An incorrect view of creativity…
Thursday, January 28th, 2016In his op-ed article on creativity in the NY Times, Prof. Adam Grant, management and psych professor at the Wharton School of UPenn, says step one to creativity is to procrastinate. “Creativity takes time. So I’m trying not to make progress toward my goal.” I think that’s BS, and I’m hoping I’m not alone. The first part depends on your definition of creativity, of course. Presumably, this prof, who’s trying to sell his book, Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World, is using a business definition. I don’t see much creativity in the business world. I see it in the author/composer of Hamilton; I’ve seen it in the works of Alejandro Obregon and Gabriel Garcia Marquez; and I’ve seen it in scientists and engineers, from researchers to smart phone and car designers. Grant confuses creativity with business acumen. Trump has the latter, but he isn’t creative (come to think of it, Trump and his progeny went to Wharton).
So, let’s get past that first statement in the quote and move on to the second. Procrastination is the opposite of creativity! If one procrastinates, s/he’s doing absolutely nothing. Now Alan Watts might say doing nothing is accomplishing something—that’s part of Buddhist teaching (make your mind blank to achieve enlightenment)—but it sure as hell isn’t being creative. I’d generally call it wasting time! At a conference once some Austrian physicists told me that they were in the process of thinking about getting some dinner. Maybe that’s typically Austrian—I seem to remember Vienna as pretty laid back (but probably not during WWII)—but dinner just isn’t that complicated, and time spent in the process of thinking about it would be better spent doing physics in this case, where a physicist can and should be creative. Leave the dinner creativity to chefs—culinary art is creative, but only when you do it, not in the process of thinking about it.