5 Lesssons in Creativity From Pixar

Written by Andrew Lockhart on September 25, 2008 in Innovation.

In the September issue of Harvard Business Review, Ed Catmull, cofounder and president of Pixar wrote an excellent article entitled How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity. Below are five lessons that stood out in my mind.

  1. There is no single idea. A single idea means very little. It takes multiple good ideas (in Pixar’s case, thousands) in order to produce anything of value. This concept holds true far beyond the film realm. Consider something as simple as the iPod, an easy to use, aesthetically pleasing MP3 player. One idea right? Not really. The scroll wheel, the menu system, the locking mechanism and the consumer friendly client (iTunes) are just a few of the good ideas that drove made the iPod what it is.
  2. Good people matter more than good ideas. Once it is acknowledged that no single idea can stand alone, it becomes clear how important execution is and in order to ensure top notch execution, an organization needs good people. As Ed writes, “If you give a good idea to a mediocre team, they will screw it up; if you give a mediocre idea to a great team, they will either fix it or throw it away and come up with something that works.”
  3. Barriers between disciplines inhibit innovation. Given the different languages, goals, philosophies and often locations between people working in different disciplines, barriers will naturally occur. In order to foster innovation these barriers need to be removed. One of the biggest things Pixar has done to remove these barriers is to create open communication channels. Anyone should be able to approach anyone else regardless of department in order to solve a problem. This requires managers to loosen the reins on process a little bit and accept that they will not always be the first to know about everything and will occasionally be surprised.
  4. Trust is paramount. In order to foster creativity, each member needs to be be trusted enough to be given leeway to be creative within their purview. In addition to that trust, team members need to trust and respect one other enough to be able to provide honest criticism and not pull any punches. Inversely, those receiving feedback need to trust that those giving the feedback are doing it for the betterment of the project not out of ego or in order to serve some alterior motives.
  5. Ideas are to be shared. This one I found to be both surprising and quite forward thinking on the part of Pixar. Pixar proactively shares their ideas externally by encouraging their technologists to publish their ideas within the academic community. Sharing ideas outside of an organization provides three primary benefits. Sharing can bring in or inspire new ideas by initiating exchanges and dialogue, it can establish your organization as thought leaders within your industry and it is an excellent way to attract talent.

Leave a Comment

Would you like to Login to Your Account?


7 Comments

  • Viktor on September 26th, 2008 at 6:48 am

    Awesome post Andrew. I also think that it takes a particular sort of team to foster collective creativity. For some organizations, their culture can ultimately hinder collective creativity.

  • Mike on September 26th, 2008 at 9:32 am

    Seriously…this was an article? How can this be a mystery to anyone? And when you’re PIXAR with NO pressures to deliver to a client, its much easier to develop a culture of collaboration. The harder thing is with client pressures and short term deliverables to develop a culture to support that. It always looks easy in the Business Review.

  • Andrew Lockhart on September 26th, 2008 at 11:31 am

    Perhaps these lessons may be obvious, but I don’t see too many organizations that have taken lessons three, four and five to heart.

  • Mike on September 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    I get what your saying…but let me posit you this…the problem with communism in practice, certainly not in principle, is that what people cant get economically (praise, recognition etc) they get through politicking…which is why in principle, great, in practice a bastardized thing called Lennisim or Maoism. The problem with this flat creative theory (specifically 4 and 5…cause i agree 3 is something that can be developed over time) is that it doesnt take into account EGO. PIXAR is very much a top down Creative Environment (in fact i think its even mentioned in the Article) that in many ways doesnt follow the guidelines you outlay here. While in a perfect world they would be lovely to live…the EGO of the creative and the creative mind is not something guidlines can abolish and to think otherwise is a pipedream, at best, and in practice…a witless gamble. Open, and flat Creative Structures are the golden fleece (read Understanding Collaborative Design; Maaike Kleinsmann, 2006 Technical University of Delft for great examples) it is far from an implementable, prgamatic, reality.

  • Andrew Lockhart on September 26th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    First of all, I believe number 5 caters to the creative ego. If you give your best thinkers the opportunity to share their ideas externally (rather than decrying everything as proprietary). If the ideas shared are strong, the organization only stands to benefit for the reasons I have outlined above, while satisfying the needs of the individual’s ego.

    I definitely agree that four is the most difficult on this list (precisely for the reasons you have outlined). Creative hierarchies will always exist. It is human nature, but if the hierarchy is naturally occurring based on contributions rather than constructed through corporate rank, egos will become less of a barrier to open dialogue. A flat corporate creative hierarchy can help ensure a free market economy where ideas are exchanged for ego and respect while a top down structure enforced by rank can (but doesn’t have to) inhibit innovation because the market is unable to correct.

  • Mike on September 26th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    I’m confused, i thought you were aggregating lessons learned from the PIXAR experience which, last I checked, isnt a shared, open sourced and is an incredibly proprietary brand…their success, and much of the Disney model they have sought to replicate, is based almost entirely on the posession of ideas and keep those ideas private and secret. Ideas can only be shared in an environment where great ideas are not cause for advancement. Do you think that is a good thing?

  • Andrew Lockhart on September 28th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    On the contrary, Pixar makes a point of publishing a lot of their biggest breakthroughs in academic journals.

    As for advancement, that is not the only reward that can be bestowed to those who are producing, I am sure most people would prefer one of or a combination of salary increases, equity/stock options and the opportunity to work on choice projects over a new title.