Ed Catmull
Many assume that a brilliant initial concept dictates the success of a creative project. This belief fundamentally misunderstands the creative process. If a mediocre team receives a brilliant idea, they will inevitably ruin it. Conversely, if a brilliant team receives a mediocre idea, they will either fix it or discard it entirely to invent something better. Getting the right people and establishing the right chemistry must precede the search for the perfect idea. Talent and group dynamics drive innovation far more effectively than isolated moments of genius.
Managers often structure their organizations to prevent errors, mistakenly equating a smooth process with success. Attempting to eliminate failure actually stifles originality because creating something entirely new inherently involves making mistakes. Fear of failure causes teams to cling to safe, derivative concepts rather than taking necessary risks. Organizations must uncouple fear from failure by treating mistakes as an educational investment rather than a punishable offense. When leaders demonstrate that it is safe to fail, employees become willing to explore unproven but potentially groundbreaking avenues.
A rigid chain of command simplifies management but severely damages the flow of information in a creative enterprise. Companies frequently confuse their organizational structure with their communication structure, forcing employees to route all problems through direct supervisors. This practice breeds resentment, slows down problem resolution, and hides critical information from those who need it most. Anyone in an organization must have the freedom to communicate with anyone else at any time. When team members can address difficulties directly across departmental lines, they solve problems rapidly and efficiently.
Candid feedback forms the bedrock of continuous improvement in creative projects. A dedicated group of experienced peers reviewing works in progress can identify flaws that the creators themselves cannot see. Crucially, this advisory group must hold absolutely no authority to mandate changes. Removing the power to dictate solutions liberates the reviewers to offer unvarnished truth and allows the project leaders to accept feedback without feeling defensive. The project directors retain total ownership of the work, ensuring they implement feedback because they believe in it, not because they were ordered to do so.
Original ideas are highly vulnerable in their infancy, often appearing awkward and incomplete. Employees naturally want to impress their colleagues and hide their messy, unpolished drafts until they look perfect. This instinct to conceal early work prevents crucial midstream adjustments and wastes immense amounts of time. By instituting daily reviews of incomplete work, organizations can systematically dismantle the embarrassment associated with imperfection. When sharing rough drafts becomes a mandatory routine, people check their egos at the door and collaborate to elevate the collective output.
Large organizations develop an immense appetite for safe, predictable projects that generate reliable revenue. This operational machinery demands constant feeding and naturally favors derivative work that mimics past successes. In contrast, genuinely new ideas are fragile and require patience, time, and protection from the demands of immediate profitability. Leaders must actively defend these nascent concepts from the crushing pressure of the production schedule. Without deliberate intervention to protect innovation, the operational machinery will consume all resources and eliminate originality.
People mistakenly believe that past events offer clear, objective lessons for the future. In reality, human brains constantly search for patterns and subconsciously invent narratives to explain complex, random events. Because people cannot fully grasp the invisible factors and random chance that shape success or failure, their mental models of the past remain fundamentally flawed. Relying too heavily on these distorted memories causes organizations to draw incorrect conclusions and apply the wrong lessons. Leaders must cultivate humility and recognize that their understanding of past successes is vastly incomplete.
Teams naturally avoid analyzing their completed projects, preferring to celebrate successes rather than confront uncomfortable truths. When forced into postmortem meetings, people often manipulate the discussion to avoid blame and give superficial praise. To extract actual value from a project review, leaders must force the team to balance their analysis by listing an equal number of positive and negative outcomes. Incorporating hard data into these discussions further strips away subjective biases and exposes the true operational bottlenecks. A rigorous, objective postmortem prevents hidden resentments from festering and arms the team with critical questions for their next endeavor.