5.18.24

I believe there is more to say on the role of fear in impeding the creative impulse in many people. In particular, I think it likely that loss-aversion is the motivating drive for many in never starting, never trying. There is more to say here, but I believe it is largely beside the point and risks distracting us from the bigger issue. Let’s move on from fear. We cannot let our fears slow us down.

Carl Jung tells us, “As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being.”

I maintain that the surest and most joyful way for people to add meaning to the otherwise indifferent chemistry and physics of the spinning universe is to create things that have a chance of improving the world and outliving the creator. Immortality through Creation. And fear is just an impediment, one that is (relative to time, space, physics) fairly easy to dismiss. So we move on and think more about the how.

What is the ideal organizational structure to promote creativity?

I’ve spent thirty years now working for startups. I’ve also spent many of those thirty years working for big companies, public ones. The startups: Eclipse Entertainment, Digital Anvil, Certain Affinity, Kabam, Wizards of the Coast, Cloudmind, Conjure Games, GlobalStep. The Public Companies: Microsoft, Electronic Arts, Capcom, Activision, Netmarble, Hasbro. The paradox of working regularly for both startups and big corporations for many overlapping periods gets to the heart of something I think is important: Almost every one of the startups eventually became part of a public company. And even when this didn’t happen directly, it was the resources of one or more big PubCos that allowed – paid for or gave mission and purpose to – the startup’s existence.

Public companies and large corporations in general (never worked for a really big company that was privately held) have purpose and a mission and often the ability to devote (!) a truly significant raft of resources to driving towards a particular outcome. This can be fuel for creating things.

Startups have focus, the powerful esprit de corps that makes innovating possible. Startups are constantly being beaten about the head and shoulders by that great Mother of Invention: necessity and hunger. If there is a more powerful way of driving innovation in small groups than getting a bright and dedicated bunch of diverse misfits into a too-small room full of whiteboards for weeks at a time… I’ve not seen it. The small culture of startups is fertile soil for creative innovation.

We need both.

Without the innovator’s spirit small and ragged teams promote, big companies descend into a quagmire of beauracracy and politicking and busy-work reporting. Without the resources and drive for profit of a big company, startups can become a clubhouse or a think-tank. Combinations of the two is the best way I’ve seen to unlock and fuel small group creativity.

I’m certainly not the first person to observe this.

I think about Claude Shannon in the Cold Spring Harbor Lab, in Bell Labs. I think about Xerox PARC labs, I think about E&S in Utah and the spinouts (Pixar, Silicon Graphics, Netscape, Adobe) that sprouted from that soil. In many ways I think even about my own experience with Kabam Vancouver (nee Exploding Barrel) which in my memory had these characteristics (if perhaps not quite the brilliance of Claude Shannon or Ed Catmull.) Creating safe and largely uncontrolled spaces for the very bright to innovate creates new kinds of businesses and ideas. The spark of creation is more apt to shine bright and be able to be captured in a startup culture.

But without the fuel of capital, the massive support service structures required to scale and distribute, and the discipline to remind people to tie their shoes and balance the books, these places can spin off into chaos easily.

And this is the inherent paradox – and a clear recipe – for how to create the kinds of cultural organizational structures that will lead to innovation and creation and also to the ability to bring these creations to large numbers of people.

We must kindle lights of meaning and be able to bring it to the world. And that takes innovation, discipline, capability, and resources.