In many respects, the third peak experience—productivity—represents an extension of personal creativity into an organizational setting. In other words, to become more productive, it’s often necessary to first become more creative—that is, to find innovative ways to do an efficient job. The kind of organizational creativity that can ultimately lead to higher productivity on the job presents us with three special Breakout Principle issues.
The science behind the Breakout Network begins with the same mind-body phenomena that are associated with the individual Breakout. You already know that the sine qua non for triggering an individual Breakout is to engage in some activity or thought process that effectively breaks prior thought and emotional patterns.
The same principle holds true when Breakouts occur in an organizational setting. To maximize your creativity in a discussion group or other idea-generating session, you try to trigger one or more personal Breakouts by relying on one of the mechanisms or activities described in Chapters 2 and 5.
But an increasing body of research evidence suggests another, broader Breakout dynamic may occur in the right kind of group setting.
The quest for a “living company”
For example, the London Business School’s A. de Geus, writing in the Harvard Business Review (75 [1997]: 51–59), described what he calls “living companies”—or organizations that have unusual staying power in the world economy. Instead of ending after about twenty years, which is the life of the average corporation, these living companies may continue for hundreds of years. As an illustration, de Geus cites the Swedish company Stora, which is more than seven hundred years old.
The author argues that many companies “die young” because their politics and practices are based too much on ordinary—and by implication, linear—economic thinking. But those that have a long life have a different focus, according to de Geus.
While weaker companies emphasize production of goods and services and the generation of profits, the companies with greater staying power recognize that the organization is actually a community of human beings. As a result, they approach their company like “careful gardeners,” who encourage growth and renewal, but without endangering the employee “plants” they are nurturing.
As a consequence of this personal orientation, the executives and their employees are better able to work together to ensure their collective survival in an unpredictable world. To this end, they pursue more effective strategies of adaptation, renewal, and innovation, including the ability to make dramatic organizational changes when necessary. In their development, these long-lived companies typically create opportunities for employees to learn from one another—through such vehicles that we have described as the Breakout Network.
A successful Breakout Network is also dependent upon what other researchers have called a “participative culture,” with employees from all parts of the organization contributing to the success of the entire corporation (see Organization Dynamics 13 [1984]: 4–22; and Journal of Business Strategy, 1989, 38–42). Again, the Breakout Network represents a powerful vehicle to marshal the creative contributions of workers from every type of background and thinking style.
Of course, the mental and creative stimulation that can be generated in well-organized small groups isn’t limited to commercial companies. In a 1999 report published by scientists at the Department of Neurology at the University of Chile, a group of older participants, averaging 66.6 years of age, showed significant increases in thought stimulation after participating in a study that featured sixteen special workshops.
Specifically, the project required the seniors to attend ninety-minute workshops, twice a week over two months. During the sessions, they were exposed to a number of cognitive strategies, including group memory activities and pantomime plays that motivated them to think more creatively (Review of Medicine in Chile 127 [1999]: 319–22).
Synchronize—don’t homogenize!
Although an effective Breakout Network requires that very different people be pulled together in one forum so that they can interact, the Network should not be designed so that the participants are all encouraged to become the same, like products of a corporate cookie cutter. Instead, each person should keep his own identity as his ideas interact and clash with others.
Business researcher M. Sawhney, writing in the Harvard Business Review in 2001, described this principle with an imperative that he used as the title of his article: “Don’t homogenize, synchronize” (100–108, 145). Centering on the business need to be sensitive to the needs of the customer, Sawhney argued in favor of making an organization “permeable to information.” Among other things, this means that while a company should synchronize its databases, workers should be encouraged to retain their individual strengths and outlooks. Only through such diversity in the workforce can an organization expect to move closer to its customers, sustain product innovation, and improve overall operational efficiency and productivity.
When an organization establishes interactive groups based on the above objectives—that is, when the organization forms a “living company,” which is based on a “participative culture” with diverse but “synchronized” worker interactions—it is well on the way to establishing a potent Breakout Network. Furthermore, such groups can become a significant new source of creativity and productivity for any organization—including commercial corporations, nonprofit organizations, and ad hoc associations with various missions and purposes.
But these considerations represent just the first step in designing a true Breakout Network. The fundamental principle underlying a Breakout Network—as is also the case with the individual Breakout—is that it should be designed to foster an atmosphere that encourages the breaking of unproductive thought patterns in individual participants.
Sometimes, all that is required to achieve this severing of previous thought “tapes” is to toss around new ideas in a comfortable setting with trusted colleagues—preferably those who think differently from the way you do. Such interaction, which will at least expose you to ideas that have been generated outside your own mind, may on occasion be enough to sever your own prior patterns, or those of other participants.
The final result may be a personal Breakout in a group setting, which in turn leads to a personal peak experience of creativity or other significant insight that has the power to change the direction of the group. In other words, the individual who has undergone such a Breakout will usually first share his or her innovative breakthrough with the group. Then, together, they will be able to shape and fine-tune the new concept into a usable application, which will result in greater productivity for the organization.
But more often, a relaxed discussion among old friends won’t be enough to get the creative juices flowing freely in an organizational setting. A stronger creativity-stimulating impulse is required. In many successful Breakout Networks, this impulse may arise out of a dynamic that we call the Grating Paradox.
Harvard researchers D. Leonard and S. Straus—reporting in a 1997 article in the Harvard Business Review provocatively entitled “Putting your company’s whole brain to work” (110–21)—introduced a group process of innovation that they called creative abrasion.
The authors recognized that in the contemporary business environment, it was absolutely necessary to innovate, or the company was likely to fall behind the competition. But not all organizations are set up to take advantage of a socially based creative impulse.
A common problem that the researchers encountered in observing a number of organizations during their investigation was that many companies had failed to transform conflict into a constructive “grating” process. In other words, the companies might put different people with divergent thinking styles together on the same team. But instead of “grating” or “sharpening” one another to produce creative solutions, the relationships deteriorated into a noxious blend of bad feelings and pitched battles.
In effect, the Harvard Business School researchers uncovered a powerful paradox, which we have incorporated in the Breakout Network as the Grating Paradox. In brief, the paradox can be stated this way:
In an organization, intense but cordial disagreement is necessary to produce innovation, enhanced productivity, worker satisfaction—and lasting agreement.
Because of the inevitable conflicts that will arise in such a Breakout Network group, it is essential to emphasize the “cordiality” qualification in the above definition. This caveat becomes especially important when the members are highly accomplished in their respective fields and probably possess an extra measure of self-confidence, if not arrogance.
As such participants “bump” up against one another, feelings simply cannot be allowed to careen out of control. Consequently, the organizers must establish a structure where disputes do not become personal. Wildly different worldviews and personalities must be placed in contact so that they can continue to “grate” against one another, but at the same time, they must be juxta-posed so that they don’t produce destructive conflict. The ultimate goal of the Breakout Network—coming up with new ideas that will enhance productivity—must always take precedence over any individual’s desire to dominate or dictate.
Researchers in other fields and venues have also arrived at conclusions that back up the Grating Paradox.
For example, an article by Becca Orchard of Becca Orchard and Associates in Duluth, Georgia, emphasized that conflict and disagreement are a fact of life in business. But the author recommended optimizing differences rather than minimizing them as a means to promote greater creativity (AAOHN Journal 46 [1998]: 302–12, 313–14). Those organizations that succeed in managing and using such differences will be in a much stronger position to increase mutual respect among workers and also to find better solutions to problems, such as those involving productivity.
To increase productivity, many experts focus on molding and training middle management. R. M. Kanter, writing in the Harvard Business Review, notes that productivity depends on the design of new products, the institution of new structures to accommodate change, and the installation of new equipment (60 [1982]: 95–105). Such advances depend largely on the level of innovation generated at the middle management level, Kanter says.
She found that the most innovative managers are visionary, comfortable with the idea of change and persistent in pursuing new concepts. Furthermore, her research revealed that innovation flourishes in organizations where the areas of responsibility and expertise of various individuals overlap, workers interact across functional lines, and information flows freely.
These grating-related principles are not limited to the field of business. In medicine, for instance, researchers increasingly emphasize the importance of capitalizing on cross-disciplinary discussion groups, which include participants who can interact with thinkers outside their own narrow fields (Cultural Medicine and Psychiatry 22 [1998]: 55–92).
In a similar fashion, Japanese cancer researchers have criticized the use of traditional scientific paradigms, which are often rooted in an assumption that human biology is based on linear thinking and simplistic cause-and-effect relationships. This linear approach has “outlived its usefulness,” they said. Instead, it has now become necessary to integrate medical findings into a broader, more complex framework that may not fit neatly into conventional scientific thought patterns (Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 30 [2000]: 529–33).
Such conclusions are particularly interesting to me because my sometimes “nonlinear” research observations have been assailed throughout my entire career as “unscientific,” even though those observations have subsequently been confirmed by newer technology that follows the “linear” rules of science.
Clearly, designing an effective Breakout Network that promotes “creative abrasion” without fostering acrimony requires considerable education of participants, advance planning, and rule setting—or part of what we have described as the hardworking struggle phase of the Breakout. So what are some of the practical parameters to keep in mind when your organization decides to make use of the Grating Paradox—and move toward forming an effective Breakout Network?
For the Grating Paradox to work effectively in a Breakout Network, the group must be of a manageable size—ideally from four to six people. Of course, there will always be exceptions. Two or three people have sometimes operated effectively as a Network group. But usually such a small group works only when every person is unusually creative and compatible, or when they have a history of “playing off” one another to good effect.
As many as seven or eight participants can also sometimes interact effectively, so long as they know one another fairly well and feel comfortable talking freely in one another’s presence. A group of more than eight usually becomes unwieldy or less effective. Typically, in such a large group, two or three assertive or highly articulate individuals dominate the discussion.
More than a numbers game
But Breakout Networks involve more than a numbers game. Each participant must recognize that the others have been chosen not because everyone is the same or naturally compatible, but for the opposite reason—i.e., because as many participants as possible are quite different from one another and may even be prone to intense disagreements.
This Network “rule” may seem counterproductive for effective discussions. However, a group composed of people who think along the same lines is simply not as likely to come up with as many innovative ideas as one composed of dissimilar individuals who see the world through radically different eyes, but who can nevertheless speculate and muse together.
Furthermore, the rules of an effective Network require each participant to show respect for the others or the creative dynamic won’t work. The fastest way to shut down free discussion is to belittle or make fun of someone else’s idea or suggestion. Those experienced in working with the Grating Paradox in groups insist that each participant must:
In a sense, the Breakout Network is a projection onto a broader, group scale of the individual holistic or dialectical thinking process described in the previous chapter. We have seen that individuals with an Asian mind-set may tackle problems first by relying on nonlinear thinking, which may involve accepting concepts that might at first seem contradictory. Furthermore, Western-style thinkers—who operate mostly by relying on linear logic and analysis—have found that triggering a Breakout often causes them to leap out of their previous, linear thought patterns into a holistic Eastern mind-set.
In this fresh-thinking mode, they have often discovered more creative ways to solve the problems they were facing. The advantages of applying such dialectical thinking to organizations or to societies can be seen in Sternberg’s American Psychology article cited in the references for the previous chapter.
Organizations that transfer divergent thinking modes successfully to their small groups will benefit from the creative collision of both holistic-dialectical thought patterns and analytical-linear patterns. The result is that the Breakout Network capitalizes on the powerful Grating Paradox, and the principle of creative abrasion described by Leonard and Straus in their Harvard Business Review article.
Grating works for any organization
The Grating Paradox works for practically any type of organization, including those involved in scientific projects. You may remember that the studies we have done at Harvard Medical School in recent years often involved participants from widely divergent fields—such as cardiology, neuroscience, biochemistry, or psychiatry. By assembling a multidisciplinary team for certain projects—and by being certain that all members are sufficiently compatible to be able to resolve their inevitable conflicts and disagreements—we are much more likely to come up with a better final result.
As you move to establish a Breakout Network in your organization, a question that often arises is how, if at all, does the Network differ from traditional brainstorming? In fact, there are some similarities—but also some decisive differences.
Some have suggested a link between the Breakout Network and old-fashioned group brainstorming sessions, and there are some similarities. For example, both the Breakout Network and effective brainstorming require that each participant come into the group session prepared with facts, figures, and plenty of personal analysis. Also, in both types of groups, it’s important to define the problem to be solved, and to set a strict time limit on each session.
To achieve these goals, it will almost always be necessary to appoint a group facilitator in both the Breakout Network and a regular brainstorming session. But the facilitator should not make the mistake of slipping into the role of dominant leader. This guide should fulfill only certain limited functions, such as:
Depending on the nature of the issue under discussion, a Breakout Network or a brainstorming session may run from a minimum of about forty-five minutes to a maximum of about two hours. Anything longer than two hours typically causes participants to lose focus or become physically or mentally fatigued.
Finally, in both types of groups, the facilitator or another designated “recorder” should jot down new ideas. Failing to keep a record will cause good ideas to be forgotten and perhaps lost forever.
But there are also major differences between the Breakout Network and garden-variety brainstorming.
Beyond brainstorming
A fundamental distinction is that ordinary brainstorming sessions tend to be staged with the organizers giving little prior thought to the individual mind-sets of group members. In other words, the participants’ thinking styles are not usually included as part of the planning equation.
In contrast, an effective Breakout Network requires that organizers pay close attention to the creative and thinking styles of each participant. Both linear and holistic thinkers must be included in the mix, so that they will be able to “grate” against one another—with minimal personal conflict—as they knock ideas back and forth. (Note: This grating process is the group version of the struggle phase that typically precedes a Breakout.)
Also, participants should be instructed about the nature of the two main thinking styles—linear and nonlinear—so that they will know more about what to expect as they begin to interact.
In addition to including those with different thinking styles, a Breakout Network group should draw in participants with divergent educational and training backgrounds. If an organization includes legal professionals, blue-collar workers, and sales-people, representatives of as many of these backgrounds as possible should be in a discussion group.
But perhaps the most important difference is that a Breakout Network is based on a well-researched biological phenomenon—the Breakout Principle, with all its distinctive brain and biochemical transformations. These same biological changes will occur in individuals in a group setting when the Breakout Network has been properly designed. But they are not as likely to occur in an ordinary brainstorming session.
In fact, as we will see in the next section, ordinary group brainstorming may not be as effective in producing creative ideas as would “individual brainstorming,” which has all the prerequisites to produce a Breakout. Such individual brainstorming includes situations where several people, operating in isolation from one another (such as on private computers), mull over the same problem or issue. Then they transmit their thoughts and insights to a central location, where all contributions are processed and, if possible, merged.
To sum up, all Network members should be aware not only of different thinking styles but also of the biological events that may occur as the discussion proceeds. With this knowledge, they will become more alert as a group to the possible onset of Breakout experiences and the appearance of fresh ideas about productivity and other issues, both in themselves and in other participants. Because of the importance of this biological dynamic, all Network participants should be trained in how to trigger their own personal Breakouts.
Now, with this broad base of research in mind, let’s return to the practical challenge of setting up a workable system that will maximize the organizational creativity that improves productivity. We have already discussed the optimum size and constituency of the group. But two fundamental questions remain:
When you begin to design or participate in a Breakout Network, how, exactly, can you cause Breakouts to occur during a discussion? What is the secret to triggering a Breakout on the organizational level, when you’re deeply embroiled verbally with other people?
Any practical strategy that has the power to trigger creative Breakouts in a Network must be built on the basic principles we have been discussing. The most important include:
A number of effective group strategies based on these criteria have emerged in our research and are reflected in the following list. These suggestions are not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive, merely suggestive, as you design your own Breakout Network.
When your work or volunteer team loses its creative or productive edge, you might consider trying an approach that Harvard colleague Dr. Ruanne K. Peters and I tested in the corporate offices of a manufacturing firm (American Journal of Public Health 67 [1977]: 946–53; see also my earlier article on combating stress in a corporate environment in Harvard Business Review 52 [1974]: 49–60).
Dr. Peters divided 126 volunteers into three groups and told them that over a twelve-week period she was going to test the effectiveness of daily relaxation breaks against the harmful effects of stress. Groups A and B were given differing instructions, while group C, a control group, received no instructions.
Groups A and B were asked to take two fifteen-minute relaxation breaks each day, one in the morning and the other in the afternoon or evening. They had to take the breaks on their own time—either before or after work, or during the usual company coffee-break time. The A group was taught how to elicit the relaxation response. The B group was told just to sit quietly during their relaxation time.
At the end of the study, the A group, who had utilized the relaxation-response technique, showed significant improvement in health symptoms, illness days, sociability and satisfaction, and job performance. Job performance included evaluation of the participants’ levels of physical energy, strength of concentration, ability to handle problems, and overall efficiency.
The B group, which had simply been told to sit quietly, also did well on these measurements, though not as well as group A. The C group, which had received no instructions, did the worst.
This result provides research confirmation of what we would expect to occur in a well-designed Breakout Network. That is, engaging in an activity that breaks prior emotional and thought patterns is likely to raise performance levels, productivity, and overall job satisfaction.
One of the most effective ways to break prior thought patterns in a group is through humor. A joke, diverting story, or a few minutes of banter can often distract Network participants from unproductive ideas and emotions and set the stage for further progress.
Katherine Hudson, writing in the July–August 2001 Harvard Business Review (45–48, 51–53), reported that injecting some fun into a traditional Midwestern company’s serious culture helped increase performance and sales. By encouraging both formal programs featuring humor and also spontaneous joking, she found that the company reaped a number of benefits, including:
The lesson for Breakout Network groups: Be prepared to punctuate your discussions with humor! It’s not necessary that a “joke time” be institutionalized. But each group organizer and facilitator should make it clear that the discussions are supposed to be enjoyable—an observation that will almost always automatically open the door to spontaneous humor.
It’s been said that the best way to learn a subject is to teach it. For purposes of the Breakout Network, shifting to teaching mode can also be a powerful means of breaking your prior thought patterns and moving into a new creative space.
Noel M. Tichy of the University of Michigan Business School reported in the April 2001 issue of the Harvard Business Review (63–70, 166) on a “boot camp” for new corporate recruits in one major corporation. In two three-month sessions, top executives were assigned to teach new employees about new products and to interact with them on innovative ideas that the new people had been asked to develop.
These sessions were so successful in generating and fine-tuning new ideas that the teaching strategy became the company’s main research-and-development engine. The organization’s technical experts became mentors for the new recruits, and the seasoned executives and other experts found that they could learn a great deal from the fresh-thinking recruits.
An important lesson from this illustration is that changing roles in a Breakout Network can often help you slip through mental bottlenecks. For example, you might change facilitators from time to time. Or when the group seems stymied, you might suggest that each person switch conceptual positions by arguing as vigorously as possible for the opposite viewpoint.
Sometimes, just sitting or interacting in one enclosed office space can become an obstacle to creative thought. To break out of this mold, the entire group might take a walk or go on an outing.
Because discussions in organizations often tend to be sedentary, with everyone sitting in a familiar seat, some form of moving about should usually be programmed into the agenda. You’ll recall that getting a little exercise, especially repetitive activity, can be sufficient many times to break prior trains of thought and trigger a Breakout. Or if the participants are particularly athletic, even more vigorous activity may be helpful.
In the January 2001 Harvard Business Review, J. Loehr and T. Schwartz recommended the development of “corporate athletes”—employees who were capable of sustained high performance on the job. The authors suggested that following a model that they called the “performance pyramid” could develop such top achievers.
The foundation of this pyramid, they said, was physical well-being, on which emotional health, mental acuity, and spiritual purpose could be developed. They suggested rigorous exercise as an essential component to develop a sense of emotional balance, which could clear the way for peak mental performance.
In many ways, this “corporate athlete” concept represents an extension into the organizational realm of some of the personal Breakout triggers we have already explored, such as repetitive walking and jogging. Undoubtedly, interspersing more vigorous activity with sedentary discussions will be likely to stimulate your mind to think in more innovative directions.
Some groups have discovered that their creativity was stifled because they were using overly familiar, boring, or confusing graphics to illustrate points in their discussions. The obvious solution is to look for new ways to illustrate your points. For example, if you’ve been using PowerPoint, you might switch to a dry-erase board. Or if dry-erase isn’t working, you might have each person draw a diagram, then shuffle the diagrams around so that everyone is looking at someone else’s creation.
A report in the September–October 1999 Harvard Business Review (87–94, 184) suggested the use of “organigraphs” instead of organizational charts to stimulate discussion about how the company’s functions and key players might be reorganized. An organigraph, the authors explained, is not a chart but looks more like a map, which provides an overview of the company’s functions and the ways people operate at work.
Perhaps the most important use of organigraphs in promoting productivity is that by showing the operation of the company from an entirely new perspective, it might help managers develop a better understanding of where the company’s main strengths and expertise lie. With such insights, the managers could make better decisions about what new part of the world should be a target of expansion, or what untapped area of business, such as the Internet, might hold significant promise.
A lesson about the senses
An important lesson from research into graphic aids is that in designing your Breakout Network you should take into account all of the senses—and especially the visual. Seeing something in a fresh way will often break those old mental tapes and usher in an entirely new—and highly productive—thought pattern.
But don’t forget the other senses. When the main focus in an organization is to generate new ideas that have the potential to provide significant increases in productivity, highly unusual techniques may be in order. For example, smelling a pleasant aroma, such as baked bread, can trigger all sorts of new, positive associations in many people. Similarly, fresh and pleasant sounds, tastes, and tactile sensations can often reverse negative patterns of discussion and get the creative juices flowing again.
A related issue is “synesthesia,” or the triggering of responses in one sense when a completely different sense is stimulated. For example, some people may see certain colors when they hear certain music tones. Evidence suggests that many people beyond those identified as real “synesthetes” may respond with another sense when they are exposed to stimuli associated with an entirely different sense.
One group, for instance, consistently chose light colors when they heard high musical notes, but dark colors when they heard low notes (see American Journal of Psychology 109 [1996]: 219–38). In other experiments, subjects associated sneezes with bright colors and coughs with dark colors. Also, sunlight was regarded as “loud” and moonlight as “soft” (see Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception, and Performance 8 [1982]: 177–93; and Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 11 [1999]: 58–65).
Many times, these studies are discussed in terms of metaphors, which explain a perception or experience in one area of life in terms of those from a different area. In using some of these concepts as part of Breakout Network strategy, you might display visual aids to the group, such as paintings or colored panels, or expose them to music. Then ask them to record any thoughts or ideas. The sensory stimulation may well cause them to think in new, more creative terms about the issue at hand.
Another powerful strategy that can stimulate creativity in groups is storytelling. Assume, for instance, that your discussion on a topic has grown stale. To add a little zest, you might push the participants to start explaining their points with specific illustrations or analogies.
Typical prompts that a group facilitator or other participants might use to spark storytelling—and a return to creativity—include:
Once members of a Network get used to providing examples and stories to back up their points, the group will usually find that their ability to think flexibly and “out of the box” increases.
A September 2001 article in Medical Education (862–66), for instance, demonstrated how interest and memory in students could be enhanced through the use of stories as a vehicle in teaching medical management. Among other things, the authors found that using stories could provide a framework for what they call “web” or “net” thinking—i.e., nonlinear thinking. When the participants moved into a more dialectical mind-set, they often discovered that it was easier to establish links among objective and subjective details in complex case management scenarios.
Another effective technique for breaking past, unproductive patterns in a Network discussion is for one of the participants to interrupt with a completely new linear argument or suggestion. In effect, the new logical concept “slices” through the discussion in what we call linear swordplay.
Robin’s “magic three”
In one such discussion, scientists in a commercial corporation were trying to solve an Internet problem. As they moved forward in a classic linear progression, the participants systematically eliminated contradictory or weaker arguments. At the end of their discussion, however, they had no answer that their company could implement on the Internet. Though they had come up with a very logical answer, they were still far from a satisfactory solution.
To get the discussion moving again, one of the participants, whom we’ll call Robin, broke in with a rather disruptive observation.
“There have to be at least three answers,” she said.
After a brief silence, someone asked, “What do you mean? We already have the best answer.”
“But we all agree that it’s not the best—it’s not quite right,” Robin said. “I’ve always found there are always at least three reasonable answers for any problem like this. So let’s find the other two.”
Finally, the group saw where she was heading. If they could come up with at least two more reasonable solutions—both of which could be derived by employing linear logic—one of those might be better than the one they now had. Or by combining two of the answers, they might find a superior result.
To act on Robin’s suggestion, the participants had to put aside their prior line of thought—i.e., break the old mental pattern of the group—and embark together on an entirely new track. Finally, they came up with not just two, but three additional possible solutions. Then they began to merge the old idea and the new concepts and found a number of combinations, which provided them with a variety of more creative and satisfying solutions than the first solution alone.
In effect, Robin and her colleagues had used a dialectical model to “push” or “bump” conflicting concepts against one another as thesis and antithesis. Eventually, one of the combined solutions—in effect, a synthesis—provided the best possible answer and gave them a promising strategy for using the Internet more productively in their business.
Slashing with the thesaurus
Similarly, when a discussion in one of his client companies runs into a creative wall, a leading management consultant sometimes pulls out a copy of the extended contents page of an old thesaurus, which, he says, “summarizes all human knowledge.”
The detailed contents—or “synopsis of categories”—in a classic Roget’s thesaurus, for instance, divides human knowledge into broad “classes,” such as “abstract relations,” “space,” “physics,” and “sensation.” These, in turn, are broken down into subcategories.
“Sensation” is divided into such topics as “sensation in general,” “touch,” “taste,” and so on. Finally, the subcategories are subdivided into specific topics. Under “taste,” for instance, you find “savoriness,” “unsavoriness,” “insipidness,” “sweetness,” “sourness,” “pungency,” and “tobacco.”
The consultant frequently finds that simply exposing discussion participants to additional words and concepts in the general area of the topic under discussion can help them break through mental blocks. The fresh terms stir up the interaction and help the members come up with a more complete, holistic train of ideas.
Finally, a series of studies—conducted by researchers from Japan, Canada, and Texas—have shown that, many times, putting people face-to-face in groups results in less creativity than keeping them in separate locations, where they free-associate without worrying about how others will respond to their ideas.
A useful vehicle for this approach is what has been called electronic brainstorming, in which participants in front of computers contribute ideas via keyboard.
Researchers from the Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences, Ochanomizu University, in Tokyo, divided one hundred undergraduate women into groups of four, with three groups using computers to brainstorm and a fourth, nonelectronic control group. The study found that the three electronic groups did better than the controls in generating ideas (Shinrigaku Kenkyu 72 [2001]: 19–28).
Similarly, researchers at the School of Business, Queen’s University, Ontario, noted that brainstorming groups have consistently produced fewer ideas than an equivalent number of individuals working by themselves. To explore this issue further, they compared groups using electronic aids with those interacting traditionally, in a nonelectronic group setting. Among other things, they found that the electronic groups were more productive than the nonelectronic groups (Journal of Applied Psychology 76 [1991]: 137–42).
Sometimes, a well-constructed Breakout Network, which may begin by using one or more of the above strategies, can actually develop to the point that the group functions as a single, creative organism. The thinking of all participants may interact in such a way that the contributions of the members finally merge automatically into a productive consensus.
In effect, the members move into a “group zone,” which involves an almost mystical interplay of different individuals’ thought patterns. This group zone experience is reminiscent of the free-flowing mental patterns that characterize individual athletes who sometimes operate in a near subconscious or even mystical state as they compete at the peak of their performing ability.
When such a pervasive creative impulse takes over, the Network discussion in itself may be enough to sever past thought patterns. In other words, devising separate triggering strategies may not be necessary. The group dynamic may be sufficiently powerful to trigger a personal Breakout in you, in another participant, or in several participants simultaneously.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate this kind of organic “group thought” process into its component parts, at least with current scientific methodology. Hooking up participants in a Breakout Network to brain-mapping fMRI machines, EEGs, or the like without destroying the creative group interaction may not be feasible.
But what we can do is examine more closely several case studies that illustrate how creative impulses have been harnessed in different organizations. These real-life examples suggest the broad range in which a Breakout Network may be able to operate.
To stimulate your thinking about the possibilities of the Breakout Network, consider these “short takes” of situations in several different organizations. In each, a flash of creativity has resulted in significantly enhanced productivity.
The software translator
During an airplane trip a number of years ago from San Diego to San Francisco, I found myself in a long ticket line. As I waited, I noticed that the man in front of me was carrying a box but no luggage. To break the boredom, I asked, “Where are you going?”
“Nowhere,” he replied. “I’m just mailing this box.”
“It’s too bad you have to wait so long just to mail a box.”
“I have a deadline I have to meet. I work as a language translator—and I came up with a special computer program. It translates English into Chinese, and Chinese into English. I have to send it by the safest, quickest route to my partner, and this seemed the best way.”
Fascinated, I asked him to tell me more about how he had come up with the idea for his program.
“Frankly, I was stumped,” he continued. “I reached a point where I just couldn’t figure out my next step. I was really hitting a wall. But then I went out to browse in a local bookstore, and I picked up a book, The Relaxation Response. The author, a guy named Benson, describes a technique that helped my mind work in new directions.”
He went on to explain that he began to understand more fully why the two languages are so different. Some of his thinking overlapped with points that have been made previously in this book—that English is linear, whereas Chinese is more holistic. English builds letters to syllables to words to sentences. But Chinese looks at the whole picture first.
“Anyhow, I followed the steps Benson suggested,” he continued. “I sat down and closed my eyes, repeated one of my favorite Chinese phrases, and pretty soon, I stopped worrying about my mental block. Funny thing, though, just after I stopped worrying and started relaxing, the idea came to me about how to finish this translation program. It was a real breakthrough.”
Needless to say, I got a kick out of the look on his face when I told him that I was the Benson who had written the book. But in some ways, I was even more intrigued about his discovery that the relaxation response could trigger creativity—and lay the groundwork for a significant increase in his business productivity.
This encounter was important to me on at least two levels. First of all, at that time I was in a relatively early stage of formulating some of the Breakout concepts described in this book. This fortuitous meeting with the software programmer helped nudge me further along in my thinking.
Second, and just as important for our current purposes, his experience suggested how individuals in various types of organizations could break prior thought patterns by relying on relatively simple activities and techniques. His Breakout—and I definitely think that is what occurred inside him—apparently arose from a combination of sources, including walking around the bookstore, reading a new book, and then applying the relaxation-response technique he learned from his reading.
The same sort of inner transformation could easily happen with any member of a Breakout Network who follows a similar line of activity. So organizers and facilitators of such groups should be alert to any activities or techniques—such as reading a provocative section from a book or engaging in some group relaxation-response exercise—that could trigger a Breakout in one or more Breakout Network participants.
The power to change corporate culture
Groups that possess the power to effect change in an organization are likely to take their role as idea generators much more seriously. So it would be wise to set up your Breakout Networks in such a way that their ideas and suggestions are funneled directly to upper management.
Upper management should, in turn, understand that it’s important to take the Network-generated ideas seriously and, whenever possible, implement them. Finally, when a decision is made on an idea, it is essential to provide the Network group with feedback to explain the rationale for accepting or not accepting their contributions.
Carol Bernick, president of the Alberto-Culver Company of Melrose Park, Illinois, described how similar organizational dynamics worked for her in a June 2001 Harvard Business Review article (53–58, 60–61, 146). In an effort to remake the corporate culture and increase productivity, Bernick began to publicize the values and behaviors that she regarded as important for company improvement.
Also, to generate new ideas and foster higher productivity, she created the role of “growth development leader” (GDL). These GDLs were assigned as mentors to about a dozen people and were given real power to make changes. In particular, they could vote on issues that had to be addressed by the business as a whole. When the GDL groups and others achieved certain goals, the successes would be celebrated through awards for leadership and innovation.
As a result of these changes in the corporate culture, over a seven-year period the company cut employee turnover in half, experienced an 83 percent sales growth, and enjoyed a 336 percent rise in pretax profits.
The moonshine shop
According to Whack’s Buzzword Compliant Dictionary on the Internet, a moonshine shop is a “place where ideas are distilled and turned into working models in short order.” As a prime example, the dictionary cites the moonshine shop program at Boeing—which was featured in the Wall Street Journal on September 5, 2001. There, the moonshine shop refers to a team that works outside the company’s usual channels of operation to develop cheaper, faster ways to build airplanes.
In some respects, the Boeing moonshine shops seem almost a prototype for an effective Breakout Network. In one project conducted by the shops, a team was pulled together from divergent sectors of the company to find an efficient way to move bulky airplane seats from the factory floor up several stories to the level of the plane. Then, the chairs had to be inserted through the narrow door of the aircraft. Usually, the seats were moved via an overhead crane, but this created a bottleneck that slowed assembly to a snail’s pace.
The moonshine team, led by a mechanic who was given authority to operate outside normal production channels, came up with an unorthodox but highly effective solution. The team abandoned the crane and installed a farmer’s hay elevator, which was equipped with a metal-studded conveyor belt. With this, workers could move the seats relatively fast and steadily up to the plane door, and productivity in the factory increased significantly.
In another breakthrough, a Boeing moonshine team member devised a mobile pneumatic machine the size of a hundred-pound go-cart, which could push a seventy-five-ton 757 airliner. The cart was so powerful that it replaced the old twenty-thousand-pound tugging devices that had previously been used. Boeing even sought a patent for its use in multiple ways throughout the industry (WSJ, A16).
The moonshine shops at Boeing have provoked some grumbling among traditionalists, including union representatives who argued that the shops make unauthorized use of nonunion workers, according to the Wall Street Journal report. Also, the moonshine shops ran into some bureaucratic resistance from those who were suspicious of any innovation that threatened to change the usual way of doing business. But for the most part, the success of the shops overcame the opposition—as you might expect from any Breakout Network that increases productivity and makes a business more profitable.
The power of smell
The Green Mountain Coffee Roasters organization has been touted by Forbes.com as “one of the smartest small companies in America” (see Forbes magazine, October 29, 2001, www.forbes.com). But the founder, Robert Stiller, was definitely not a conventional linear thinker—at least not while he was enrolled at Syracuse University, where he was unable to maintain a C average.
On the other hand, Stiller was a creative type par excellence. After finally getting a degree from Parsons College in Fairfield, Iowa, he and a partner built a successful rolling-paper company, which reached annual sales of $11 million. They sold it in 1980, with each partner receiving $3.1 million.
But Stiller still had to figure out what to do with the rest of his life. As he relaxed, enjoying the taste and aroma of a gourmet coffee at a ski condo in Sugarbush, Vermont, he was struck by the idea that he should investigate the restaurant that sold these great beans.
After visiting the restaurant and dreaming of the possibilities with a partner, he bought the organization and eventually became the sole proprietor. The company rose to number 16 on the Forbes list of the 200 Best Small Companies, with Stiller’s stake rising to $89 million.
A suggestive element in Stiller’s experience is that if you’re stuck mentally, a change of scene—along with a pleasant aroma, such as fine-roasted coffee—may enhance your creativity. As we saw previously with synesthesia, stimulating the senses, such as exposing yourself to new sights and smells, can help sever prior thought patterns and open the portals of the mind to innovation.
The Buck Rogers idea
The founder of FedEx, Fred Smith, is always alert to a “Buck Rogers idea,” or a dramatic, unconventional concept that can change the way he does business (Associated Press, December 2, 2001).
Though he received only an average grade for his efforts, he came up with just such a transforming idea on an economics paper he wrote as a Yale undergraduate. His idea was that as companies relied more heavily on technology and computerization, they would need to keep their equipment operating, but without relying on a huge inventory of hardware parts.
The challenge was how to get the parts overnight to companies. Eventually, refusing to discard the basic idea, Smith decided that special airplane transport was the answer. The result—the FedEx company—has grown into a global organization with 215,000 workers who transport 5 million shipments per day.
Such breakthroughs in productivity—which suggest the presence of principles that underlie the Breakout Network—may also occur in a group context, as executives at a computer-chip maker discovered.
Linear swordplay in Silicon Valley
Executives at Nividia, a Silicon Valley computer-chip maker, found that they were producing an extraordinarily high percentage of flawed units of a new graphics chip—about 30 percent of the total. (The industry average was about 5 percent.)
With such an exorbitant rate of mistakes, the executives knew they couldn’t ship the chips to major customers, such as Dell. They began to fear for the very existence of their company. A tense top-level meeting ensued—reminiscent of the struggle phase that precedes the Breakout.
Finally, when most possibilities seemed exhausted, one of the company founders, the vice president of hardware engineering, slashed into the discussion with a radical concept—an example of what we have called linear swordplay. He suggested that every one of the chips be tested by hand.
At first, the company president rejected the idea on the grounds that the monumental amount of work required “would kill us off,” according to the FSB report. But the executives continued to work through the idea, until finally they realized that despite the onerous work, the idea could save the company.
In fact, that’s exactly what happened. All the top specialists pitched in to test the hundreds of thousands of chips, at a rate of about five minutes per chip—and succeeded to the point that the new chip became a big hit in the industry (see FSB, September 2001, 61–63).
Perhaps the most important impact of interactive, creativity-generating Breakout Networks throughout an organization is to make the company more “agile,” to use a word favored by some business management theorists (see Harvard Business Review, November–December 1997, 126–39).
Network-type small groups tend to pull more workers, with a wider variety of backgrounds and mind-sets, into the creative process. This expanded participation increases the possibility that the organization will become more productive and open to positive transformation.
A Breakout Network will be most successful—and will foster the greatest productivity in the parent organization—when each of the participants knows how to trigger creativity. The “agility” of the group depends heavily on the ability of each member to break prior unproductive patterns of thought and help all participants move into a more creative collective mind-set. Organizational productivity can usually be traced back to the creativity and productivity of each individual.
The Breakout Principle, then, has broad application not only to enhancing the creative life of the mind, but also to the more active life of the workplace. And for those who want to engage in intense physical activity—and maximize their performance in the realm of sports and physical exercise—the Breakout offers the possibility of a peak of athleticism, including a portal to the fabled “zone.”