The Top Idea in Your Mind - by Paul Graham

Excerpt from paulgraham.com 
July 2010

I realized recently that what one thinks about in the shower in the morning is more important than I'd thought. I knew it was a good time to have ideas. Now I'd go further: now I'd say it's hard to do a really good job on anything you don't think about in the shower.

Everyone who's worked on difficult problems is probably familiar with the phenomenon of working hard to figure something out, failing, and then suddenly seeing the answer a bit later while doing something else. There's a kind of thinking you do without trying to. I'm increasingly convinced this type of thinking is not merely helpful in solving hard problems, but necessary. The tricky part is, you can only control it indirectly. [1]

I think most people have one top idea in their mind at any given time. That's the idea their thoughts will drift toward when they're allowed to drift freely. And this idea will thus tend to get all the benefit of that type of thinking, while others are starved of it. Which means it's a disaster to let the wrong idea become the top one in your mind.

What made this clear to me was having an idea I didn't want as the top one in my mind for two long stretches.

I'd noticed startups got way less done when they started raising money, but it was not till we ourselves raised money that I understood why. The problem is not the actual time it takes to meet with investors. The problem is that once you start raising money, raising money becomes the top idea in your mind. That becomes what you think about when you take a shower in the morning. And that means other questions aren't.

I'd hated raising money when I was running Viaweb, but I'd forgotten why I hated it so much. When we raised money for Y Combinator, I remembered. Money matters are particularly likely to become the top idea in your mind. The reason is that they have to be. It's hard to get money. It's not the sort of thing that happens by default. It's not going to happen unless you let it become the thing you think about in the shower. And then you'll make little progress on anything else you'd rather be working on. (I hear similar complaints from friends who are professors.[2] (Professors nowadays seem to have become professional fundraisers who do a little research on the side. It may be time to fix that.)

The reason this struck me so forcibly is that for most of the preceding 10 years I'd been able to think about what I wanted. So the contrast when I couldn't was sharp. But I don't think this problem is unique to me, because just about every startup I've seen grinds to a halt when they start raising money—or talking to acquirers.

You can't directly control where your thoughts drift. If you're controlling them, they're not drifting. But you can control them indirectly, by controlling what situations you let yourself get into. That has been the lesson for me: be careful what you let become critical to you. Try to get yourself into situations where the most urgent problems are ones you want think about.

You don't have complete control, of course. An emergency could push other thoughts out of your head. But barring emergencies you have a good deal of indirect control over what becomes the top idea in your mind.

I've found there are two types of thoughts especially worth avoiding—thoughts like the Nile Perch in the way they push out more interesting ideas. One I've already mentioned: thoughts about money. Getting money is almost by definition an attention sink. The other is disputes. These too are engaging in the wrong way: they have the same velcro-like shape as genuinely interesting ideas, but without the substance. So avoid disputes if you want to get real work done. [3]

Even Newton fell into this trap. After publishing his theory of colors in 1672 he found himself distracted by disputes for years, finally concluding that the only solution was to stop publishing:

I see I have made myself a slave to Philosophy, but if I get free of Mr Linus's business I will resolutely bid adieu to it eternally, excepting what I do for my private satisfaction or leave to come out after me. For I see a man must either resolve to put out nothing new or become a slave to defend it. [4]

Linus and his students at Liege were among the more tenacious critics. Newton's biographer Westfall seems to feel he was overreacting:

Recall that at the time he wrote, Newton's "slavery" consisted of five replies to Liege, totaling fourteen printed pages, over the course of a year.

I'm more sympathetic to Newton. The problem was not the 14 pages, but the pain of having this stupid controversy constantly reintroduced as the top idea in a mind that wanted so eagerly to think about other things.

Turning the other cheek turns out to have selfish advantages. Someone who does you an injury hurts you twice: first by the injury itself, and second by taking up your time afterward thinking about it. If you learn to ignore injuries you can at least avoid the second half. I've found I can to some extent avoid thinking about nasty things people have done to me by telling myself: this doesn't deserve space in my head. I'm always delighted to find I've forgotten the details of disputes, because that means I hadn't been thinking about them. My wife thinks I'm more forgiving than she is, but my motives are purely selfish.

I suspect a lot of people aren't sure what's the top idea in their mind at any given time. I'm often mistaken about it. I tend to think it's the idea I'd want to be the top one, rather than the one that is. But it's easy to figure this out: just take a shower. What topic do your thoughts keep returning to? If it's not what you want to be thinking about, you may want to change something.

Notes

  • [1] No doubt there are already names for this type of thinking, but I call it "ambient thought."
  • [2] This was made particularly clear in our case, because neither of the funds we raised was difficult, and yet in both cases the process dragged on for months. Moving large amounts of money around is never something people treat casually. The attention required increases with the amount—maybe not linearly, but definitely monotonically.
  • [3] Corollary: Avoid becoming an administrator, or your job will consist of dealing with money and disputes.
  • [4] Letter to Oldenburg, quoted in Westfall, Richard, Life of Isaac Newton, p. 107.

Thanks to Sam Altman, Patrick Collison, Jessica Livingston, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   2010   development   ideas   investment   jason lombard   july   money   venture capital  
Posted July 21, 2010 by Jason Lombard 
// 0 Comments
 

How Group Dynamics May Be Killing Innovation - Knowledge@Wharton

Article Image

To come up with the next iPad, Amazon or Facebook, the last thing potential innovators need is a group brainstorm session. What the pacesetters of the future really require, according to new Wharton research, is some time alone.

In a paper titled, "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea (PDF)," Wharton operations and information management professors Christian Terwiesch and Karl Ulrich argue that group dynamics are the enemy of businesses trying to develop one-of-a-kind new products, unique ways to save money or distinctive marketing strategies.

Terwiesch, Ulrich and co-author Karan Girotra, a professor of technology and operations management at INSEAD, found that a hybrid process -- in which people are given time to brainstorm on their own before discussing ideas with their peers -- resulted in more and better quality ideas than a purely team-oriented process. More importantly for companies striving for innovation, however, the trio says the absolute best idea in a hybrid process topped the Number One suggestion in a traditional model.

"Manufacturers prefer 10 machines with good output over one very good machine and nine really defective ones. You would rather have 10 good salesmen than nine poor salesmen and one superstar. In those areas, what matters is the total cumulative output, the total picture," Terwiesch points out. "When it comes to innovation, however, what really matters is not getting many good ideas, but getting one or two exceptional ideas. That's really what innovation is all about."

Although several existing experimental studies criticize the team brainstorming process due to the interference of group dynamics, the Wharton researchers believe their work stands out due to a focus on the quality, in addition to the number, of ideas generated by the different processes -- in particular, the quality of the best idea. They say the research is also distinctive in its study of how teams select the most promising initiatives that come out of the brainstorming phase.

"The evaluation part is critical. No matter which process we used, whether it was the [team] or hybrid model, they all did significantly worse than we hoped [in the evaluation stage]," Terwiesch says. "It's no good generating a great idea if you don't recognize the idea as great. It's like me sitting here and saying I had the idea for Amazon. If I had the idea but didn't do anything about it, then it really doesn't matter that I had the idea."

'The Boss Is Always Right'

Forty-four University of Pennsylvania students were recruited to help test how the two processes fared. The undergraduate and graduate students were divided into groups of four and asked to employ the hybrid process and team process separately to come up with student-friendly new product concepts for a hypothetical sports and fitness products manufacturer and for a hypothetical home-products manufacturer. Teams were given 30 minutes to brainstorm using the traditional group process. To test the hybrid model, they were asked to spend 10 minutes generating and ranking ideas individually and 20 minutes discussing those thoughts as a group.

The ideas generated by both methods were evaluated independently, by three separate panels asked to evaluate the product ideas on their business value; attractiveness to potential customers and overall quality based on the feasibility of actually building the product; the idea's originality; the size of the potential market for the product, and the extent to which it solved a particular problem. The students came up with a total of 443 ideas -- including a trash can that reduces the odor of the garbage inside it, a water bottle with a built-in filtration system and a waterproofing system that allows for reading in the shower.

Business leaders trying to integrate innovative ideas into their office culture can learn from the structure and intricacy used to generate and evaluate the ideas, suggests Terwiesch. He and Ulrich are also co-authors of the book, Innovation Tournaments: Creating and Selecting Exceptional Opportunities, which suggests that companies should use coordinated competitions to filter the most exceptional proposals. He says an online system that creates a virtual "suggestion box" can accomplish the same goal as long as it is established to achieve a particular purpose. "People like having a process because they understand that it's fair. In a typical brainstorming meeting, it's not fair and everybody knows it: The boss is always right," Terwiesch says.

Imposing structure doesn't replace or stifle the creativity of employees, Ulrich adds. In fact, the goal is to establish an idea generation process that helps to bring out the best in people. "We have found that, in the early phases of idea generation, providing very specific process guideposts for individuals [such as] 'Generate at least 10 ideas and submit them by Wednesday,' ensures that all members of a team contribute and that they devote sufficient creative energy to the problem."

The results of the experiment with the students showed that average quality of the ideas generated by the hybrid process were better than those that came from the team process by the equivalent of roughly 30 percentage points. The hybrid method resulted in about three times more ideas than the traditional method. In addition, the quality rating was higher for the top five ideas produced through the hybrid process -- and the difference in quality between the team and hybrid methods in terms of the best idea was much higher than the average difference in quality, suggesting that "in an innovation setting, examining only [average] quality as opposed to the quality of the best ideas is likely to underestimate the benefits of the hybrid approach," the authors write.

Terwiesch says notions spawned through an individual brainstorming process are valuable thoughts that must not be "killed too early because of group dynamics. Your initial thoughts are very vital to the company because they are your unbiased opinion."

Self-Censorship and Build-Up

There are several reasons why people are less likely to offer an unbiased opinion in a purely team-based brainstorming process. Employees might censor themselves to go along with the status quo or to avoid angering a superior. Putting several people in a room together is bound to create a lot of conversation; if everyone contributes, there is less time for individuals to share all of their ideas. Some people may think less critically about a problem because they are happy to let others do the heavy lifting.

"We're fighting the American business model where everybody is [creative], which is just not the case," Terwiesch states. "We find huge differences in people's levels of creativity, and we just have to face it. We're not all good singers and we're not all good runners, so why should we expect that we all are good idea generators? But it's not politically correct to say so, even though there is more to being a good businessperson than generating ideas."

In addition to idea quality, the researchers also tried to measure one of the predispositions of group dynamics that they believe creates a roadblock to innovation -- build-up, or the tendency of people to suggest ideas similar to one that has already been proposed, and embraced by, the unit. They found that ideas built around other ideas are not statistically better than any random suggestion.

Build-up, Terwiesch believes, "is a social norm showing that you listened. If a group is working together on an idea that's already on the table, you're wary of coming in with your own agenda because you might be seen as selfish and not a team player. So you build on the idea that is currently on the table."

But that kind of thinking is what keeps the team from doing the kind of "sky's the limit" thinking that leads to the development of a product or process that hasn't been seen before. "Instead of searching the world broadly, we are all kind of searching only in this little sphere," Terwiesch says. "In innovation, variance is your friend. You want wacky stuff because you can afford to reject it if you don't like it. If you build on group norms, the group kills variance."

via knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   2010   brainstorm   dynamics   generation   group   ideas   innovation   jason lombard   marketing   may   startup  
Posted May 25, 2010 by Jason Lombard 
// 2 Comments
 

The Paralysis of Ideas (and How to Avoid It)

Let me start by saying that despite what you're probably thinking given the title, I'm not against ideas. It's not a crime to have ideas. Ideas are important—critical, in fact—to business. Being able to rattle off new and innovative ways of looking at things, or being able to brainstorm a new use for your company's widget; those are massive, possibly even game changing ideas. But as noted (and oft quoted) author Seth Godin mentions, ideas are worthless. It's not that they don't have any value per se, it's just that it takes a person with a plan to turn that idea into something that is worthwhile.

In my time working in the trenches, I've seen the same theme emerge over and over again. I still see it today, though from a different perspective (typically as a consultant or hired contractor). In many cases, good people—motivated people—feel compelled or are instructed by managers to come up with ideas on how to solve a specific problem. And unfortunately, it rarely stops there. In an effort to make sure that no stone is left unturned, a brainstorm session is added to make sure that enough ideas have been generated to cover all of the bases. The employee is usually left with a list of ideas, some good, some not so good, to wade through and execute on. This is where I would encourage every manager to hit the pause button.

At the end of the day, the objective isn't to have ideas, right? Ideas by themselves don't pay the bills. The objective is to take those ideas and turn them into something. To achieve a result. Logically, if the budget for the executing on these ideas is a pie chart, the more ideas you add, the fewer resources you have for each idea, right? I've watched way too many companies operate using this type of shotgun approach—committing only a small fraction of their resources to a myriad of projects, none of which ever gain them anything significant.

My challenge to you is to try putting your eggs in one basket. Analyze, strategize—try to determine which idea is going to provide the largest gains (monetarily, market share, etc.—whatever your metric) and fully commit to it. The key is having the discipline to focus your efforts and only execute on the idea that promises the best outcome.

There's another advantage to focusing on a single idea. You're able to avoid what I've termed "The Paralysis of Ideas". This is where an employee, beset with a list of deliverables, is paralyzed into non-action by either an inability to decide where to start, or by the thought that there's another possibility out there that they didn't consider. Both situations are extremely defeating to employee morale and ultimately to the company's bottom line.

In many cases, the only wrong-action is inaction. Mistakes are inevitable, ideas are many.  Trust your own judgment, as well as the judgment of those that you've hired (you hired them for a reason after all). Focus, execute, evaluate. Repeat as often as possible until the desired outcome is achieved.

Have thoughts or comments on this post? Are you struggling with "The Paralysis of Ideas" in your company? Drop me a line in the comments area below. Thanks for reading.

—Jason @ Ideavise

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   2010   business   consulting   contractor   execute   ideas   jason lombard   management   marketing   may   paralysis   Seth Godin  
Posted May 14, 2010 by Jason Lombard 
// 0 Comments