Constraints Are Good For Us

Do constraints and limits enhance creativity and innovation?  Yes, David Epstein argues that they can, bringing together several strands of research, coupled with some amazing stories, in his terrific book titled Inside the Box: How Constraints Make Us Better.  

For example, Epstein tells the story of the terrific young pianist, Keith Jarrett, who was scheduled to play a concert in Cologne, Germany.  Unfortunately, the organizers brought the wrong piano to the venue, and it was woefully out of tune.  A rushed effort to remedy the situation provided only a partial fix.  Forced to improvise with a far-from-optimal piano, Jarrett produced an incredible concert performance.  Epstein writes, "That recording, of the undersized, partly tuned, sticky-pedaled piano, eventually became the bestselling solo piano album of all time."

Epstein grounds his argument in solid research studies, as well as terrific stories. For example, he describes the work of Catrinel Tromp.  She wrote an article titled "The Green Eggs and Ham Hypothesis: How Constraints Facilitate Creativity."  Tromp asked research subjects to develop two-line rhymes for greeting cards.  She found that her subjects were more creative when she imposed significant constraints on them.  She likened this effect to Dr. Seuss writing his famous story after making a bet that he could write an entire children's book using just fifty words.  

I highly recommend the book.  It is an easy read, and his arguments are compelling.  He shows what humans can do when faced with limits.  They improvise, innovate, and create amazing things under certain conditions.  

Staying Grounded: Find the Right Sounding Board

Former Baxter International CEO and current Kellogg Professor Harry Kraemer has written a terrific column titled, "What Every New CEO Should Do In Their First 30 Days."  His lessons apply to people who take on new leadership roles at all levels. My favorite piece of advice focuses on finding the right sounding board.  You need to keep a few truth-tellers close to you.  These are the people who will give you the unvarnished perspective.  They will help you stay grounded too.  Kraemer writes,

The higher you rise, the more essential it becomes to have people who will tell you the truth. For me, that person is my wife, Julie. Whenever I was promoted—including when I became CEO of Baxter International, a $12 billion healthcare company—she would always say how proud she was of me. In the next breath she would remind me, “Harry, we’re not going to change the way we live, right?”

In the same way, you need a sounding board composed of a variety of people, such as a spouse or partner or close friend, a board member (or two), a former colleague now leading another company, or a professional coach. Each of these people has a unique perspective on you, your leadership, and the kind of support and honesty to remind you of who you are, as a person, not just as a leader.

Are You Listening to Me? How Can I Tell?

Are you listening to me? This thought comes to mind for many of us during conversations. How can we tell that someone is listening? Conventional wisdom is that body language and non-verbal cues indicate attentiveness. Is the counterparty nodding in agreement, making good eye contact, and leaning forward into the conversation? If so, they must care about what I'm saying. If not, then they are clearly disengaged.

New research suggests that this conventional wisdom may not be right though. In an article from UCLA's Anderson Review, Carla Fried reviews a stream of research by Hanne Collins and several co-authors. This research finds that people systematically overestimate the extent to which others are listening closely to them. They overestimate because they misread utterances or nonverbal cues... they think that the quiet "mm-hmm" or the nod of agreement signal close listening, when they may not represent that at all. Listeners may be using these conversational devices to "fake" close listening.

Collins and her co-authors instead suggest "conversational listening" as the remedy. Much like a stream of other work, including a great book by Charles Duhigg, they suggest that listeners paraphrase what they have heard and ask for confirmation, ask clarifying questions, and refer back to points made earlier in the conversation as ways to engage more effectively in a conversation.  In short, you must speak, not remain silent, to listen effectively.   Of course, you can not speak too much.  Interrupting without the intention of understanding more effectively can be highly counterproductive. Collins and her co-authors write, "“Conversational listening is a key building block of human social functioning. Information transmission, interpersonal connection, conflict management, happiness — the key foundations of human flourishing — hinge critically on our ability to hear, understand and respond to others.”

Is Hosting the World Cup an Economic Windfall?

CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images

This year, the United States, Mexico, and Canada will host the World Cup to much fanfare.  Soccer enthusiasts are excited about the competition. They look forward to some thrilling games and the prospect of their country coming out on top.  Off the field, an economic issue bears examination: Does hosting the World Cup make financial sense?  Holy Cross Professor Victor Matheson has taken a hard-nosed look at the pros and cons of serving as the host country.  While Matheson acknowledges the benefits, he does not conclude that hosting is an obvious positive from an economic standpoint.  Naturally, Matheson cites some of the significant costs that accrue to the host country.  More interestingly, he describes how the benefits are often overstated for three key reasons:

1. The substitution effect:  For the local citizens attending World Cup games, the spending may not be "new" or "incremental" in any real sense. This spending may simply displace other leisure activities. If so, the country's economy does not grow as a result of the locals' spending on World Cup games, apparel, etc. 

2. The crowding out effect: The hoopla around the event may cause tourists who may otherwise visit the host country or host cities to avoid traveling to those locations.  Matheson cites the example of Orlando, Florida.  The city lost tourists who otherwise would have visited area theme parks, but avoided the area because of the soccer fans filling up area hotels, restaurants, and the like.  He cites a similar study that found that France did not gain international tourists during the 1998 World Cup. 

3. Leakages.  Matheson argues that FIFA collects much of the ticket revenue, and most of that money does not remain in the host country.  Moreover, most of the increased hotel profits typically do not remain in the local economy.  

Matheson concludes that these three effects cause the economic gains often to be far lower than those projected before the event takes place.  In fact, he writes, "The results generally show that the observed impact of the World Cup has been a fraction that touted by the event boosters, and frequently the observed impact has actually been negative."  

By describing these issues, I don't mean to put a damper on what should be a very exciting event.  However, the analysis put forth by Matheson should cause us to examine "economic impact" studies with a very critical eye.  That does not just hold for World Cup events.  The same type of critical evaluation should be applied to any of these types of studies, whether it be for hosting an Olympics, building a new sports stadium, or constructing a new concert venue.