Comments on: 5 Lesssons in Creativity From Pixar

By: Andrew Lockhart

Andrew Lockhart — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:20:08 +0000

On the contrary, Pixar makes a point of publishing a lot of their biggest breakthroughs in academic journals.

As for advancement, that is not the only reward that can be bestowed to those who are producing, I am sure most people would prefer one of or a combination of salary increases, equity/stock options and the opportunity to work on choice projects over a new title.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:06:41 +0000

I’m confused, i thought you were aggregating lessons learned from the PIXAR experience which, last I checked, isnt a shared, open sourced and is an incredibly proprietary brand…their success, and much of the Disney model they have sought to replicate, is based almost entirely on the posession of ideas and keep those ideas private and secret. Ideas can only be shared in an environment where great ideas are not cause for advancement. Do you think that is a good thing?

By: Andrew Lockhart

Andrew Lockhart — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:02:20 +0000

First of all, I believe number 5 caters to the creative ego. If you give your best thinkers the opportunity to share their ideas externally (rather than decrying everything as proprietary). If the ideas shared are strong, the organization only stands to benefit for the reasons I have outlined above, while satisfying the needs of the individual’s ego.

I definitely agree that four is the most difficult on this list (precisely for the reasons you have outlined). Creative hierarchies will always exist. It is human nature, but if the hierarchy is naturally occurring based on contributions rather than constructed through corporate rank, egos will become less of a barrier to open dialogue. A flat corporate creative hierarchy can help ensure a free market economy where ideas are exchanged for ego and respect while a top down structure enforced by rank can (but doesn’t have to) inhibit innovation because the market is unable to correct.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:39:12 +0000

I get what your saying…but let me posit you this…the problem with communism in practice, certainly not in principle, is that what people cant get economically (praise, recognition etc) they get through politicking…which is why in principle, great, in practice a bastardized thing called Lennisim or Maoism. The problem with this flat creative theory (specifically 4 and 5…cause i agree 3 is something that can be developed over time) is that it doesnt take into account EGO. PIXAR is very much a top down Creative Environment (in fact i think its even mentioned in the Article) that in many ways doesnt follow the guidelines you outlay here. While in a perfect world they would be lovely to live…the EGO of the creative and the creative mind is not something guidlines can abolish and to think otherwise is a pipedream, at best, and in practice…a witless gamble. Open, and flat Creative Structures are the golden fleece (read Understanding Collaborative Design; Maaike Kleinsmann, 2006 Technical University of Delft for great examples) it is far from an implementable, prgamatic, reality.

By: Andrew Lockhart

Andrew Lockhart — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:31:20 +0000

Perhaps these lessons may be obvious, but I don’t see too many organizations that have taken lessons three, four and five to heart.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:32:37 +0000

Seriously…this was an article? How can this be a mystery to anyone? And when you’re PIXAR with NO pressures to deliver to a client, its much easier to develop a culture of collaboration. The harder thing is with client pressures and short term deliverables to develop a culture to support that. It always looks easy in the Business Review.

By: Viktor

Viktor — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:48:53 +0000

Awesome post Andrew. I also think that it takes a particular sort of team to foster collective creativity. For some organizations, their culture can ultimately hinder collective creativity.