof of a stodgy culture not the evidence of its elimination. The Harvard work on creativity in business above presents systems for achieving that sort of creativity--ten years after massive success in Japan a product gets copied by a giant US
firm--after the US firm installs an exciting Harvard designed exception to its usually stodgy culture. Wowie--if that result inspires you, you are too wimpy for this book--read
elsewhere.
Lastly, consider the CEO role. We think of it as coach, coaxer, persuader, encourager and the like--the press encourages these images. However, CEOs are often the only
embodiment of the negative in entire corporations--they are the only people formally empowered to be negative, to fire, to dis-organize, to drop, to sell. They exercise cutting
and shrinking, dropping and selling off, where everyone else in the organization has much reduced permission to act negatively. The distribution of negativity among roles,
departments, functions, and layers of any organization is a key measure of how much leadership exists in it. Similarly the distribution of positivity--the ability to hire, build,
spend, organize, start up--is a key measure of how much authority is in an organization. Fixed organizations can have remarkably different amounts of total authority exercised in them, depending on how negativity and positivity are distributed throughout. Organizations with more authority, in an absolutely sense, exercised can do more anything, including more creation, than others. See references later in this book to just-in-time authority systems.

Skepticism, Schizo, and Know Thyself.


The role of doubt in the history of science is immense and central. The role of doubt, dressed up as rebellion and fantasy, in art is equally immense and central. The role of
doubt in the above Harvard work on creativity is nil, barely mentioned. Apparently creating in business has nearly no overlap with creating in science and art. I doubt it.
A similar issue is the split person--the person who lived experience in real time, and who, at the same time, observed and recorded what was in that experience. So many creators are like this, in science and the arts. Are creators in business without this? I doubt it.
Finally, knowing thyself, in the sense of choosing to use ones biases and bents, ones talents and flaws, is a core part of creativity in science and the arts. Is it not of worth in
business creativity? I doubt it.
These three--skepticism, schizo, and knowing thyself--are both emotives and negatives--both of which men, not women, shun and therefore are not good at. The male American techno cultures that dominate modern business rule out these sorts of emotional and negative dimensions of work and thought, and thereby rule out creativity in toto.
Only the Hollywood screen writer sees these elements and faces emotion and negation courageously instead of wimpily or gutlessly.

What are These Well Populated Spaces and Resources Category Above? Quite a few articles above dealt with defining spaces in which creativity

can occur. These spaces require resources: time (no deadlines) and budgets (things and facilities and persons). What are these well populated categories all about? This is
the un-organize in order to create phenomenon as recognized by the authors above. The authors above do not recognize that creating within an organization involves unorganizing things, till enough free time and emotional and goal and means space is there for changing and toying and combining and violating to occur. They see the free time,
emotional, goal, and means freedom needed, and so on but they do not note it as undoing what organizing inherently does. They, after all, sell consulting to businesses and
could not do this if they had lots of inherent conflicts between creating and organizing as businessses do it.

Getting resources for creating is not as obvious and easy as it seems. Creating costs time and other resources--how much--no one knows. People in a business get paid for-at standard employee seniority and skill rates. If a project takes 2 years instead of one, then lots of money for salaries and benefits and facilities goes out the window. Businesses tend to care about that. How much to bet on an idea not now fully clear or born--that is a hard judgement to make. In science and art there are viable marginal lifestyles. We all know this--artists who starve for ten years, generating works no one buys, then, who come to the attention of one well placed buyer, and suddenly they are
millionaires and on all the museum walls and media. Societies handle this investment question by making marginal lifestyles viable so it costs little to support lots of starving
artists while they make things of possible later value. Companies should seriously consider doing the same--creating viable marginal lifestyles for their own creators. This
goes unmentioned by all the articles above--I find that almost an impossibility. How could they have missed such a big element in societal creativity? In reality, we know
how they missed it--they are the cultures of business that they study--the blind leading the blind point again.
By minimizing the inherent, ineluctible conflict between organizing--getting things going in pre-decided dependable speeds and directions--and creating--doing things that
those directions are not pointed at--the authors above pretend that creating is not deep undoing of what executives and cultures and our ways do. By minimizing this they
pretend that creating is easy in business. This does not serve well anyone at all. It sells and that is all--it does not establish creativity but leads to disappointed clients in the
long term.

Persevere and Disguise. What do you have to persevere over and against? Changes in budget, changes in organization, changes in management, changes in policy,

changes in firm, changes in employees, changes in technology--these flow continually around and through all businesses. They are not generally very stable and any innovation not do-able in instants is therefore going to have to have a way of surviving many of them. Van de Vens excellent University of Minnesota work, because it was longitudinal, discovered common research knowledge on creating was false. Champions were late, after the fact and usually nominal only--innovation coalitions chose them rather
than they forming coalitions to innovate something. Disguises were needed to hide innovations from budget, schedule, organization and other changes. Sometimes years of
hiding were needed and the idea re-emerged with entirely new employees, leaders, and sponsors.

The Harvard works, because they chinch on funding by doing cross-sectional research only or diary writing over weeks not years, miss these dynamics of focus carried on as
environments flow and churn around that focus. They miss the essential elements of long term payoff creativity projects and, unconsciously, without saying so, end up being
entirely about short term incremental, gradual, easy, unimpressive creativity projects like P&Gs Corporate New Ventures inventing taking a hot selling product from Japan,
ten years late, and trying it in the US and elsewhere--wowie, Nobel Prize here we come!

Curiosity, Interest, Drive, Persistance, Investing in Failing Lines of Action--What Does Intrinsic Motivation Hide? Much of the research on

creativity in business is costly and done by schools like Harvard due to greater funds and entre there. Much of Harvards research on creativity is about conditions that foster
intrinsic motivation. What is that? The results published pertain to how intrinsic motivation is hurt or helped by particular conditions--but the outcome variable--intrinsic
motivation--is left partial, vague, ill-defined--perhaps so as to get consults for Harvard faculty. I do not really know. But if you examine what the term intrinsic motivation
hides, it hides a lot, a suspiciously lot.
Let us consider someone lacking all curiosity. If I install the conditions that Harvards partly published research suggests, am I going to get someone curious? No, I get someone curios-er, from a low base improved, but not yet, probably useful. Consider someone lacking all interest. If I install Harvards partly published conditions, do I get someone having great interests? Not not at all--I get someone having more interests or greater ones than they had at the start from an abysmal base line. Consider someone
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 20

lacking all drive--if I install the Harvard conditions will I get someone of great drive? No. Consider persistance, risk-taking-ness, perspicacity, adaptability, ability to ignore
intrusions and distractions, and on and on. In every case, the Harvard partially published conditions will improve scores on our [proprietary] instrument as the articles
above say, but they do not say that creativity improves greatly and the examples of great improvement they provide center on P&Gs achievement of copying a fully successful
Japanese product in the US market--not Nobel Prize stuff exactly. In short, improvements from very low baselines can be done using methods never fully published by a Harvard always on the lookout for money. Is that enough for you?
Perhaps your business has such abysmal baselines of support and tolerance for creativity that moving from cockroach levels to dog levels of creativity is enough to get you
promoted? Improvement is all too often and all too easily substituted for achieving robust levels of something, both in research and in manager bragging about own recent
accomplishments. If the improvement is from a low base line of performance, if it is expensive or hard to maintain, if it soon gets replaced as an emphasis as other conditions flux and flow around it--then it becomes of zero worth to anyone. A little teeny weeny bit more of X may get you promoted at P&G and at Harvard but it will not get
you promoted in my own firms!

Creativity Kills Businesses. When you join, as an employee, one of the big global consulting firms you discover they sell 8 to 10 year old ideas to firms too timid to

do anything unless nearly all their peer and competitor firms are already doing it. If everyone is already buying IBM then we will too--firm after firm affirms courageously
and masculinely. You cannot sell contemporary proven technologies--they are scary and too much for most firms. General consultancies know this well. So, you can generalize this--within firms you cannot sell the present, and the new. Between firms you cannot sell the present and the new. To them all you can sell the recent past, stuff about
8 to 10 years old.
In that context, creativity is neither needed nor profitable. Why all the bother to look like it and do or pretend to do it? Add to this Harvard installing Corporate New Venture
programs fully capable of getting giant companies to notice and copy giant product successes by other companies in Japan, and you get the idea that businesses aspire to nearly
no levels of creativity. They make lots of money, presently, using very low levels of creativity--safe, incremental, creations that do not reduce CEO rip-offs and top monkey
excesses. Why upset the applecart and be truly creative instead of safe, incremental, P&G-ish creative? The research on creativity in business pretends, on the professor side,
and on the business client payee side, that robust creativity is needed, wanted, and tolerated. Everyone is lying--robust levels of creativity scare people, are intrusions ruining
well oiled present processes producing lots of money already, and put careers at risk--who needs them.
Any honest and complete treatment of creativity in business must address this fact face on, honestly, and fully--creativity kills careers and businesses, careers and businesses
now with laughably small levels of safe little P&G-ish incremental creativity make lots of money. It just may really be that, as James Marsh said 50 years ago--CEOs and VPs
and Harvard professors need to look creative and look like they are installing robust levels of creativity rather than actually do it. It is all appearances that are needed, not
realities! We will investigate this later in this book--but it is perfectly stunningly clear from the tables above that the Harvard work on creativity in business slights this, omits
it, as an issue. They proudly ballyhoo achievement, after installing environmental conditions that meet all the unpublished wonderful criteria of social science survey instruments they sell in consults, of noticing major market success products in Japan and copying them in the US. Wowie! Lets go and learn how we too can learn the obvious and
copy it globally! You have got to be kidding! Dilbert has it right, again: I saw this giant elephantine success hot pad product making lots of money in Japan and I got this
brilliant idea after Harvard adjusted 78 dimensions of my work environment--lets sell a similar but improved version of that product in the US. Genius! Einstein! Wonderful! You have got to be kidding. Lets get real about creativity! The professors and their business clients are well deserving of mockery--if this is the kind of improved creativity to which you aspire, put down this book and stay away from me the rest of your life--I do not want to meet your sorry self, I could not withstand the boredom of lunch
conversations with you.

Conclusion--Not Male Enough, Not Female Enough, Not Anything Enough. I could go on and on--and write hundreds of pages, literally, about the fail-

ings of current research from business schools at top colleges on creativity in business. However, why beat a dead horse? By now readers have formed some conclusions of
their own. Dilbert has it about right--all the negativity banished from ass-kissing academics needing funds from businesses--is found in his cartoons. We need Harvards able
and willing to hire people with Doonebury levels of reality and honesty about them. We are not soon going to get that, I am afraid, hence my writing of this book. I will, at
any rate, give it a try.

I conducted a little off the cuff study last year by asking all the Japanese junior high school girls going home from school past my house, what was the most creative project
they had observed or participated in, what made it creative, what did it have to overcome, what resisted it, what ended up overcoming that resistance, what sorts of people create, what makes them able to or not able to create, and similar questions. [As a disclaimer I need to inform readers here that Japanese junior high school age girls are major
drivers of creative product introductions in many product categories in Japan and all of East Asia, leading trends that spread through Korea and China like wildfires.] I got
88% of the above insights on creativity from a sample of just over 56 of these girls. I am not yet cynical enough to actually publish it as a journal article, but I find the results,
not surprising. Most publishing on creativity in business is juvenile and adolescent, however big and impressive the social science statistics in it are. The same CEOs who
have a hard time judging when violators and violations are worth the risks they expose the firm to for the sake of creations they may make, have a hard time judging whether
fancy instruments and validated scales actually produce something of more worth than convenience samples of Japanese junior high school girls. Not surprising, not surprising at all!
Finally, there is a wimpy-ness that infests academics and their research of everything, including business. There is a wimpy-ness in businessmen that infests all that they do
and all the systems they use and sell and build. Men in businesses end up emasculated by the monkey dynamics of being lesser monkeys in a hierarchy dominated by one
great big monkey making hundreds of millions even when ruining the stock value and the sales of the firm. Men in academia end up emasculated by their dependency on
funding from businesses--choosing safe topics not too negative about anything in the firm. In short, wimps researching wimps.
Yet academics lack femininity and businessmen lack femininity as well, inspite of lacking masculinity. Lacking masculinity does not make you powerfully feminine! There
is so much more on this later in this book it would be a shame to partially present it here so I will stop. But academic research on creativity in business lacks masculinity and
it lacks femininity as well--it is a wimpy pale washed out rendition of a world without negatives where good little boys and girls do what their bosses say nicely while making
lots of nice innovations--like copying huge successful Japanese products ten years later and doing something like them in the US market. Wowie!! If that is your criterion of
creativity--buy some dog food--dog food illustrates that sort of creativity fully--you do not need books.

Dis-Illusioning Creativity: Stripping It of


Illusions
Creativity in Business: Toys for Boys, Tools for Fools, and Getting
Real about Creating
This nature of this chapter is getting real. This chapter intends to demonstrate what a little getting real can do for our understanding of how business and creativity do
now relate and should relate or could somehow in the future be made to relate. This chapter involves conceptual house cleaning of how we think and talk about creativity and
more important some moral and emotional house cleaning of that. I have been somewhat creative in NGO 3rd world village development, in fund raising, in graduate
research, in the arts, in politics, in artificial intelligence software, and in global corporations. I used several specific models of creativity to do that--the culture mixing, events,
subcreations, and recommendations models. These I introduce below in this chapter. It was organizationally easy for me to be creative in global corporations--I entered them
immune to their five principal cultures. However it was personally hard for me because, in order to create, the I that I was at the time was not capable of creation. I had to
grow into a new I before I could create. Similarly, perhaps, not a few readers of this book will have to change in order to create. The you that you now are will have to
drop away in favor of a new you that you begin construction of in the chapter below. I will discuss some irritating un-admirable aspects of life and work in big organizations, calling things by their real names, to set a realistic context for creativity in such organizations. As long as we pretend that big business organizations are wonderful and
without flaw, we get nowhere discussing why such organizations do not have all that much creativity in them. Throughout the chapter below, I will refer repeatedly to five cultures--American culture, male culture, technology culture, capitalist culture, and hierarchy-monkey-games culture (as the US general said it is asses all the way up in a
chimpanzee troops hierarchy, like the military command structure). These are cultures so much a part of us they are like water is to fish. Seeing such waters we swim in,
opens up a huge powerful doorway into creativity, that I get specific about at the end of this talk. Among the realities we face when we try to create in business organizations
is the courage-surveillance trade-off. Businesses are organized as places of omni-present surveillance of everyone by everyone else. This forces everyone to face reactions
by partly and il-informed others for all that they do. Ultimately people reduce what they do, so as to not be hassled by all these reactions. Surveillance drives creativity out
of all organizations that have it. Below I consider what this means, ultimately, for creating in organizations.
Each section of the chapter below is followed by bullets summarizing its key points. It is hoped that readers will depend on these summaries to visualize the links in my arguments, making them easier to recall and apply.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 21

Briefly, I will introduce the topics covered in the rest of this chapter. Experience using this chapter with students and consulting clients found that seeing the entire argument
briefly up front, greatly improved dealing with its detailed sub-arguments in the rest of the chapter.

toys for boys, tools for fools, getting real about creativity in business

There is a lot of selling of things in this world and hormones drive men towards toys all their lives. Not surprisingly, male hormone dynamics
play a major role in the inventing, producing, and selling of things--boxes, devices, toys for boys. A lot of the apparently creative is
really toying with things and making things into toys. It is not serious in large part. Similarly, consultants promoting creativity in business
tend towards tools of two sorts--clever thinking gimmicks and social science instrument gimmicks. Though the evidence is that no creativity at all results from deployment of either of these types of tool, promoters still sell them and customers still buy them. This apparent
creativity is not creative at all. From both of these perspectives, to do creation in business, one first has to get a bit more real about what
is real creativity and what is merely apparent creativity and creativity for show.

inauthentic reasons for interest in creativity--the career system distorts creativity

Most of the interest in creativity in business comes not from needs of any business but from needs of people having careers. The career system
generates by far most of the interest in and use of creativity in business. Employees use creativity to get attention of higher ups--a crucial
resource for career building wherever people organize themselves in monkey-like hierarchies of rank. Consultants can sell creativity
instruments and services that have minimal impact on actual creativity of the business because they are being hired for a different impact-getting their clients promoted.

the costs of inauthentic interest in creativity--simultaneous overshooting and undershooting creativity

Inauthentic use of and promotion of creativity is not without costs and heavy consequences. It causes overshooting--exaggerations of creativity, of
the need for it, of the amount of it around and achieved. It causes undershooting--apparent creativity becomes so consuming that people
forget to do any real creating. Creating just to the point of promotion gets done then dropped. The career system short circuits creation.
So we end up with the paradox--too much creativity while having too little of it. This is a familiar problem--the standard inventory problem of simultaneous overshoot and undershoot.

tampering--statistical, complexity, and creativity

When managers intervene in a process without solid knowledge of what determines aspects of the process, their interventions inevitably make
unwanted aspects much worse and wanted aspects much weaker. Such interventions not based on solid knowledge of how processes
work was called tampering by Dr. Deming the crusty old quality guru of the late 20th century. There are, it turns out, three forms of
such tampering--statistical, complexity, and creativity tampering. Creativity tampering occurs when people, ignorant of the number of
diverse models of creating that exist (in general and realized in their own firm) support one or two models that they know about and
thereby undermine many more models of creating that they are not aware of that yet operate in their firm. Overall, their support of the few
models they know reduces more creativity than it generates. This is creativity tampering.

the uncreativity of creating--neurotic creativity

Societies like individual persons are neurotic--they have talents that represent long past focuses, and that hence, have costs associated with them, all
the things not focussed on while developing the talent. Societies hide these costs of their talents from themselves. They, when presented
with clear consequences of their talents, deny any connection between that talent and the immense costs associated with it. Societies are
neurotic about these, they cannot see the connections involved. That means societies are willing to call a solution only things guaranteed not to solve their biggest and deepest problems. What they call a solution or creative is often, and sometimes, always, something
unable to solve their most important problems. US society, for one example, tends to prefer creativity as a solution to problems caused
by too much creativity. Certain types of solution are so preferred, biased-for, that societies irrationally try to solve everything with a few
favored solution types. Outsiders see this and laugh at it, but particular societies can stay hung up on these illusions for centuries, with
much suffering and failure along the way.

reducing creativity by supporting it--(it is not an it)

The assumption is often made, by you the readers of this book, by business executives, and by professors, that, because we have one word for it,
creativity, that it is one thing. There is a lot of evidence that creativity is many plural things not one thing. Suppose creativity is 60
things--that there are 60 models of what all of creativity is, each seeing and emphasizing a different aspect of creating. When we evaluate
an environment for how it supports and hinders creativity what are we doing? If we have a clear valid model of the 60 varieties of
defining creativity, we are okay. But if we, instead, treat creativity as if it were one thing--when we find environment conditions that support the one model of creativity we take for all of it, those conditions may be helping that one model, but may be hurting a dozen other
models. Those conditions, if installed, may reduce far more creativity than they help, because the installers--consultant, professor, and
client alike--assumed creativity was one thing, and did not account for condition effects on other models of creativity not recognized by
them.

educatedness as a primary route to creativity

Creating requires people who stand outside themselves, who stand outside all that raised them. Such people perceive and have contexts for all that
is within them, that used to be unconsciously powerful within them, till they searched it out, brought it to conscious examination, and
asked--what put this stuff inside me and should I put better stuff than it inside me now, consciously, to improve my self? Such people can
see and aim for and achieve surprising and amazing things that, those around them who grew up with them, cannot see, aim for, and
achieve. What creates such people? Not creativity but educatedness--education produces it, higher education. Educated people undo
what socialization processes do to them. Education makes people aware of contents operating inside them that they did not consciously
choose--contents put there unconsciously while they grew up somewhere. Education asks people to become aware of these involuntary
contents of their own selves and replace them with better contents from the best in history and in the contemporary world. This is one
principal function of college. One powerful route to creating creativity is higher education of people, of people who went to college
without really being there.

defining creativity--using the word and concept carefully and consistently--clearing away conceptual brush

When an inventor with a track record of dozens of prior inventions invents a new one--is he being creative or is he merely continuing a normal for
him work trend? Can anyone create who does not first differ from their own past self? Is there any kind of creating that does not require
personal growth beyond what one was when one did past creatings? Can people learn to differ from themselves, their recent past ones, all
their lives? Does creating a self, which we all do, prepare us all for more historic types of creating? The word create means just generating stuff--we create documents and soups for dinner. Is there some way, say by doing a lot of it, that mere generating can somehow grow
into historic levels of creating? Why do we all want to be more creative than we now are? Why do we want the world and workplaces
and families within it to be more creative than they now are? Why ask organizations established for consistent execution of producing
something rather uncreative, that have become rather good at that producing (businesses), to become great, instead, at something else--creating? In this section all these questions are considered and some of them given solid answers.

a one minute creativity courage test

People in business and professors talk about violating norms and traditions, taking risks, and all that sort of thing, quite casually, as if, when people
are ordered by their bosses to do such things, they have no trouble doing them. Going beyond organization boundaries, personal comfort
zones, old rules and procedures, overt present priorities and emphases, traditions and systems, tends to be resisted, punished, and extirpated by organizations involved. People who, nevertheless, continue violation and departure from norms and comfort zones, in the name
of creativity or anything else, take a lot of risk and abuse. It takes courage to create. Most of the people reading this book simply lack the
courage for creating, and they always will. They may like to pretend that they want to create, but what they want is a kind of creating
without consequences, costs, risks, and career troubles. No such forms of creativity exist. Professors keep promising it without being at
all able to deliver it. Professors write entire books about normalizing creativity and creating creativity-promoting cultures, by which
they mean cultures that so support creating that it becomes normal and easy for anyone to create. Such creating ends up like the
drawing that small children take home from school--creative in the sense of it was generated by someone, but not creative in the sense
that people 100 years from now will be impressed when presented with it.

relational and representational defining of creativity

Words like creativity, effectiveness and educatedness make us think that creativity is one thing, effectiveness is one thing, and educatedness
is one thing. This assumption, from terminology, from having one word for something, that the phenomenon that word points to is one
thing is unwarranted and usually false. Words like creativity are vague. We all use them as if what they mean is something we all also
agree on. However, when we are asked, in valid statistical samples, what such words mean, it turns out they mean different things for different people and different things for the same person asked different times. How do we make precise, stable, and usable the meaning of
words like creativity? Science handles this by developing relational definitions--that distinguish a concept like creativity from concepts
on the same level like effectiveness and educatedness--and by developing representational definitions--that show what an idea is by dealing with its component ideas, what it contains and implies, both facts and procedures of handling. Here we present representational and
relational definitions of creativity so, in the rest of this book, we can talk precisely about it and use it with precision.

the creativity implementation paradoxes

Organizations today, and their leaders and professor consultants, are shutting down more creativity than they generate, by their efforts to become
more creative. The tactics that support the one or two models of creating that they know about, unknown to them, as side-effects shut
down dozens of other models of creating in their organization that they cannot see because they do not know these models. Organizations
today are working hard to improve the one or two models of creativity that they have, while failing to learn about and install much more
relevant and powerful other models of creativity, that they are not aware of. Thinking that creativity is one thing is a major way to achieve
little or no creativity from much creativity promoting activity.

connection as a self limiting route to creativity

Lots of companies are selling tools and products to help your company be more creative. All of these products and services connect things and
connect people more, faster, and better. The assumption is: more connection equals more creativity. This assumption is partly true but
mostly false. In the beginning, new connection systems spawn creativity as ideas and persons not formerly in close contact, begin to interact. However, this is a self limiting process. As familiarity rises, quantity and quality of interaction nosedives, so ultimately such systems destroy permanently nearly all forms of creativity among their members.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered
Page 22

the recommendations and subcreations models of creating--what they tell us about business blocks to creating

In the Orthogonal Disciplines Research Project 315 people nominated orthogonal fields, areas of knowledge that determined who, in old traditional fields like medicine and physics, rose to the top. 54 such orthogonals were nominated, then the 315 nominated 150 people they
knew in each of those 54 areas, that is, 150 highly educated people, 150 highly effective people, 150 highly creative people, and so on for
51 other orthogonal disciplines. These sets of 150 were then surveyed and interviewed, creating categorical models of the skills they
shared. In this way 60 models of creating were found, one of which had 64 steps of becoming a creator and 64 steps of creating, and
another model, the subcreations model, presented small preparatory creations that lead to larger scale big historic ones. These two models--the recommendations model of 128 steps, and the subcreations model of 16 types of preparatory creations--are enough to tell us quite
a lot about how creativity and business interact. One, the omni-present surveillance in businesses, all snooping on and observing all,
makes it costly to stand out and be different (so everyone minimizes exposure to il-informed opinions of viewing others, reducing creativity). Two, conformism and risk avoidance reign in business because positive appearing is well rewarded so actual accomplishment is not
needed and failures are pounced on to destroy careers (by others wanting to move into the opening thusly created by destroying you).
Three, subcreation are forbidden in most businesses--inventions of work style and life style are stifled by corporate norms and traditions of
how we do things here. Four, wild gyrations of context, re-organizations, budget changes, changes of management and personnel flow
continually through all projects in all businesses so what is creative is constantly changing as the outlook and standpoint continually
evolves. The recommendations model of creativity is outlined, at a marcro level of 8 types of steps not 128 detailed steps, below.

Create a Creative Life


1 Make Interior Room--emotional space, find your self, liberate, create subworlds
2 Make Exterior Room--locate the creation process, create creation environments, focus, optimize activity
3 Mental Travel--diversify, broaden, extend horizons, time travel
4 Perceive Paradox--mystify, demystify, balance, unbalance
Use That Creative Life to Create Creative Works
5 Create Creation Machine--select creation type, invent tools, establish loops, recursively define problems
6 Think--generate, associate, decompose, map analogies
7 Conquer--commit to victory, establish work discipline (exceptionlessness), normalize creation, establish flow
8 Manage Emergence--establish population automatons, establish reflexivity, tune performance, prune away noise.

managing by events--a primary route to creating in business

There is a lot of phony creativity and a lot of phony products to enable to support creativity because people can sell systems that foster creativity (mostly because flashy projects that look creative, whether they are or not, get people noticed by upper management and promoted).
The actual potential for technology to assist creativity differs by which model of creativity you wish assisted. A lot of theories guide the
use of technology in support of things like effectiveness, educatedness, and creativity: computational sociality theory, social automaton
theory, space type theory, info ecology theory, network theory, cognitive democracy theory, processware, socialware, pulsed systems theory, social indexing, social virtuality, agile event-built firms, general empirical computation. In the recommendations model the role of
tools is restricted to 1 of 8 big steps, equals a minimal role of modest if any impact--you cannot get creativity by changing tools. That is
a lie sold by vendors of tools, wanting to sell to you. They have no evidence that any tool ever increased any creativity. A major conflict
between horizontal flat global network-connected work process systems and hierarchical authoritarian monkey hierarchy systems is
underway everywhere--creators prefer the horizontal to the vertical system so much they will not work in monkey hierarchies. One of the
primary blocks to creativity in business is CEOs and VPs lack the higher education skills to distinguish mavericks who will create when
set free from monkey hierarchies from mavericks who will free load and do nothing when thusly liberated. P&G is an example of pretend
creativity, mentioned above, and pretend globality--with over 100 American managers in their East Asian headquarters in Kobe, Japan-apparently globality is best done by promoting Americans abroad rather than hiring the globe at US headquarters. If a monkey hierarchy
vertical dimension is incompatible with a creative horizontal dimension in businesses, what sort of replacement for monkey hierarchy will
work? The most creative companies today are replacing management by bureau, a permanent set of monkeys in rankings, with events-mass workshop events that, in a short matter of hours or days, do functions formerly done over weeks and months by small staffs of managers. All management functions can be delivered by event, greatly reducing the number of managers needed and greatly increasing ability of organization units to self manage, by interiorizing world best management protocols learned in such events. Social automata, as a
replacement for meetings, gets reliably 10 to 15 times as much work done per person per unit time as the regular monkey hierarchy status
strutting male dominated hormonal pride meetings that dominate most businesses today. Managing by Events allows achievement of Justin-Time managing--delivery of just the kind and amount of managing functioning needed when and where needed without paying for an
immense fixed inventory of a fixed social class called managers. This requires a model of all basic managing functions and tests for
their quality of execution when done by monkeys in hierarchies and when done by events. Regular questionnaires weekly and monthly
determine when what specific type of managing is needed for delivery by events. Invent Events, mass invention, discovery, and creation
events, are a natural outcome of this new approach to delivery of management functions. Precise amounts of and radicalnesses of innovation can be delivered by such events, deployed over time and space, sparingly. In actual practice there are specific types of Invent Event
for each of the 60 models of creativity in my model of all models of creativity. The Siemens example of 1200+ patents from 8 events of
200 persons each doing 40 workshop in parallel in 2 day long events.

managers educated enough to spot creative persons and not get in their way

The connectivity illusion--more connection at first increases creativity as formerly isolated things get joined and combined, but that leads to familiarity and soon a quantity and quality drop off in participation till long term levels of creativity are below initial base line levels before the
connectivity system was deployed. The solution is pulsed systems--ones that isolate and join in a precisely set rhythm that fits the area of
creativity attempted.
Creativity requires the courage to depart from norms--but businesses achieve direction and order by throwing out people who do not conform to
their norms--a contradiction, give up direction and get creative or get direction by giving up creativity. Norms are a substitute for more
draconian controls so ignoring of norms undermines discipline generally and dangerously--creativity is dangerous, fundamentally, not
superficially only. Creators will not tolerate monkey hierarchy dynamics--status fights, strutting self importance displays of male monkeys in hallways and meetings, I-I-I-ness, plus USA cultures of theft/lies/spin/stealing. Slack, leeway, and lack of surveillance foster creativity among determined creators, but not among ordinary people. CEOs and VPs unable, because of the low level of their personal
educatedness (MBAs only in most cases) to distinguish creators from anarchists, constantly give leeway to the wrong people and deny it
from the right people. Their firms do not have in place systems to create creators via the 64 steps of doing so from my recommendations model of creativity. So they give leeway to people not yet creators, where it is wasted. Unblock creativity by providing graduate
education every 10 years to all executives. An example is the Ecole Polytechnique guy down from my office who did no work whatsoever for 18 months, just sitting and sipping coffee daily, then suddenly a new business he proposed to our CEO made him the highest
grossing, in sales, consulting partner in the entire firm, in weeks from start. Most CEOs and VPs would have judged him a slacker and
gotten rid of him. Only highly educated bosses could detect underneath his indolence a brilliant and informed, practical mind at work.
Hannah Arends model that creations are babies that need the protection from public exposure of being in the dark, being secret, till they
are proven enough to withstand hostile scrutiny.

pulsed systems--enough isolation and enough connection at the right times

Technology companies do not sell a lot of systems to help people stay isolated or to isolate them more than they already are. That is a shame
because creativity requires isolation. Full connectivity wipes out creativity entirely. Familiarity breeds contempt. Creativity is defined
as a kind of astonishment, a kind of surprise. If you are watching the incremental attempts and tries of someone no one step astonishes--it
is all too gradual. What is more shocking is the development of some huge unexpected result from the accumulation of a lot of little steps.
If the steps are hidden, not seen, then the huge result without any apparent huge preparation, astonishes us and strikes us as creative.
Magicians and leaders know and practice this--doing their best to hide the means by which they achieve their apparent feats of greatness.
Creativity has the same principal at its core--it is a social judgement made by one group of expert people on the performances or achievements of another group of expert people. Studies of product development teams found that teams better connected produced less innovative products than groups less well connected. More detailed study showed that isolation was essential in concept development and
connection was essential in resource acquisition. In other words, more connection helps some stages while hurting other stages of creation. Companies that sell technical systems that further connect people, do not admit that they, thereby, are killing off creativity, overall,
for the long term.
Pulsed systems are rhythmic--sometimes fostering more links and deployments and other times pruning and reducing links and deployments. The
rhythm is set by users, to match their speed and phase of work. Believe it or not, it takes work to stay isolated--we all know this at our
level as individuals at work in large organizations. Surveillance is everywhere and therefore everyone responds to what we do, often
though they lack goodwill or adequate context and information. We end up responding to maladroit responses of others, wasting our time.
We crave isolation and invisibility. What we want to do is hide out then suddenly appear in many well received and well connected venues
when the time is right. Systems to promote a rhythm of such withdrawals and exposures, are desperately needed and will gradually be
invented and appear as people realize that current systems, that merely connect people more to others, undermine creativity in general.

the impossibility of creativity in modern businesses argument

Businesses are organizations that take creations and change the world with them. Why would you choose an organization good at execution and
distribution of something and try to make it, as well, good at the opposite--coming up with new ideas? On the face of it, the demand to
make businesses more creative appears to mean make businesses less business-y. Make them good at the opposite of what they are good
at now. Business and the military excel at taking ordinary inputs, and getting consistent uniform outputs from them. Their genius is systems that input a variety of not so great human and other resources and yet achieve consistent performance and output from them all.
Businesses are structured for consistency of performance--that is why the Buffets of the world invest in them. Creativity, by definition,
and in practice, is a major block to consistency of any sort whatsoever. Even enormously successful creations upset consistency--so there
are so many large businesses that, rather than suffer such disruption, failed to follow through on revolutionary inventions in their midst.
Creativity does not thrive in monkey environments of preening self importance, status fights, dominance displays, surveillance, one-upman-ship and all the other dynamics of what I call banana-land (an image with two meanings--monkeys eat bananas and bananas resemble a part of the male body that when excited becomes banana-like and that part of the male anatomy fosters so much of the culture and

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 23

status contents of modern business organizations). Management operates at a globally low level of intelligence and thoughtfulness. Managers are both narrowly educated and shallowly educated (at least at top 5 MBA programs where I taught). The book publishing industry
has special sections of dumbed down content for businessmen to consume--sentences with lots of embedded clauses are too difficult for
businessmen to handle, apparently. Yet the Jack Welchs of the business world tend to have chemistry Ph.D.s, so they think abstractly
enough to treat their conglomerate as a bank taxed at half bank rates--Welchs genius of treating GE as a bank not a manufacturer of everything. He bought and sold companies not products.

the inevitability of creativity in modern businesses argument

The five cultures of global businesses keep its people narrow--if you can think outside of them, you can innovate continually without competition.
Just think beyond American, male, techie, capitalist, and monkey values and views. All extra, beyond that, is packaging your innovations
with the CEOs stated directions for the organization so your invention can be seen furthering CEO agenda items. These two--thinking
beyond the five cultures of business and wrapping the results of that in CEO agenda items--suffice to make anyone at all creative in a modern business. Positional power--fighting to get promoted to VP--nearly always self-contradicts because you have to alienate your peers to
beat them in competition for the position--reducing your social power greatly when positional power appears. Better invent new businesses and lines of business that you head without taking positions from peers. Then you combine positionals with social power--exercising more power, overall, that old function VPs. Corporate cultures define and monitor lowest common denominator levels of
performance. These are done for legal and risk control reasons but they end up becoming salient and norms that people lower themselves
to. But, such low levels of manager education and low levels of performance expectation make a background excellent for shining with
just a little creativity in you. The base levels of modern businesses are so low in education and performance terms that nearly anyone can
surprise such people and shine relative to them. Remember P&G producing the great innovation of copying a well sold Japanese product after achieving all of Harvards creative environment criteria and globalizing by putting 100 American managers in their East Asian
headquarters. If those minimal self contradictory achievements are great we can all readily imagine how easy it is to look like an Einstein in their midst. Such low standards make creativity easy and an everyday accomplishment for anyone the least bit not in the thrall of
the five cultures of business.

creativity as cultural work--5 cultures--american, male, technology, capitalist, monkey

Business culture is wrapped within five larger cultures. Each culture is operating unconsciously within us, each one rules out huge numbers and
types of possibilities. If we are conscious only of 10% of each cultures contents that operate inside us, 90% of it we miss. Business
worldwide is strongly affected by a particular national culture--American culture--its actual competitive contacts and its styles and media
and influence. Most business alternatives and ways are unimaginable from the viewpoints of American culture, so adhering to it stunts
thought and action in huge ways that we are only 10% or so aware of. Similarly, technology culture is global and gets into all businessmen, stunting what alternatives they imagine and what goals they aim for. We are only 10 or so % aware of how it operates within and
limits us. Third, capitalism, a semi-right-wing version of it, infests businesses worldwide, limiting greatly what they imagine and try for.
We are only ten or so per cent aware of how it operates inside us limiting us. Fourth, male gender culture strongly infests businesses
worldwide, greatly limiting what they imagine and do, ruling out tens of millions of possibilities every day. We are only 10% or so aware
of how it operates inside us. Lastly, monkey culture operates in businesses world wide, enhanced by male gender culture, forcing status
conflicts, rank games, vertical consciousness--stripping always attention from missions, customers, and enduring efforts. Short seminlike spurts (quarterly profits?) characterize monkey efforts and male efforts when businesses often need enduring effort through thick and
thin. We are only 10% or so aware of how monkey culture infests business and limits its alternatives, imagination, and accomplishments.
Each of these five cultures of business has several dimensions, each of which strongly limits business imagination, alternatives, and
accomplishments. They multiply so anyone embodying all of them is constantly looking at 1/100,000th of the actual alternatives there to
be used. Instead they focus on a monkey hierarchy, male, technocratic, capitalist right wing, American-esque version of things--that is
the space of alternatives safe and sensical to explore, to anyone steeped in these five cultures of business. The beginning of creativity
in business is awareness of these, extirpating all their contents operating unconsciously inside one, and replacing them by consciously chosen wider cultures that go beyond each of them. Someone who moves seriously in this direction of growing beyond these common cultures of business, automatically becomes a business innovative genius, with little effort other than the moral and cultural emotional work
of becoming a new being, beyond the being they were born to be by the identity they had given to them by their birth parents and communities.

The American Way


poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft

The Male Way


show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not pull, emotion is
unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

The Technology Way


toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into technology fixes, promise
the moon delivery is a later managers problem

The Capitalist Way


live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are
irrelevant

The Monkey Way


at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard, problems
never exist

create-analysis not tools

From psycho-analysis to create-analysis: the recommendations model suggests companies first have to create creators, then they have to set them
to creating. Becoming a creator is a change in ones identity. It takes very deep intimate emotional work to make this sort of transformation. Male, bombastic self important money oriented top dogs, executives and their sorts, are the absolute last people on earth to understand and support this sort of work. They are far too male, hierarchical, dominating, self bragging, psychopathic to undertake the
handling and doing of such intimate emotional slow growth work. Making creators of a bunch of people not now creators is very similar
to making a psyche whole that is disturbed. It resembles Freuds psycho-analysis, talk therapy. Gradual changes of self understanding,
unblocking basic stages on emotional growth, and similar work has to get done. It takes years. We therefore need a kind of create-analysis in analogy to psycho-analysis. I run create-analysis sessions for a few companies I like working with. We take 40 people and grow
them into becoming creators in three years of monthly sessions, with measures of all dimensions of personal, emotional, identity, psychic
growth measured and monitored throughout. Each group of 40 chooses one or more of the 60 models of creativity in my research work
and we grow them into being creators of that sort. Next, when they are creators we have to grow a commensurate and related set of executives they all report to, into recognizing creator needs and efforts and excepting the norms and culture of their organization enough to permit these creators to create--that is making room for subcreations.

the paybacks from creating

As people near middle age, they notice their remaining time on earth is short. Whereas before they worked mightily to improve lifestyle and personal accomplishment, now they find all that futile. You cannot take it with you. They wonder why have they bothered living at all
since, the second they die, their company will forget them forever and the earth will have no trace that they ever existed except a few
memories in busy people who too will soon forget them. Death without a trace--is hell. We find Elton John at a ripe age, suddenly writing classical music, because he noticed that none of this pop music will be played 100 years after he dies. People at 40 turn creative, in
concern if not in accomplishment, because only creations may outlive them and tell the world what life was like for them. Only creations
have a chance to capture human interest 400 years from now. We all want to make the history of humankind before we go. Creations are
literally the only way other than mass killing. CEOs can leave their names on college buildings--but who reads them 100 years later. People can leave riches to kids who squander it away, on average, within two generations. No, only creations give life multi-generation historic value. The paybacks from creating are absolutely immense, the most immense deeds and feelings people can ever achieve.
Compare Shakespeares touch to you in history compared to Alexander the Greats--there is no comparison, Shakespeare delivered far
more of himself to your mind and heart than some mass male killer.

Inauthentic Reasons for Interest in More Creativity


Career systems, especially in American companies, male dominated organizations, technology companies, capitalist economies, and monkey-like hierarchies (here are the five
cultures I mentioned above), want more creativity, not to help customers, not to help their organization, but to enable many individual managers to attract attention to help their
personal career progress. Creativity is a way to obtain one of the rarest and most valuable resources in any large organization--attention of higher ups. By far, most of the talk
about creativity, and desire for more of it now in the world, especially American, male, technology, capitalist, monkey-like parts of the world, comes from a desire for propelling individual manager careers. It has nothing to do with helping customers or firms. It gets distorted, from earliest stages, so as to propel individual manager careers.
Companies that sell technologies and technology systems want more creativity, because they can sell systems that promote creativity easily to client organizations. Those
clients organizations may, in turn, want more creativity either to sell creativity supports to their own customers, or to propel individual manager careers via the attention that
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 24

being creative draws ones way. This is the second principal reason people want more creativity in business--to use it as an excuse, a cover, a package for pushing machines
and products onto customers with money to pay for such things.
The world has creativity consultants. These tend to sell tools for promoting creativity. There is solid, incontrovertible evidence, that no significant creativity ever resulted
from using or buying a particular tool. Since looking creative is often enough to get one promoted in modern business organizations, especially American, male, tech, capitalist, monkey-hierarchy ones, these consultants continue to sell tools, of no worth or effect, to managers satisfied with promotions based on mere appearances of being creative. Creativity comes from creating a creative way of life and it is that creative way of living that creates creative works. There are no short cuts.

individual careers benefit from creativity, they get visibility to higher ups from it, so most creativity is distorted for personal careers
you can use creativity to sell products (creative selling, selling creations, selling tools for client creating)--so sales forces distort creativity everywhere
looking creative is enough to get one promoted, so consultants sell tools for creativity even though tools are never enough to make
one creative, because looking creative is enough for seller and buyer alike

The Costs of Inauthentic Reasons for Interest in More Creativity


Simultaneous Overshoot/Undershoot, Caused by Creativity Noise. Because creativity helps individual manager career building, and because it helps tech
companies push products onto client organizations, there is a huge commercial motive for exaggerating need for creativity, results of creativity, and amounts of creativity produced. Individual managers, and organizations, typically, grossly exaggerate how much creativity they need and achieve. The role and importance of creativity overall is
greatly distorted by these forces. A kind of creativity noise pervades and disorients corporations. If individual managers and many business organizations are continually
grossly exaggerating the role, need for, and achievement of creativity, then businesses suffer from, paradoxically, way too much creativity present while having way too little
creativity present.
Readers will recognize this predicament as an ancient long-standing one in all businesses--the famous inventory problem of simultaneous overshoot and undershoot. Pretotal-quality fixed inventory systems constantly suffered from simultaneously having both too much inventory and too little. For fixed inventories of products-in-process, the
solution to this was Japanese just-in-time inventory systems.
The managing function itself, in businesses, is based on a fixed inventory of managers, since managing functions are delivered to work processes by a specially designated and
perked social class of managers and leaders, with a formal monopoly on delivering management functions. The result is simultaneously too much managing going on
(looking managerial) while too little managing goes on (pretending each manager is competent at all basic managing functions).
Creativity suffers the same fate. Career system dynamics that make looking creative worth as much or more than actually being creative, result in simultaneous excesses of
creativity (looking creative to get promoted) with deficits of creativity (the vast majority of the workforce stripped of creative potential and possibility, due, generally, to work
conditions outlawing subcreations, creative life and work styles, and other requisites of creating).

creativity sells machines and helps careers, so creativity is exaggerated everywhere in modern businesses
because of exaggeration companies have too much creativity (as posturing) and too little creativity (as real change)
the fixed inventory problem--simultaneous over- and under-shoot; for creativity, for management
Creativity Tampering. Tampering is a business term, made famous by Dr. Deming, the crusty old quality guru, who liked pointing at the funny colored spots in the bald
pates of company CEOs, while declaring that they, ignorant of the statistical nature of work processes, constantly intervened to reduce variations, but, because they did not
understand processes statistically, they always made variations much worse. Dr. Deming called this statistical tampering.
Similarly, the Santa Fe Institute defined a similar fault--managers ignorant of the non-linear system dynamics, the system effects of workplace interventions, when intervening
to stamp out unwanted variations, instead, by their interventions made variations much worse. This they called complexity tampering.
We can here, in this paper define a third such common business fault. Managers ignorant of the variety of creativity models implemented in the world, intervening to
improve and enhance creativity, thereby making creativity much less. This creativity tampering comes from assuming that creativity is basically one phenomenon, that
one model can encompass.

statistical tampering--managers ignorant of the statistical nature of causes of variation, making variation worse when they intervene
complexity tampering--managers ignorant of non-linear system dynamics causes of variation, making variation worse when they
intervene
creativity tampering--managers ignorant of all the models of creating causing creation, making creativity lower when they intervene
to up it.
The Uncreativity of Upping Creativity. A well documented flaw in all social systems is this--each culture and society chooses to call a solution only things guaranteed to perpetuate its deepest and most dangerous problems. For example, Japan has a low birth rate, hence, a population decline problem. All of government, NGOs,
experts, and the press there propose various solutions--no one proposes elimination of the unpaid overtime tradition at Japanese corporations that sends men home to their
families at 11 p.m. every night, too tired to converse, too late to talk, leaving too early the next morning to apologize, for decades at a time. Children are regularly reported in
the press, terrified when, one night, they meet a strange man in the hallway of their home--dad. We all laugh at the foolish Japanese, proposing everything except the obvious.
In the US, everyone proposes more initiative, more freedom, and more creativity to solve the problem of one sixth of the American population lacking public schools, health
care, and parents. To Europeans and Asians this is a giant joke by the Americans on themselves. For it is obvious to anyone not completely blinded by American culture and
traditions, that basing funding of schools on parental income levels, via using property taxes to fund schools, guarantees that more initiative, more freedom, and more creativity will change nothing about this problem. Americans propose any sort of solution except one capable of making elites in America take responsibility for leading and caring for all of their nations population. Anything but that is a solution.
All societies are blind this way. All societies eventually are killed off by this particular type of blindness. Take the US military and Vietnam. Nothing was learned so here
we are decades later repeating exactly the same mistakes in Iraq. Any solution to the Vietnam defeat was accepted as long as it did not touch the root cause of Americans
being so male and boy-like that toys, not people, are always the main solution there. In sum, in America creativity reduces overall societal creativity.

every society is willing to call a solution only things guaranteed to perpetuate its biggest deepest problems
example 1: childless Japanese problem solved by everything except ending unpaid overtime at firms that keep dads out of families
example 2: US fixing lack of schools, parents, healthcare for 1/6 their population by proposing more creativity = being uncreative.
Creativity, as the go to solution to all in American culture, reduces overall US creativity
Helping Creativity in Ways that Destroys Much More Creativity. Harvard and other professors commonly do this today in corporations all over the world.
The big money in creativity consulting is found in assessing client environments for how they help or hinder creativity. Many famous professors from famous colleges now do
this sort of thing, making a lot of money at it. There is minimal evidence that they have any impact on creativity of person or organization, though they are quite adept at getting sponsoring managers promoted--the real intent both of the customer and of these consultants. This is another case of phony for show creativity being enough in American, male, technology, capitalist, monkey-hierarchy organizations.
Why do these famous ones, with elaborate statistical scales and instruments, produce so little actual creativity? Of course, the biggest reason is neither they nor their clients
intend to increase creativity--rather both conspire to settle for career effects. Making something creative, in American, male, technology, capitalist, monkey-hierarchy organizations is primarily a moral matter--is it worth it to actually do something, when merely looking it, is enough to get me and my friends promoted?
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 25

How, exactly, do these famous consultants ruin creativity, even granting that ruining it is fine with them as long as someone gets promoted for looking creative? They
assume that creativity is largely one general overall thing. They measure how many environment aspects support or hinder it--creativity. What if creativity is not one sort
of thing but 60 sorts of thing. My research, using 7000 famous, highly accomplished people in 63 professions, half US, half global, found that there are 60 different models
of how to be creative, how to create. When a particular environment supports 3 of them well, if you measure, you always find that those exact environment aspects thereby
hinder 30 or 40 or more, other models of creating. Businesses that up support for two or three favored models of creating, thereby stamp out 30 or more other models of creating--but they are never aware of this, because the famous consultant that they use, has only one very broad general model of what creativity is.

consultants assess how environments support hinder creating--without this improving creativity much, why?
first, they intend only to help clients get promoted for looking creative;
second, they measure supports for creating as if it were one thing; there are at least 60 models of creating, conditions helping any one
or two of them, always hinder many more--say, 10 or 20 others so:
actions to improve 2 or 3 models of creativity reduce overall creativity of 20 or 30 unexamined models of creating
actions to increase creativity usually reduce it
Creativity is First of All a Moral and Cultural Task. What does this means for creativity? Creativity along with more freedom and initiative, are the traditional
American preferred forms of solution, to everything. Americans will try more creativity to solve problems having absolutely nothing to do with creativity. More ridiculous
than that, Americans will try more creativity to solve problems caused by excesses of creativity. Blind is blind. This means that most of the creativity in American, male,
technology, capitalist, monkey-hierarchy organizations is uncreative in its intents and results. Furthermore, love of creativity causes American, male, technology, capitalist,
monkey-hierarchy organizations to be uncreative. Ah, here is a paradox worth getting ones teeth into!

The Creativity to Solve the Above Four Problems that Make Most Creativity Uncreative. Educated persons are, by definition, people whose attitudes, actions, and beliefs we cannot at all predict from knowledge of where they were born and raised. Instead of their environments making them, they made themselves,
more and more as their lives progressed. Most of the limited creativity needed by American, male, technology, capitalist, monkey-hierarchy organizations comes not from
creativity but from achieving educatedness--standing outside all that raised you and making a new self that you consciously design, using the best exemplars in history and the
contemporary world. This is the traditional function of college--where young minds, filled with propaganda, sales spiels, from mom and dad, hometown, rightwing political
gurus, schools, affronts to national pride, and the like, undo all that, getting it out of their minds and habits, and replace it, consciously, with better contents from what the best
in history and in the contemporary world, have done. Educated men are capable of: not simultaneously under and over shooting, not tampering, not making solutions that fail
by always proposing creativity as a solution, and not supporting one model of creating while hindering more other models. Americans, males, techies, capitalists, and monkey-hierarchy people, who are not educated, are incapable of being creative in this immense way. They are condemned to simultaneously overshooting and undershooting,
reducing creativity by creativity tampering, missing creative solutions by proposing uncreative forms of creative solution, and reducing 30 models of creating by what they do
to improve 3 models of creating. This is a paradox worth getting ones teeth into! The key to immense creativity is not creativity but educatedness. Uneducated men, however long they have spent in colleges or grad schools, are incapable of all but the most trivial forms of creating. Educatedness cannot by itself make you creative, but lack of
it, can, by itself, prevent any significant creative accomplishment from entire lifespans spent trying. Being who you were born, is enough, to rule creativity entirely out of
your life. You may nibble the edges and look like something creative from time to time, but you will miss all of the center, where the big paybacks, the history changes, are.

this means, creativity is first of all a moral task, doing creating not looking creative;
this means, creativity is second of all a culture task, in US type cultures creative solutions usually are not creative at all
a way to be creative when the above two are true--get yourself educated, that is, your attitudes, reactions, opinions are not predictable from where you were born and raised and what you were born and raised to be
the key to immense historic level of creativity is being outside yourself, being educated, differing from your self
the price of immense historic level creativity is changing your present self, and growing a new bigger bolder self
why do not more people create? why do not more people change themselves? tobacco, eating, exercise--these are not easy changes

Getting Clear on Creativity


Some Conceptual Clarity. There are words like effectiveness, educatedness, and creativity that we all use as if they had perfectly clear meanings that we all
shared and understood. When, however, we look at any of them at all carefully, we discover that it is anything but clear what they mean. You find people all the time saying
or writing things like: we all need much more creativity than we now have.....we all are much more creative than we realize--which is it? it is very rare and difficult to be
truly creative....every human born is one of the most creative creatures in all the universe--which is it? If we are all creative then none of us is, for creativity is someone
attaining some rare attribute of one sort of another, that stands out from the ordinary, from the crowd, from what is normal and usual. When everyone is rare, no one is. It is
much like Lake Woebegone, by Garrison Keilor, where all the children are above average. My point is this--creativity and related words, are traps, abysmally sloppy concepts, the use of which almost always hides more than it reveals. You cannot trust words like creativity and people who use them a lot.

The Relativity of Creative. Is it creative for Japanese to install new forms of central control from Tokyo? Is it creative for Americans to invent a new technology?
Is it creative for men to come up with new lines for catching the attention of attractive women? No, of course not--for these three are continuations of long term traditions and
trends. All of these are perpetuations of well established routines. If these groups merely continue to do what they now do, these results will eventuate. When you find Americans celebrating their creativity by pointing to the latest new technology they developed, they are deluded--the products of well established routines are not creative, by definition. They are the baseline against which creative deeds are measured.
Creativity is rarity--something out of the ordinary. You cannot get it by doing your past more. But can any group or individual differ from their own past enough to be creative? Frank Lloyd Wright is the best example. Three times he got outmoded, overcome by technical developments and visions elsewhere. Three times he became a baby in
his own field again, going back to school, studying basics invented by his competitors, mastering what younger generations loved, slowly rebuilding a new clientbase, eventually rising to the absolute top of the new era. He started as an infant in architecture, for his third time, at age 60, after seven failures in a row. It can be done--it is a tough way
to live but it can be done! Is the US, as a society, tough enough to be creative? The evidence is not clear. Iraq is just a hint, the rise of religion is just a hint. The US likes
being its past more and better. It does not want to differ from itself. It does not want to create. Do males want to create? to differ from themselves? The evidence is? Do
technology people want to create? want to differ from themselves? Being yourself equates to being entirely uncreative. It is simply a matter of definition--being creative
means differing from your past. Perpetuating your past, your self, your value, means, avoiding creativity. Tradition (was it ever otherwise?) fosters the opposite of creativity.

Lets Make Everyone Creative! Here we run into exactly the same problem again. If everyone is creative, then there is nothing rare about it, it attracts no attention,
and, in short, it is not creative to be creative. Yet we all think, in some way, it makes sense to try to make everyone creative, or at least more creative than they now are.
Why?
We all have the image that somehow the essence of what it means to be human is to be creative. If we are to be more essentially us we have to become more creative than
we now are. What gives us this idea, that the essence of being human and creativity are highly related? We all create something very very sophisticated--a self. Perhaps the
first, and most important thing we generate, we create, is a self. In most cases this is a rather conventional, uncreative type of self. In most cases it even is an anti-creative tradition-bound rather cowardly form of self. Indeed, most of us do not actually create much of our own selves at all--we default and let the environments around us fill us up
with whatever is in them, and the accumulation of all that becomes us down the road. Anyway, regardless of the quality of the self that results and regardless of how much
conscious design by us goes into creating it, we all do, one way or another, end up creating a self. That gives us a feeling of being creative even if the self thusly created is
rather timid and conventional--afraid not to wear a business suit when everyone else around wears one (the horror!).
Furthermore, we all do bring things into the world--generate stuff, even if rather conventional in its form and content. Creating understood as establishing or generating is
something all people do all the time; creating understood as astonishing others with what they could not imagine producing themselves, is rare and not normal for any of us, by
definition. Indeed, rigorous research over all creations in human history that are documented enough to support research, shows that creators themselves have no idea which
of their works will end up being judged creative hence, real creators largely attain creativity via immense productivity--producing so many things of so many diverse sorts
that some of them have to strike somebody somewhere sometime as creative. Piccaso was the most famous artist of the 20th century and also by far its most productive, averaging 3 paintings a day, every day, for 70 years. For another example, musicians are more famous and creative in direct proportion to hours they have practiced--more
hours of practice equals more fame and creativity.

We All Want to Be More Creative Than We Now Are; We All Want More Creativity in the World than it Now Has. We all want to be more
creative than we now are because being creative draws attention, and with attention, investments, resources, limelight, and offers of sex from the opposite sex. We all want
the world to be more creative than it now is, because our brains are wired for novelty and familiarity soon bores us. We need the new, the unseen, the never imagined to stay
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 26

awake, keep us interested in life, keep our immensely competent perceptual and mind machineries exercised. Without sabre tooth tigers hunting us down day and night, life
seems, and is, by comparison, rather dull.

Why Ask Organizations Good at Realizing Extant Ideas to Be Good at Inventing Them? On the face of it, it appears ridiculous to ask business organizations, that are born when someone decides to not just have a creative idea but to go out and change the world and the way people live with that idea, to, instead of being
good at their main purpose--turning potential change into actual change--to be good at coming up with potential changes. Why would any sane person look to businesses for
creativity. Businesspersons and even more so their executives have constantly tested as among the most conservative, cowardly, herd-following, risk averse, conformist persons in any society (business founders, however, test out as much more risk accepting, and less conformist). A courage test for any individual business person or business
leader is given below:

Defining Creativity. What is the difference between a change, something new, something different, and a creation? As was said above there is a relativity to creativity
because it is a social judgement by one group of expert people on the works of another group. A great creator whose last work repeats patterns he or she created in the past is
judged not very creative--the later work of Piccaso represents, critics agree, Piccaso copying himself. So the works did not surprise others when released--they probably did
not surprise Piccaso, as well.
Another relativity to creativity is the change of context and its ability to change what people judge creative. A committee sets up to judge artworks as their Italian city state
falls under deadly attack by a competitor city state. Suddenly the art works that fascinated everyone yesterday, today bore and instead marginal works that pick up on the
bloody and dangerous moods in and around everyone resonate and are judged creative. Changes of context can and do change what people are surprised by and find useful.
This is another relativity to creativity. Businesses that continually churn with new managers, new technologies, new re-organizations, new strategies, new competitors by
changing context continually make nothing creative within them--they rule out creativity in toto.
However, there is another relativity to creativity. People in academia say creativity is useful novelty. Sternberg revamped Kuhns scientific revolution stages about challenging a paradigm, deposing a paradigm, suggesting possible replacement paradigms, installing a replacement paradigm, and fleshing out the worth and anomalies of a new paradigm as measures of how novel something creative is. A creation can challenge a paradigm, depose a paradigm, suggest a possible replacement paradigm, install a
replacement paradigm, and flesh out a replacement paradigms worth and anomalies. Deposing a paradigm and installing a new one are very difficult, historic tasks, of the
Einstein and Darwin sort. Challenging paradigms and suggesting replacements are of intermediate levels of novelty. Fleshing out an existing paradigm is of modest novelty
compared to the others. However, the single word paradigm causes this formulation (and Sternbergs one derived from this) to dysfunction for measuring novelty in defining what is creative and how creative it is. For the word paradigm suggests one context is at stake, the paradigm as that context. That is a bit too simple for reality. Old
established fields, reveal their age and its deadening effects, by tolerating single dominant paradigms (that determine who get hired, what gets published, who gets funding).
New lively emerging fields tolerate plural mutually cooperating and competing paradigms and tend to hire, fund, and recognize people who make progress in the context of
any of those paradigms and who make progress uniting or selecting among those competing paradigms. Plural paradigms amount to plural frameworks for interpreting any
particular research results--contending incompatible interpretive frameworks. That is another relativity to creativity--there may be one single dominant framework for spotting it, especially in the most innovative creative fields.
This third relativity to creativity is how a creation can reveal, while challenging or replacing, abstract immense or microscopic contexts. Something creative not only surprises us, but it surprises by bringing into view dimensions or scales of existence we normally never considered. Einstein explained momentum and gravity by bends in something new called space-time that suggested that space and time were similar not different dimensions. Wolfram showed how the universe might be digital not analog and
hence space and time emerge from more fundamental strata of existence--automata dimensions of information flows. What makes these theories of genius is they handle
problems and anomalies with past explanations and views by bringing into focus and awareness entirely new scales and dimensions never thought of before or never used
before. One creation may bring into awareness more than one such dimension. In a way, the number of such dimensions/scales brought into awareness and the novelty of
each, together, constitute a better measure of how creative something is than Sternbergs Kuhian categories. One can niggle about words and define paradigm so it includes
my plurality of dimensions and scale, but to do so is to implicitly agree that the word paradigm does not deliver that particular content as its message when commonly used
to define creativity and measure it.
A fourth relativity to judging what is creative, is impact on a field. Piccaso impacted painting--he changed how it was done and what paintings themselves looked like for a
hundred years afterwards. His paintings changed the criteria and direction and sequence of works in his own field. If big creativity is defined this way--as something that
changes the direction of an entire field for decades or centuries--then creativity is made relative in a tricky non-linear history way. Entire fields do not change merely because
of one creative work that appears in them--they change because of the slow build up of things--grains of sand dropping till the sandpile that they make reaches its critical
angle, according to research by Par Bak that won the Nobel prize in 1972. One never knows which grain of sand will suddenly cause an avalanche event that changes the
entire shape of the sand pile. After thousands of gains of sand dropped, did nothing to change the overall shape, one last grain, that we cannot predict, changes everything.
Piccasos Desmoiselles DAvignon was such a grain of sand. No one could predict that it would be the last grain, the one that would release the avalanche that changed painting forever. This unknowability is another relativity to defining what is creative.

A Measure of Creativity
How many new dimensions and scales never imagined before or never used before does it bring into awareness and
how novel is each such dimension and scale--creations bringing into focus more scales and dimensions of more novelty each are more creative creations than ones bringing into focus fewer scales of lesser degrees of novelty.

A Second Measure of Creativity


How much a work changes its field, how many subsequent works copy or are obviously influenced by it, does a work
become the last grain of sand on the sandpile, the grain that unleashes entire system-wide change, that changes the
whole field?
words like effectiveness, educatedness, creativity are sloppily used and dangerously imprecise
Americans, creating a new technology, are NOT being creative--they are continuing a tradition and a routine
creating requires differing from your self--continuing your past self makes creating an impossibility, by definition
can people differ from themselves throughout their lives--the Frank Lloyd Wright example, infant again at 60 for the 3rd time, learning basics
we are all creators--1) we all create a self 2) we generate stuff (not usually creative stuff)--none of us are creators--we refuse to differ
from our present selves: as a male can I do feminine alternatives? as an American can I do Japanese ways? as a techie can I socialize? etc. for $?
monkey?
can generating stuff ever turn into creativity? if you become immensely productive of things, meeting bold unusual requirements,
just by generating so many chances to be judged creative, you inevitably will be thus judged--some time for some thing
we all want to be more creative than we now are--for limelight, attention, loss of crushing anonymity in mass societies of sitting consumers
we all want the world to be more creative--because our brains turn repeated exposure to anything (creativity?), familiarity itself, into
boredom
why ask business organizations--those who implement ideas--to be good at generating ideas? perhaps fear of loss of 1st world jobs?
a courage test for creating--change what is work, what is a job, what is a week, what is hierarchy--see the 8 test items below
Creativity is rare, not common, in part, because it demands courage. It is tough on people. It is hard to do. The courage that creating requires can be absolutely amazing.
Creators tend to be people who are willing to go where no one else goes at all. It is easy to forget this when modern books and persons, in business, bandy about words like
creating and creative so casually. Below is a simple test for business persons that measures your nearness to being a creator--someone who creates.

The One Minute Creativity Courage Test


Are You Much Too Wimpy to be Talking About Creativity? Find Out in One Minute
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 27

1) Come to work, from an hour from now, everyday, without exception for the next three weeks, wearing a T-shirt and jeans, apologizing/explaining nothing about it to anyone.
2) Give your boss a written signed list of embarrassingly narcissistic, power-hungry, employee-humiliating, employee-disempowering deeds he/she has done over the past month.
3) Do all of your weekly work by working fantastically hard Monday of each week, then skip work entirely Tuesday through Friday, without explanation or apology, for two years
4) Assign four to ten desks per employee in your section, one desk for each project not for each employee, buy and equip the desks, and use them for a year or more
5) Do two full time jobs at two different companies at the same time all day each week without apology or explanation
6) Work 24 hours a day for one year by interviewing and hiring on to three companies working shifts that do not overlap more than a few minutes till 24 hours is covered
7) Work one job at a firm Monday and Tuesday and work an entirely different unrelated job elsewhere in the firm Wednesday through Friday
8) Get your firm to pay you to work for your firms fiercest competitor, with pay from that competitor, for six months, in order to, learn what makes them fierce, good, a threat.
Note: I have personally done every single one of the above, and numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5 repeatedly in more than one global corporation. To exaggerate slightly in order to make
a point, I will say the following: if any of these give you a pause, are beyond the pale for you, you very well may lack the kind of ballpark courage all creativity requires. That
is a slight exaggeration but a useful way to view oneself relative to what creating requires. Large organizations, of all sorts, are systems of huge omnipresent surveillance--so
everyone gets reactions from everyone else about everything they do. This alone, without any other conditions, suffices to rule creativity out of all large organizations. Surveillance--standing before the opinions of uncontexted, possibly envious or hostile others, having to react continually to their reactions, however uncontexted or ill-informed,
demoralizes all, and makes the size of goals one is willing to attempt, shrink every year of employ. Psychopaths rise to top management positions so often, in Western business organizations, because they genetically ignore this audience of surveillance--they can focus where others cant, because they cannot genetically care what others think
and feel about anything that they do. Isolation is the missing element in large modern business organizations. Lack of isolation turns everyone into cowards. Creativity is
not courage but it, at least, requires lots of courage. When you talk about enabling, supporting, improving creativity in your self or organization, at least that means you are
talking about enabling, supporting, improving courage in them both. When you increase isolation, by somehow reducing surveillance, you lower the amounts of courage
needed for creativity to occur.

That gives us two routes--to increase creativity--increase courage in people, or, decrease surveillance of people.
Fix yourself to a stable context, so what is creative is stable, by fixing to a highly abstract context.
In addition, modern businesses are filled with continual context changes--when contexts change what is creative changes too--this reduces creativity possibilities
greatly, unless you attach yourself to highly abstract contexts that are not subject to change whenever the next CEO, VP, technology, competitor appears.

two routes to creating: increase courage or decrease surveillance of people


Threat to Creativity 1: SURVEILLANCE surveillance is everyone seeing everyones elses doing/sayings and reacting, so we shrink
goals to reduce hassle of mal-informed reactions
Threat to Creativity 2: GYRATING CONTEXTS a third route to creating: fix a stable context by choosing a highly abstract context to work
in
continual changes of context caused by boss changes and technology/competitor changes redefine what is creative making attempted creations no
longer creative if their cycle time to produce is at all long
Getting Precise about Creativity. Traditionally in science we nail down concepts in two ways: relationally and representationally. Relational defining distinguishes
a concept from similar and competing ideas at the same level or scale. That would be distinguishing creativity from effectiveness, educatedness, handling error, handling complexity and like capabilities that make people rise to the top of traditional fields and occupations. Representational defining elaborates what a concept includes and excludes
in terms of components of it. That would be mapping the kinds of creativity and of creative processes and their respective components, plus when they work and do not work.
We can subject woozy tricky concepts like creativity effectiveness and the like to both these treatments in order to get definitions of them we can trust in all circumstances. When I first became a professor, not so long ago, I realized I was hired to educate but I did not know what that meant. I bought some books and realized the
authors of those books did not know either. No one had a scientific, valid, practical idea of what it meant. How could such ideas be defined? I had built expert systems for
years, as an artificial intelligence programmer, studying minute every-15-second contents of the minds of some of the worlds best designers. In AI we defined terms like
expertise by asking people who was best at X, then asking those nominated people who was best at X, then asking the people they nominated how they did X and what X
meant to them. This dual nomination with interviews of the final level nominees worked in defining expertise for AI system building purposes. I could apply that to define
other woozy tricky concepts, I felt.
I built a long term research project to do so. The project took nine years and involved data from over 7000 people, half American, half global. This project--the Orthogonal
Discipline Research Project--got 315 people, 5 in each of 63 diverse strata of society, to nominate the capabilities needed to rise to the top in their own field. These were
orthogonal to all traditional disciplines, in that they cut across all of them, determining who rose to their tops. Thousands of thusly nominated capabilities were organized,
analyzed, grouped, and boiled down into 54 orthogonal fields cutting across all traditional fields like law, medicine, biology, math, literature, dance. Then the 315 people
were asked to nominate one person each, for each of the 54 orthogonal fields, producing 150 effective people 150 creative people, 150 educated people, and so on for each of
the 54 orthogonal fields (we got 150 not 315 because not everyone could nominate someone for each of the 54 orthogonal fields). We interviewed these sets of 150 for what
their orthogonal discipline consisted of and meant. This achieved relational definition of creativity--distinguishing it from effectiveness, educatedness, handling error, handling system effects, handling complexity, and so on for the other orthogonal fields.
Representational definition of creativity was achieved by getting the 150 creators, thusly identified in the above process, to specify their own models of creating, comparing
those models of creating with models they observed in peers and competitors, mentors, and other figures in their field and others. Hundreds of such models were analyzed
and overlaps found, resulting in an overall model of 42, extended by late data to 60, and more recently by an updated questionnaire to respondents to 102 models of creativity.
Each model had between 20 and 50 variables in it that interacted to produce something creative. Each model purported to explain all of creativity though each model was distinct from the others, often differing utterly from others. This achieved representational definition of creativity.
Thusly, equipped with comprehensive, scientifically developed models of creativity, I could sensibly talk about it and work with it. Without these two models--the relational
one of orthogonal disciplines of which creativity is one, and the representational one of the various models of creativity and their specific components--talk about and work
with creativity is doomed to be just one more form of ineffective, uncreative, counter-creative tampering.

defining creativity relationally--how it differs from educatedness, effectiveness, error handling, complexity handling, etc.
defining creativity representationally--what it includes and excludes via what its components are
I did via the Orthogonal Disciplines Research Project; from quality and expertise across all traditional fields to what else?
what causes people to rise to the top of all traditional fields and professions: quality, expertise, creativity, educatedness, and what
else
ask 315 to nominate such ortho fields, then ask the same 315 to nominate 150 people great at each of the 54 ortho fields they named
interview those 150 (in each of 54 ortho fields) for what their ortho field really is and means
result: large books on several of the 54 orthogonal fields; book on 60 models of creativity; book on recommendations model of
those 60
with creativity defined responsibly and scientifically, I could begin to do something serious about it
Creativity Model Interaction Matrices. In the quality method, Quality Function Deployment, there is a house of quality, with a roof, that is, in reality, an interaction matrix. If we put the 60 models of creativity in columns and erect an interaction matrix roof over the columns, we can specify and measure how things that enable creativity models 2 and 6, also enable some other models and also hinder some other models. When we do this, at several different firms and venues, we find, inevitably,
environment conditions that help creativity models 2 and 6, generally hinder 20 or 30 or more other models of creativity. Existing organizations, ignorant of all the models of
creativity in their midst, are constantly shutting down more creativity than they foster, by their very efforts to become more creative! This is the creativity implementation paradox. It is worthy of bold lettering-Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 28

The Creativity Implementation Paradox:


Theorem 1: Existing organizations, ignorant of all the models of creativity in their midst, are constantly shutting down more creativity than they foster, by their very
efforts to become more creative.
Theorem 2: Existing organizations, unaware of all the various models of creativity that exist, work hard to improve a few known models of creativity, getting modest
paybacks from this, while ignoring much greater paybacks, from learning to recognize and install, the much greater number of other models of creativity, they lack
entirely or have never supported at all.
Example 1: The much vaunted by HBR P&G net among researcher retirees, who bid on problems, they might have something to help with, illustrates the self limiting nature of connectivity (and tools for it)
--at first, being connected increases creativity as ideas combine,
--but within months all on the net become familiar with each other, within a year or two, the net becomes boring and homogenous, everyone knowing what everyone else will say
before they say it
--loss of difference, variation, surprise, ends up wiping creativity off the net entirely.

Connection is a self limiting process--it increases creativity due to initial new combinations but destroys creativity ultimately by
wiping out isolation and hence differences.
organizations reduce creativity by how they increase it--because they do not build interaction matrices among the 60 models of creativity
organizations work to do 2 or 3 models of creativity well when similar effort invested in doing omitted 57 other models of it would
pay more
increasing creativity by increasing connectedness--is self limiting--1st more creating from combination increase, 2nd loss of all creativity as variety and difference evaporates due to connection--SOLUTION = pulsed connectedness, connecting increases as wave with
isolation increases.

Getting Technical about Creativity--What We Learn from 2 of the


60 Models of Creativity
Making Yourself a Creator Using the Recommendations and Subcreations Models of Creativity. There is not enough space in this chapter to discuss
many or even a few of my 60 models of creativity, or to discuss thoroughly even one of the 7 models found in my 4 Cycle model. What I can do is examine quickly two models, because they represent the bridge to many of the other models. You have to understand these two models in order to qualify to consider seriously many of the others of the
60. The recommendations model comes from 150 creators interviewed in the Orthogonal Disciplines Research Project. Each of them was asked to recommend specifically
how to create and become creative. Thousands of such recommendations were analyzed to create a final model of 128 steps to becoming creative and to creating, shared by
nearly all the 150 interviewees.
The recommendations model says that creative works are never done by ordinary people, and never done by clever tools, but are done by creators. To create you first have to
become a creator--that is, a person with a creative type of life. After major personal self change and transformation, adjusting all aspects of your life to support creating, it is
not you who create, but that creator life that creates. The subcreations model relates to this for it holds that before a creator makes any one astonishing creative work, he create lots of preparatory tools, workspaces, life arrangements, and so forth, that prepare the way for his creative final work. Stop these preparatory little subcreations as they
are called, and you prevent the final creative work emerging. You can see how these two models relate to each other. Before creators create great works, they invent/create
two things: a creative life, then, lots of subcreations--hosts of lifestyle and workplace, workstyle and tool arrangements, that prepare the way for and are absolutely essential
for realizing their ultimate final creations. Stop the creative life arrangements or stop these small preparatory inventions--subcreations I call them--and you shut down all possibility of that creator creating.
The dire problem of the idea of "being creative in any part of any modern business organization" is this--businessmen, especially executives of business organizations, are
some of the most conformist, herd-oriented, people in the world. That is because business persons work in an environment of constant omnipresent overwhelming surveillance--everyone sees and has opinions/reactions to all that everyone else does (Bacon's Panopticon captured this reality hundreds of years ago). Businesses outlaw, nearly
everywhere in every modern business organization, the very subcreations essential for creators realizing their final creative products. They outlaw, are outraged by, creative
non-conformist styles, dress, attitudes in their midst. Be creative--but look like this they say. Be creative--but one desk per person is our limit they say. Creative products
and creators themselves are actually hated in nearly all modern business organizations (Van de Ven, the only thorough, longitudinal study of business innovation in the literature, found exactly this to be true, hence, disguise, workarounds, scarfing resources, and skunkworks).

150 creators recommended how to become creative and create--boiled into a model of 128 steps, 64 to becoming creative, 64 for creating
recommendations--create creative type of life, use that to create works
subcreations--final creations require many small preparatory inventions of life and work style, tools, that allow the final overall resulting work
problem one; conformism and risk-aversensss of businesspersons--because of surveillance, because looking something is safer than
being it
surveillance--splits work into two tracks, doing X and looking like one is doing X--the PR part of every job and career = tendency
over time to erode doing X into merely looking like doing X = the PR only firm, the PR only executive, the PR only person, the
PR only life = all show
problem two: businesses forbid nearly all subcreations, hence, scarfing, skunkworks, disguise for innovations hated by organizations
problem three: wild gyrations of context so what is creative changes as technologies & executives change, hence need abstract context anchors
The Recommendations Model of Creativity suggests you only have to do 8 basic things in order to become creative and create:

Create a Creative Life


1 Make Interior Room--emotional space, find your self, liberate, create subworlds
2 Make Exterior Room--locate the creation process, create creation environments, focus, optimize activity
3 Mental Travel--diversify, broaden, extend horizons, time travel
4 Perceive Paradox--mystify, demystify, balance, unbalance
Use That Creative Life to Create Creative Works
5 Create Creation Machine--select creation type, invent tools, establish loops, recursively define problems
6 Think--generate, associate, decompose, map analogies
7 Conquer--commit to victory, establish work discipline (exceptionlessness), normalize creation, establish flow
8 Manage Emergence--establish population automatons, establish reflexivity, tune performance, prune away noise.
NOTE: the full model has 128 recommendations, not just the 32 ones listed above.
A book on the model exists but is only available to my grad students and "create-analysis" clients now.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 29

Every creator in history did every single one of these, according to the creators who made these recommendations. Without any one of these 8, no creativity appears. Tools,
part of creating a creation machine, are not nearly enough. In fact, only tools you invent that have never appeared before, suffice to help you create. The tools-selling-industry, of creativity consultants, wants you to believe that you can create by skipping steps one to four above, skipping steps 6 through 8 above, and instead of inventing tools,
buying the tools they, the consultants, wish to sell to you. Nice try but no banana! So if you want something short, clear to understand, fast, and simple that will make the
same you, that you now are, creative, you are a fool and nothing you learn, buy, or acquire will make you creative, though it may erase some of your foolishness. Did any of
us really believe that Faraday, Curie, Edison, Einstein, Piccaso were made in a day? came from buying clever tools? evolved from use of the right mental technique? No, not
a single reader of this chapter believed any such things--we all knew, all the time, that getting clever tools was nothing like what becoming creative actually requires. There
is no short cut--the life we all have now has to be radically revised, if we are ever to create, in the rare sense, of amazing humankind with what we produce.
Applying the Recommendations Model of Creativity
Making Interior Room is the first step--stopping all the emotional drains on us, the things that waste our time, from the hassles of daily living, kids, spouses, taxes, groceries.
Naked men off dirt roads, without phones and cars, write great novels, because they live hassle free, without interruption. Kill the phone! Divorce the kids! Creativity--powerful creation of the rare kind--begins with living without hassles. Most of us lack the courage to depart from "what others do" enough for this. In history, a lot of people have
achieved this--Making Interior Room--via marrying smartly highly supportive spouses, by not marrying at all, by living far from civilization, or having parents who isolated
them from friends and society for early decades of life via harsh training regimes (John Stuart Mill and Piccaso among many others) and like extreme measures. Other creators Make Interior Room by developing a kind of hard crust, the scares people away, and intimidates. This reduces interruptions and hassles by reducing human encounters
in general. Quite a few creators were extremely hard people to live with and work alongside. Their crust--Made Interior Room for them--but at a cost in ordinary accessibility and charm.
Making Exterior Room is the second step. It only comes after you are free from interior hassles and wastes. This is where one invents new living and work arrangements,
one's first subcreations, that are the ladder steps to full creation later on. All of your life--clothes, walls, friendships, talk, money arrangements--are optimized to support you
creating, not you doing anything else. As Piccaso said, if anything at all competes for attention with creating, you have no chance of creating at all. Creativity is a jealous god
and does not tolerate competitors. Creators pour their entire lives into creating--it is not a hobby. It does not come from dabbling. It is not a fashion or trend, an item of
apparel, a look or posture. It consumes all that you are and ever will be. If burns up your all.
Another important route to Making Exterior Room is sheer productivity--making yourself so awesomely productive that you do an entire week of work on Monday morning,
leaving all the rest of your time on your job free for creativity stuff. One reason so many creators in history are awesomely productive (Piccaso 3 paintings a day for 70 years)
is they developed that productivity at some school or workplace in order to free up time--Make Exterior Room--for creating. One of the first fights all creators win is the fight
for free time every week. If you have to work for money most of each week, it is hopeless--you will never be creative.
Mental Travel is the third step. This involves mentally, being everywhere, omnivorous consumption of all things unknown to you, new to you, beyond you, foreign to you,
not natural to you, hard for you, distasteful to you, counter to how you were raised. It involves decades of inconvenience--caused by mentally going where others fear to
tread. It involves befriending exactly those all around you fear and avoid. You seek out minorities, dissent, rebels, non-conformists, unpleasant grumpy sorts, social outcasts,
those shunned by polite and high society. In eras of digital media you read; in eras of reading you play video games. Whatever is fallow, forgotten, overlooked, looked down
on, missed entirely, or unimagined you visit and explore.
Perceiving Paradox is the fourth step. However, it goes hand in hand with Mental Travel. You cannot do Mental Traveling unless you are willing to embrace paradox. Perceiving Paradox and liking it are necessary for Mental Travel to take place at all. For Mental Travel moves you where your upbringing and comfort zones do not apply, do not
work, break down, make a fool of you. Legitimating peripheral participation in communities of practice entirely new to you--snooping--happens because you are willing to
undergo the pain of infancy, being a complete beginner in realms and worlds and areas of ideation wholly unknown to you, where you lack all orientation, commonsense, and
skill, where you make a fool of yourself every few minutes or hours, in big ways. Many of us can do this when we are young; creators do this all their lives. Frank Lloyd
Wright failed completely three times and rebuilt his education, skills, client base, and technique three time, entirely. At 60 he started all over again, becoming an infant in his
own field, learning from upstarts.
The new you, having interior and exterior room, doing mental travel by facing paradoxes that stop others, is what creates, is what Creates a Creation Machine, the fifth step.
Your Creation Machine is tools, loops, recursions. You invent tools, insight process loops, and fractal multi-scale problem definitions for the type of creative work you decide
to produce. Creators work on many size and time scales simultaneously. Hence, loops (iteration) and recursion (fractality of outcome) are natural byproducts of all creative
work. Furthermore, tools vary by loop and size scale so the creator's tools themselves take on fractality of form. Here are the full panoplies of subcreations that precede and
enable final creative works. It takes months and years to accumulate one's Creation Machine. It takes total mental dedication and full mobilization of your insight and rational thought faculties to achieve a Creation Machine. The Creation Machine you create is your second creation, after creating a creative life. Creating a Creation Machine
generally takes about 8 to 10 years of work at 12 hours a day or more of effort. Trying to short cut this time period is the norm and always fails. For those interested in serious
creativity, 8 years is not a long time to prepare the way for it. Those who cannot imagine "waiting" 8 years for something, obviously, lack all the courage and guts of any real
creator. As Herbert Simon liked to say Piccaso trained for over a decade under his father (though it was done as a child); Einstein studied physics for over a decade, Edison-you know the story--history is populated with highly persistent, hard working, enormously productive people who became famous for creativity, not with casual hobbyists
who did so.
Thinking the sixth step, is something not done by you, but done by the creative life you have invented and installed in yourself. For example what makes us intelligent is the
surround of tools outside our brains that help us think and amplify what we can remember and inter-relate. Take away the mind extensions of any creator--her personal files,
her personal professional library, her network of friends who perform cognitive functions for her, her cognitive architecture, her cognitive apparel, her cognitive furniture--and
she can no longer create. Thinking is done by a creative life enabled by subcreations of lots of mind extension tools. Schools stymie creativity, in many ways, one of which
is educating brains, not the mind extensions, outside brains, that make us smart.
Conquest is the seventh step. This is the step where flexibility and association breadth, fluidity of thought, take place in real life and work terms, that have risks and costs,
requiring much courage to face and pay. This is the step where morale and drive, persistence and finesse, judgement and courage prevail. This is the step, all of whose contents are missing in the wimpy creativity tests that measure ability on paper in an exam to flex things that everyone does not get hurt by or care about (hence creativity tests
have no validity, when tested longitudinally). Flexing ideas on a test is quite a bit different than flexing lifestyle arrangements, or flexing comments that turn a boss into an
enemy, or that alienate powerful figures in a field capable of preventing anyone exhibiting your works. Gutless creativity test flexing has nothing to do with real creator flexing, with the enemies, backbiting, revenge, subterfuge, and like resistances it produces. Only conquerors create, not nice people easy to get along with. People who live to
110 and historic creators share one main attribute--grumpy selfish ruthless pushing. They do not make nice friends or spouses.
Managing Emergence is the final step. It is tough indeed. Creations do not appear cleanly, with neon labels shouting their identity, boundaries, and presence. They appear
amid messes, jumbled with junk, contaminated with collaterals. They are slight signals amid much noise. Creating means discerning the pattern among the junk. It means
pruning away noise to reveal the pattern, the signal. More than this, before something creative emerges from much work, you have to get huge populations of ideas, problems
to work on, alternative problem formulations, failed solution attempts, partially working solution fragments, to interact. You have to tune these populations interacting-adjusting connectedness, diversity, distribution of initiative-taking among them. There is an exquisite balance to doing this that produces Csikszentmihalyi's "flow" dance of
working at slightly beyond one's full current potentials. This is where rapture enters the world and lives are forever transfixed and transformed. This is where we go to where
we were before we were born and realize that we are guaranteed heaven all along--nothing in living can take it away--it was always all that was final and real in our lives.
This summarizes 8 of the 128 points in the overall recommendations model of creativity. For the other 120 points see my book on the topic, at present available only to my
grad students and clients of my create-analysis consults.

Create a Creative Life--it is this life that creates not you alone--for example mind extension tools that make you smart
1 Make Interior Room--emotional space, find your self, liberate, create subworlds
get freedom from hassles, that squander your mood and emotions daily

2 Make Exterior Room--locate the creation process, create creation environments, focus, optimize activity
to create first battle: get control of your time--compress your job into one day a week of intense work, then use 4 days to create

3 Mental Travel--diversify, broaden, extend horizons, time travel

this means going mentally where you never go, associating with people you never meet, exploring what is totally new and unknown to you

4 Perceive Paradox--mystify, demystify, balance, unbalance

mental travel exposes lots of paradox--only people who love things not working and having-to-adapt can do mental travel

Use That Creative Life to Create Creative Works--it is that creative life that creates work, not the person alone
5 Create Creation Machine--select creation type, invent tools, establish loops, recursively define problems
takes 8 to 10 years at 12+ hours per day--loops and recursion = multiple size scales of work/tooling, subcreations galore

6 Think--generate, associate, decompose, map analogies

mind extensions that make us smart--thinking with our extended minds not just our brains

7 Conquer--commit to victory, establish work discipline (exceptionlessness), normalize creation, establish flow
fluidity of thought, breadth of association, not on easy riskless test items but on changes in life and work with heavy consequences

8 Manage Emergence--establish population automatons, establish reflexivity, tune performance, prune away noise.
finding signals among noise, tuning populations interacting till patterns emerge, spotting patterns and pruning away noise

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 30

Getting Technical about Creativity--Three Questions


Question 1--Can systems for dynamic, globally distributed, work processes and arrangements establish or improve creativity in them?
I am suspicious of questions like this, when posed to me by American, male, technology, capitalist, monkey-hierarchy persons. I suspect that what is really going on with this
question is how can we use creativity as a cover for selling more of our products to people than they really need? This is the tools for fools approach of telling yourself and
other people that certain tools will enhance or enable or increase or improve or foster some nice sounding thing like creativity. The truth is, absolutely no tool
whatsoever, ever made anyone the least bit creative. The recommendations model specifies 8 things that make people creative, 4 under create a creative life and 4 under use
that creative life to create things. Tools are a part of one of those 8 steps in becoming creative and creating, Create a Creation Machine. The other 7 steps cannot be substantially affected by tools of any sort, though some marginal impacts there are possible.
An OEM business of 8 employees, 2 each in Taiwan, Tokyo, New York City, and London, and huge sales, lost 4 big contracts in a row. They did not need creativity--they
needed shared vision, shared values, rapport with and trust of each other. They had a shared technical system but no shared social life. The people had no relation to each
other other than work and did not trust or like each other. Technology not only distributes work more widely but thins it--fewer people doing functions. Add distribution to
thinning and you get no social life among a smaller number of people--only technical tools with messages they share. This is a recipe for disaster, so being creative is not the
main concern, usually. Outsourcing research, programming, product development, localizing products, and the like are largely nominal in this world. P&G, much vaunted as
a trans-national forward looking firm, has over 100 American managers in their Japan headquarters in Kobe--a concrete specific measure of their degree of trust, localization
and global distribution of authority and initiative. The Prussian military under Bismarck 150 years ago was about as global in structure and function. Headquarters, all over
the world, in every sector of the economy, shiver with fear over control, not creativity. They have to have control over far flung functions, persons, and offices--creativity
would be nice but only if control is assured. The bottom line is the hierarchy. Some high tech firms look more global and trusting--like Cisco and Google--but when they go
global it is servers in warehouses, identical to the ones in the US, with little if any tailoring of things for localities. High tech isolates firms from localization issues for the
most part.
My solution for this OEM firm, however, had unexpected rather large creativity side-benefits. We needed a cost effective and time effective way to weave social life with
technical systems. We needed a way to regularly, rapidly, intensely, build social relationships and trust, while keeping people largely dispersed. Not departments where people are co-located; not processes where people send messages and calls but seldom meet; the answer was events. Not usual events, but an entirely new kind of event, inspired
by computation, that uses individual people as if they were CPU processors in an array of human processors. It is called Managing by Events.

Managing by Events
Mass workshop events using unusual social automaton meeting procedures to establish a kind of micro-level of organization within each workshop session, using
people as if they were processors in an array, that multiplies greatly how much work can be done and how much people learn from workshop procedures they do.
Research assemblies, customer contact events, problem finding workouts, problem solving workouts, solution impact finding workouts, participatory town meetings, invent
events, quality cabarets of many employee-designed arts, competitor virtue surveys--are some of the types of events typically used. This OEM needed Sales Follow Up
Events, Annual Budget Creation Events, Supplier Capability Tuning Events, among others, each event combining the 8 employees with anywhere for 12 to 20 outsiders, making a total of between 20 and 30 per event, divided into 6 simultaneously working teams. Events lasted 2 days in principle, with a few extended an extra day where good work
would otherwise have been delayed or lost.
Another element in my solution for this OEM firm was a model of managing functions, used by ordinary employees in this firm to identify when particular managing functions were needed, then, workshop events to do these managing functions were held among the 8 employees, using outside advisors or experts when needed.

Just-in-Time Delivery of Managing Functions, When and Where Needed, by Events


Instead of a fixed inventory of managers, a designated special social class of people, being paid all day to be managerial even when no managing functions were
needed, managing functions were requested by workgroups and delivered by events having specific procedures for doing each of 64 basic management functions.
Three months of the year were designated for these events. Locations rotated among the four cities of the OEM firm. Outside consultants were usually hired to assist particular functions the 8 employees were not good at. The consultants ideas were embedded in event manuals so future events could use their wisdom without having to hire them
again, at least for those same ideas. Just-in-Time Managing depends on having a good model of what all the most basic functions of managing are--which I provided,
obtained from my Orthogonal Disciplines Research Project. This OEM solution delivered social life via events, cost and time effectively across the globe. Instead of vague
meetings and long winded discussion, everyone followed expertly-led precise procedures, developed by interviewing world best practitioners before events. This led to creativity that was not a part of the original contract in the following form.

Invent Events

Mass workshop events with procedures from world experts on how to invent, how to design, how to discover, how to create, anything from ads to products, from
ventures to business ideas, using invited customers, competitor retirees, consultants, professors, inventors, as workshop leaders or advisors/result-evaluators.

One Type of Invent Event for Each of the 60 Models of Creativity


Entire Invent Events dedicated to applying just one Model of Creativity as well as myriad Invent Events that weave several Models of Creativity are possible.
These Invent Events came up with working new products, system designs, ventures, so quickly and with so much good specification and documentation, evaluation by experts
and expert commentary on results, that I sold the whole Invent Event program to Siemens, three years later, when one of the 8 OEM employees got an executive position there.
At Siemens we developed 1231 patents in a sequence of 8 events, one event held every three months for two years, each event combining 100 Siemens employees/managers
and 100 external consultants, advisors, customers, and the like. Siemens at that time was in a typical predicament--a hardware culture, managerial class, and structure the primary value of whose products came from software not hardware. The Invent Events turned software from an inconvenient hassle, into a source of competitive pride and
advantage, by inventing new product value from clever use of rare forms of software.
Each Invent Event lasted 4 days, with, like GE workouts, executive sign offs for feasibility budgets and testing of results at a final lunch convocation. Each event was scripted
at the every five minute level of detail with workshops from 7 am breakfast info exchanges among workshop groups, to 7 pm start of evening designed celebrations by particular representatives of each workshop group. With 200 members, 40 parallel workshops met during each day, exchanging printed results at night and orally discussing their
needs and accomplishments in a breakfast plenary session, each morning.

The Profits of Event Based Doing of Business Functions. When dozens of people are intensely together, not vaguely discussing in tiresome meetings but following precise and expert protocols from people world best at some vital function--they learn from each workshop new ways of thought and work, in an applied context of
using ideas in procedural contexts to create tangible products they get at the end of each workshop. This is fast, detailed, applied learning of the best sort--the sort people
remember for years. It is not learning by sitting and taking notes in a lecture. It is not learning by doing a business simulation in some middle manager corporate training
weekend. It is doing real work now using real expert procedures to produce a real product you will later have to live with and use. There are huge organizational learning
benefits of doing a function in event form versus process or department form.
Furthermore there is the event productivity principle and a coordination-event weave principle:

The Event Productivity Principle

Mass workshop events can do a function in hours or days, that otherwise, would take small staffs months or years to complete. Faster cycle time!

The Coordination System-Event Weave Principle


Work coordination system for global outsourcing and firm binding depend on their info having a social life most economically provided by events of a special
social automaton sort--Mass Workshop Event with micro-organization of all meeting procedures and time.

Software Opportunity--No One Sells Software for Supporting Such Mass Workshop Events!
With So Much Discussion of Events, What About Software Systems and Their Supporting of Creativity? Deploying technical systems alone is
nearly everywhere a mistake. Information has, as the book by Brown and Duguid says, a social life and what inevitably gets deployed is both particular social tactics along
with particular technical capabilities. Can a technical system alone support or increase creativity? Strictly speaking, no. Why?
The Recommendations Model of Creativity makes this clear. Try to imagine any purely technical system that Creates Interior Room, Creates Exterior Room, does Mental
Travel, Perceives Paradox, Creates a Creation Machine, Thinks, Conquers, and Manages Emergence. Though we can all identify a few small discrete functions within each of
these that technologies might help with, it is hard to imagine anything core, central, heavy hitting that technology can do for most of these. Creativity tends to depend on the
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 31

most subtle, self-contradictory, complicated features of the human condition and mind. That is why expert systems, a few decades ago, peeled off the dumber parts of expert
designers processes of work and helped with them, ignoring the core, the central, the heavy hitting stuff that really counted. If we ask the same question about the Subcreations Model of Creativity, or any of the 58 other models in my Model of Models of Creativity, though, we get different answers. Subcreations, for some types of creator, can
substantially include software and other contemporary technical means. The overall answer depends on which of the 60 models of creativity you are using.

The potential for technology to assist differs by which model of creativity you apply.
some relevant theories--computational sociality, social automatons as micro org, social life of info, processware/socialware weaves/pulses,
social indexing, social virtuality, agile event-built firms, general empirical computation, space type theory, info ecology theory, network theory,
cognitive democracy theory
the role of tools in fostering creativity = (in the recommendations model of creativity) tools appear as part of 1 of 8 steps = little
impact
the costly fight--between flat, software/net supported globally distributed work processes and monkey-hierarchy behaviors
demanded = executes are the primary block, their lack of education, lack of educatedness, command monkey skills when tuning
automata skills are needed
example 1: P&G with 100 American managers in their Japan headquarters = pretend globalization, coordination by command not
system
example 2: my OEM client, weaving electronic connection with just enough face-to-face-ness via Events
a new kind of event--mass workshop events using parallel workshop of procedures from experts, with micro-layer of organization
the micro-organization layer--from computational sociality, using people as processors, Social Automata = 15+ times as productive as meetings
Managing by Events--faster than by process or department, with more org learning, and more professional procedures of work
Just-in-Time Managing--from delivering management functions via fixed inventory of managers = special social class, to, delivery
of management functions via events
Requires model of all basic management functions and regular questionnaires to determine when, where, what amount, of which
management function is needed = far more management functioning using far fewer managers = vastly more empowered
employees = customer sat up
evolution of JIT Managing events for OEM firm into Invent Events--dozens of software inventions in parallel workshops in days
one Invent Event type for each of the 60 Models of Creativity
example Siemens = 1200+ patents from 8 events of 200 persons each doing 40 parallel workshops
Software opportunity--no one sells software supporting mass workshop events, only general discussion type sit and listen type
events
the role of tools and technologies in creativity--bit parts in some steps, nothing main, ever
the connectivity illusion--we have lots of technologies for connecting but connecting self limits
Question 2--How can individual persons in modern business organizations become more creative?
You can argue this either way--that it is nearly impossible for such a person thusly situated to become creative and create, or that is is nearly impossible for such a person
thusly situated to not become creative and create. In a section below I compare, proposition by proposition these two arguments. Here I merely want to suggest that anyone
with a goodly amount of courage, able to think far beyond what everyone else assumes without thinking, can be immensely creative in modern businesses, however, modern
businesses do all that is humanly possible to not select, not create, and not tolerate such people.

Anyone courageous enough to depart from norms can create in modern businesses but
modern businesses in every possible way make sure no such people are hired/kept.
The monkey-hierarchy stuff between strutting self important little males makes sure that exactly the kinds of people incompatible with supervision will get too much of it to
hang around long--dominance fights among monkeys drive creators away. Creators are not good at kow-towing, making big shots look un-stupid, and like skills of the
socially smooth business organization. This will be dealt with more fully below under the cultural work of creating.

Question 3-- How can teams and whole organizations in businesses and economies become creative and more creative? Slack and scarce
supervision, lack of surveillance, isolation--these are the keys to getting entire teams and organization units creative in modern business organizations. You can see how both
total quality systems and work coordination computing systems drive out the wastes the slack the leeway in which creativity grows. Bad people, given slack, slack off
and become corrupt; good people, given slack, thrive and pay firms back with immense inventions. Modern business organizations do not have high enough quality leaders
to distinguish the one from the other.
The biggest impediment to creativity increase for organizational units is the lack of upper leadership capability to know who to trust. Slack is constantly given to ass-kissers
when it is needed by rebels and malcontents instead. If you improve upper management levels of education, you improve their ability to spot the kind of people not needing
any supervision at all--to set them free to create. Perhaps the single greatest leverage point for increasing creativity of entire organization units is sending all upper level managers every ten years through 2 years, full course programs, of graduate education.

Perhaps the single greatest leverage point for increasing creativity of entire organization units is
sending all upper level managers, every ten years, through 2 years of grad education.

Is Creativity Possible? Comparing the Employee Condition with the


Creator Condition
With the above recommendations and subcreations models of creativity under our belt, we can now compare creator conditions with employee/manager conditions, to see if
creativity is possible in modern business organizations. Remembering that career forces cause gross exaggeration of tolerance for and achievement of creativity, remembering that the immense difficulty getting anything the tiniest bit new through bulky business bureaucracies, causes business persons to apotheisize, to celebrate achievement of
very slight novelties, as if major achievements and conquests, we have reason to doubt businesses get much that is creative done today in spite of lots of ballyhoo, marketing,
brochures, and slogans.

The Creator Condition. Supervision is the enemy of all creation. Creative people, on their own, are hundreds of times more productive than anyone in even the best
business organization. Creation, however, is risky, so you make bets, lose most of them, and if smart and lucky, get a true home run, every now and then. Research on managing R&D organizations is full of these contradictions--managing prima donnas. You see firms buying out technology firms and getting hollow shells, as half a dozen absolutely key people leave, taking not just some knowledge, but only-one-in-the-entire-world type of knowledge with them. Dumb, dumb, dumb buyouts by upper managers
completely out of their class educationally with whom they are buying.
Creators work no particular way and every particular way, and it changes all the time. I saw this in action at Coopers & Lybrand. Every morning I passed a director sitting
at his empty desk, doing nothing. He was French, from Ecole Polytechnique, one of the best Grandes Ecoles set up by Napoleon, that train the French elite. For six months I
passed, never seeing him on the phone, shuffling papers, or even moving at all. He just sat, elegantly, sipping coffee, doing nothing for months on end. One day I hazarded a
question to him about what he was doing--thinking he answered, sipping his coffee as a sign for me to leave. Sure enough, a year later, he was not there. Instead he was
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 32

with our CEO explaining a new consulting practice, and in two days, getting $24 million in contracts from clients to start it up with. $24 million a year made him the highest
earner in the entire firm, but for 18 months, from hire, he did absolutely nothing, talked to no one, sat and sipped. Only upper level managers intelligent enough, educated
enough, to know such people exist, and recognize them, leaving them to hell alone, can foster creativity in workforces. Your average power-hungry dumb street smarts Joe,
does not have a chance. Upper manager low levels of education are a primary block to making organizations more creative. Give three graduate degrees to your CEO and all
his or her VPs and watch creativity bloom! Remember Jack Welch has a Ph..D. in chemistry!

The Employee and Middle Manager Condition. Supervision is everywhere--how to buy pencils, when to travel and how to travel, whom to talk to and whom
not to talk to, whom to give credit to and whom not to give credit to, what egos to praise and fawn before, how many desks are permitted, what days to show up, and on and
on. We define a prison of rules, supervision, norms, social fawning behaviors, and then ask that creativity come out of this prison.
Surveillance is everywhere. In big organizations the most irritating thing is everyone watches what everyone else does, and, having only a fragmentary distorted context, they
all react to what they see, making the doing of even the most obvious or necessary things, a huge burden, to dis-encumber it from all the partial, distorted, un-informed reactions to it from everyone and everywhere. Isolation and darkness are where the new starts out, as a baby idea, needing protection from critique, doubt, politics, competition.
With nearly no isolation and a huge audience for everything everywhere all the time--it is a wonder that anything new at all creeps out of any modern business organization.
We need not more connection but far far far far more isolation. But technology vendors cannot sell isolation--they do not make systems that foster or improve isolation--their
technologies only improve connection--so modern technologies are driving difference, surprise, variety out of the entire world. Modern technologies are killing creativity
world wide. Remember the P&G retiree researcher network example from above--connect everyone, get a boost from new combinations then a long long deep decline as
everyone knows everyone till no variety and differences remain, killing all creativity on the network. Connection is a self limiting process. Technologies that connect ultimately destroy creativity unless overcome by more powerful new means of isolation.

What Does this Mean, Practically, for Creativity? It means pulsed connection systems are needed. Systems that enhance separation for months and years,
keeping things unknown and unconnected, then, at regular or somewhat surprising, irregular intervals, breaking out strong connections that were never there before--Pulsed
Systems are the answer.

Pulsed Systems are the Answer: a rhythm of connection and isolation woven together.
personal creativity in businesses--the courage to depart from norms, but firms support creating while throwing out people who create
monkey dynamics at work drive creators away = dominance fights, strutting self importance displays, I-I-I ness, + USA culture of theft/lies/
stealing
slack, leeway, lack of surveillance fosters creativity among determined, but not among lazy, people
block to creativity at work = top managers and execs not educated enough to spot what people to stop surveillance on
foster creativity by: forced grad education every ten years for all top managers
example: the Ecole Polytechnique guy sipping coffee only for 18 months, then getting $24 million in a week--most bosses would
have fired him = his sipping was thinking, most bosses cannot detect thinking, cannot understand it, = not educated enough to
manage creative people
creation needs darkness = babies protected from public exposure = lack of surveillance
the self limiting nature of more connection means we need Pulsed Systems not connectivity systems to foster enough isolation = surprise to create; example--academic publishing of tiny bits fast = nothing attracts attention = lower standards, pluralizing journals = for show
only ideas

Is Creativity Possible? The Case for the Impossibility of Being Creative in Any Modern Business Organization versus the Case for the
Easiness of Being Creative in Any Such Organization
The Impossibility Case. It is not the job of businesses to create. Someone creates in a lab, university, alone in the woods, then a business person decides to turn that
novelty into a real change in situations and lives on a widescale basis. The job of business is taking ideas somewhere, not coming up with the ideas. This argument has a lot
behind it and should not be belittled without careful thought. When businesses get cute and start wanting to be good at doing everything in life, they are becoming mentally
ill, deluded, grandiose, ready for a big fall.
Businesses excel at taking ordinary not-so-great people, aimless-undirected-drifting people, and plugging them into systems designed to produce using such poor or mediocre
human inputs. The genius of large business organizations is quite similar to the genius of armies--anything input into its systems produces. The genius is in these systems
that get standard outcomes of production and sales from highly variable, poor quality, or average inputs. To ask, now, such organizations based on such genius, to get creativity from such variable, poor, average inputs, is perhaps going one step too far. Can systems be set up that take as inputs, mediocre human quality and output world and history
best discoveries, inventions, and ideas?
Many global businesses are American dominated, male, technical, capitalist, monkey-hierarchies. They are banana-lands where hormones rule all, making control very very
important. Strutting, self important, self advertising braggadocio infests every hallway encounter, every meeting opening, every staff meeting, every social occasion in them.
Ego, territory, revenge, demonstrations of dominance--these monkey dynamics are the main show and products, customers, and the like are just a way to get enough money to
keep the show going. To expect such systems of organized omnipresent surveillance and control to create is ludicrous. Looking creative is enough to get one promoted--why
would any rational being go the extra mile to actually do some creating? Where is the payback in that?

The It is Easy to Create There Case. Nearly all upper level managers of businesses are poorly and narrowly educated. The quality of books read by business
persons is unbelievably dumbed down, by publishers, looking for wide markets (more sales, revenues). MBAs, in not a few executives, give the pretense of education without
any real study or intellectual content. I taught University of Chicago MBAs for five years and was under-impressed with the quality of mind input and output from that program. As a result, the leaders of most businesses are not intellectually capable of spotting creative people, creative ideas, and intellectual paths to corporate greatness. This
sounds like a case for why businesses cannot create but it is the opposite, as the next step makes clear. Because of all this, this globally low standard of intellectual life in
business, a remnant of immigrant labor early days when initiative, not mind, was key to business, all made dumber by overt male hormone power games and displays, anyone
not playing these monkey games of dominance and territory, not reading books dumbed down by dumb publishers--conquers the entire field. There simply are no competitors
for the courageous man or woman willing to imagine and act outside of the Americanisms, male-isms, technology-isms, capitalism-isms, and monkey-isms that populate modern business organizations. If you are willing to not belong, you can do anything you wish, mobilize resources behind any idea you wish, in the confidence that no one embedded in the organization will be able to understand you well enough to stop you or even guess where the hell you are going.
My personal experience has been that the levels of performance in modern business organizations are rather low, in discipline, thought, productivity, integrity. That, remember, is part of the genius of modern businesses--vast income made from accepting rather ordinary inputs of human resources. Therefore, anyone just a little beyond ordinary
in these domains, shines like a Super Novae, brilliantly, immediately attracting CEO attention, promotion, and resources. I have shipped ten years of students of my 2 year
undergrad research seminars into the worlds leading businesses, with this attitude in them, that virtually nowhere in any modern business is there a single person, working at
one tenth the level of daily discipline that I instill in my students, in that 2 year seminar (20 hours of homework per week for one class; 50 graduate research books in English
read per year, one per week, with 200 main points of each book chapter diagrammed for checking by me; weekly one hour presentations by teams of four presenting 200 main
points in one hour in five media--website, video, speech, workshop, videogame). Over 50 of my students have won prizes as the best of 1000, the best of 4000, the best of
Asia, the best of North America, within their chosen firms. 19 of my 28 year old graduates are making above US$150,000 a year. It takes 8 to 10 years to create your Creation
Machine, so these students are still a bit too young to create, but soon, in four years or so, they will be ready and able. I await their results.
It is nearly impossible not to be creative in any modern business organization. All it requires is the courage to violate norms and expectations and systems, and a strategic
inventiveness sufficient to package an idea in terms of CEO priorities, well enough, that you get the CEOs immediate attention and support, because your initiative looks like
an example of where he is working to make the overall organization go. Fighting for promotions and existing positions of power, like VP slots, is a waste of time. You have
to make enemies, socially, to win competitions for these positions, insuring that once you have positional power you have too little social power to do much with it. Instead,
you can invent wholly new business units and initiatives, that no one competes for, and freely install them and gather revenues from them, growing too large too fast for higher
placed people to block you. That you look like a fool in the early stages of this sort of work, helps you, by making you not worth opposing while you become a competitive
threat. Potential enemies wake up to your power far too late to stop you. I teach my students this and they, so far, are practicing it very well.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 33

Modern business organizations are so boring, their level of thought within meetings, within daily conversations, in documented emails and workflows so average and boring,
that they virtually drive good people to create, just as a tactic to keep awake. While the boss is pompously intervening in staff meetings, merely to demonstrate to everyone
that he is in control, you scratch out notes on an initiative that your biggest customer can help you launch, without your boss knowing, till enough revenue comes in that your
CEO notices instantly, bypassing your boss status concerns. People get used to modern businesses and their cultures. Within three years of joining a firm, the culture gets to
you, lowering your standards to the corporate norm. This lowest common denominator level of performance makes creativity easier while making it rare to find people willing
to create. This paradox was mentioned above.

business grandiosity = orgs good at realizing ideas as actual changes in the world try to be good at everything = creative = at creating
ideas
businesses and the military excel at = taking ordinary inputs, getting consistent outputs from them = not getting creative outputs
from them
businesses are structured to NOT get creative outputs from their human resource inputs; they are structured for consistent production
instead
banana land hormone displays--monkeys preening, looking important, dominance fights = surveillance = no creativity, looking is
enough
globally low standard of intellectual life in top management = narrowly educated and shallowly educated = cannot spot creation or
handle it
remember, Jack Welch was a Ph.D. at the start of his business career, is your CEO a Ph.D? Can he understand Ph.Ds at lunch?
anyone able to imagine and think outside the Five Cultures can be creative without competitors and hindrances: American, male,
techie, $, monkey hierarchy
being creative requires 1) operating beyond Five Culture norms 2) strategic packaging as furtherance of CEO priority directions
the contradiction of positional power--you have to become enemy of peers to get it = have too little social power to use positional
power well
corporate cultures install lowest common denominator levels of performance = easy to shine against such low backgrounds of perform norms

Being Creative--A Matter of Cultural Work, Educatedness Work,


and Moral Work
Being creative in modern business organizations, in my personal experience, is primarily a matter of doing cultural work.

The American Way


poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft

The Male Way


show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not pull, emotion is unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

The Technology Way


toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into technology fixes, promise the moon delivery is a later managers problem

The Capitalist Way


live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are irrelevant

The Monkey Way


at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard, problems never exist

These are five common cultures of modern business, attenuated in cultures outside the US, attenuated more in non-Western cultures, least respected in Japan and Nordic
Europe. If being educated means what you believe and do cannot be predicted from knowing the backgrounds in which you were raised, then few of us are educated. That
means, most of what we believe and do comes from unconscious automated routines put inside us while growing up somewhere or spending intense time in some group. We
are unaware of most of what is inside us and most of the principles determining how we operate. That is what culture is--high performance. All cultures are just high performances--procedures practiced so much they have long become unconscious, operating inside us without need for conscious executive attention from us. The problem is,
going around all day, unaware of what is determining what and how you do things, means you are only partially, at best, steering you, each hour, each day. Most of what is
steering and determining you, you are unaware of, and have been unaware of for decades. For anyone cultured in any way, this is true. How to be creative?
Being creative--enormously surprising those around with what you invent, produce, suggest, create--is as simple as getting outside all or a few of these cultures and operating
from that outside vantage point, while all around you are stuck within these cultures.

The Creator Spec:


Master the Non-American Ways--example, Japanese solace systems within workteams, the boss as benevolent carer not source of all ideas for
others to obey; example, my artificial intelligence circles
Master the Feminine Way--example, re-engineering feminized work systems in a male-looking way; example, my feminine Taguchi application spec
Master the Social System Way--example, computational socialities, social automata; example, my Management by Events workshops with
micro organization layers
Master the Social Capital Way--example, quality cabarets inventing arts that transition firms to needed attitudes/behaviors for the future,
example, my market by fashions
Master the Educated Person Way--example, working cocktail parties by eating only 1st hour, waiting for people to solve the mystery of you,
example, my dual jobs career path--have a better job/salary always on offer so full risking goes on in each job
Each of the above five cultures, and all other cultures in history, is neurotic--what it is very good at, hides, what it is therefore very bad at, the cost of the focus that made it
good at the first thing. Americans live, conscious, of their innovative, pragmatic virtues--they do not live amid their shallow implementations, sloppy applications, gutless
inability to persist in pursuit of a goal. Males live, conscious, of their venturesomeness, heroic fighting ability, pride in past feats--they do not live amid their blindness to
effects on others, they narcissistic sycophancy, their terrible daily insecurity about whether they are important or not. Technologists live, conscious, of their revolutionary
implications of the world, their promise of riches, their complicated systems and contents--they do not live amid their pretense at improving things, their fear of emotions and
human relationships, their ignoring of all that is not abstract, quick, mere thought. Capitalists live, conscious, of their accumulations of wealth, of their investment risks, of
their constant search for advantages--they do not live amid their suicidal stripping of resources from non-financial areas, the enemies they make with their ruthless focus on
returns, the financial costs of side-effects that take time to develop. Monkey-hierarchy-members live, conscious, of their dominance, their rank in the hierarchy, their competitors for next ranks, their strategies for defeating competitors--they do not live amid their wasting half of all meeting time in looking important, their bombastic personal style,
the stench of their subservience to other monkeys, the costs of problems they cannot afford to admit.
Instant, powerful creativity results whenever anyone steps outside these common business cultures and thereby becomes unpredictable, un-understandable, un-controllable by
those left comfortably unconsciously in these cultures.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 34

Getting outside such cultures is the work of becoming an educated person. Unfortunately most people go to college not for this purpose. Unfortunately most colleges no
longer remember educating persons as a mission. We are drifting into a world lacking educatedness entirely--where people of God one kill masses of people of God two, each
side convinced it is right. 35% of the entire population of Germany was killed in 30 years of religious wars that broke out after Martin Luther left the Catholic church. An
affirmation of faith. A world without educatedness we have already, as humankind, tried. 500 years of women burned alive at the stake, after days or weeks of torture,
church endorsed, as God told people about the devil and the dangers of devils. We have lived by faith alone for 1000 years and escaped it. Selling is more important than
educatedness right now, but eventually, selling will be hurt, more and more, by lack of educatedness. Rich Americans in Texas will wait in line years, for stem cell therapies
developed in Singapore, Japan, and Britain, because, while they were selling, ignoring educatedness, the worlds biggest new industry--human replacement parts, immortality-passed their nation by.
Historic level creativity always comes from being highly educated, in this specific sense, of standing outside the cultures, everyone else around you, are in. Einstein was German working in Switzerland, a Ph.D. working as a clerk, married as an active adulterer, trained in math working in physics, a Jew who distrusted religions--that is five cultures
violated, mixed, escaped. Say you escape these cultures, by becoming an educated man, getting a new graduate degree every ten years of your life. All that is left, as the final
step to creating is morality--the integrity to do creativity rather than just look creative, to spend the 8 to 10 years composing your Creation Machine rather than looking for
short cuts.

being creative is primarily culture work--my personal experience in 3 global firms


Five Cultures to extricate yourself from and extricate from inside your self: American, male, tech, $ (the MBA disease, Mintzberg), monkey hierarchy
all cultures are neurotic--they are focusses, attained by not focussing, on other stuff = by virtue of being good at X, not good at A, B,
C, D
cultures forget their costs (the costs of the focussing used to attain them) = exaggerate their benefits because forget costs of those
benefits
step outside the Five Cultures = become unpredictable, uncontrollable, unstoppable = creative ALSO regression to mean = solutions outside the
culture
think about it--for 2,000 years men rule, so most solutions feminize systems (the re-engineering example)
step outside the Five Cultures = call a solution things that actually solve instead of perpetuate the blind neurosis spots of your own
culture
stepping outside the Five Cultures = differing from your present self = growth, intimate, emotional, growth = hardest work in your
life
becoming educated = such growth, but educatedness forgotten by colleges
educatedness method = get grad degree every ten years of your life, no exceptions and do creating not look creating.

Create-Analysis--Not Tools for Creating but Coaching the Process


of Becoming a Creator and Getting that Creator to Create
I do not sell creativity tools, as you by now have guessed. I think that is a joke and I think all of you, without exception, believe it is a joke, though you may, because your
corporation makes money selling tools to fools, play the game of pretending that tools make people creative. We all know this.
Instead of selling tools, I do creativity consulting. This is a kind of creativity psycho-analysis (note, for each of the 60 models of creativity from my research I have a different
kind of consulting in creativity enhancement on offer). I meet my clients once every two to four weeks and review their progress along all 8 dimensions of the model we
agree to use (recommendation in this chapter). They report on what hassles they liberated themselves from, this interval, what transformations of work facilities they
achieved, what mental places they traveled to, what paradoxes they encountered in doing so, what inventions of tool and place they installed in their emerging Creation
Machine, what thought they achieved, what they conquered, and what automaton tuning and emergent pattern pruning they accomplished. "Create-analysis", as I call it (a
registered trademark), switches life transformation for tools, as consulting content. It works with teams in industries far better than training such teams with tools. Createanalysis coaches bosses and executives surrounding teams into permitting the myriad subcreations they habitually forbid in businesses. It helps these frightened men to
develop the courage to do something (the horror!) that is a career risk. It helps these frightened ones grow up. It calls forth the human being from the monkey in the organization suit. " T-shirt courage" this was called on the West Coast of the US in the early 1980s--the courage to not wear (the horror!) a suit. If a businessperson wants outsiders
to respect the conformities, the careers concerns, the monkey hierarchy behaviors of any modern business organization, while "improving" their creativity, then he is simply
too gutless to mess with creativity. Such wimps do not have what it takes to create. Remember my one minute courage test above.
This means you can: 1) hire me to do create-analysis for you 2) hire me to work as a partner with you doing create-analysis for your clients 3) hire me to help you invent
new software tools and services to support client creativity improvements 4) hire me to help you develop the ability to do create-analysis on your own for your clients.
What is the payback from create-analysis?

First, you become famous, exhibit your works, and women offer themselves sexually to you (also men to women, but that may not
please the women).
Second, you populate the world with works that speak to the world for you where you are not and after you die.
Third. you face down and wipe out all those things that squander your time, de-focus your efforts, and belittle your possible originality and impact.
Fourth, you show your children a way of being in the world that impacts generations alive after you die--a historic respect to lives
lived.
Fifth, you become detached from trend, fashion, career, selfishness, wealth, and consumer society-izations--you develop personal style
and poise.
Sixth, you grow into a historic audience of those yet unborn who will benefit from your work, that eases anxiety about meaning and
worth.
Seventh, a gratitude for being alive grows in and around you, put in the world by your works, that, like a beacon tells myriad others
this message:
"all is okay" "heaven was here all along, we never lost or left it, we just stopped noticing it".

Further Resources:
The book you are reading is ninth book I have written--all on various aspects of what I call the orthogonal disciplines that is, those capabilities that make people rise to the
top in traditional fields like medicine, business, law, physics, math, and the like. In prior research I defined 54 orthogonal disciplines that cut across all traditional ones and
determine who rises to their tops. I arranged interviews of 150 in each orthogonal field and used those results to build categorical models of the skills shared by such people-that is, by highly effective people, by highly educated people, by highly creative people, by people great at handling complexity, by people great at handling error, and so on
for the rest of the 54 orthogonals. You can contact me for purchase of any of the book below by email at : richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu.

Are You Creative? 64 Steps to Becoming Creative, 64 Steps to Creating


Are You Creative? 60 Models
Are You Educated? 64 Capabilities
Are You Effective? 96 Skills of the Worlds Most Effective People
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 35

A Science of Excellence: 54 Orthogonal Disciplines


Managing Complexity: 30 Methods
Taking Place, Creative Cities Theory and Practice: 288 City-fications
Knowledge Epitome: 64 New University Capabilities
Super Selling: 13 Principles, 26 Methods, 33 Cases
These books, ranging from 1000 to 3000 pages (at 400 words per page) are available for site licensing or for use during my Create-Analysis consults; they can be ordered from
me now, or later from Amazon.com.
Create-Analysis is a contract of once or twice per month half or full day consults, on site or via video connection, with teams implementing one of more of the 60 models of
creativity. Teams plus all the execs they report to must together participate--the teams to do the creativity models, the execs to clear the way for subcreations needed by each
creativity model.

The Errors of Creating Creativity


Error 1: Assuming that Environments Support or Create Creativity
What Makes Money Does Not Make Creativity
Why all this interest in environments, measuring how they support or foster or enable or create creativity? The interest in this comes from professor-consultants selling services to businesses. The easiest creativity service to sell is assessment--scientific-looking instruments that tell a business how poorly it is supporting creativity
with its current environments. Obviously, to the consultants, the firm needs major changes in its environments, which the consultant can advise the firm on, for a price.
Money is the force causing all this emphasis on environments that do something to creativity. What if environments do little, positive or negative, to affect creativity?
Creative people are the least affected by any environments that you already have, research has shown for generations now. Creators are precisely those obnoxious persons
who dislike their environments, are skeptical of all the contents of them, and do their best to ignore their effects. If you have no people who dislike your work environments
you have no creators. If you erect proper creativity-supporting environments, you can be sure it is your most creative people who will dislike them, rebel against them, and
isolate themselves from the influence of those environments. Who then likes and supports the creativity-supporting environments erected by professor-consultants? It is not
creators who like them but your run-of-the-mill ordinary employees who want to think better of themselves and want; therefore, to think of themselves as creators. Creativity-supporting environments will encourage these people to appear creative. Indeed, though not many professor-consultant programs for creativity have had their results
evaluated by third parties (companies, particularly sponsoring managers of them, do not relish having their accomplishments rather than launches evaluated for final
results, for good reason, usually), those few programs the results of which I have come across, appear to have significantly improved appearing creative. For many wanting
promotions, this is enough; for those rare ones wanting real creativity, that is disappointing.

Why Creativity-Promoting Environments Fail to Promote Creativity


Weakness one is the professor-consultants base their suggestions on studies of how existing businesses produce their existing low levels of creativity. Instead of studying hotbeds of creativity like major scientific labs or artist studios, they base their suggestions on data from the ho-hum creativity levels achieved by existing businesses. You get a
watered-down version of what some of your competitors already are doing, from the academic-consultants with valid and reliable creativity instruments. Weakness two
is, by paying attention to such consultants, you bypass paying attention to those in your workforce who are creative and need specific supports and to those in your workforce
who gave up creating years ago as male strutting dynamics, right wing market dynamics, monkey hierarchy dynamics, American theft and backbiting dynamics--some of the
basic cultures of business--undermined their aims and work. Weakness three is dealt with in passages below--the professor-consultants never fail to treat creativity as if it
were one thing, so they measure how environments support their one model, never measuring how the environments support dozens of other models of creativity not in the
repertoire of the consultant involved. Weakness four, creativity, even one model of it, has stages and the environment that supports well one stage necessarily hinders other
stages because those other stages need rather opposite things. Real studies of product development teams by Gallegher (LEA, 1990, Intellectual Teamwork) showed the teams
needed isolation during concept development but needed connection during resource scrounging phases later in development. Environments that support concept development hinder resource scrounging and vice versa. Weakness five, mental processes, we all have, and cannot consciously control, like habituation, mean that environments that
thrill us today, bore us in six months. No vendor of environments or knowledge work systems wants to admit you will have to buy something new six months later just
to keep present levels of minimal creative performance. Weakness six, some powerful models of creativity insist that you have to first create creators, that is, people living
creative styles of life, then you have them create. Environments that create creators have to be very very kinky and unusual, nothing like businesses at all. If you erect
environments to create in you are not, by them, going to get any creators made. You end up with non-creative people trying to create using modest environment crutches.
If you erect environments to create creators they are going to be so far from usual business environments that you have to erect special corporations and legal mechanisms,
totally separating these people from employees as usual. Trying to, from one environment, get both the creation of creators and the creation of products and service inventions is a fools game that flouts research showing these two need distinct types of support. Environments that create creators do not create creations, and vice versa.

If You Do Not Erect Special Environments What Do You Do to Foster More Creativity?
Okay, so environments do not make people or groups of people creative. What is the alternative? What can we do?
The rest of this book answers this in some great detail. A few salient items can be given here. For one thing, anyone operating within the five cultures of business, presented
above in this book, stops their own creativity as well as the creativity of those around them. People operating outside the five cultures of business can be creative by using
those five cultures as tools, rather than being those cultures as their personal or corporate identity. It is a matter of learning to have that is manage, what you used to
be, as all psychic growth involves (Kegans book on self development). For another thing, you can clean up the social, political, economic messes left behind by creators
already in your midst who are being drummed out of your organization by people angry at them defying the culture of your group and its gender and nation. For another
thing, you can design specific supports for each phase of creativity and learn the hard art of delivering those supports not by omni-present environments (an expensive inventory that violate just-in-time principles) but by just-in-time event delivery systems that deliver the type, amount, and version of a needed support exactly when and where
needed to whom it is needed. Call this Just-in-Time creativity support delivery, replacing expensive environment inventories with faster, leaner, more targeted spot delivery
systems. In this way a total quality way of delivering creativity supports outperforms fat static inventory environment ways of delivering similar services. There are many
more items of this sort dealt with in the rest of this book, below.

Error 2: The Disaster of Assuming that Creativity is One Thing


Nearly All Consultants from Major Universities and Think Tanks Make This Mistake
I do not know why. Perhaps it is for as simple a reason as assuming one model of what creativity is, is enough to publish articles in journals, enough to get tenure, and enough
to set up lucrative consults--why bother with truths not needed for major wealth and lifestyle improvements? Another possible reason for this mistake is companies that purchase creativity consults from creativity consultants resist complexity--keep it simple--is their theme. Why mess with plural diverse things when you can get promoted for single homogeneous things? So from the supplier side and from the client side there are powerful motives for treating creativity as if it were one thing. There is, after all, one
word for it.

A Demonstration--Using the Dumbest Simplest Model of Creativity and Showing How Optimizing Work
Environments and Systems for Supporting It is Frustrated by Trade-Offs
If we take the most creative process known--the one that created the most creative thing we know of in the universe--us--that is, the process called natural selection by
Charles Darwin, and simplify it almost to comical levels by treating it as four primary functions of creating--generating variants, combining variants, selecting variants, reproducing variants that survive throughout entire populations--we can examine how creativity modelled in this simple way interacts with environments that support it.
Below is a table that presents four particular environment supports, one for each of the four Darwinian functions of creating in my model. As you go across the rows, for each
such support, you find how that support of one function, harms attainment of the other three, except for the last row, the support for reproducing variants--that support does not
affect achieving the other functions one way or another. In other words, each of the first three supports makes it easier to do one creativity function but harder to do three others, while the last support makes it easier to do one creativity function and does not affect the doing of the other three functions.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 36

Even using this extremely simplified model of creating, and equally simple and obvious environment supports for key creativity functions, we get a situation where most environment supports for creativity, help one function but by hindering three other functions. A manager or leader who implemented these supports, a consultant who suggested
these supports, would be hurting creativity overall. The helping of one function within creativity, if that was all they looked at, would blind them to the overall harm their
helps and supports were creating. Only when the effects of an environment support on all creativity functions in the model are assessed, do we know whether it supports creativity.
This is the small, micro-version, of a much bigger argument. Consider something else--supports that positively affect, not one creativity function but all of them--supposing
such supports are possible. Now these supports support all creativity functions of one model of creativity. Suppose there are other models having different functions that, in
the end, achieve creativity. What is the chance that those same supports support the majority of all those new functions? What is the chance that those same supports support
even a few of those new functions? What is the likelihood that those supports will actually positively hinder achieving several or many of those functions from the other models of creativity?

A Summary of the Problem


Here is the summary in listed points:
1) environment changes that support any one function of one creativity model seldom support other functions and usually hinder more functions than they support in that model
2) environment changes that support a majority of functions in one model of creativity seldom support many functions in other models of creativity and usually hinder more functions in
them than they support:

--other models of creativity that are present in a workplace but not recognized by consultants and managers there
--other models of creativity more powerful for this firm than the models recognized and promoted there but not now implemented there.

To devise environment changes that, overall, support creativity more than hinder it, requires nearly an act of genius. There are vanishingly few executives and consultants up
to this task. Since looking creative long enough to get promoted is enough for most managers in existing business subcultures--male, monkey, capitalist, etc.--failing to
achieve any actual creativity is perhaps not a central problem. It is only a problem for those few in business who must have creativity in order to survive or prosper.

What is the Likelihood that Creativity is One Thing


We all get the idea that creating is one basic process because we all use the same one word for it, namely, creativity. Lets consider creative bagels, creative ladies handbags,
creative biotech viruses, creative experimental designs for detecting particles to confirm or disconfirm string theory in physics. Is there one creative process used for these?
Are there several distinct creative processes used for these? How could ordinary people like us figure out the answer to these questions? Well, are the people in the processes
of creating these distinct things similar? Are the tools they use similar? Are the lengths of time of their processes similar? Are the kinds of thinking involved similar? The
issue is, as we all guess, to find similarities such as these, we will have to become very very abstract, so abstract that though we find something similar among their processes, it is so denuded of concretion and specificity as to be practically useless for actually achieving creativity in any real circumstance.
It is far more likely that the extreme diversity of what people create indicates there are some great differences in how they think and work to achieve them. Indeed, tens of
thousands of expert systems, built in the 1980s and 1990s worldwide in every type of business, that put into software form some, but not all, of the rules of design and decision
of many of the worlds most creative designers, showed a domain-dependent set of rules of design and a domain-independent set of rules. That is evidence that some environment changes can end up supporting multiple models of creating but not necessarily without doing more harm to creating with them than help, because changes that help the
domain-independent parts may be outweighed by the harms those very changes cause in the domain-dependent parts. We can achieve changes that help plural models of creating but not without, quite probably, harming them more than they help them (the domain dependent parts of creating tend to be larger than the domain independent parts, as
the above expert system building movement showed).

Four Environment Changes that Support Creating in One Way, Each, But Hinder it in Three Other Ways, Each
Plus One Change that Supports One Function of Creating without Affecting Three Other Functions
combine variants

select variants

reproduce variants

XXXX

this sort of person makes enemies


for lunch daily = little or no combining of ideas with others

managers and leaders will be


biased against contributions/ideas
from this source as he or she is
obnoxious and uncooperative with
others

the kind of careful explaining and


selling of ideas to others that promotion of an accepted idea requires
is anathema to this sort of person

common facilities-coffee
stations,
meeting
rooms,
lunch
facilities,
events, conferences,
net forums--shared
by diverse professions, projects, and
persons

exposure to others constantly


erodes uniqueness of value and
viewpoint and constant interaction
with others de-focusses effort and
reduces intensity of realization of
nascent ideas

XXXX

commonality among diverse parts


and professions at work speeds up
and makes easy later consensus on
which variants are interesting to
all--however, ideas that all celebrate, are often influenced by
higher ups and the career aspirations causing people to please
them, as well as crowd and trend
phenomena

commonality among diverse parts


and professions makes reproducing
selected variants much easier and
faster and lower in costs; however
the cost of it doing that is pressure
to select popular variants, or easyto-understand ones, or ones that do
not require much discussion or
debate = long term reduced uniqueness of ideas reproduced

select
variants

a committee of the
most brilliant and far
sighted people, in
and outside the firm
we can get plus a
committee of the
most practical and
market savvy people
in and outside the
firm--let them compete to nominate
variants and justify
ones they nominate

selection via rigorous debates


between
committees
having
entirely different viewpoints/criteria, overtime causes the whole process of generating and combining
variants to split into factions corresponding to and appealing to one or
the other of the debating selection
committees = not blends of criteria
(far sighted ideas versus realizable
in markets) but alternations among
them as political forces and histories of past success sway resource
behind one or the other selector
committee

combining a variant great in terms


of far sighted unique value (revolutionary potential) with a variant
great in terms of appeal to existing
markets and those who must implement ideas, is very hard mental,
emotional, and social work--the
most likely result is watering down
traits supporting one virtue in order
to get in some traits that foster the
other virtue; in sum, combining is
undermined by having contending
evaluation criteria and committees, because the tendency is to
delay and let the hard work, combining, be done by the two selector
committees, so those responsible
for combining do not have to do the
hard part themselves

XXXX

doing selection via contending


committees representing different
views and values means the selector committee that is most valuing
what makes an idea easy and fast to
implement is popular with the
entire machinery that reproduces
the idea throughout a firm and
industry--the other selector committee becomes the kiss of death
and its hard to implement ideas are
lobbied against by every means
available, and avoided, by the powerful means, of letting hard implementations kill a few of them off,
proving that the selector committee
should never have selected them

reproduce
variants

a cascade of events,
announcing
new
selected ideas/products, to all levels of
the implementation
machinery, comparing the idea to nearest matching past
ones and to most
recently
implemented ones

this method of reproducing a variant idea does not affect generating


variants strongly one way or
another

this method of reproducing a variant idea does not affect generating


variants strongly one way or
another

this method of reproducing a variant idea does not affect generating


variants strongly one way or
another

XXXX

Creativity
Functions

Environment Item
to Support the Creativity Function in
the First Column at
Left

generate
variants

hire argumentative
loners who never go
with the flow and
follow crowds or
trends

combine
variants

generate variants

Doing Something About The Above--Quality Function Deployment and Its House of Qualitys Roof
Business people are very familiar with quality function deployment and policy deployment--two major quality methods. One is vertical, in two months each year, deploying
nominated policies down a hierarchy and collecting up required changes to achieve those nominated policies; the other is horizontal, in two months each year, deploying
across adjacent business functions/departments particular customer requirements and putting in place systems to insure that local views and trade-offs do not distort into irrelevance particular requirements that customers have as schedule, budget, politics and other realities and pressures handle requirements passed from prior functions to them.
They both use the same data format--a so-called House of Quality, which has a roof where interactions between columns are marked and measured for strength. The columns,
of things that interact, can be customer requirements--achieving one can make it harder to achieve some others, achieving one can make it easier to achieve some others. This
same data format--this roof, called an interaction matrix suggests itself for implementations of any one quality model and for implementations of several different quality
models. In the former case, the roofs columns are functions within one quality model; in the latter, the roofs columns are different quality models themselves. The roof in
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 37

the former case, shows how achieving one quality function in the model helps or hinders achieving other functions in the model; the roof in the latter case, shows how achieving one quality model helps or hinders achieving others. I am suggesting using this interaction matrix roof in quality and policy deployment for creativity--showing how
achieving one function, within a particular model of creativity, helps and hinders achieving other functions within that same model, and how achieving one model of creativity
helps or hinders achieving other models of creativity.

Who to Chastise
Eliminate any consultant presenting one creativity model who does not build an interaction matrix of how functions in that model interact when changes to support any of
them are made (that is, how achieving one function helps or hinders achieving others). Eliminate any consultant presenting one creativity model who does not build an interaction matrix of how achieving that models functions helps and hinders achieving functions in the other creativity models extant at the workplace though not assessed or recognized by the consultant. Eliminate any consultant presenting one creativity model who does not build interaction matrices of how achieving that models functions helps
and hinders achieving functions in other creativity models not extant at the firm but of more power than the ones extant there (and hence more important for achieving that the
model the consultant is using and applying). Re-educate as well managers who omit these interaction matrices.

Error 3: The Disaster of Missing Trade-Offs Between More Creativity and More Other Things That Your Business Needs
You can obtain more creativity in your business. You can do this by changing some things while not changing others. However, if you get more creativity, in most real cases,
it comes at a cost, of getting less of some other important things that you may need more than you need more creativity--effectiveness, efficiency, quality of general implementation, quality of implementation of particular goals and systems, excellence of executing goals in general. Yes, you can get much more creativity than you now have, but,
can you afford the costs?

The Career System And the Creativity Noise It Generates


Everyone in your organization who is ambitious wants the attention of higher ups. By doing their assigned role well they will not get such attention. Most higher ups have a
policy of not rewarding or noticing too much people doing their jobs well, because if too much reward and attention is given to such people, it will make it, over time, too
expensive to just get needed levels of performance. If people think doing their job well is normal for all in the organization then special pay and perks and other rewards
will not be needed to get excellent performance. Because of belief in this principle, most higher ups, do not notice and reward people who do their job excellently. As a
result, everyone who wants special attention, special promotion, special resources from higher ups, has to turn, away from doing their own jobs excellently, and towards
being creative. Creativity gets the attention of higher ups. It is something they can wheel around and show to their own higher ups, the CEO, or the board of directors,
or customers, or the media to enhance their repute and future career. This is the situation that causes creativity noise, generated by and inside the career system of firms, that
distracts everyone in the firm from doing their own jobs excellently. The more creativity a corporation has, the less excellence of doing of ordinary jobs it has. More creativity is usually bought and paid for by less excellence of execution of ordinary job tasks. Creativity is not free.
Bruce Willis, in an interview at the Actors Studio, in Manhattan, when asked, said the thing he most wanted in life but was not getting was--competence. That is a cry for
excellent doing of ones own job, that we all have, as slop and bad attitude infest all the ordinary people and jobs around us that we depend on in daily life. Anglo cultures
worship celebrity and wealth, eroding morale for lives lacking celebrity and wealth, and the media greatly intensify this by covering celebrity and wealth not the happinesses
of people lacking celebrity and wealth. Such societies are split--with everyone stuck in some non-celebrity non-wealth-producing job and longing for fame and riches, while
thusly stuck. The result is a surly, bitter, nasty attitude and style with which all ordinary jobs in the society are done.
Tourists to Japan are most shocked, not by the temples and Buddha statues, the 1200 year old tablets, and 1500 year old statues, the tiny winding streets filled with kimono
clad maiko and geishas. What most draws their attention during their tours of Japan is the buoyancy, joie de vivre, happy elan of all ordinary part-time workers in restaurants
and ice cream parlors, in hotels and small shops, in street vendors and fast food outlets. The staff seem to lack all management, conversing among each other to decide things,
smiling and laughing while they work, each helping out the others when they get overloaded. Jobs that one person, surly and bitter, does with open resentment and nastiness
in the West, are done by two or three people, laughing together in Japan. Japan is a society that worships happiness in ordinary daily life, not happiness from fame and riches.
As a result, most Japanese do not aspire to fame or wealth--half as many in cross-national surveys as in Western, particularly, anglo cultures. This means people are not hating
their dumb job while doing it and not hating their anonymous life while living it, unlike ordinary people in the US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and other anglo cultures.
The creativity noise from career systems is muted or missing in Asian societies like Japan and in European societies like Germany, Italy and France.

Lust for Creativity, Love of Creativity, and Quotidian Creativity


If the drive for creativity in your self and business comes from disliking your life now and its lack of fame and wealth, then you are most likely to end up with the noise of creativity from your career systems--with everyone all the time degrading their current job in a lust for more creativity as a route to fame and fortune. If, to the contrary, you
want more creativity because your present work is already rather creative and worth doing, then you may end up with some serious useful creativity that does not become distracting noise everywhere in the career systems of your firm.
New venture businesses are founded for all sorts of reasons. Research has found that almost half of them are founded to allow their founders to achieve something psychological that they want--freedom from bosses, ability to abuse others, lording power over others, and the like. Another good portion of all business ventures are founded because
some people love working together and try to invent some product they can make money from in order to pay for continuing to work together (Hewlet and Packard were of
this sort along with many others). Some other ventures start with the promise of a product (Woz and Jobs in Apple in the garage--the personal computer idea). Medium size
and large businesses, however, are quite different. Their reason for being is execution of huge obligations to millions of customers. Meeting those existing obligations is not
primarily a matter of creativity and its not served well by lots of creativity. Great execution of rather mundane jobs is what is needed to meet such obligations well and satisfy
greatly their customers. So any medium or large size business that gets distracted by creativity from its career system or elsewhere, runs the risk of not meeting well its obligations to millions of customers. This can quickly become a matter of continued survival.

Interaction Matrices for Creativity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Excellence of Execution


The solution here, as with other errors, is an interaction matrix so the rows, tactics that foster more creativity, and the effects of those rows on other values like efficiency,
effectiveness, and excellence of executing existing work routines, can be spotted. That way you can know how much you are hurting other values when you are bolstering
creativity in some particular ways.

Error 4: Slighting or Ignoring the Creativity of Surviving as a Business


Some CEOs and other business leaders are quite offended by all the noise calling for creativity everywhere all the time in modern businesses. Many of these leaders have carried the burden of immense organizations and tens of thousands of families waiting for paychecks, facing down bankruptcy, precipitous sales declines, and other threats of
non-existence. Keeping a business going requires constant adjustment, constant dodging, constant re-invention, constant incorporation of new markets and systems and infrastructures, constant re-configuring to handle new laws. None of these actions and adjustments, by themselves, may look all that creative. The amount of novelty in them
may be quite small when viewed objectively or against the background of historic levels of creative invention--Einstein, Darwin, and the rest. However, it offends these leaders when people want to add creativity to businesses--because, from the viewpoint of these business leaders, making a business survive another ten years is itself a creative
feat, even if all the little steps and tactics that that involves do not rise to the level of true creations by themselves. Keeping on doing x in a turbulent environment is a kind
of creativity, these leaders think--a type that deserves more recognition and respect.
This is the zazen model of creativity. You sit, legs crossed, or on a chair, for two hours or so at a stretch and do nothing except count breaths, in and out, in and out, while
watching your own mind at work, generating worry after worry. To do this you have to practice letting go of the power of your own thoughts to get you to do things--you have
to let go when the thought go to the bathroom comes, when the thought I forgot to phone Jim comes, when the thought I can restart this meditation tonight, now I should
get busy comes. You practice, hour after hour, seeing but ignoring your own worries and thoughts. You develop the skill, the power, to not follow your own mind and its
thought contents. Getting a business to survive in a turbulent environment of churning little changes all around you daily, is this zazen ability to will one thing--that the business go on, while adapting a dozen things a day to slight new circumstances or possible coming new circumstances. CEOs applaud this description whenever I give it in
speeches. This image is a big part of how they see themselves--willing one thing where everyone around them is distracted, while adapting furiously all the smaller things to
allow one thing functions to keep functioning to keep the business alive. It is this paradox--doing one thing while revising everything that one things doing consists of.

Doing One Thing While Revising How All of its Functions Are Done
I heard a metaphor for this one day--build a snowman out of snow, then rebuild it out of sand, then rebuild it out of ice cream, then rebuild it out of chairs, then rebuild it out
of professors, then rebuild it out of chattering sets of false teeth, then rebuild it out of DNA, then rebuild it out of dancing robotic caterpillars, and on and on. It is this combination of fanatic kept focus and fanatic change of the materials, the details of realizing that focus, that CEOs identify with as their jobs. Gerstner, the tobacco chairman who
saved IBM, found that IBM had lost both of these--it no longer was focussed on who it was and it no longer was adapting furiously as new infrastructures came along. The
PCs emergence made IBM think its focus was mainframes, not computational service delivery. IBM had started out delivering computational services and mainframes had
been a tool for doing that. The IBM 360 had been so successful a tool that IBM began to see its mission not as delivering computational services but as delivering IBM mainframes. When the PC emerged, that was nothing but threat to mainframes. If, however, IBM had seen the PC as merely a new tool for delivering computational services, it

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 38

would not have defended mainframes, but rather embraced a new tool, the PC, for delivering its mission of computational services. Gerstner made IBM go back to its original more abstract mission--delivering computation services--and he restructured IBM to furiously update means and methods as IBMs environments changed with things like
cellular devices and personal computing.
The creativity of Gerstner was the creativity of finding the firms original abstract focus and organizing for the furious updating of means needed to keep that focus going. He
made a concrete thing--the mainframe--that had become the focus, into a means of a more abstract focus.
Jack Welch, a Ph.d. in chemistry, was abstract. He saw that GE had become its concrete means, and lost its abstract original understanding of its identity. It saw itself as a
conglomerate of diverse businesses, hindered by that diversity in many ways though helped in some by synergies. Welch saw GE as a bank, taxed at rates below real banks.
He saw GE as buying and selling companies, not products. He re-organized GE and all its systems to buy and sell companies well, for a profit. His more abstract image of
the firm outperformed remarkably in financial returns GEs more concrete understanding of itself as a conglomerate.
Losing ends for successful concrete means, is very common and much creativity in business, and elsewhere, results from recovering abstract ends that have been lost as success of a means caused the people involved to identify that means as their end.

The Eternal Temptation--Means Tempting to Become Ends


IBM, as we all know, is not the only firm to gradually mistake a successful means for its end. Kodak and Xerox made the same mistake. Kodaks mission was photographing
the world, but that turned it into a film company, over decades of success selling film. It forgot to photograph the world and when digital ways to do that appeared, Kodak
could not admit its film revenue streams were dinosaurs waiting to die. Xerox copied the documents of the world but could not admit that digital technologies would replace
paper entirely. It could not admit its paper handling revenue streams were dinosaurs waiting to die. In all three cases, and thousands more, companies took a successful
means to an original end as their new end, wedding themselves to a means because it had produced so much money for them. This supplanting of an abstract end by a concrete means, put the survival of the firm in jeopardy.
Much of the creativity of leadership is recovering abstract ends from concrete means that have been mistaken for them over time, success bribing people into attachment to
means that work now, forgetting the ends those means are for and forgetting that other means are already arising that will supplant current ones, painfully if you hold onto past
means.

The Zazen Creativity of Furious Adaptation to Preserve an Abstract Unchanging End


Companies tend to want to look creative and have creativity, for unclear reasons (probably meaning that the career system is generating creativity noise because people lust for
fame and wealth and the company fosters that lust) while neglecting the zazen creativity of surviving. Creativity can be very uncreative in this sense. Creativity can be
deadly. If your consultant of the moment worships creativity, if your CEO of the moment worships it, beware. They may kill the entire enterprise while pursuing all sorts of
little creativities here and there.

The Creativity of Destruction and the Creativity of Cannibalism


Schumpter, the economist, praised capitalisms creative destruction--new means replacing old means, new ends replacing old ends. Why is it then, that the analog to digital
technology transition, killed off so many famous large firms? In a large part the explanation is men--they shun emotion, are bad at recognizing and using it. And, importantly,
they run all the large businesses of the world (approximately). Since hard decisions, cannot be made by reason alone, people bad at emotion are bad at deciding hard things.
Men are genetically inferior to women at making the hardest decisions in business--the gut wrenching ones. The analog-digital decision was simply never made by many
firms--they got so much money every year from their old analog stuff that they never got serious about their baby nascent digital stuff--till too late. The winners were those
firms like Canon, not Kodak and Xerox, who competed with themselves, letting their fully funded analog and fully funded digital arms compete to the death. Canon could do
that because the job security of both its analog and digital employees was guaranteed. In the US, such competition with self fails because the employees have no job security-if their arm loses, they lose their jobs. In Canon the winning arm employs the workers of the losing arm--hence, all work to make the transition without fear.
What is this Canon-like creativity of structuring jobs so that the new and the old, when they compete, are not holding back because of job security fears? This is the creativity
of care--of the privileged and elite in society taking responsibility for all members in the society. In anglo cultures, let the poor be damned. Hitler rose to power in Germany,
like Bismark, in part, because of new generous social welfare systems his party put in place. In anglo cultures welfare is a dirty word--all should be rich and talented like
me! Of course I had parents, health care, and a decent school system, but in capitalism even those lacking parents, healthcare, and education can compete equally with all others! Americans are proud of their innovativeness while Europeans and Asians mock it--it is easy to be innovative and rich by condemning 1/6th of your own people to no parents, no health, no schools. Any elite that does not take responsibility for all members of its society can look innovative and make changes easily! The hard job is being
innovative while caring for the lowest 1/6th of ones own population! The latter is creative, the former, being innovative while ruining the lives of 1/6th your own population,
is distinctly un-creative creativity.

Error 5: Missing When Being Creative is Not Very Creative


Thomas Edison inventing light bulbs is a good example--experimental material 9998, nothing, material 9999, nothing, material 10,000, bingo! Edison went through testing
approximately 10,000 materials before he found one that worked, that met his criteria of success. Think carefully about that simple fact. If you were a modern consultant,
evaluating Edison and his work environment for conditions that support creativity you would have found nearly nothing. He was stuck in a rut of testing materials, rather
blindly, one after another. Nothing about one day looked more creative than any other day of this long stream of testing. In other words, if we describe his work, most of
his most creative work, was not at all creative in feel or appearance. This is a very important, though simple, fact. Think about it carefully.
In our modern world we have professors in creativity with social science instruments surveys scales qualitative research forms who go about measuring how well
work environments support creativity. Edison is just about, in quantity and quality, the most creative single individual we know and most of his work was not at all creative-it was filled with long long long streams of boring repetition. Any modern consultant evaluating his environments would have declared them inadequate in supporting creativity yet, in them, he managed to achieve more creativity than our modern more creative work environments. Someone is wrong. Someone is not thinking clearly--and
it is not Edison.
The publish or perish generation of scholars, now occupying senior positions in all academic departments of leading US universities, have deployed colleague-approved methods to come up with, in not a few cases, useless findings. That is bad enough--concentrating on norms of what good methods are so much that you learn to accept useless
results. But something far worse has developed. The very idea of environments that support and creativity have been lost in fuzzy thinking and modern social science
habits. In addition to treating creativity as if it were one thing not 60 things, in addition to missing trade-offs between different approaches to creativity and between being creative and doing other important functions of being in business, people are measuring how well environments support creativity without realistic models of what being creative actually entails--Edison testing material 8888, 8889, 8890, 8891, and on and on. Most of Edisons work was not creative in either feel or appearance, and most modern
instruments by consultants would declare, therefore, his environment of work inadequate as a support for creating. If the worlds most creative single man achieved his
feats using such a non-supportive work environment, then perhaps work environment is not all that relevant to creative people--perhaps that is a part, a big part, of why and
how they manage to create!!! Indeed, creative thinking is a tiny part of most creation processes and not always the key to the process creative overall outcome. Environments
that support creative thinking are not supporting being creative in toto.

Error 6: Stifling Creativity Using Creative Environments


Most organizations are hierarchies of seniority, authority, scope, rank, status, perks, pay, access to knowledge and the like. The people on the top get lots of resources and
rewards; the people at bottom get little. Career paths point upward, for the most part. Most organizations are this way not because this way works well or is great but because
most organizations are controlled by and designed by and built by male monkeys of our species, humans. Males like ranks and hierarchy--hormones at work--a sign on every
door of nearly every modern organization, unfortunately.
Now if I make one rank layer in an organization configured thusly supportive of creative activity so that the layer underneath it, indeed, is filled with creativity, then the third
layer, underneath the layer with creativity activity all over it, is ruined--its potential for creativity is destroyed. Why? Because creativity in a layer creates fluidity, flux,
change, surprising leaps that constitute the environment of the layer below--if your context is in inconsistent, continual, irregular flux, what you judge creative changes continually, so that things creative last week look problematic and uncreative this week. In this way creative work environments all too often stifle creativity, not of the layer
directly under them, but of the layers, below that one layer. So you get a layer of creativity and layers of non-creativity under that. Why?
Creativity involves delivering inventive, novel, unusual, unexpected, great performing functions or somethings as viewed by some criteria. If the viewers and/or their criteria
are not stable then what one offers up as creative will, at some times be judged creative and at other times, when other views or persons are evaluating, be judged as not
creative. Creativity is a social judgement rendered on some body of work and a certain stability of criteria and appliers of those criteria are needed for lots of effort and trials
and failed efforts to cumulate in something judged creative. Changes of management, changes of budget, changes of organization, changes of strategy can radically change
what is creative to accomplish in large organizations. When one layer, in particular, as mentioned above, is made creative via environments around it, that creativity
often includes changes--of management, budget, organization, and strategy, making creativity impossible for layers beneath. So one layers creativity is often bought by ruining the creativity possibilities of layers below. In this way 30 people can be creative at a cost of hundreds of others, below, never being able to create.

Error 7: Excepting, Containing, Bounding Creativity


The encouragement of creativity, because it un-organizes what organizations are there to do, violates fundamentally, not peripherally, all that the organization is and stands for.
It is culturally hard to maintain such a counter-culture within a dominant culture. All too often creative special zones or groups or sub-organizations are gradually eroded to
fit in with the rest of the organization, gradually importing bureaucracy and conformisms to the exceptional creative zone group. All too often creative special zones
become anti-cultures hating and mocking the larger cultures that fund them--Xerox PARC mocking corporate East Coast headquarters for example. For these and related reasons, the excepting, containment, bound it in a safe area, approaches to creating creativity often fail, slowly and inevitably.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered
Page 39
nala

Japan was judged the most innovative economy by OECD statisticians, and the Economist Intelligence Unit, using patents per capita as their principal measure. Japan was
also judged the environment least conducive to innovation and creativity, in terms of financial, telecommunications, schooling, and management infrastructures. Paradoxically the worlds most innovative society is the one with the overall environments least conducive to creativity. What goes on here? What explains this? It looks, on the surface, like innovation fostering environments under-perform innovation-hindering environments in fostering innovation. This certainly raises questions about Harvard research
on environments to support creating.
Japan has taken the opposite approach to excepting and containing creativity in special zones. Japan has this image of a full socially rich human community, from birth to
death, doing corporations as part of their passage through life. This full community, sharing one organization identity, before employment, during employment, and during
retirement, seeks to survive in a nation without natural resources, therefore, forced to depend on mind and knowledge and style. This community has basically only one
resource--their collective minds. How can our community-corporation use more of the mentality its people have and develop the mentality of our people beyond what other
nations achieve? This is the primary context within which Japanese creativity fostering efforts take place. Is this the primary context within which your nations and firms
creativity fostering efforts take place? Probably not.
Japan has developed certain tools and traditions for leveraging entire workforces and their mental ability. Quality function and policy deployment methods, from total quality,
were literally entire-workforce mind-using campaigns. Suggestion systems, the lowest level of total quality, are mobilizations of each workers brain power for small scale
local improvements in work systems. Unlike suggestion systems in the West, the suggestions in Japan are executed within weeks by those proposing them, assisted by general services--in the West suggestions tend to get put, as low priorities, in with regular work orders, so they end up postponed endlessly (until the need to do them passes
away). I was in Matsushita Electric when it launched its entire workforce in inventing robots, with a central product group evaluating all the proposals and productizing the
best few of them. I was in Sekisui Chemical when it taught an entire workforce of tens of thousands basic correlational statistics analysis in an intense 18 month campaign. I
was in Fuji Xerox when it got 1200 workgroups a year doing graduate Ph.D. level dissertation statistics analysis as part of their regular annual quality team work assignments.
By mobilizing everyone in the organization, instead of elite, special, envied parts, to upgrade to more scientific bases of thinking and working, Japan manages to out patent
more innovative cultures and nations and individuals in the US, England, and other nations. Being innovative looking, as a nation or person, for example as Americans
are, underperforms doing innovation without looking like it, as Japan does. Japans ability to do actual things instead of merely achieving looking like things comes from a
sincerity of how the career system in Japan does less distorting. That tame-ness to the career system in Japan comes from the fundamental viewpoint of seeing a full socially
rich human community--the company--that does everything in the company. When CEOs do not rip off workforces, when leading managers with hot projects do not leap to
work for competitors, when least educated workers are relentlessly trained till they can do graduate Ph.D. levels of statistical analysis of work problems--everyone in small
increments pulls in innovation directions. There is much more on this whole workforce approach to creativity fostering later in this book.

Error 8: Toys for Boys, Tools for Fools


Money distorts truth. One distortion is the selling of tools for creativity. Males, controlled by hormones from glands that swing between their legs, all their lives seek toys-devices, cars, planes, machines, computers, and people who resemble such devices. Businesses, particularly systems companies, have known for decades that men are susceptible to pitches for new and better toys. There are status and monkey hierarchy dynamics within the male hormones that keep this going. My toy is newer than your toy. My
toy has three functions missing in your toy. My toy is longer and wider and redder and more pleasurable than his toy.
In this context, it is not at all surprising that professor-consultants and others, try to sell tools for creativity. Again, some Harvard professors, ever on the edge when it
comes to seeking money from their work, since knowledge fails to satisfy them, lead the charge, with leading sets of tools for creativity, and toys for creative thought. There
are problems with this.
First, and most obviously, when testing light bulb material 8,731 what creative tool or toy did Thomas Alvin Edison need? Most of doing creativity is hard slog detailed pushing when others would give up from boredom and too much accumulated failure. What tools and toys make that hard slog groovy? Enough said! Second, the drive for tools
and toys is a hormonal one, from glands between legs not minds on top of necks. Giving in to your glands never was a viable business strategy or decision. Third, actual
processes of creating are long and composed of extremely different sorts of thinking and work--tools for it all, toys for it all--are, on a purely conceptual basis, ridiculous.
Which part of the process needs tools or toys? Even if tools and toys were important, you would need quite different ones for the different types of work in the different parts
of actual creation processes. Fourth, much research shows that creators, all of them, reach giant creative accomplishments by building up lots of tiny quotidian inventions
they make in work and life style, over years of creating a creative style of life. It is the practice of continual inventing of setting up themselves in creative lives that prepares
them to create giant innovations. If you supplant them developing these inventions themselves with some vendor selling them tools the vendor invented, you stunt the practice of inventing work, and the pride of having ones own invented creative style of work and life, that makes creators create. Tools from the outside short circuit the creators
own invention of his or her own tools, needed as preparation for doing major creations later. Fifth, the market for tools and toys, is unbrilliant and dishonest people--people
wanting an easy way to create--buy a tool and automatically the tool makes my thinking more creative without me having to change me. People dumb and lazy enough
to buy into that proposition are too stupid and lazy to create anything, no matter what tools one ever gives them. The creative thing to do with such people is give them to
ones competitors so they can lower productivity and creativity there instead in your organization.

Error 9: The Mental Illness Illusion--Same Input, Different Outputs


Trying to get creativity by doing anything easy and convenient, trying to get creativity by environments that make it easy or convenient, trying to buy tools that make creating
easy or convenient--these are signs of mental illness. What these efforts amount to is this--I want to be me into the future, I want to be the same person later that I am now, I
want to get far more creativity out of me while staying the me I am now. This is the famous mental illness sign of expecting different outputs from the same inputs.
If you want to get far more creativity out of you than you now get, you are going to have to intimately, emotionally, cognitively perform major changes in who you are and
how you operate and identify yourself in this world. If you think any tool or environment or method is going to take the same not-so-creative you that you are now and get a
lot of creativity out of it--you are both a fool and mentally ill. Similar inputs are going to produce similar outputs--for different outputs the inputs are going to have to be very
different.

Error 10: Missing Infrastructure-Based Immense Innovations


You can change non-creative parts of yourself and of your group and get, as a result, hugely creative outcomes. This paradox is amazing but true. It takes a sort of zazen attitude of standing outside your own mind and how your own mind works. It takes standing outside all the five cultures of business and seeing them from a removed standpoint.
It is an approach natural to cultures foreign to the West and to modernity--Japan has it, without effort, merely by being non-Western and non-modern in many ways. This is
the centrality of the quotidian for achieving great levels of creativity. Take the most repeated, the most common, the most obvious, the most mundane aspects of mind and
work and multiply the productivity in them by factors like 10 or 100. The result is often immense creativity--without other factors being changed.
What makes this route to creating hard, and commonly overlooked, is the obviousness and mundanity of the aspects of us and work that are involved in it. Things so common
and well known that we never think about them and certainly never imagine doing them differently are involved here. I have entire books on this and do not want to repeat
their contents here. Instead I suggest here a few items that suffice to establish my point--that by looking for creativity from big, impressive, innovative-looking, creativeseeming approaches or things you might miss much greater creativity from changing small, unimpressive, mundane, boring-looking parts of daily thought and life.
Consider cognitive list limits--mentioned in the Preface of this book--the number of items people commonly consider during the hundreds of small decisions they make all
during each day. Consider Germans average over 7 items per list during each day, and Americans averaging just over 3 items per list. With Germans considering slightly
over twice as many alternatives, when choosing what to eat, when suggesting weekend activities, when considering causes of a cough, when suggesting ways to stop a business problem--they are all likely to hit on alternatives better than Americans doing the same thing all day do. Over weeks tens of thousands of little decisions get slightly better made by Germans, considering on average, more alternatives, necessarily from wider domains (though possibly only slightly so). Now, consider some program that trains
an entire management force or workforce to double its cognitive list limit or triple it. Consider an American firm that moves from slightly over 3 to slightly over 12 items per
each listing, all during each day. Suddenly all sorts of mundane choices and alternatives include unusual associations and possibilities. Every little decision gets made
slightly better in alternatives considered. Each mundane decision includes consideration of slightly unusual and remote possibilities. A tiny increment of innovativity enters
hundreds of daily decisions. Added up over weeks and months, remarkable creations begin to emerge, as natural and products of how we now think.
Consider tools that vastly expand cognitive list limits--fractal concept models, such as some of the figures in this book. Instead of ten or twelve alternatives being looked at for
decisions each day, 64 or 128 or 256 alternatives, organized in groups of four, and well ordered, are considered. Suddenly you are operating at ten or twenty times as much
detail and as much comprehensive wide coverage as others are. Multiply this times dozens of models and decisions a day, and you get immense innovations where others get
plodding slight changes from the present.
Consider changing all management and leadership roles from single persons to male-female pairs (collegial in general but married couples are also included). Suddenly the
weaknesses of male minds, coming from the glands that swing between their legs, and the very different weaknesses, coming from the glands within the abdomens of women,
balance each other out in each leader pair. Suddenly overly male bragging strutting appearance only deeds and accomplishments are banished, balanced by female insistence on finishing things and keeping promises instead of being satisfied with mere appearance and bragging. Suddenly overly slow, considerate, tentative female processes
are improved by injection of male urgency and decisiveness of decision. Simply exchanging single people, as leaders and managers, with male-female pairs, would eliminate
virtually all major weaknesses in current business operations, since nearly all of these weaknesses come from traditional unexamined male habits and male propensities considered for eons normal business practices. This argument is elaborated on in great detail later in this book.
If, when someone like me, mentions these sorts of change, your reaction is--impossible, never, then you are stuck in assumptions about mundane aspects of life and work that
hinder moving to immense levels of creativity. As long as you insist, stubbornly and ignorantly, on keeping mundane habits within you unexamined and unimproved, you
will seek creativity from changing less omnipresent, less mundane, less repeated parts of work and life, that have less use and leverage.

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 40

Error 11: Confusing Base Hit Democratic Creativity Systems


with Home Run Elite Creativity Systems
There is an approach to getting more creativity by spotting or creating creators and setting them free on huge opportunities and problems, costing it out so that even if only
one out of twenty of their efforts succeed, the rewards are so immense that huge profits result. The uncertainty and waiting for this make it a hard road. Also, getting executives smart enough to judge when a home run is before them and when an almost-home-run that is an illusion is before them, is difficult and makes this a hard road. There
is an alternative, Japanese-like, approach, of treating the entire management and workforce of the company as one socially rich community and working for decades on systems to fully deploy whatever mentality it has and to upgrade its mentality continually, working for gradually bigger and bigger steps of improvement. The scope and volume
of this makes is a hard road. The discipline of, over decades, choosing the right incremental steps of improvement and getting entire workforce embodiment and use of them
make it a hard road. In truth, there are no easy roads to major increases in creativity.
The error here is not choosing the elite route or choosing the democratic route. Both are valid and they work, though they are both hard. The error here is confusing others
and yourself by doing a little of both, in sloppy, undisciplined, inconsistent ways that never add up to enough on the democratic front to succeed or enough on the elite front to
succeed. A lot of creativity fostering efforts in existing companies are of this sort--confused in approach. By separating strictly out the elite stuff from the democratic stuff,
and examining these approaches separately for completeness, robustness, consistency of direction and execution, and the like, great leaps in creativity can be obtained.
Why do otherwise smart people and companies confuse these approaches? It is a bet hedging thing--leaders cover their ass by doing both, to blunt criticism of whichever of
the two approaches they are less supportive of. It is also a matter of real uncertainty--which route is best if you have resources to only support well one of them? The thing
about choosing is it is choosing--we all agree--however in companies filled with omnipresent surveillance and bad minded peers jockeying to become VP ahead of you--whatever you clearly choose becomes a basis for others to attack your decision as a mistake because it obviously does not do X, Y, or Z. Managers to blunt such criticism tend
to therefore do X and anti-X both, so no one can accuse them of taking the wrong path.
It is possible to adequately support both an elite and a democratic approach, but the resourcing of them both and the cultural mixing of them both, require great discipline over
periods of ten or more years--not something most managers and management cultures are capable of.

Error 12: Trying to Get Creativity from Non-Creators


Research on creativity everywhere but in business has consistently shown, over decades of results, that ordinary people never create. Only creators create and they differ from
ordinary people in so many ways that they are almost an entirely different kind of human being. Creators decide somewhere and some time to diverge from others and peers.
They do so. When we spot them later, they have invested, for years, in entirely unique ways of thinking, working, and living. They have sexuality types beyond belief,
homes beyond belief, groups of friends beyond belief, beliefs beyond belief. They have diverged in many ways from normality. Creating appears normal work to them
because they have become creators, for whom creating is normal. Differing from themselves is normal for them because they evolve so fast that their self last year, disgusts
them and they are ardently being a different self this year. Their own past accomplishments disgust them. They hasten to differ from themselves and from their own past
accomplishments.
Nearly all of business efforts to get more creativity attempt to do so without bothering to find or create such creators. Businesses, to be honest about it, want creativity without
the bother of kinky, idiosyncratic, rule-busting, authority-snubbing pain-in-the-ass creators. Businesses want there to be ways to get creativity out of non-creators because
managers cannot stand creators. Creators are the nemesis of managers of all sorts. Creators are managers worst nightmares. So we can understand and sympathize with
managers as they avoid creators and try to get creativity out of non-creators. However, creativity never comes from ordinary people, never. You can get tiny little innovations out of them--all people do this, even Chimpanzees, crows, whales, dolphins, and parrots do this. But you cannot get home runs, or even decent base hits. At most you
get a bunt or two. Trying to get lots more creativity by adding up bunts is a fools game.
Managers want creativity from non-creators because they cannot lead and manage creators. Managers also want creativity from non-creators because they wish to democratize the creativity campaign so all employees stay motivated and no one feels left out. Managers also want creativity from non-creators because the nature of business
itself is taking so-so human inputs and using well-tuned systems for getting powerful consistent outputs from them. If special high quality inputs are needed, it is un-businesslike, in essence. Much of business resembles the military in this respect--we take anyone and everyone and get consistent powerful results from putting them through our
systems. For these and other reasons, businesses try to get creativity without hiring or tolerating or creating creators. This never works.

Error 13: False Exaggerated Biased Attribution


If you work in certain German firms, there is a tradition of Germans talking only to other Germans, as comments by less expert non-Germans are rarely on topic and worth
responding to. I was in N. V. Phillips, holding a meeting of people from 45 nations on setting up an artificial intelligence circles program for them, when, my Phillips host
directed me to tables of eight having lunch together. He asked me what did you notice at my lunch table. I noticed, to my immense surprise, the Germans taking part in the
conversation by ignoring all non-German remarks and responding to remarks only by other Germans at the table. Everyone else was less expert and hence not worth
responding to. In a similar way, Americans, in European business settings, burst out with immediate ideas and practical action suggestions, while the Europeans are discussing literary criticism, philosophy, or some other non-business topic. The Americans simply lack the patience and the intellectuality to participate in European conversations
without gritting their teeth. Japanese talk about language blocks caused international journals to not publish enough Japanese research articles, when, really, the quality of
thought and writing in most Japanese research articles by professors in Japan, is quite terrible. Truth is, professors in Japan, are not in real colleges--the colleges are pretending to teach to students pretending to study--reading is anathema to most professors and students there. Innovation is confined to companies in Japan for the most part with
universities doing little of it. Japanese, whether out of language incompetence or thought incompetence, prefer to talk only to other Japanese--thus Japanese undergraduates
applying for Ph.D. programs in the US find all their Chinese competitors being accepted by Chinese faculty in US Ph.D. faculties while there are virtually no Japanese serving
in US Ph.D. faculties so Japanese students cannot get accepted. Europe has huge amounts of creativity and innovativeness; the US has huge amounts of creativity and innovativeness; Japan has huge amounts of creativity and inventiveness--Sweden, the US, Japan, and Switzerland are leaders in patents per capita. Each nation and continent has
its own locales and cultures of creating; each nation denigrates and neglects the ways of creating of others. However, global US media, make it sure that non-US people know
much more about US creativity efforts than the US knows about their own.
There are ways of talking, all over each of these areas--Europe, Japan, the US--that denigrate and belittle the innovativity of the other areas. There are ways of thinking corresponding to those ways of talking. Cultures of seeing inventions of others as lesser and inventions of self as greater casually go on. You can measure the likelihood
that a company or person creates by measuring the health of their attribution system--do they correctly identify and praise the inventions and creations of others, from diverse
parts of the world. If they do so, they are likely to be creative themselves; if they do not, they are likely looking creative by their own areas mores, rather than being creative by whatever the task at hand requires. Sloppy or dishonest attribution is a foundation for poor creativity in individuals and groups. Measuring attribution honesty, accuracy, and health is a good short cut for assessing, quickly and easily, the likelihood of major creation from anyone.
Related to this point is a matter of comprehensiveness and completeness of ones maps of competitor creativity and creations. People and groups who have complete, comprehensive, up-to-date models of all the innovations by competitors and possible future competitors, are applying careful attribution and are likely to be able to create themselves.
People and groups whose models of the creativity and innovations of others are incomplete, partial, missing whole categories or markets, and slightly dated are unlikely to be
creative themselves. Creativity stands on a foundation of amazement and appreciation for the deeds of others. People incapable of that kind of honest appraisal and appreciation apply distorted easy evaluation criteria to themselves, and hence, prevent their own creativity from flourishing.

Error 14: The Creativity of Hassle Handling


One of the paradoxes of life in modern large organizations is it feels creative just to do ones normal assigned work. This is an act of genius to make large amounts of creativity needed just to do normal assigned work. It is also tragic and it works to give creativity itself a bad name. A major component in this problem is flux--continual change
of management, organization, budget, schedule, customer, technology, and direction. In Western, particularly Anglo cultures, strangely, each manager, at whatever level,
including fathers of families, is a little dictator--you are now my employees, reporting to me, you will do what and as I say. This is the bottom line, in such cultures, regardless
of the nicer language and phraseology decorating statements by managers. It is this dictatorial basic setting of management that make part-time workers so sullen and nasty in
Anglo cultures, for tourists and all over visitors there. Tourists to Japan are amazed at the ebullience and joie de vivre of ordinary part-time young workers in Japanese coffee
shops, fast food stores, and others retail establishments. The employees in Japan appear to manage themselves rather than being commanded and inspected, daily and hourly,
by their commander-in-chief managers. These little male dictators (most are male, including females playing these roles) wipe out whatever the prior manager-dictators
approach was, and install their own different better approach. Thus, good things by prior managers are stopped and replaced in order for the local little dictator to leave
his stamp on things. The result is great magnification of flux--changing of direction, technology, priority, method, and the like, all the time. To go in one direction and get
something done that take more than a few weeks, one has to disguise and hide it or constantly invent new packaging and explanations around it to protect it from new manager/dictators and their personal stamps on things.
The result is creativity exhaustion, a deeply felt personal hatred of creativity by employees doing too much of it in order to get ordinary work functions done in an environment of continual change accelerated by rotating little local dictator-managers. When executives announce overall directions for more creativity--everyone rolls their eyes and
wonders how the remote idiots that are their executives could fail to notice that merely doing ones job requires huge amounts of invention to overcome the obstacles to good
work put everywhere by dictator-managers and the flux they foster and accelerate. Strangely professor-consultants rarely address this creativity exhaustion. It is puzzling-how can uncreative work make people tired of too much creating. However, it is a very strong real issue if you hang around companies long enough for honest conversation.
Employees are everywhere exhausted by the unnecessary inventiveness needed to keep ordinary work functions going while local dictator-managers try to install their own
agendas that put their stamp on things. You often are inundated by a cry by one and all for upping real creativity and good execution of work functions by stripping out of
the company these myriad little dictators bent on leaving their personal stamp on everything to justify their exalted feelings of self importance and leadership. Secretaries
often call in sick after their boss reads a new management book, knowing he, filled with ideas, will want to torture his underling staff with his brilliant new insights for a
week or two.
There is a much more serious point at stake here. Hassles of all kinds are the first thing a creator kills off, wipes out of his or her life. All creators, on their road to becoming
a creator, extirpate, completely, hassles of all sorts--forms, meetings, monkey hierarchy displays of self importance, and the like. If an employee goes to staff meetings you
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 41

can be sure they will never create anything. Creators are poisoned by such for show meetings, rehearsals of status differences among the monkeys running the firm.
Bananaland is the Google employee word for these management trappings. Creators strip hassles out of their family lives, out of their personal lives, and out of their work
lives. Companies that continually inject hassles, like Anglo business cultures with their little dictator images of what leadership is--one mans ideas being followed by idealess sheep inferiors--thereby destroy one of the most fundamental foundations of creativity--lack of hassle.

Error 15: Being In the flow With it


The modern world and its organizations are jealous--they want you to be in their flow and with it. They want you to participate in their world and their views of the world.
They expect their commonsense and their values to be your commonsense and your values. They assume, more and more, that they are central and essential and anything
other than them is peripheral, marginal, a bit doubtful. Anyone who has been in the software industry for years, then gone out, then come back in some years later, has experienced this--an imperative to be with us, thinking like us, seeing the issues as we see them and seeing only the issues we see.
Money is to be made in modern businesses and industries. The ultimate appeal is this--we are where money is being made--therefore our values, our views, our flow, our
terms are best, vital, essential. You find this, of course, in aging retired CEOs--wanting desperately for their money to have made them entertaining and smart in conversation--while all around roll eyes and spot the giant ego released by a few drinks. Money never amounted to or created intelligence or scintillating conversation. Money lobbed
around by giant egos over swinging glands is particularly ineffective at disguising limited mentality and more limited values and experience. Modern businesses want money
to be the standard, it is, after all, their standard. Modern CEOs want money to buy intelligence and interest, it is after all, all they have accumulated. Unfortunately for both
modern businesses and modern retired CEOs, money does not buy intelligence or interest, not even for short periods of time. Just a few drinks in hand, moreover, are usually
enough to reveal the inflated ego giant buffoon beneath the millions.
There is more to this--belonging to us, being with us drive in modern organizations and their leaders. The most high tech, Silicon Valley-like, Google-ish firms and persons
are pharisees about flow and being with it. They mock and make fun of East Coast blue suit snobs and their out-dated analog investments and destinies. They are not with
it; we are with it. Indeed, one of the least agreeable aspects of Googles culture, and the culture of other ventures, is their snobby, elite, arrogant insistence that we are with
it and others are not with it. We are in the center of the flow and directing it--others are eddies on the sides of the flow and not directing it.
From the viewpoint of creating, these insistent, new, venture cultures are just as deadly as old stodgy firms and their cultural and value insistences. Insisting on ones centrality and importance, ones with it-ness and up-to-date-ness--is a substitute for actually being all that. Insisting on all that is a form of intimidation, an assertion of pride, not
a tactic for future self growth and change. As a result, all these little cultures of in the flow and with it-ness hinder creativity greatly and attest to the fundamental dislike
of creativity even within firms considered in the media and press as edgy with it and in the flow. Just because the cultures being imposed are new, digital, West-Coasty, does not make them safe, right, and not bombastic self-defeating destroyers of creativity of all sorts.
Interestingly old stodgy firms like P&G, based in Cincinnati, have long had identities as not in the flow and not with it but combined with an imperative to study flows and
those with it borrowing their methods and results, everywhere. You find P&G constantly trying out every Silicon Valley and major university research idea--that is their
identity--we are a very old stodgy big firm that stays alive by respecting invention and change wherever it is or comes from and studying how we can benefit from it. This
split--we are old and stodgy but ruthlessly study and use the new--works well enough to keep P&G alive over 100 years, not a bad accomplishment for any business. You
rarely find new ventures with the corresponding identity--we are new and edgy but ruthlessly study the old and powerful for things we can apply.

The Femininity of Productivity &


Creativity
One Argument from Logic for the Femininity of Productivity
Suppose a world had intelligent creatures in it, half As and half Bs. Suppose for 10,000 years all the social structures of this world were run by As, so that the roles, norms,
laws, regulations, habits, traditions, symbols, styles, values, rituals, metaphors, promotion criteria, decision criteria, histories, future scenarios, and the like were all A-like.
When, in this world, the intelligent creatures encounter problems, the causes of those problems would be, in statistical terms, more A-like or more B-like? The solutions of
those problems would be more A-like? or more B-like? We all know the answer to this little thought problem--the domination of systems by one anything, for hundreds of
years, means that most of the causes of its problems end up coming from too much of that anything, and too little of everything else, and its best solutions tend to make things
more like everything else and less like anything, the dominating group.
We live in this sort of world, a world where males have dominated structures, especially in business, for hundreds of years. This situation by itself entails things--that most
problems come from excessive and unchecked male-ness of systems, and most solutions feminize systems. This is the argument from logic for the thesis of this chapter.
This, if true, has stark implications for how to lead, how to manage, how to create, because of its stark implications for how to solve.

The Argument from Re-engineering for the Femininity of Productivity


We live in this world and do not have to rely on logic. We can examine our recent past and see if, for one sort of problem, all the problematic aspects come from excess masculinity in systems and if all the main solutions solve by feminizing systems.
In the 1990s the entire business world re-engineered systems, information management systems. That means they had been engineered once already and, in the 1990s, they
got re-engineered. What happened was interesting and a little complex. Since the 1980s information technology managers had told their leaders, CEOs, that if they were
allowed to build systems not to support each box on the organization chart (in effect automating a rank hierarchy derived from the territorial battles from male hormones), but,
instead, rows of boxes horizontally adjacent to each other and columns of boxes vertically stacked above each other, then information would flow between different functions,
helping all sorts of processes combining those functions like product development, and information would flow up and down layers of rank and hierarchy, helping all sorts of
processes like strategy formulation which requires coordination and teamwork and leadership across those levels. The CEOs ignored these repeated pleadings and messages
for the most part.
LANS, gave way to WANS, which gave way in the early 1990s to the internet. So the technical means of crossing boxes increased in capability and lowered in price without
changing this stalemate. Japanese competition hit the world in the early 1980s, that is, at about the same time. In nation after nation dire warnings of the Japanese overwhelming all local businesses were heard and defensive laws and company reactions ramped up. Companies learned about total quality control, just-in-time inventory, supply
chain management, policy and quality function deployment, and a host of related buzzwords. At the end of the 1980s all major businesses and all the smaller supplier businesses of them, had programs for all the above buzzwords and more. Among all this activity a pattern appeared to many, including CEOs. Total quality re-defined businesses
as processes between customers and suppliers and it provided a global consistent toolset for handling processes, statistically. Total quality defined business as this necklace of
process steps between suppliers and customers, and CEOs started to understand their businesses this way. Suddenly, in the early 1990s, all over the world, nearly all CEOs
heard for the first time, what their information technology vice presidents had been saying to them for over 10 years--that firms needed systems across boxes, horizontally and
vertically. Total quality solved the problem of information technology--it provided a viewpoint and theory that allowed CEOs to set up intranets within firms but across boxes
(at first, then across firms) that naturally adapted, with ease, to the internet as it arose in the 1990s. Re-engineering meant re-designing existing information technology systems so as to connect horizontally and vertically across boxes and across firms themselves (across the world for outsourcing).
Why were systems, in the first place, developed for individual boxes on the org chart? Why was the org chart so important and so hierarchical? Monkeys is the answer.
People, all of them, us, are a kind of monkey. In male people you find hormones that influence them all day every day and those hormones consume lots of their time in status
displays, rank competitions, and place holding (defending territory, turf battles). It is not uncommon for the first third or more of all business meetings to be taken up in male
monkeys jockeying for position, posturing for influence, bracing for bombast. Women are used to getting coffee and doing some light reading while the men consume themselves with these primate activities, apparently hopelessly controlled by chemicals from the glands that swing between their legs.
In other words, and words are both accurate and important here--no room for excuse making--males, out of their maleness, broke up processes into boxes, which re-engineering, supported by Japans total quality model of business as strung horizontally from suppliers to customers, put back together. Re-engineering undid what male hormones did
to organization design and operation. It is worth it to just dwell on this single thought for some days till its implications fully sink in. This is an immense fact, not just
another small one. It has powerful, ineluctable implications.

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 42

63 Other Examples of Innovations in Global Business that Each


Feminized Work Systems
My first teaching job was professor at the University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business, where I asked my MBAs to check out all the major transformations in business done in
the 1980s and 1990s. The table below summarizes a bunch of results from their homework assignments. All the 64 innovations in business, listed in the table, end up feminizing systems--the work systems are more feminine in characteristics after the transformation than they were before it. It find that unlikely to be a coincidence.

64 Innovations that Managers Implemented in the 1990s

Feminization Achieved

Workgroup Level

Department & Pro- Organization Level


cess Level

Inter-organization
Level

Downsizing

value engineering

outsourcing

supplier
tion

Just-in-Time

open book manage- process


ment
ment

Quality

circles

kaizen (continuous quality and policy supply chain man- powers of continuation--accumulation of daily small improvements not giant
improvement)
deployment
agement
home run leap attempts, perseverance not flashy launches undoing the flash &
splendor of ejaculation

Cycle time

A delta T

workouts

firm break up

qualifica- cleaning--waste by waste painstaking elimination of non-value adding steps


undoing the dirty sock phenomenon

manage- horizontal manage- supplier-company


ment
co-location

mass customization

alliance
ment

Self
ment

manage- visual management

manage by signal autonomous work- industrial


and control points
teams
networks

Team
ment

manage- fool proofing

problem
teams

solving cross
teams

trust--intimacy/trust achieved between adjacent operations so inventories not


needed undoing the fight/flight reaction

manage- social doers--social forces replace lone individuals undoing going it alone, tall
dark strangering
district human sizing--human sizing and entooling for comfortable work undoing challenge for challenges sake, pride of difficulty

functional supplier-customer
co-design

Information
integration

workflow
ware

group- client-server
tems

Re-engineering

assumption
ing

break- new materials for organizational archi- strategic partnering


work functions
tecture

entool for using diversity--a social community built among inter-linked functions
undoing purpose breaking care (MacBeth, Dovstoyevsky), task over duty, ruthlessness

sys- data dictionary stan- electronic data inter- gossip-nets--who is not keeping process promises visible to all in the process undoing
dards
change
splinter responsibility, ass covering by isolation, process with no one responsible
feminizing processes--from sequences to parallelisms, from pre-structured to
emergence-management undoing territoriality, defensive combativeness

Procedural jus- 360 degree evalua- open door manage- peer review of man- customer review of horizontalizing relations--workplaces as normal social communities not monkey
tion
ment
ager decisions
manager decisions
hierarchies of command/intimidation undoing influence from remoteness, trantice
scendent gods, monkey dominance/subservience behaviors

Diversity

culture sensitization multi-protocol


teaming

Entrepreneuring workgroup
competitions

management
switches

set multi-company
career pathing

person to person relations--not mind to mind; measuring the differences that differences make in personal repertoire expansions undoing refusal and avoidance of
emotion, copying successes driving out diversity of ways/repertoires

technoparks

finding homes for orphan ideas--change by setting up flows in ecosystems of


competitive sharing, paradoxic values tolerated undoing hoarding, own-ness, fear
of others, trustlessness

design best practice com- intrapreneuring


mercializa-tion

Globalization

workgroup protocol global product sourcrepertoires


ing, outsourcing,
knowledge & design

transnational opera- regional


trade journey out by journeying in--liking emotions so liking the interior journey that
tions
investment blocks
enables handling the differences encountered in the exterior-global journey undoing pretend globalization, refusal of self change, emotion avoidance

Organizational
learning

best practice sharing benchmarking

knowledge deposi- project knowledge depositing experience--repositories for experiences, personal diaries, logs, work
tion layer
depositories
bloggs, so lived experience becomes a knowledge resource for others undoing
formality and professionalism as disguised European class system

Systems gaming

micro-worlds gam- process simulations


ing

social info network virtual


simulations
gaming

Virtualization

virtual workgroups

emailable software self-assembling


agents
workforces

business playing house--the game-simulation-work-coordination continuum--add bits of reality to


move right, remove bits to move left undoing trying to impress all the time, driving out
play, change, learning; punitive competing-by-mistakes-of-others

just-in-time multi-firm beyond territories--networks of interaction rather than fixed territories to defend
project assembly
undoing defending territories, hoarding info; emergence not commanded designs

Agile
SWAT SWAT workgroup self emergent pro- self emergent orga- self emergent orga- plans as locales for exploring not fights to control--emergence replacing design
assembly
cess design
nization assembly
nization alliance
undoing fighting as how to change reality, telling not listening
organization

The hypothesis this chapter proposes is that nearly all improvements in business systems end up feminizing them. However, this cannot be said and done overtly. Men are
too defensive about themselves and too uncomfortable about the failings of their gender and the type of mind it gives them. They refuse, for example, to see themselves as
controlled by hormones from swinging glands. They see themselves as rational and females as hormone controlled. Science has solidly refuted this, for decades, without
impacting much male ignorance of the hormonal nature of male ways. Women, for generations, have seen this clearly--that males deny the limits of their nature and make
giant errors as a result. The result of this denying is you cannot sell feminization of systems directly. You have to sell something masculine and tough, something ejaculatory
like giant quantum leaps to higher technologies. Much of the sales language and product description in this world is a thin covering of masculine-ness over a core of femininity. We are doing feminization of work systems everywhere all the time, whenever we improve work, but we must disguise it, call it something male and tough sounding. This covering of terminology and appearance, this packaging, fools a lot of people. They actually believe that, by making systems more male, they can be improved--a
fools illusion.
The above constitute an indirect case for the femininity of productivity--we look at processes before some business transformation that is widespread and after, and compare
how the process looks and operates. When we do that for the 64 global transformations of business above, we find various forms of feminization of system--which is what,
from the logical argument--we would expect.
If, instead of work processes in businesses, we were to examine technologies--robotics, nanotech, system biology technologies, artificial intelligence programming, artificial
life programming, the semantic net, and so on--we would find a similar trend--increasing feminization. Past technologies were proud, strutting, penis-like, central, controlling,
hoarding and defending territory, hierarchical, given to spurts and rests. Present and future technologies are modest, horizontal, vagina-like (unlimited, multiple orgasms over
extended time periods), distributed, interacting, sharing, and egalitarian. This transformation happens within each technology so that an individual area of technology like
robotics, has this transform--from central Ph.d. math joint controllers to distributed simple interacting joint controllers, as was mentioned earlier in this book. It is striking
that technologies, on their own, and work systems, rather separate, at least in invention and design, are both heading feminine. To be fair, this is not quite so striking as one
might think--CEOs, over 50 years ago, began making this same transformation. Most CEOs are decidedly more feminine in work content and process than other managers.
They use their powerful self knowledge to perceive and get quickly and deeply inside of others and weave social fabrics where other men are accomplishing deeds. They
manage with charm and flattery, envy and vision, their various VP Achilles and Hectors. CEOs made the transition to more feminine ways of work about 50 years before technologies and work systems made this transition.

The Femininity of Productivity


There are three issues in thinking about feminization of work systems and technologies. First is the point made above that the dominance of males of such systems for centuries makes it inevitable, by regression to the mean, that most improvements in systems will feminize them (because most flaws in them come in one way or another from
excess male-ness). The second issue is we can build maps of how the feminine mind works, based on solid brain science not popular folk theories and biases, and we can build
such maps of how male minds work. This gives us the conceptual power to choose--and blend--picking the type of mentality suited for the task or organization at hand. No
one does this because of the third issue--it is one thing to identify on maps the right way to go, the right mentality to pick, but installing that mentality is tough work. Putting
a female in charge will not do it, putting a male in charge will not do it. Present work systems emasculate both males and females, while forcing females into male-like behaviors for decades to get ahead and look competent (as we males see and, because we monopolize executive positions, judge it). Getting female mentality installed in a
place of work requires changing the entire culture of that part of the organization. This is always the installing of a minority culture within a hostile majority male culture.
Doing this takes genius and immense effort. Few are up to it--it is far far easier to go with the flow and keep present biases going. As with most costly innovations--organizations must face life and death crises before such alternatives are considered seriously.
Below is a map of what brain science, as of this writing, knows about male brain traits and female brain traits. Below that are some of Deborah Tannens results on differences in male and female discourse. These maps suffice to conceptually identify the type of mentality needed by a task. What these maps do not at all help with is actually
installing such a mentality where it is needed--making males who are subordinate monkeys most of their lives, act like dominant ones, real males, and making females, forced

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 43

to ape male behaviors for decades to slough those habits and use the powers of femininity. Note, here I restrict myself to male brains and female brains. There are actually

All of History Mistaken: the Optimal Unit of Thought is Heterosexual Pairs, not Lone Individuals Whether Male or Female

Male
Behavioral Trait
discrete focal capabilities

Heterosexual Pair
Brain Basis

hemispheres more different

discrete capability not connected- more grey less white


ness

Balanced Capability

Female
Behavioral Trait

Brain Basis

1. general survey plus deep focus

general all-brain mobilization

2. well connected deep capabilities

connectedness not discrete capabil- more white less grey


ities

hemispheres more the same

extreme bias to unity/coherence in high associative cortex larger on 3. tolerant of ambiguity while capable of forcing decisive action
higher thought
left side of brain

more tolerance for ambiguous real- high associative cortex


ities in higher thought
larger on right side of brain

discrete focal capabilities

process tasks using less of brain 4. general survey plus deep focus
and one side only

general all-brain mobilization

process tasks using more of brain


and both sides

reasonless emotions

emotion processing stays in 5. can reason about emotions or ignore them


amygdala from 6 to 17 years = cannot give reasons for emotions

know reasons for emotions

emotion processing moves up from


amygdala to cortex from 6 to 17 =
can give reasons for emotions

more discrete capabilities

bigger size bigger number of neu- 6. well connected deep capabilities


rons

more interaction among capabili- more dendrite connections and


ties
glial infrastructure

sense/remember dangers well

layer of deep limbic system alarm 7. recalls dangers and all other extreme emotions well
alert memory

sense/remember all emotions well

layer of deep limbic system emotion memory

orients in space well

slopes and spatial rotations better

orients in language well

word list and text paragraph recall


better

fast processing of spatial problems

inferior parietal lobule bigger = 9. fast processing of space and social relations (language)
math and Einstein

fast processing of language

Broca and Wernicke areas larger =


better language and orgasmic joy
from language use

8. orients well in space and social relationships

abstract unity favored over ambig- language processing on left side of 10. can operate abstractly or concretely as needed
uous realities
brain

abstract unity and ambiguous reali- language processing on both sides


ties balanced
of brain (orientals = both sides cuz
kanji)

masters dangers

11. masterful in dangerous and in peaceful situations

masters peace

12. sees situations abstractly and concretely

talent for concrete emotive repre- empathy systems


sentations

stress increases learning

talent for abstract spatial represen- system systems


tations

stress reduces learning

drive for mating behaviors

preoptic hypothalamus larger = 13. drive to mate and to nurture


mating behavior strong

drive for rhythm of mating alter- suprachiasmatic nucleus of hyponating with nurture behaviors
thalamus larger = circadian rhythm
and reproduction system strong;
spherical in men, oval in females

can endure war

less pain sense = needs less mor- 14. sensitive to pain and able to ignore it
phine

cannot endure war

more pain sense = needs twice as


much morphine

precise comprehensive survey

rapidly see fine details

orientation with familiarity

navigate using concrete landmarks

quick focus

rapidly focus on salient item

orientation without familiarity

navigate using abstract coordinate 16. can orient in entirely unknown and in familiar surrounds
spaces

15. precise comprehensive views and fast focussed views

Male Female Discourse Differences (behaviors only)


Input/Output

Emotion

Purpose

Conflict

Input/Output

talk for status

17. achieves both separation from and unity with others well

talk for exclusion

18. achieves both separation from and unity with others well

talk for inclusion

tell

19. transmits and receives info well

listen

drive for individual distinction

20. achieves difference and similarity well

drive to fit in
Emotion

talk for connection

feeling as embarrassing

21. can shun or dwell on feelings

mis-hearing as status threat

22. sense relation or status threats well

feeling as interesting
mis-hearing as relation threat

harshness as sign of respect

23. likes harshness and dislikes harshness

harshness as sings of rejection

backward reasoning

24. can envision and can incrementally improve

info (mind to mind talk)

25. can engage whole persons or ideas alone

talk to solve

26. can fix morale and situations/problems

talk for empathy

exactitude

27. can be precise and detailed both

detail

persevere to save truth

28. can preserve truth and social relations both

independent

29. can lead and follow well

contest

30. can challenge and support well

community

argumentative

31. can insist and be deferential as needed

apologetic

contradiction not tolerated

32. can clear up confusions and tolerate them if needed

contradiction tolerated

forward reasoning
Purpose

relation (person to person talk)

persevere to save face


Conflict

dependent

25 such pairs of brain subsystem types, so balances among them all may well outperform balances among just a few of them. Real application, however, indicates that gender is a more powerful such polarity among brain types than the other 24, so it is fitting that we deal with it well and first.

Another Surprise and a Gender-Culture Check on Systems Implemented. If we examine feminine discourse characteristics we notice something else

familiar about them. We find not analysis but synthesis, not individualism but communitarianism, not internal locus of control but external locus of control, and so on. The
characteristics of female discourse patterns are the characteristics of Japanese culture/management. Re-engineering is making workplace more feminine and more Japanese.
If we go to Japan and read up on the voluminous literature on evolution of Japanese management systems we find a strange thing. Relations between men in Japanese workplaces are nearly entirely feminine. However, relations between groups in Japanese workplaces are nearly entirely masculine. Japanese, when they re-engineer, if they ever
finally get around to doing it, will become more productive by making their processes more masculine, not more feminine as in the rest of the world.
This is not just a quaint insight, there is some initial data indicating that people who re-engineer with this knowledge in mind, get more out of it than people who re-engineer
without knowing all this.
The surprise here is this--the entire contents of some major business productivity movements is transforming an organization from male style to female style. For those who
thought re-engineering and like things were real and solid and central and things like culture and gender were fluffy, optional, and non-essential, this is a shock. Re-engineering, at its base, when most powerfully understood, is a way of achieving a major gender-culture transition--a way for overly masculine workplaces to become more productive
by becoming more feminine.
Hence, organizations who complete much re-engineering work without somehow changing to feminine modes, values, and styles, fail to become more productive. You can
check both productivity attained and femininity attained by re-engineering or any of the above 63 other global work transitions. If much was changed without making the
resulting processes more feminine, you have your culprit. Transformations that look hard, technical, and masculine, and have to look that way in order to sell and be applied,
run the risk of people doing the applying choosing the appearance (of masculinity) over the reality (of femininity). A culture transition, between the culture of one gender to
that of the other gender, is masked as a typically rational, male, hierarchy preserving, technical program. It is very easy to end up implementing the appearance, the
packaging, rather than the reality, the contents. That is what naturally happens when one thing is presented as its opposite, in order to sell it well to male leaders of male dominated workforces.

The Femininity of Creativity


The Argument from Logic Alone. If the world of work for thousands of years has been ruled by men and all its norms, behaviors, traditions, and systems designed

by men, then what would most amaze that world? What would astound it? What type of changes would be hard for it to imagine and come up with and compete with?
Changes from cultures missing from it would amaze it, astound it, and be hard for it to imagine, come up with, and compete with.

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 44

Creativity is surprise--pure and simple--of 21 sizes from interesting and not difficult for others like me to do to this the most amazing idea I have ever met--I am going to
have to respond to it whether I like that or not--and, it is going to take me years to work out its implications. Creations can violate, that is, astound different widths and depths
of assumption. Creations of wider scope violate contexts of global applicability (not just my workgroup but every workgroup in the world is going to have to do this invention). Creations of deeper scope violate contexts that are profound parts of commonsense that we all share and never examine or think of changing during our entire lives.
Einstein told us space and time were the same sorts of thing--not something we are comfortable with thinking even today, 100 years after he announced his idea. Because they
violate such profound assumptions, they have enormous scope, that at first may not be fully imagined or realized. Only slowly over years does the full scope of their impact
get discovered and appreciated. Scope and depth of contexts changed are twin measures of the amount of creativity in any creation (and are fully reflected in my model of 21
sizes of creation, presented early in this books Preface).
Gender culture is wide in scope--absolutely global-and deep--a profound part of commonsense thought and behavior nearly never examined or changed by ordinary humans.
It fulfills the twin dimensions for creativity of large size. When gender cultures are violated, we are astonished--the unthinkable has been thought and said. In a world
where everything is tainted by male territoriality, male preferences for telling over listening, male fight and violence responses to challenge, male spurts and rests of effort,
and the rest of the table above on gender brain and discourse differences, anything that shares none of these attributes, amazes. It appears creative--ordinary people and systems would never have thought that way and thought of that. This is the argument from logic for the femininity of creativity.

The Femininity of New Technologies. The history of robotics is a gender culture journey from initial central, command, erect, penis-like, towering, elite, compli-

cated devices to swarms of simple, collaborative, friendly, interactive, vagina-like devices. Unimation was the male approach--robots that took Phd.s to program them to
reach. Modern robots have simple routines in each joint that, by interacting in real time, reach faster, more accurately, and otherwise better. The feminine style of robot algorithm has soundly defeated the male one in the market. This fact proves little till we add the history of artificial intelligence computing software, the history of systems biology, and a dozen other technology histories, finding in them all the same movement from central, erect, penis-like towering, commanding, complicated things to populations
of small, simple, interacting, collaborative things. Nearly every modern technology has evolved from male beginnings to feminine current research forms.
The internet was an interesting proof of this. It started out with a few standards that made it, from the beginning, a collaborative interaction platform. What we observe as the
culture wars over the internet now going on is mass media, the male, central, elite, towering, erection-like ones of the past pushing hard to transform away the democratic,
female, distributed, collaborative, vagina-like nature of the technology--trying to turn the future into the past, for their own profit and perpetuation. The gender-culture wars
are taking place in the internet medium today, as we read our daily papers.

Japanese Success and Economic Creativity and Its Gender-Culture Basis. Japans rise to second largest economy in the world, the first Asian nation to
break into the big leagues of economic growth and wealth, astounded the world and lead to global campaigns of imitation of Japanese systems by other economies trying to
remain competitive in the 1980s when Japan penetrated global markets on all continents. I want to make three points about that:

1. feminizing is Japan-izing--because Japanese within group relations are much more feminine than Western within group relations
2. the creativity of copying--copying the wrong thing, copying it wrongly, implementing a copy wrongly--all these spawn creations
3. ability to change ones own culture sincerely = creativity--Japan has implemented deep changes in its culture not matched by the West.
The first point was made above in the Femininity of Productivity section. Japanese within group relations are very feminine compared to such relations in the West. Conversely, Japanese between group relations are very masculine compared to the West. That makes Japanese excel at small scale collaboration and splinter at large scale collaboration while Westerners are poor at small scale collaboration and wonderful a huge scale collaborations.
The second point was made, first in writing, by Eleanor Westney at MIT, elaborated by me in a book some time ago (Greene, 1993). Copying prepares one for creating.
Errors made naturally while copying become small scale creations. If the errors are big enough, strangely, they can set the stage for large scale creations.
The third point has to do with cultural courage--the courage to look at ones own culture and decide to change intimate emotional parts of it. Few have this. Japan, more than
most, probably because of a heightened sense of threat from the West since the mid-1800s, has scoured her own culture for what to upgrade, update, improve, and what to
slough. Today the remnant of this scouring is a Japan comfortable with making specific deep changes in its nature and practices (Japan abhors making unspecific, that is, general changes to its nature and practices). Do you and your firm have the cultural courage to change deep intimate parts of yourselves?
Strangely, when you measure the adoption of Japanese systems--JIT inventory, supply chain management, Six Sigma, and the like--you find that Western nations have implemented shells--the more feminine gender content of Japanese business systems has been ignored and in its place usual masculine Western systems, looking like Japanese ones,
are now in place. Motorola, for example, ballyhoos its requirement that all workgroups annually build and update models of their work processes. Motorola does not ballyhoo that nearly all workgroups in Motorola, never use those process models for anything at all, other than satisfying leaders that they did the process work assigned this year.
They pull it out of a desk, once a year, put marks on it, copy it to management, and file it away for another year. This is a system for appearing to be work process based, not
a system for actually being work process based. Fuji Xerox has approximately a few hundred over 1000 workgroups a year presenting Ph.D.. level statistical studies of work
process problems and statistical comparisons of possible solutions, including a study of the actual solution chosen by the workgroup. Each of these studies uses statistics
more sophisticated than the usual graduate engineering student Ph.D. thesis at MIT. Over 1000 ordinary workgroups doing MIT level research papers, yearly. Xerox, by comparison, had, at the time I was there, less than six workgroups doing similar studies and using far less sophisticated and thorough statistics and data measurement. Again, the
Japanese are doing something that is a hard, thorough, change in business practices while the Western firms are doing an appearance--keeping reality male. Furthermore, this
preference for appearance over reality is a male gender culture trait (make-up for women notwithstanding).

Not Just Gender Culture but All Five Primary Business Cultures. It is not just violations of gender cultures that amaze us. Violations of any culture that is
a deep enduring part of business culture amaze us. That leads to at least five roads to creativity in business, namely violation of any of the below:

The American Way


poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the mud

The Male Way


show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not pull, emotion is
unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

The Technology Way


toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into technology fixes, promise
the moon delivery is a later managers problem

The Capitalist Way


live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are
irrelevant

The Monkey Way


at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard, problems
never exist.

This is a way to measure the amount of creativity too. Any change that violates many of the above is more creative than one violating a few or just one. Any change violating all
the above is more creative than one violating many, a few, or one. Any change violating the above significantly is more creative than one violating them minimally. Any change
violating the core parts of any of the above is more creative than one violating peripheral parts. It would be a simple matter to measure the relative depth of the above cultures in
emotional commitment, unconscious operation, and like ways, putting the above five in order from most difficult to see and change to least difficult to see and change. We have, in
the world, exceptions to all the above--non-American style businesses, non-male style ones, non-techie ones, non-capitalist ones, non-monkey ones. We could take the number of such
exceptions (with or without how widely distributed they are in the world economy) as a rough measure of how hard it is to achieve such violations, that is, the ability of violations of the
cultures to amaze us as creative. Another measure is decay. We could take any violations of the above in actual cases and see how long they lasted before their minority status in the
worlds culture of business overall, wore them away into semblances of what other businesses do and how other businesses do things. We would end up with something like the following:

CULTURE MEASURES OF CREATIVITY SIZE


VIOLATIONS OF FEW, NON-CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

1. THE CAPITALIST WAY live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are irrelevant
2. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud
3. THE TECHNOLOGY WAY toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into
technology fixes, promise the moon delivery is a later managers problem
4. THE MONKEY WAY at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard, problems never exist.
5. THE MALE WAY show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not
pull, emotion is unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

VIOLATION OF MANY, NON-CORE DIMENSIONS OF:


Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 45

6. THE CAPITALIST WAY live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are irrelevant
7. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud
8. THE TECHNOLOGY WAY toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into
technology fixes, promise the moon delivery is a later managers problem
9. THE MONKEY WAY at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard, problems never exist.
10. THE MALE WAY show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not
pull, emotion is unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

VIOLATIONS OF FEW CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

11. THE CAPITALIST WAY live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are irrelevant
12. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud
13. THE TECHNOLOGY WAY toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into
technology fixes, promise the moon delivery is a later managers problem
14. THE MONKEY WAY at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard,
problems never exist.
15. THE MALE WAY show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not
pull, emotion is unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

VIOLATIONS OF MANY CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

16. THE CAPITALIST WAY live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are irrelevant
17. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud
18. THE TECHNOLOGY WAY toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into
technology fixes, promise the moon delivery is a later managers problem
19. THE MONKEY WAY at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard,
problems never exist.
20. THE MALE WAY show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not
pull, emotion is unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

The above measures depend on something above called dimensions of culture. What are these? If you read books on culture and business by popular authors like Hofstede
and Tropenaars, those books present 8 to 12 dimensions by which cultures differ in their handling of things. These dimensions are extraordinarily abstract so that Japanese
are more communal while Americans are more individual. By being abstract they do not give us a lot of guidance for what to do in handling specific situations what is
the communal response to his offering me a free meal at a restaurant? what is the individualist response to his offering me a free meal at a restaurant? These books on
culture by using a few such dimensions and presenting nothing else other than dimensions of culture fail to help us much in practical business reality. The model of culture
briefly touched on in the Preface of this book, and dealt with in detail near the end of this book, is far more robust and practical. It presents 64 dimensions not 12 and put
those dimensions in a model having 9 other equally well specified aspects of culture. This allows differences to be concrete enough to offer businesspersons actual useful
guidance for how to handle situations and cases they face. When the above measures mention dimensions they are referring to my culture models 64 dimensions, not Hofstedes and Tropenaars 12 dimensions. A creation that violates 44 dimensions of, say, monkey culture, is more creative than one violating merely 12 dimensions. The
above measures also refer to core and non-core dimensions. If we measure how Japanese any one Japanese is, how male any one male is, how male any one Japanese or technology are, we find that some dimensions are essential--they are always there in any one having the culture and others are optional, sometimes there, sometimes
missing. Violations of core dimensions are more creative than violations of non-core ones. It is all simply a matter of how surprised the rest of us are when viewing something. Did we expect this? How many and how deep are the expectations this violates?

Why Culture and Creativity and Surprise? Remember, from the Preface of this book, culture was all that stuff stuffed inside us while growing up in a time and

place or group, that we unconsciously learned. It is contents operating inside us that we are not aware of and did not consciously choose. We may not even like them.
Indeed, our moms told us, as we grew up, whenever we departed from the norms of our own cultures ways, that we were being bad, so we end up decades later, as adults,
feeling automatically that ways other than our own are bad. For this reason, culture defines most of what is us but unknown to us, what is us, but disgusting to us, what
is us, but betraying constantly us, what is us but blocking our attainment of our fondest goals. CEOs are born when people, for reason of childhood trauma or other unusual
circumstances, delve deeply into their own interiors, where things are emotional, and discover stuff that they are that gets in the way of their aspirations and goals. Such
people consciously remove unconscious contents inside them and replace that with better stuff from the best in history and in the contemporary world. These are educated
people for the definition of education is this conscious replacement process. Educated people have personally built who they now are, rather than merely being unconscious
copies of stuff around them while they grew up. Culture underpins creativity because of the doubleness of surprise whenever culture is involved--we are surprised by something, and we are surprised to find that what, inside us is now surprised, is some assumptions we did not know were inside us. Often a creation will surprise us and thereby
reveal some assumption working long inside us that we never saw or realized before.

Creating Leadership--the Minimal Unit of Competent Cognition-the Heterosexual Trio of Two Women and One Man
There was a reality TV program, recently, The Great Race I believe it was called, that had pairs of people competing in a race that alternated strange activities to be done
with strange destinations to be gone to. Some pairs were two males, some two females, and some mixed. As I and my friends watched the show, week by week, we all began
to see the same patterns. The all male pairs lost lots of time and made lots of errors, jockeying for leader. The all female pairs lost lots of time and made lots of errors,
under-estimating the physical demands of activities and destinations. The mixed pairs did best in not losing time and not making errors, but never won because, the man,
when things got tense, always ignored the womans advice, and made typical male errors--ignoring maps, not asking for good directions, depending on one main sign or site
and missing lots of subtle smaller signals. It was clear that men alone and females alone made suboptimal choices. It was clear that mixed teams worked best except in crisis
model. No pair was best all the time. We concluded:

The Minimal Unit of Competent Cognition--is the Heterosexual Trio of Two Women and One Man.
When this unit makes decisions, the women make most of the decisions, paying lots of attention, listening well, and embracing each others differences. When they get
bogged down, the man injects decisiveness. When they all get in crisis mode, the man tries to take over and the women revolt, using their majority voice to shut him down and
insist on their way (which nearly always is best in facing crises--men over-react and are overly violent and defensive when facing crises, making them worse).
Today we have single individuals as leaders--why? Does this work well? What if we had heterosexual pairs as leaders? Would this work well? It would until crises
appeared, when the man would get paranoid and defensive and over-react, including over-ruling whatever the woman noticed and suggested. Only heterosexual trios would
work in crisis mode--with majority rule overwhelming the mans insistence and defensive narrowness. Would heterosexual trios outperform lone individuals as leaders?
We all have opinions--truth is, no one, not a single one of us has data, evidence, proof, foundation, basis. We are all talking through out hats--our biases making us confident
in our ignorant responses to this question. We all do not know. We all have not tried it. We all have no idea. However, the argument of this chapter of this book certainly
suggests that women would make things productive and creative, compared to men--even if merely for history reasons. However, are women an effective vehicle for delivering femininity to workplaces? The evidence is no--workplaces, overwhelmingly male--masculinize women, turning them into monsters of a sort--preening, bombastic, self
promoting, self bragging, arrogant, pride-filled, turf-defending monkeys. Just what we need top monkeys with breasts. Women are, unfortunately, not an effective vehicle
for delivering femininity to modern male-dominated workplaces. Yet productivity and creativity plummet as a result. What can be done?
In my last job in a corporation I ran a shop of 52 artificial intelligence programmers, building research and work systems for our CEO to proudly show to customers and potential customers. I had five years in which to evolve my own management approaches there. By year two I was sick and tired of unreliable males so I started hiring more men
than women, keeping a two to one ratio--two women hired for each man. By year three I had an idea--why not make units of three build code in a group format, not writing
code individually at all. I set aside 4 trios, each having two women and one man, of 12 people out of my 54 and paired them all with a control group of 12 programmers writing code individually as was the practice in this firm. At the end of six months, the trios had far out-achieved in quantity of code (actually functions) written and quality (fewest number of errors). At the time I had no real explanation for this or theory for it. It was just an intuition--that programming wherein small teams had to explain things
outloud to each other before committing to code and programming where men were a minority voice, would be better. I suspected women, being more reliable and more detail
oriented and better listeners, would spec what code to write much better than men and execute the spec more reliably at greater accuracy of detail. I was right in suspecting
that. The next six months I converted another 12 of my people to coding in trios, for 24 coding in trios and 30 coding as usual as individuals. The results continued to shine
in the trios so the next year I converted all 52 to coding in trios--17 trios and 1 floater a great male programmer who helped out groups falling behind. Comparing year 1 to
year 4, with the same number of staff my group was producing far more functionality per year, with far higher quality, far greater adherence to schedule, and also, unexpectedly, far greater creativity.
The creativity gotten from trios was a complete surprise to me. I had not intended it, planned for it, and expected it. Yet there it was. Where did it come from and why? At
that time I had not started studying creativity, in any formal thorough way, so I lacked frameworks for understanding this. Only years later did my formal study of creativity
gradually suggest why trios might make more creative algorithms and routines than individual male or females writing code. It all comes back to what Marvin Minsky said to
us at MIT as undergrads--the most important piece of equipment for the expert programmer is the napkin--because programming is pure thought, done without knowing what
computer language one will ultimately use to express the program, and pure thought happens most often at lunch or snacks where someone jots a thought to himself or others
on napkins or whatever paper is at hand.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered
Page 46

If you look at failed leadership--of the two sorts: not enough leading going on and people being led to bad results--the great majority of its failings come from excess, guess
what, maleness, American-ness, capitalism, techie-ness, monkey-ness. Leadership, just as productivity and creativity, fails due to excesses of its standard business culture
components. Good leadership so often is comprised of non-male, non-American, non-capitalist, non-technology, non-monkey approaches to getting people headed in productive or creative directions. It should not surprise that productivity, creativity, and leadership suffer today primarily from the blind working inside of all of us of the five
standard cultures of business making sense of what, more rationally considered, does not make sense. The issue is:

What is an effective vehicle for delivering in practical reality more femininity, more non-American-ness, more nontechie-ness, more non-monkey-ness, more non-capitalism to modern workplaces?
If we consider just the issue of delivering more femininity to modern workplaces, we have a hypothesis, given above--heterosexual trios of two women with one man. If that
is who is made leader and who is hired as employee great improvements in productivity, creativity, and leadership will result (data is needed to confirm this hypothesis).
If we consider any of the other of the five common cultures of business, the answer is not so easy or clear. If we hire a Japanese, a European, and an American and make that
trio the unit of leadership and the unit of hiring, do we get more non-American answers? What combinations would we hire for non-capitalism and non-monkey-ness? This
idea of hiring particular combinations of people, not individual people, is not as new as it may appear. IDEO the Silicon Valley design firm is famous for hiring X and anti-X
as pairs hired together--to keep their workforce diverse and broad. This vehicle problem is a big problem. It deserves serious treatment and equally serious answers. That is
what the model of culture, presented at the end of this book, is for.

Measuring Amount and Quality of


Creativity
Why Measures of Creativity Size are So Important
If you are practical, a business person, struggling to keep your organization alive while it is under constant threat, there is the creativity of continued survival. Though outsiders may take for granted the continuation of a large business, being impressed with its power to get millions of consumers to purchase products that kill or harm them, or otherwise are suboptimal choices for them (tobacco firms come to mind here, as do pharmaceutical firms), in reality, most businesses founded soon disappear and businesses that
continue to hang around decade after decade, do so by furiously churning and adapting all their layers with various size scales of change. Buying off legislators is automated
and easy in todays wimpy renditions of political democracy. That battle has already been solidly won by the corporations, Ralph Naders notwithstanding. Buying off consumers via multi-pronged media, net, point-of-purchase advertising strategies is also a battle already won. Major organizations have complete ownership of representatives in
parliaments and congresses world-wide and complete ownership of the insides of buyer heads world-wide. Even with these pillars of power, staying around decade after
decade takes furious churning and adaptation on several different size scales.
A cynic would say that corporations can make lots of money by tiny increments of novelty--they do not need great creativity and would not know what to do with it when and
if it appeared. Xerox is the paradigm here--a company whose labs invented industry after industry but whose East coast management was so out of tune with digital West
coast ideation that it gave away all these industries to others for free, virtually. Firms can do well ignoring all the big creativities in the world, until enough competitor peer
firms involves themselves in them to force copying. Why bother your pretty head with big scale creation when small scale tiny novelties are enough to keep buyers coming
back year after year? This is not only the cynics question but also the hard headed CEOs question--big creativity, do we need it?
A slightly smarter version of this same question is prevalent. Can we grow small scale novelties into becoming biggo innovations, huge creations? People want this because
business persons are not famous for thoughtfulness, brilliance, mental cleverness, great intelligence or any other sophisticated mental processing. Street smarts are more than
enough and CEOs still test out as only average in academic intelligence test measures. The professor-consultants who make money selling tools and social science instruments to businesses for promote creativity propose improving the creativity of corporations. Small scale novelties are easier for limited heads to understand and commit
to. Small scale novelties do not frighten people with nasty things like implications and hidden consequences. If your CEO uses a dictionary to understand the executive summaries at the back of each Harvard Business Review you had better propose to him tiny little increments of novelty, so his brain does not overheat. Dilbert has this exactly
right--techie proposing to CEO--blah, blah, blah; CEO response--that next-to-last blah sounded good, write that up and put it on my desk by Monday.
The problem with this increment approach is it leads to an infinite series of smaller and smaller increments till you are looking creative: while actually standing still. All
the forces are keep it simple make it fast explain it simply do not waste time and resources wring out all risk. Creativity thusly edited becomes mere appearance,
almost instantly. Incremental creativity is a lie, an obfuscation, a deliberate falsehood. Only bad-minded people talk about it and propose it. Japanese creativity programs
suffer this fate--they like increments so much they fail. The future keeps surprising them.
A different approach is the American home runs only approach--the opposite of the increment approach. You get some men together with some techies and together they propose half a dozen non-existent technologies as a new product. You report this to upper managers barely able to drool and off you go, with your dream, revolutionary, product idea. The development process for this product becomes inventing half a dozen new technologies beating them into enough shape to function at all, busting all schedule,
cost, delivery, quality specs. The result is a practical monster and disaster that is yet revolutionary, first in the world. Readers can, by now, guess where this discussion is
going.
Increment approaches without home run layers, shrink into triviality and stasis. Home run layers without increment layers, fail to implement things that are new and yet work
well for ordinary people capable of paying only ordinary prices. Either layer, by itself, is unmoored, drifts neurotically out of practicality and profitability and reality. To
achieve either layers goals well, you have to have the other extreme and layers in between, as anchoring ability increments between kaizen and revolution.

Sizes of Creation as Tactical Levels


We are dealing with a matrix, when we get practical about creativity in business. The rows are models of creativity, one or more of the 42 models presented elsewhere in this
book. The columns are the sizes of creativity that this section of the book presents. You realize each model of creativity on all or many of the size scales so that capabilities
on one size scale anchor capabilities on adjacent ones.
Anyone can create some teams, eliminate some rules and restrictions for them, and get some innovations of very modest size from them, like P&Gs Corporate New Ventures program. But these sorts of one layer approaches are unanchored, and forces erode them into trivial levels of novelty, like P&Gs taking a hot pad product idea gigantically successful in Japan for many years and having the insight to copy it with adaptations for the US market. If that is the only size of innovation you are needing and after,
one, you are now reading the wrong book; two, you will not exist as a corporation within a decade or two (or a buy-out will relieve you of your incompetent management);
three, you will never develop the incremental stretch capabilities that get you to home run revolutionary creations. You will stay mired in increments, of ever decreasing size,
for decades, till buy-out or bankruptcy takes you out of your misery.
To achieve, decent, regular increment creations, you need the supports generated by a home run revolutionary creation layer. To achieve home run revolutionary creations
you need the supports generated by an increment novelty layer. Creativity is a matrix of many models of how to create applied to several layers of creativity size attempted.
Toyota is a good example. Their home run layer stayed true to ecologic trends, trends that consistently pointed toward fuel supplies as an increasing cost problem, pollution
as an increasing environmental quality problem, global warming as an increasing government policy and regulation environment. When it did not pay to do so they invested
in these long term home run innovation trends. Hybrids with two tiny engines, electric and gas/ethanol resulted. While US companies sought short term opportunity gains,
preparing no capabilities for distant not-yet-arrived futures, Toyota perfected present technologies while pursing doggedly long-term trends. The result today is innovation on
several size scales from Toyota. Indeed my measures there found formal creativity policies for 14 out of 21 creativity size scales, one of the largest coverages by size scale of
any company I have measured. The synergies among innovation layers at Toyota are overwhelming. Daihatsu has small engine small cars, for a special tax bracket in Japan
for vehicles below certain cubic centimeter engine sizes. Toyota bought it and used its small components and engine technologies to help its hybrid car designs. This is one
of hundreds of examples of between creativity-size-scale synergies there.

Two Ways to Measure Creativity Size


This book has presented, briefly, earlier, two different ways to measure size of creations. The first is a paradigm model, based on creativity as being surprises that reveal ever
more unrealized abstract dimensions of things. Thomas Kuhns paradigm model of science if the basis for this, as amended slightly by Robert Sternberg. The other way to
measure size of creations is a culture model, based on the scope and depth of assumptions violated by any creation, invention, or discovery. You use either of these the same
way, making a matrix having different models of creation as rows and different size scales of creation as columns--you develop actions to implement each model of creativity
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 47

across all or many size scales of creation. Thusly, you can link suggestion systems with finding revolutionary anomalies in new paradigms, and link few non-core violations
of the capitalist way with many core violations of the male way. Either system of measures is fine, both can be operationalized with valid and reliable scales, for your organization and national culture, within a matter of weeks.
These two ways to measure size of creation should be thought of in two ways: as measures of size and as layers of tactical actions to achieve creativity of a certain size. It is
the interactions between such layers that provide you with unexpected and unplanned for synergies and profits from you many creativity-fostering efforts.

PARADIGM MEASURES OF CREATIVITY SIZE


The twenty one sizes of creation listed below are in order from small to large. This is not just a dimension of size differences. It is also a dimension
of increases in abstraction--small size creations are more concrete, local, and faster than large size creations. Large size creations are very
abstract, global, and time-consuming to implement. There are two super-layers: improvement and revolution. Improvements have to be sought
out and benchmarked as best practices; revolutions do not have to be sought out, they force themselves on everyone in an industry or economy.
There are two ordinary layers--tangibles and frameworks--that apply to both the improvement and the revolution super-layers. That makes for
four layers overall, that are increasingly abstract, general, and time-consuming as you progress through them in the order found below. The examples beside each item below, come from the history of total quality--since most business readers will be familiar with this global transformation
in business theory and practices as implemented worldwide over the last 30 years. Note Six Sigma does not appear in the below examples because
it is merely a rewording compendium of diverse old established quality techniques plus more stringent variance requirements on process attainments. It represents failure of total quality people to mesh and learn from software people (the old, analog, hardware blue suits versus the young,
digital, software T-shirts culture divide within persons, economies, firms, policies).
THE IMPROVEMENT LAYER

1. suggestions--lubricating omnipresent adaptation (Example: any corporate suggestion system having robust implementation)
2. improvements (kaizen) in practices--same outputs for fewer inputs, better outputs for same inputs (Example: process
enleanment via waste elimination to expose process determinants)
3. improvements (kaizen) in approaches--changes in abstract aspects of how things are done (Example: getting processes in
statistical control)
4. improvements (kaizen) in systems--changes across boundaries, vertical or horizontal, physical or physic or social (Example: root cause analysis exposure of managerial social class and status boundary causes of poor processes and outcomes)
5. improvements (kaizen) in infrastructures--changes in substrates all functions work upon, use, or depend on (Example:
machine tools with statistical control controls built in by their manufacturers)
6. improvements (kaizen) in directions--changes in human nature, feelings, goals, aspirations, boldnesses attempted (Example: Ph.D. workgroups--all ordinary workgroups doing Ph.D.. level statistical research projects on process
improvements and automations; also, statistical control and improvement of software systems and processes of
invention)
THE FRAMEWORK IMPROVEMENT LAYER

Improvements (kaizen) in governing framework assumptions--changes in the following:

7. a. elaborating existing paradigms and their anomalies (Example: Statistical Process Control separation of
special and common causes; root thinking replacing folk attribution of causes)
8. b. challenging existing paradigms (Example: Management by Fact--evidence-based policy and strategy)
9. c. proposing alternative paradigms (Example: Policy and Quality Function Deployment campaigns)
10. d. establishing new winning paradigms (Example: process, internet, & social binding of company, suppliers, customers)
11. e. finding and specifying anomalies in new winning paradigms (Example: diversity (of idea, human
attributes beyond gender/age/ethnicity) management best practices)
THE REVOLUTION LAYER

12. revolutionary practice inventions--practices forcing all others to copy or capitulate (Example: JIT inventory)
13. revolutionary approach inventions--approaches forcing all others to copy or capitulate (Example: Knowledge management: total quality processes along with internet-implemented software-intelligent enhanced self-organizing processes)
14. revolutionary systems inventions--systems forcing all others to copy or capitulate (Example: firm cluster-izations, outsourcing knowledge, research, and creativity work; firms as plural, diverse, competing-within-the-firm homes
for ideas/creators)
15. revolutionary infrastructure inventions--infrastructures forcing all others to copy or capitulate (Example: JIT managing, the agile economy of automatic net-built firms)
16. revolutionary direction inventions-- human nature, feeling, goal, aspiration, boldness inventions forcing others to copy
or capitulate (Example: cognitive competitiveness, continual statistical improvement of benchmarked internal-tothe-individual mental processes)
THE FRAMEWORK REVOLUTION LAYER

Revolutionary governing framework assumption inventions--changes in the below forcing others to copy or capitulate

17 a. elaborating existing paradigms and their anomalies (Example: from quality circles to high technology
circles)
18. b. challenging existing paradigms (Example: managing by events: departments and processes replaced by
events, social communities across internetted networks maintained via mass workshop event types)
19. c. proposing alternative paradigms (Example: quality globalizations)
20. d. establishing new winning paradigms (Example: total quality creativity; global quality creativity)
21. e. finding and specifying anomalies in new winning paradigms (Example: sizes of creativity).

CULTURE MEASURES OF CREATIVITY SIZE


VIOLATIONS OF FEW, NON-CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

1. THE CAPITALIST WAY live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are irrelevant
2. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud
3. THE TECHNOLOGY WAY toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into
technology fixes, promise the moon delivery is a later managers problem
4. THE MONKEY WAY at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard, problems never exist.
5. THE MALE WAY show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not
pull, emotion is unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

VIOLATION OF MANY, NON-CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

6. THE CAPITALIST WAY live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are irrelevant
7. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud
8. THE TECHNOLOGY WAY toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into
technology fixes, promise the moon delivery is a later managers problem
9. THE MONKEY WAY at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard, problems never exist.
10. THE MALE WAY show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not
pull, emotion is unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

VIOLATIONS OF FEW CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

11. THE CAPITALIST WAY live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are irrelevant
12. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud
13. THE TECHNOLOGY WAY toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into
technology fixes, promise the moon delivery is a later managers problem
14. THE MONKEY WAY at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard,
problems never exist.
15. THE MALE WAY show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not
pull, emotion is unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

VIOLATIONS OF MANY CORE DIMENSIONS OF:


Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 48

16. THE CAPITALIST WAY live and work for money, you can never have enough, greed is good, the MBA religion, numbers dont lie, externalities are irrelevant
17. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud
18. THE TECHNOLOGY WAY toys for boys, fix everything with technology not people, latest is dangerous, product development decaying into
technology fixes, promise the moon delivery is a later managers problem
19. THE MONKEY WAY at every occasion first establish dominance, promotion via fawning, yes-men and ass-kissers, only praise is heard,
problems never exist.
20. THE MALE WAY show how important I am, protect my turf, talk not listen, challenge not care, fix not empathize, teach not learn, push not
pull, emotion is unprofessional, relationships are a cost of sex

What the Measures and Models of Creativity Approach is Like


Consider one of the simplest of the 42 models of creativity, the darwinian model--generation, combination, selection, reproduction (half of the Darwinian Systems model).
Consider just the issue of implementing that on four simultaneous size scales--one from the improvement layer, one from the framework improvement layer, one from the revolution layer, and one from the framework revolution layer. Now you have a matrix of four creation functions, from the model, applied across four size scales of intended creation. What is doing this actually like?
THE IMPROVEMENT LAYER

2. improvements (kaizen) in practices--same outputs for fewer inputs, better outputs for same inputs (Example: process
enleanment via waste elimination to expose process determinants)
What improvements in what practices will generate more innovative ideas around here?
What improvements in what practices will combine all the innovative ideas around here however unlikely they are in combination?
What improvements in what practices will spot and select the most innovative idea combinations generated around here?
What improvements in what practices will reproduce widely around here selected combinations of ideas that are most innovative?
THE FRAMEWORK IMPROVEMENT LAYER

Improvements (kaizen) in governing framework assumptions--changes in the following:


8.

b. challenging existing paradigms (Example: Management by Fact--evidence-based policy and strategy)

What existing paradigms around here, of fundamental assumptions about things, need challenging if we are to get more ideas generated here?
What existing paradigms around here, of fundamental assumptions about things, need challenging, if we are to combine ideas better here?
What existing paradigms around here, of fundamental assumptions about things, need challenging if we are to select best idea combinations here?
What existing paradigms around here, of fundamental assumptions about things, need challenging, if we are to reproduce selected idea combinations?
THE REVOLUTION LAYER

13. revolutionary approach inventions--approaches forcing all others to copy or capitulate (Example: Knowledge management: total quality processes along with internet-implemented software-intelligent enhanced self-organizing processes)
What revolutionary approaches to what existing practices, would result in more idea generation around here?
What revolutionary approaches to what existing practices, would result in more and better idea combinations around here?
What revolutionary approaches to what existing practices, would result in better selection of idea combinations around here?
What revolutionary approaches to what existing practices, would result in better reproduction of selected idea combinations around here?
THE FRAMEWORK REVOLUTION LAYER

Revolutionary governing framework assumption inventions--changes in the below forcing others to copy or capitulate

18. b. challenging existing paradigms (Example: managing by events: departments and processes replaced by
events, social communities across internetted networks maintained via mass workshop event types)

What revolutionary challenges to existing paradigms would result in more ideas generated around here?
What revolutionary challenges to existing paradigms would result in more and better idea combinations made around here?
What revolutionary challenges to existing paradigms would result in better selection of idea combinations around here?
What revolutionary challenges to existing paradigms would result in better reproduction of selected idea combinations around here?

When actual business teams take up the sixteen questions above, they have to identify practice improvements, existing paradigms needing challenging, revolutionary
approaches to doing practices, and revolutionary challenges to whatever existing paradigms are around. This thought work is crucial--self understanding, self examination,
identifying latent, unconscious, incipient, nascent, evanescent layers and frameworks around current values and practices. The sixteen questions above each become a team
seeking creations of that size via the creation model function indicated (generation, combination, selection, reproduction). You can organize this as one team answering sixteen question, or sixteen teams each answering one question, or four teams each answering a function applied across four sizes of creation, or four teams each answering a size
of creation applied across all functions of the chosen model of creating, or eight teams four applying a model function across sizes and four applying a size across all model
functions. The key is the combination--focus on size of creation desired and focus on creation model to apply to achieve that creation. These two dimensions of focus take
you far beyond even the best contemporary consultants on creativity. This is a global best practice.
The same focus is achieved using the other model of sizes of creations.

VIOLATIONS OF FEW, NON-CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

2. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud

What few non-core American ways, if violated, would result in more ideas being generated around here?
What few non-core American ways, if violated, would result in more ideas being combined creatively around here?
What few non-core American ways, if violated, would result in better selection of idea combinations around here/
What few non-core American ways, if violated, would result in better reproduction of selected idea combinations around here?

VIOLATION OF MANY, NON-CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

7. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud

What many non-core American ways, if violated, would result in more ideas being generated around here?
What many non-core American ways, if violated, would result in more ideas being combined creatively around here?
What many non-core American ways, if violated, would result in better selection of idea combinations around here?
What many non-core American ways, if violated, would result in better reproduction of selected idea combinations around here?

VIOLATIONS OF FEW CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

12. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud

What few core American ways, if violated, would result in more ideas being generated around here?
What few core American ways, if violated, would result in more ideas being creatively combined around here?
What few core American ways, if violated, would result in better selection of idea combinations around here?
What few core American ways, if violated, would result in better reproduction of selected idea combinations around here?

VIOLATIONS OF MANY CORE DIMENSIONS OF:

17. THE AMERICAN WAY poor implementation, fast chasing of trends, home runs not base hits, trust systems not people, psychopaths make
good managers, people are mere tools, omni-present theft, if you can get away with it do it, we are the future others are sticks in the
mud

What many core American ways, if violated, would result in more ideas being generated around here?
What many core American ways, if violated, would result in more ideas being creatively combined around here?
What many core American ways, if violated, would result in better selection of idea combinations around here?
What many core American ways, if violated, would result in better reproduction of selected idea combinations around here?

It is fairly obvious that the above exercise of 16 questions amounts to a thorough-going examination of American culture and American ways at a workplace. Such ways
are examined for how they enable each of the four main functions of one particular model of creativity, the Darwinian model (a part of the Darwinian Systems model from the
model of 42 models presented later in this book). Key to seeing the power of the above is seeing actual dimensions of any culture, in this case, dimensions of American culture. The model of 64 dimensions of culture, furnished below, and repeated later in this book, allows you to see which of 64 dimensions you wish to focus on. It makes
answering the questions above, informative, fun, specific, and of great practical worth. In the model of culture dimensions below, Japanese values are given (one pole of a
polarity within each box is circled). American values are, in all 64 dimensions, opposite of the Japanese values; therefore, the model also gives American values, the uncircled
choice in each box. Here this model is not explained in detail. Later in this book it is presented again and explained thoroughly. Whenever American culture, the culture of
a technology, or any other culture is explicated along the below 64 dimensions, what that culture is becomes quite specific and useful, compared to books presenting only 8
more general dimensions.
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 49

When you add the 64 dimensions of cultures to measuring amount of creativity via cultures, you get 20 sizes, all of which get elaborated by 64 dimensions. That is more specificity than measuring creativity by paradigm. The extra detail and specificity really help when you are looking to improve you companys creativity in serious, practical,
bounded useful ways.
Keep in mind also, that above I presented only four sizes for four functions of one model of creativity. In real companies we work with more than one model of creativity,
more than four functions per model, and more than four sizes. Of course, real companies, spread this over several teams and several years of work. But the result of working
this matrix of Measures and Models is immense synergies between size levels and between models of creating. The emergence of these synergies is always underestimated so
their appearance comes like magic, a gift from heaven, human creative inputs transfigured into divine extensions and expansions.

43
dont
bother
others or
self
why can I not
make my own
story
CONTINGENCY

IMPACT
42

FUTILITY

41

will it/I make


a difference?

preserve:

of
flaw:
death is peacefulness
exteriors
or
most real fairnness
of ingratitude
or
exteriors
or
unfree
Nisbet
birth is
most real
44 why engage ugly
must I die?
life
MORTALITY
NAUSEA

EXISTENTIAL
QUESTIONS

Kukai, Lao Tsu, Sartre, Kierkegaard


39
48
35
SIN
TRAGEDY
Nisbet
why I dont life
how could I
is a
do my plan my
story of:
exper- have known
adaptors
action
situation or iences
found
the group
or
experiences I
or
play roles in
or
or
made
self am I heard/seen? work revolutionaries
AUDIENCE
meaning
45 why does posses46
ing make me object
where is meaning?
FLAW
INAUTHENTICITY
EMPTINESS

SITUATION

NO ESCAPE
why is not choosing also choosing

CHOICE

37 RESPONSE-ABILITY
RELATIVITY
38
what/who am I?
what is truth?
33
34
group acts
the self is:
life/groups are
unitary
across
or
of:
situations
love the
people arrangements
selves act
or
role = id
tasks or
ethnic
role
varies by
or
people
groupbasis
or
situation
or
intent
=
id
institutions Nisbet
or
Nisbet love the person
eternal
function basis 47
36
40
why something?
why here, now?
You cant see me
why love dies?
MYSTERY
ARBITRARYNS.
FREEDOM
LONELINESS
11

Dimensions for Distinguishing Cultures


Social Psych, Gender, Existential, Complexity, and Nisbett Models Combined

one
chance
or
several chance
lives

primacy:
gods:
56
immanent
life or
substance or transquality
or
cendant
of life
object
54 (attributes)
53
Nisbet

SACRED

TIME
causation:
plural
distributed
causes or
single local
causes
Nisbet

analysis
or
synthesis

12

10

the world:
is sacred
or
is fallen

55

serial
or
parallel

63
design
or
emergence

work:
52
seniors:
work to
pleasant end
caring or
feel good
or
about self
compeunpleaor
titive
work to critique
sant
means & improve self
Nisbet
49

50

WORK

COMPLEX
61

-ITY

[contracts
gradual
always
renegotiable]
change
Nisbet
or
64
avalanches

homogeniety
or
diversity

COMMUNITY

Geertz, Weisbord, Greene, Grunell, Todorov

drive to center
self indulgent
asceticism
or
Hampden-Turner, Hofstede, Tropenaars
drive to margins
or
60
3
normalcy
7
humans
friends over
16
Nisbet
rightness
primary or
choice:
equal to
or
right
Nisbet
one
pole
over
other
categories
or other
friends
life
or
or
inner
achieved
14 relationships 13
58 blended middle 57
or
or
outer
ascribed
CREATION
RELATION locus of control
rank

SOCIAL PSYCH

RANK
1

right vs. right


or
right vs. wrong
morality

foreground item
or
background
noticed
Nisbet
power from
closeness
hierarchy
or
or
4
power
from
egalitarian
distance

15

GROUP

focus from single


project
or
focus from
parallel
projects

6
environment:
controllable
or
uncontrol- [vision is real
lable
vs. case details
are what is real]
Nisbet
individual
universalist
or
or
communitarian 8
particularist
5

51

59

25

26

talk to solve
or
talk for empathy

GENDER STYLE
19

tell
or
listen

Tannen, de Beauvoir, Friedan


23
contest
independent
32
or
or
community
dependent
Nisbet
contradiction:
harshness
tolerated
or
29 personalasrejection
30 not tolerated
or
CONFLICT
sign of respect

OUTPUT

status
or
connection

preserve:
save face or
save truth
Nisbet

info
(mind to mind)
or
28
relation
(person to person)

INPUT/

17

exactitude
or
detail

PURPOSE

results:
from effort
or
from talent

62

world reality is:


stable or in flux

27

18
drive for
individual:
distinction
or
fitting in
Nisbet
20 exclusion
or
inclusion

argumentative
or
apologetic

31

EMOTION
21

backward
reasoning
or
forward
reasoning
Nisbet

feeling as
interesting
or
as embarrassing

24

22

mis-hearing
as relation
threat
or
status threat

Copyright 2003 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, Government Registered

Japan

Assessing Measures and Models


This chapter is about a matrix of sizes of creation aimed for plotted across different models of creating, from this books model of 42 models of creating. No supplier of creativity consulting, as of this writing, supplies either of these--sizes or models. Instead they all concentrate on one size and one model, neither looking for, acknowledging,
supporting, or enabling other sizes or other models of creativity effort. A number of problems and errors and bad outcomes come from this. Most importantly:

1. UNWITTING HINDERING OF NON-SEEN MODELS Supporting your one favorite model of creating--and thereby hindering other
models you ignore by your tactics to support the one you favor
2. UNINSTALLED MODELS Failing to install models of creativity not now in your workplace--thereby focussing on enabling weaker
models you happen to now have
3. SINGLE SIZE TACTICS ERODED BY OTHER SCALE EFFECTS Supporting one size of creating--because it is all you measure and
know about--alone such one size efforts dwindle into nothing, eroded by non-creative surrounding forces on all size scales
4. MISSING MODEL SYNERGIES Missing synergies between different models of creating--you can configure them so they compensate
for each others weaknesses
Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 50

CONTENTS
PREFACE: THE CULTURE-CREATIVITY CONNECTION p.3
The Ballpark This Book Plays In--13 Sizes of Creativity, 42 Models of Creativity, No Interest at All in Feminism, Humans are Not Necessary for Creation
The Culture of Business Publishing
Why This Book Got Written
Why a Book on Creativity in Business
Professors, Americans, Right Wingers, Techies, and Males Patronizing Businesspersons
The Culture of Publishings for Business
The Culture of Creativity in Business
The Prima Facia Case for Culture as Central to Creativity in Business
The Culture of Creators
creators are people struggling to stay awake in your presence, in your speech, in your organization
creators are people who are unstoppable--the issue: stopping them long enough to hang around your organization
creators are nasty people and they see the flaws in everything
the despair doorway to insight and creation

Getting Crystalizing Experiences--For You, Your Firm, Your World


nut farming--a workforce of nuts
home runs verus base hits

The Culture of Me, the Author of this Book


Family Cultures
Political Cultures
Ethnic Cultures
Hacker Culture
Engineering Design Culture
Gender Cultures
Business Cultures
Non-Profit and Religious Cultures
Japanese Culture
My Career as a Pain in the Ass & Why All Creativity is Always Uncreative
Using Culture Changes to Create--Exaptation and Reframings
reframing suggestion systems--the final adaptation layer
reframing slack time systems--the productivity foundation of later creating--learning to fight for free time
reframing failure tolerance systems--second chance career systems
reframing creative thinking tools--the greater creativity of root thinking systems
reframing silicon valley systems--flows of things seeking homes, being a flow, being a home
reframing firms and careers--the concept of social multiplier
reframing knowledge work--code versus action factorws
Globality = Creativity: If Your Global Assignments are Phony Your Creativity is Shallow and Wimpy
Culture, Creativity, Educatedness--Their Relations
Some Paradoxes of Creating
making it easy makes it hard -- supporting it eliminates it
creativity is not creative -- so supporting it prevents it
creativity is uncreative -- changes of frame turn the uncreative into the creative and vice versa and you and I do not control
frame changes
the uncreative is sometimes very creative -- by definition, is another new technology from the US creative? no, it merely
continues a well established trend
the creativity of error--mis-copying (bad copy and copying wrong thing), mis-implementing (doing wrong thing, doing it
wrong way)

A Model of Culture and Cultures Role in Creating


Tools for Upping Mental Granularity and Productivity
A Useful Model of Culture

PART ONE--CREATING CLARITY ABOUT CREATIVITY p.14


Chapter 1: The Uncreativity of Current Research on Creativity in Business p.14

some other flaws in academic research on creativity in business


a fair representation of the state of value of what academic researchers have found about creativity in busiiness

What to Notice in the Above Findings About Business Creativity

The Lack of Diverse Diversity


Tuning the Control versus Creativity Trade-Off
Missing Disguise
Avoiding The Power of the Negative and the Despair Doorway
Omitting Skepticism, Schizo, and Know Thyself
What are These Well Populated Spaces and Resources of Academic Research on Creativity in Business?
Missing Connections--Perseverence via Disguise
Curiosity, Interest, Drive, Persistance, Investing in Failing Lines of Action--What Does Instrinsic Motivation Hide?
Creativity Kills Businesses
Conclusion--Not Male Enough, Not Female Enough, Not Anything Enough

Chapter 2: Disillusioning Creativity--Stripping Illusions from It p.21


toys for boys, tools for fools, getting real about creativity in business
inauthentic reasons for interest in creativity--the career system distorts creativity
the costs of inauthentic interest in creativity--simultaneous overshooting and undershooting creativity
tampering--statistical, complexity, and creativity
the uncreativity of creating--neurotic creativity
reducing creativity by supporting it--(it is not an it)
educatedness as a primary route to creativity
defining creativity--using the word and concept carefully and consistently--clearing away conceptual brush
a one minute creativity courage test
relational and representational defining of creativity
the creativity implementation paradoxes
connection as a self limiting route to creativity
the recommendations and subcreations models of creating--what they tells us about business blocks to creating
managing by events--a primary route to creating in business
managers educated enough to spot creative persons and not get in their way
pulsed systems--enough isolation and enough connection at the right times
the impossibility of creativity in modern businesses argument
the inevitability of creativity in modern businesses argument
creativity as cultural work--5 cultures--american, male, technology, capitalist, monkey
create-analysis not tools
the paybacks from creating
Chapter 3: Errors in Doing and Handling Creativity p.36
error 1--Assuming that Environments Support or Create Creativity
error 2--The Disaster of Assuming that Creativity is One Thing
error 3--The Disaster of Missing Trade-Offs Between More Creativity and More Other Things That Your Business Needs
error 4--Slighting or Ignoring the Creativity of Surviving as a Business
error 5--Missing When Being Creative is Not Very Creative
error 6--Stifling Creativity Using Creative Environments
error 7--Excepting, Containing, Bounding Creativity
error 8--Toys for Boys, Tools for Fools
error 9--The Mental Illness Illusion--Same Inputs, Different Outputs
error 10--Missing Infrastructure-Based Immense Innovations
error 11--Confusing Base Hit Democratic Creativity Systems with Home Run Elite Creativity Systems
error 12--Trying to Get Creativity from Non-Creators
error 13--False, Exaggerated, Biased Attribution
error 14--The Creativity of Hassle Handling
error 15--Being In the Flow With it
Chapter 4: The Femininity of Productivity and Creativity--Why This is Both Obvious and Inevitable and a Result of the Cultural Work that All Creating Amount
To p.42
Creativity as Moral and Culture Work:
How & Why Gender Work Gets Disguised as Technology and Technique Work
The Femininity of Productivity
The Femininity of Creativity
Creating Leadership--The Minimal Unit of Competent Cognition--The Heterosexual Pair
Chapter 5: Measuring Amount and Quality of Creativity p.47
The Relativity of Creativity and the Paradox of Turning Increments into Leaps
Resolving the Paradox Using 13 Sizes of Creativity
Environments Supportive of Different Sizes--Assessing Sizes

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 346

Environments Supportive of Different Models of Creating--Assessing Models

PART TWO--CREATING CREATORS p.51

Chapter 6: Total Quality as Eliminator of Uncreative Creativity p.51


total quality and elimination of uncreative creativity
total quality, TRIZ, and standard innovation operators

DEMASSIFICATION break a long, big, risky thing into a population of fast, small, riskless things
DEGENDERIFICATION take hierarchical, status concerned, competitive things and turn them into egalitarian, intimacy
concerned, cooperative things
DENEUROTICIZATION identify the costs of all talents and develop slighted capabilities caused by existing talents

Chapter 7: Creativity, Total Quality, and the Culture of Professionalism--Should Creation be Done by Professionals in It or by Everyone? p.53
Bledsoe and the Culture of Professions
Total quality as Un-professionalizing Work, Un-professionalizing Creativity--that is, Doing Creativity Without Creators
Towards Total Quality Creators and Total Quality Creating
The Paradox of Creative Ends Obtained by Uncreative Means
Chapter 8: Can I Personally Become Creative Alone or in an Environment Hostile to It? p.90
Creating Creators on All Size Scales
How to Become a Creator and Create in Hostile (that is Normal) Business Environments
Getting Creators, Once You Create Them to Create on All Size Scales
Supporting the Models of Creating Appropriate and Chosen by Each Size Scale
Synergies--Between Organization Levels, Between Creativity Size Scales, Between Creativity Models
Chapter 9: 45 Models of Innovation p.95
Chapter 10: From Psychoanalysis to Create-analysis p.155
create-analysis-ordinary people never create,
subcreations for creating,
creative lives do creating,
42 models of creating not one or a few, u
sing the recommendations model,
create-analysis,
using 42 models

using 42 models of creativity in business--two diagrams, empty and filled in


the creativity of educatedness--a short cut, believe it or not, for advanced organizations and leaders
Chapter 11: From Total Quality Creativity to Global Quality Creativity p.158
The Social Vehicle of TQ Applied to Creativity
Evolving Increments into Leaps
Devolving Leaps into Increments
Statistical Control of Creative Thinking and Creation Doing
Statistical Control of Creating Creators
From Total Quality Creating to Global Quality Creating

PART THREE--CREATING CREATIONS p.159


Chapter 12: Know What You are Talking About and What You are Doing p.159
Creativity, a Non-Human Process

lessons from the most creative process known in this universe


the process that created you and me, natural selection,
the process that produced natural selection

relational defining of creativity--the orthogonal disciplines research program


representational defining of creativity--a model of 42 models of creativity
Chapter 13: The Model of 54 Orthogonal Disciplines p.160
Chapter 14: The Model of 42 Models of Creativity p.169
(Chapter 15: 3 Out of 42 Models of Creativity
the recommendatioins Model--a model of the 64 steps of becoming creative and the 64 steps of creating: neutral drift and exaptations (gene
reuse in new frames/contexts)

the subcreations model


the culture mixing model)
Chapter 16: A Model of the Business of Creativity--Managing Invention, Discovery, Art, and Creators p.228

a model of the creativity of business--the next profound abstract model of business after total quality--globalizing all dimensions of business
the art of business, the business of art--emotional capitalism--femininizing: selves, systems, the earth and its future

how to ruin creativity in business--

1. patronizing publishings to businesspersons--dumbing down for wider markets, bigger sales, greater profits, while getting
less interest, less reading,
2. praising the easy--gradually lowering standards of what gets called creative till nothing is not creative
3. making creating easy--reduces challenge and victory, reduces creativity
4. off site rope climbs and rapid rides--experiencing how good life outside the rules is merely makes people hate the organization more, not less; businesses as communities = Japan

the software of creativity and the creativity of software systems and people--

tongue cramps from speaking mind to mind with software people


procedural embedding as a core creativity thinking skill
abstracting a minimal grammar of operators that do what is wanted as a small subset of a new combinatorial world
from programming codes to programming strategies, products, persons, careers

PART FOUR--CREATING CULTURES THAT CREATE p.248

Chapter 17: A Model of the 10 Components of Any Culture p.249


Chapter 18: Creating a Culture that Creates--How to Use the Model of Culture to Create a Culture of Creation p.278

APPENDIX--ASSESSING ALL OF CREATIVITY (NEARLY) p.280


Chapter 19: 1500 Item Creativity Checklist p.280
Chapter 20: 1000 Item Creativity Questionnaire p.313

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 347

Getting Real
about
Creativity in
Business
The Femininity of Productivity and Creativity
by

Richard Tabor Greene


Professor of Knowledge and Creativity Management
School of Policy Studies, Kwansei Gakuin University, Sanda, Japan
email: richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu
PREFACE: THE CULTURE-CREATIVITY CONNECTION p.3
PART ONE--CREATING CLARITY ABOUT CREATIVITY p.14
Chapter 1: The Uncreativity of Current Research on Creativity in Business p.14
Chapter 2: Disillusioning Creativity--Stripping Illusions from It p.21
Chapter 3: Errors in Doing and Handling Creativity p.36
Chapter 4: The Femininity of Productivity and Creativity--Why This is Both Obvious and Inevitable and a Result of the Cultural Work that All Creating Amount
To p.42
Chapter 5: Measuring Amount and Quality of Creativity p.4

PART TWO--CREATING CREATORS p.51

Chapter 6: Total Quality as Eliminator of Uncreative Creativity p.51


Chapter 7: Creativity, Total Quality, and the Culture of Professionalism--Should Creation be Done by Professionals in It or by Everyone? p.53
Chapter 8: Can I Personally Become Creative Alone or in an Environment Hostile to It? p.90
Chapter 9: 45 Models of Innovation p.95 (to become two separate books, 45 models of innovation and 64 dynamics of high tech ventures)
Chapter 10: From Psychoanalysis to Create-analysis p.155
Chapter 11: From Total Quality Creativity to Global Quality Creativity p.158

PART THREE--CREATING CREATIONS p.159

Chapter 12: Know What You are Talking About and What You are Doing p.159
Chapter 13: The Model of 54 Orthogonal Disciplines p.160
Chapter 14: The Model of 42 Models of Creativity p.169
(Chapter 15: 3 Out of 42 Models of Creativity) not yet written
Chapter 16: A Model of the Business of Creativity--Managing Invention, Discovery, Art, and Creators p.228

PART FOUR--CREATING CULTURES THAT CREATE p.248


Chapter 17: A Model of the 10 Components of Any Culture p.249
Chapter 18: Creating a Culture that Creates--How to Use the Model of Culture to Create a Culture of Creation p.278

APPENDIX--ASSESSING ALL OF CREATIVITY (NEARLY) p.280


Chapter 19: 1500 Item Creativity Checklist p.280
Chapter 20: 1000 Item Creativity Questionnaire p.313

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 348

Getting Real
about
Creativity in
Business
The Femininity of Productivity and Creativity
by

Richard Tabor Greene


Professor of Design Creativity & Innovation,
Grad School of System Design & Management,
Keio University, Hiyoshi, Japan
Master, De Tao Masters Academy,
Beijing-Shanghai
email: richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu

Copyright 2007 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Page 1