[hoopadoop]

I worked at a world famous design studio. I was horrified to discover that there could be no 'brain storming' - everything you said or every drawing you showed would be judged and held against you. It made it almost impossible for someone to come up with a truly creative solution. You had to be very careful and measured about everything you said.

[cynicalkane]

The key phrase is held against you. This means bad ideas were punished, giving people an incentive to not be risky. Whereas the point of Pixar's process is you don't have to punish bad ideas--they won't become consequential.

[mikecane]

That's an impression I got from reading the post (no time to watch the video). I also thought: Well, how many times do you get to suck before they think you don't belong there? Some ideas do need time to percolate and encapsulating them in a soundbite can lead to rejection without understanding the underlying depth. [This was previously posted elsewhere minutes ago due to a mis-click.]

[officemonkey]

>Well, how many times do you get to suck before they think you don't belong there?

As often as possible. Everything I've ever read about creativity starts with some variation of "Do you want a good idea? First have lots of ideas."

As a manager, I don't have a problem with people "sucking". I have a lot of issues with people being lazy.

[mikecane]

I want to also add: My comment might be misinterpreted to think the person sucking is someone who's incompetent. That's not what I meant at all. But anyone can have a run of plain bad ideas before they strike gold. Or even silver.