Principled Innovation LLC

PI Interview #3: Six Questions for Dan Pink

July 24th, 2006

The July issue of WIRED magazine includes an excellent article on creativity by former Fast Company writer and association community friend Dan Pink. In addition to his current work as a speaker and contributing editor at WIRED, Dan is also the author of Free Agent Nation and, more recently, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule The Future. Dan was the keynote speaker for the ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership Great Ideas conferences in Orlando in December 2004 and Phoenix in February 2005, and informally advises ASAE & The Center on strategic issues.

Dan’s article, “What Kind of Genius Are You?” explores the work of University of Chicago economist David Galenson, who has articulated a new theory of creativity. Galenson, who is trained as an economic historian, carefully studied the important works of great masters in the arts, including painting, literature and filmmaking. Based on his analysis (the methodology for which Dan describes at length in the article), Galenson concluded that there are two kinds of creative geniuses who make their most important contributions during different periods of their lives. The “conceptual innovators,” including Pablo Picasso, Wolfgang Mozart and Orson Welles, make significant breakthroughs early in their careers, while “experimental innovators,” such as Paul Cezanne, Mark Twain and Alfred Hitchcock, engage in many years of experimentation in their work before their true genius emerges later in life. Galenson published a book on his theory, Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity, earlier this year.

I found Dan’s treatment of Galenson’s work very intriguing (especially his observations toward the end of the piece), and so I reached out to him with some questions about the article and about Galenson’s ideas. Below are Dan’s responses.

In the first few paragraphs of your article, you describe Galenson’s work as “a unified field theory of creativity.” Is that how you see it or are you just having fun with us?

Somewhere in between, I guess. Galenson believes his theory has enormous explanatory power — and I generally agree. Yet it’s probably tough to provide a full account of something as complex as creativity with any theory — let alone a theory that consists of only two categories.

What about Galenson’s thinking intrigued or surprised you the most and why?

Well, I’d actually read Galenson’s first book, which I found fascinating. And I’d read a bunch of his papers. I had an entire file on the guy for a couple of years — and finally pulled it out when my WIRED editor said he need some cool stories. What attracted me was Galenson’s ability to take a very hard-headed approach to what seems like a soft-hearted subject. Also, his theory makes a lot of intuitive sense. And as I’ve seen from the response to the article, this thinking offers a new way for people to look at themselves.

What links do you make between Galenson’s theory of creativity and your arguments in A Whole New Mind?

Galenson would say that we’re definitely in a Conceptual Age — an era that rewards conceptual innovators more than experimental ones. That’s not what I’m really trying to say in A WHOLE NEW MIND. In some ways, my argument is less conceptual than Galenson’s. I’m making a pretty pragmatic case that to survive in 21st century labor markets, people are going to have to do work that’s hard to outsource, hard to automate, and that helps satisfy the growing non-material demands of a very abundant age. It just so happens that the abilities that pass this test turn out to be artistry, empathy, big picture thinking, and the like. That said, understanding that many of us are experimental innovators could help people get better at these abilities.

How should association leaders think differently about creativity and innovation in their organizations in light of Galenson’s work?

I think it has pretty big implications for hiring. You want a mix of conceptual people and experimental people. Finding those folks — and nurturing them in different ways — is critical. I wouldn’t be surprised if Galenson’s work triggers some kind of Myers-Briggs-style instrument to make those assessments inside of organizations.

What other frontiers of creativity and innovation would you like to see explored, either through the lens of economics or other disciplines, in order to advance our understanding of them?

I’m not sure what discipline could address this, but it seems to me like context plays a huge role in individual creativity. What are the conditions that allow creativity and innovation to take root and flower — beyond the superficial (and probably wrong) view that you just need to have a few whiteboards and water guns in the office. I’d also like to know whether formal education, as we currently conceive it, can do anything to foster greater creativity. And I’d like to see some research that connects somehow the iteration of an idea with the execution of it — and what sort of abilities and attitudes matter there.

So where do you fit on Galenson’s continuum of innovators? (And don’t be modest…)

Definitely experimental. I don’t have epiphanies — or bolt-from-the-blue breakthroughs. I proceed much more slowly, much more methodically. My last blood test confirmed what I’d already known: I’ve got a heckuva lot more tortoise DNA than hare DNA.

My last question to Dan is one I’d also like to put to every reader of this interview: where do you fit on Galenson’s continuum? An even more fundamental consideration is how you use your creativity to advance your organization’s work. Are you spending more of your time “doing” or “creating?” If your organization is anything like some of the associations in which I’ve worked, you’re probably spending much of your time doing. That’s okay, because it is important for us to make tangible accomplishments. But it is also essential for all of us to devote at least some time, attention and energy to thinking creatively and pursuing ideas that won’t yield immediate results but will produce significant new learning. And at the same time we need to identify and nurture both the conceptual innovators and experimental innovators working in our organizations who will lead our community beyond the boundaries of its current comfort zones.

If you're new here, I hope you will consider subscribing to the P.I. Blog. Just click on this link to add it to your RSS reader. You can also receive e-mail updates by subscribing via the box located on the blog itself. Thanks for visiting!

Entry Filed under: Principled Innovation Blog, What's New?, Social Media, PI Interviews, Innovation, Associations, Extreme Makeover, The Association Innovator