Black Belt Creativity

The rank system in Japanese martial arts is communicated through belt color from white to black. The symbolism behind this system is that as a beginner you are completely empty of technique and knowledge, and as such your belt is white - void of color.

As a practitioner matures in experience their belt gradually darkens to represents that accumulation of knowledge. The common misunderstanding is that the black belt, being the darkest color, is a symbol of complete knowledge, or mastery. In reality the black belt is like the white belt - void of color.

The black belt, or shodan, literally symbolizes a return to the beginning - with the ‘sho’ in ‘shodan’ using the same character as ‘sho shin’, which means “beginners mind”. The black belt rank assumes that you have developed adequate proficiency in the basic techniques so that you are now able to see them in a new light, enabling you to evolve their application. It is creative freedom through structure. Innovation through strong fundamentals.   

Only through the complete understanding of the concepts of basic technique are black belts able to free themselves of the rigidity of the basics’ framework, and adapt those techniques into a unique expression of their personal style. This is the reason why a punch from a black belt appears different than a punch from a white belt, even though both are identical in their essence.

There is a common belief that creativity is hindered by structure and that in order to be creative one must break away from the limit of fundamental principles. The black belt would argue that structure provides a framework for creativity, and that only through absolute familiarity with the fundamentals, does the foundation for creative freedom derive.

You cannot view differently that which you do not see clearly. Without foundation there is no basis for support. Without structure there is no format. The basics are not boring and restrictive to creativity, they are essential to its cultivation.

Rather than view traditional tactics as dated and look at basic fundamentals as irrelevant to modern vehicles, we should instead embrace them to the point of intimate familiarity. For it is only through the employ of those basic tenets that we will fully exploit the creative potential of emerging principles, regardless of the field.  

We should employ black belt creativity.

Whistle Wisdom Simplicity

There is a remote Australian aboriginal language called Guugu Yimithirr that doesn’t use object based coordinates like “left” or “right”, “in front of” or “behind”, to describe direction. Instead, The Guugu Yimithirr use cardinal directions, “north” and “south”, “east” and “west”, in all instances to describe location.

It is not your left hand but your east hand, assuming you are facing south. If you are facing north that same hand now becomes your west hand. It is not hard to see how this complexity can create confusion. Just imagine trying to tell someone in your office where the bathroom is using cardinal directions - “First head due south about 100 feet, then start to turn southwest through the cubicles followed by a hard eastern turn. Continue east until you see the printer in the hallway’s northwest corner...” You get the point.

Even among the initiated this method can be challenging. Take the story about a musicologist named Colin McPhee who, upon recognizing an exceptional talent for dancing in a young boy, but realizing that his village lacked a dance instructor, sent him to stay with a teacher in a different village. Upon checking on the boy’s progress a few days later he was surprised to find him frustrated and unhappy. The reason - being unfamiliar with the coordinates of this new village the boy was unable to follow the cardinal directions for the dance steps when he was told, take “three steps east” or “bend southwest”.

The corporate world is renowned for its jargon, and in marketing especially, we tend to make up words and use overly complicated language when simple English would suffice. I have seen many a brand document that describes a brand’s Essence, Identity and Image all in the same presentation. Is there really a difference or are we just creating complexity?

Similarly, I have worked through processes where the semantics of language were debated for weeks due to the lack of clarity surrounding the meaning of terms. In extreme instances the debate around the language of the process to build a marketing plan overtook the actual building of the plan.

Just look at this now infamous Stephen Colbert “Wheat Thins Sponsortunity” video if you need further proof. So unbelievable was the language used that most people I spoke to about the spoof were dubious that Mr. Colbert was actually reading a genuine “Strategic Brief” provided by Wheat Thins (he was).

How people talk not only changes how they think, but it also impacts the perceptions of the people they are talking to. The late comedian George Carlin best exemplified this in his classic bit about euphemistic language in describing how the WW1 term “Shell Shock” evolved into “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” by the time of Vietnam. Both say the same thing, one is just a little softer and less direct, and in turn evokes a more subdued response.

To that end, as we replace basic English with more "sophisticated" language we often just create complexity where there should be simplicity. Instead of enhancing communication our language impedes it.

Space Shuttles and Whistles
Richard Feynman was widely considered the greatest physi­cist since Einstein and he had a great disdain for verbiage that confused clarity of thought. In 1986 he was appointed to the investigating committee for the space shuttle Challenger disaster. In this capacity while working with a group of engineers who were showing him a space shuttle that exhibited a “high-frequency vibration” problem, the engineers kept, in Mr. Freyman’s words, “referring to the problem by some complicated name - a pressure induced vorticity oscillatory wa-wa or something.”

After considerable discussion one of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century sat confused by what these engineers were explaining to him until finally Mr. Feynman asked “Oh, you mean a whistle!”

The engineers’ replied, “Yes, it exhibits the characteristics of whistle.”, and from there Mr. Feynman was able to solve the problem instantly.

The point is that if something can’t be simply said then it can’t be simply done. Stay away from jargon and speak simple English whenever possible and there will be less confusion around what needs to be accomplished. Don’t say something is a “pressure induced vorticity oscillatory” when it really is just a whistle.

Apple Seed Innovation

A biological study on animal behavior observed that "when a territory holder is challenged by a rival, the owner almost always wins the contest.” The study furthermore revealed that, “animals, including people, fight harder to prevent losses than to achieve gains.”  This phenomenon was extrapolated on in Daniel Kahneman’s book, “Thinking Fast & Slow”, which studies the nature of thought, including the impact of loss aversion.

In his book Mr. Kahneman uses this study to shed light on peoples’ and organizations’ resistance to change. In essence the book illustrates that change creates winners and losers, and that those who are in a position to lose from change will dig in and fight harder to prevent those losses than the people who stand to gain from change will fight to ensure that the changes succeed.

You can see this dynamic repeatedly played out in corporations, organizations and in general culture. Simply look at the U.S. health care debate, or the Film, Music & Print Publishing industries who are having such difficulty embracing digital distribution platforms. In all cases entrenched parties are fighting feverishly to keep the status quo even in the face of clear need for change.

This is why change is so difficult to enact and why innovation is so hard to come by. It often takes a state where everything is almost lost to create a cataclysm for change. The U.S. auto industry is a testament to that.

At some point almost every organization goes through a need for change in order to drive growth and innovation. So how, in the face of an entrenched opposition with biologically induced odds of success, can change be enacted?

The Importance of Apples

Over a decade ago a small group of elderly care professionals wanted to advocate systemic change in nursing home culture. They sought to transform the prevalent attitude of nursing homes as a setting for decline, to a place where the elderly can go to thrive. To do so they needed to shift from a rigid, institutionalized and regulation guided culture to one that was guided by the emotional needs of the patients. It was a shift that required flexibility at the individual home and caretaker level; essentially the direct opposite of rigid, institutionalized and highly regulated.

To enact the envisioned change the group did many tactical things, such as creating a case for adoption, providing a toolkit for execution and developing a resource center for education. However, the most transformative weapon the group leveraged was the ability to change the stories of the culture.  

Margaret Thacker worked at a nursing home where one Monday morning someone delivered a bushel of apples to her doorstep. Thinking of the new culture her mind turned over all of the activities, from applesauce to apple pie, that these apples could provide as a way to enhance the daily routine of her residents.

Upon bringing the apples into the home, the entrenched regulation driven culture quickly became apparent when Margaret was told that she couldn’t use the apples because they weren’t FDA approved. So there the apples sat until a few days later, when a group of executives from corporate visited the home to review progress against the new cultural initiative.

By all appearances the home resembled how the culture should look based on the suggestions in the toolkit, but had the approach changed to match the appearance? The bushel of apples said it hadn’t.

After the meetings concluded the Corporate Director of Dining Services, upon seeing the bushel, inquired about whether there were some “apple activities” planned for the week. In response Margaret said that there weren’t since the apples lacked the necessary FDA approval. Historically the conversation would have concluded, but in the spirit of the new culture the Director took an apple out of the basket, washed it, and in taking a bite exclaimed that they seemed like perfectly good apples to her, perfect for cooking and eating.

With that simple gesture the power of entrenched thought was cracked and the story that went through the organization of why apples couldn’t be used due to FDA regulations was transformed into stories about all of the positive activity generated by a bushel of apples. If you change the stories that are told within a culture then the culture itself changes. It’s apple seed innovation.

The Precautionary Principle of Marketing

In 1999 there was a meeting of prestigious environmentalists and academics promoting a theory of thought around environmental policymaking called “The Precautionary Principle”. In its strictest sense, and broken down to its most basic tenet, the principle states that “ultimate precaution should trump all other considerations in future environmental and technological policy making”. Put more succinctly, the principal demands that if an action might cause harm, then inaction is preferable.

It is not hard to see how rigid enactment of this principle would lead to a culture of aversion and stagnation, where the mere potential of a negative would lead to positives unrealized. Where risks become something to be avoided instead of opportunities to be seized.

Medication that could cure a terminal illness would be eschewed due to possible side effects.
New technologies would be forsaken for fear of malfunction.
Cars wouldn’t have been invented for the risk of a crash.
Surgical procedures wouldn’t exist for risk of damage to the patient.
Fire wouldn’t have been discovered for risk of burning down the house.

The point is, by looking to remove any possibility of harm you create an environment where gain is snuffed out, resulting in net greater harm than that which you were attempting to prevent.

There is another, more simple phrase to describe this dynamic; it is called being “penny smart and dollar foolish”, and it is a prevalent force within the corporate world. It permeates an organization and trickles down to the individual to create a culture of fear that stifles innovation.

Fear of disrupting the status quo, so you do what has always been done regardless of the result.
Fear of alienating with your message, so you make it palatable to all and relevant to none.
Fear of standing by your beliefs, so you acquiesce to management's requests even if you disagree.
Fear of challenging the competition, so you play it safe even if there is potential gain in making direct claims against them.
Fear of transparency, so you dance around an issue instead of getting directly to its core.
Fear of being ill perceived, so you remain silent instead of adding to the dialogue.
Fear of losing your job...fear of being wrong...fear of failure...fear of being different...  

At a certain point the fear of taking risks becomes riskier than the risks themselves.

So don’t fear failure. Fear the ordinary, commonplace and unimaginative. Fear the mediocre, unmemorable and uneventful. Let those fears haunt and drive you to be disruptive and impactful. To be meaningful and magical.

Because as Harvey Weinstein once said at a conference I attended, “The only thing middle of the road gets you is hit by a car.”