Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things. — Steve Jobs
Whether you call it creativity, non-linear thinking, cross-pollination, interdisciplinary thinking, combinatory thinking, or having a linky brain …it’s a powerful attribute and highly-sought after trait.
So, why do those who have it feel undervalued and frustrated? And what can we do about it?
Here’s what I’ve been thinking. Would love others to weigh in.
What do linky brain people need to do their best work?
Some things I’ve learned I need:
- exposure and exploration …otherwise I whither on the vine. I’m a voracious learner, often through osmosis, and need to get fed.
- generosity and earnestness …I want generous and earnest people around me. The ones who leave egos at the door. The ones who are open, honest, and direct. In projects, I ask a lot of questions and debate in order to learn. So I need people who are open to that. But I abhor stump-the-chump questioning, and have little patience for those who engage in it. I start losing interest when forced to burn too much fuel on entry (the stuff that isn’t the work).
- immersion …I usually don’t come to a new subject with immediate, fully-formed connections. I need to absorb, get immersed, and then it starts to flow. I need time and space for the full effect. Some things come quickly: synthesis, clarity, problem/issue/challenge identification. Even initial connections come quickly. But I do best when I’ve gotten exposed to the complexity of an issue, or when I can circle and stew and leave and return.
What works for you?
Where are our roles?
The humanities and liberal arts foster linkiness better than most businesses (with their narrow career-paths), and the academic world and the arts might have the corporate world beat on this one. Curators, artists, philosophers, cultural anthropologists …they all have to be linky to be good. Linkiness is considered integral to the work. But the corporate world is different. Linkiness — by and large — isn’t seen as a consequential part of corporate jobs.
Why? What are the barriers?
Many leaders talk about how connect-the-dots thinking is an urgent skill, critical for success and to the future of work (WEF, IFTF). So where’s the disconnect? Are they not able to recognize when people have it? Do they not know how to utilize, foster it? Is it because they can’t measure it?
[Aside: There’s a similar paradox regarding job-seekers from the humanities & liberal arts, and the value of their critical thinking skills. Everyone from Mark Cuban to Harvard Business Review, heralds it as the bees knees for business. But even when employers say they want it, they don’t know how to look for it. They’re used to seeing skills and talents that are either “measurable” by numbers, or “provable” by tasks and titles — and that becomes the default lens.]
I’m not saying this is all about employment, but it strikes me as symptomatic of the broader world we live in.
Who can we learn from? Who’s doing linky things in the wild?
Luckily there are lots of ace linky thinkers out there who generously put it all on display for our benefit.
Because of the call for female examples, I’ll start with some of my favorites:
Maria Popova
Paola Antonelli
Debbie Millman
Krista Tippett
Amanda Palmer
Martha Nussbaum …to name a few
Who are some of yours?
How should we talk about this way of thinking?
It’s one thing to understand it, but how should we talk about it? How do we help people effectively communicate why this is a great asset? I admit I seek out the places and people who already value it, and want what I have. But let’s be real, that’s not always an option. So…
…how do we illuminate the value in this way of thinking for those who don’t see it (yet)?
Antonelli calls herself a “curious octopus reaching into and grabbing from a wide spectrum of disciplines, from design to architecture to science to technology”
Popova, too, has great ways of describing linkiness:
“…in order to make a concept (or product, or idea, or argument) fully congeal in your head, you have to first understand all the little pieces that surround it — pieces across art, design, music, science, technology, philosophy, cultural history, politics, psychology, sociology, ecology, anthropology, you-name-itology. Pieces that build your mental pool of resources, which you then combine into original concepts that are stronger, smarter, richer, deeper and more impactful — the foundation of creativity.”
“… creativity relies heavily upon connecting the seemingly disconnected and aligning the seemingly misaligned”
“…harnessing cross-disciplinary curiosity to create a rich intellectual and creative resource that allows for the cross-pollination of ideas, in turn spurring deeper creativity and innovation.”
There’s Jobs’ quote at the top of the post, and this related beauty I stole from somewhere (apologies to the author):
“There’s no such thing as unrelated or inapplicable acquisition of information. The beauty of diverse knowledge-sets is the surprising and creative outcome it generates”
These all resonate with me, but I already value this way of thinking. So… do they resonate with people who don’t? What moves the dial with them?
What other questions should we be asking?
We know that people who are good at “connecting the seemingly disconnected” are creative, intuitive, good at innovation and spotting opportunities. We keep reading about how the world will need them in the future, that we’re moving toward valuing this way of thinking. So how can we speed that along? How do we get to next?
