Not all projects go the way we want them too, but we live in a society that tends to be risk averse and squeamish when it comes to talking about failure. Too many people carry untold history, denying themselves, and others, the chance to reflect, learn, and recover.
This is a chance for you to talk about risks you have taken, failures you have endured, and fools you have suffered.
Small, intimate groups of fellow risk takers (maximum of 4 plus facilitator);
Creative-based facilitation model to inspire insights.
What is it about work that has made you wake up at 3am with a pounding heart?
The world of work can be tough to navigate at times. I help people make sense of the emotional labour involved in navigating workplace culture. After a lifetime of working with teams in high pressure environments, I have developed a facilitation model that uses gothic themes and stories to provide both structure and inspiration.
For this Halloween week, think about the things that have gone bump in your workplace: the Jekyll and Hyde colleagues, the vampires who suck the life out of your projects, the monsters you have created.
This is an opportunity to bring them into the light of day.
Cost: $25 / person Dates: 29 Oct. – 2 Nov. 2018 Time: 5.30 for 6-7.30 pm Place: Pop-Up venue in Melbourne CBD (directions supplied after booking) I am keeping numbers small to keep the conversation intimate, so book soon.
My book Ask for the Moonlooks at creativity and innovation in organisations, and the conditions that nurture or constrain these. As a central case study for the book, I chose to look at Shaw Brothers Studios and their production of martial arts movies in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s.
Shaw Brothers had a business and production model that was unique for the time and place in which they operated. Their artistic workforce – directors, cinematographers, editors, martial arts choreographers, performers, writers, production designers, etc. – were extraordinarily creative and some of them even managed innovations in their art form.
The good thing about working for big studios was that you got classy, quality support. Even if you asked for the moon, they could get the moon for you, which was amazing. ~ Shaw Brothers Studios director Chor Yuen
One of the components of the Shaw Brothers production model was their organisation of resources. Whether it was a gobsmacking array of lavish costumes and set dressings, state of the art equipment, or a large and dedicated corps of human talent, Shaw Brothers could, as shown in the Chor Yuen quote above, support the vision of their directors with terrific resources.
They did this by pooling these resources centrally, and then mandating their re-use across a number of films. This kept costs down but, because the resources themselves were of high calibre to begin with, also ensured a decent quality. As a former creative worker and arts manager, I can completely empathise with Chor Yuen’s appreciation of being able to ask for his moon (and I know he got it because I’ve seen it in many of his glamorous looking movies). In my personal history I saw many arts projects get produced on shoe string budgets, and artists frequently worked miracles to produce material despite this, but this isn’t ideal for nurturing sustained creativity or producing good quality and well realised work. Shaw Brothers were able to churn out hundreds of handsome looking films in two and a half decades, of consistently good quality, and their strategy for managing resourcing played an important part in this.
(Producer) Run Run (Shaw) calibrated the resourcing of his production model… and then aligned it with producing a certain quality of product geared towards satisfying a certain audience need. ~ Ask for the Moon
Good, and certainly great, creative work needs to be adequately resourced. If it’s not, then potential is constrained, and your creatives will be distracted by stretching resources rather than doing the very best work they can do.
Shaw Brothers’ production model, and its particular approach to the management of resourcing, did have a down side: Shaw directors were constrained to using the same resources again and again. While they did good work, and this is commendable, this could also limit their ability to experiment and innovate (and this is one of the core things I look at in my book). This led to a certain sameness in aesthetic in the films – the same costumes, sets, actors, and even plots were recycled – and induced a feeling of staleness in some of the filmmakers.
Many Shaw Brothers’ films are eye-catching and fun, but only a few of them managed to be actually innovative, rather than just imaginative, under this regimen of controlling resources.
So, the lesson is plain: if you want ground breaking work, resource it properly.
Ask for the Moon is on sale now and you can buy it here.
“In the film industry, one walks a tightrope, satisfactions, and dangers. That is perhaps why the business of making movies has given me the pleasure, the excitement, and the fulfilment I have always craved.” ~ Sir Run Run Shaw
I used this quote in my recent book, Ask for the Moon. Sir Run Run’s company – Shaw Brothers Organisation – was a market leader in the filmmaking and distribution industry in Asia in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, and, although it is not as busy producing films, is still a successful corporation in various sectors even today.
The Shaw Brothers manoeuvred their business into a position of predominance through a combination of clever strategy and calculated risk taking. My book is about innovation, both in terms of business modelling and artistic (filmmaking) output, and Shaw Brothers Organisation is a perfect case study for this.
The history of the organisation is a fascinating one: the brothers had to outlast cut throat competition, war, political instability, geopolitical complexities, and rapid social change. This they did, over the course of many decades and across China, Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
One aspect of their history that interests me, and which I tried to amplify in the chapter in my book in which I describe their history, is their ability to pivot in response to both obstacles and opportunities. Actually, their pivots often changed obstacles into opportunities. They were willing to try new ways of doing things and / or new locations of business, and this saw them succeed where other businesses failed.
Sir Run Run mentions walking a tightrope, and I can only assume, given their history, that the brothers must have had nerves of steel and an appetite for adventure. But the other thing that struck me about them was their strategic nous and uncanny ability to read their market. On top of this, Run Run managed his business with a micro-manager’s attention to detail. So, in considering them as personalities – and as innovators – it is interesting to consider this complex mix of the adventurous and the meticulous.
Oliver Cromwell apparently said, “Trust in God but keep your powder dry”, an interesting reflection on balancing faith in the ineffable and cultivating the practical. The Shaw brothers trusted in themselves and made sure they controlled the production of their own goddamned powder. They built a business that was able to adapt and shift, and this ensured success and longevity.
If you would like to know more about my book, Ask for the Moon: Innovation at Shaw Brothers Studio, then check out the website here.
I am presenting on some of the themes of the book at the Knowledge Management Leadership Forum in October 2018 in Melbourne, Australia. More information here.
A few days ago I went to the Victorian Workplace Mental Wellbeing Collaboration Business Leaders Breakfast, the theme of which was ‘Positive Leadership through Change’.
The panel was chaired by Mark Dean, CEO and Founder of En Masse. The panel consisted of:
Dee McGrath, Managing Partner, IBM Global Business Services for Australia and New Zealand
Nick Nichola, Managing Partner Australia, K&L Gates
David Fitzgerald, Director, LOPUS Pty Ltd
Simone Wilkie, AO- AFL Commissioner / former Major General
It was a great session and below are a couple of interesting points that arose during the discussion.
Qualities of positive leadership include:
Caring for people;
Being available to your team;
Showing humility and
Being able to shore up psychological safety for your team (create an environment where people feel comfortable speaking out).
There was a lot of interesting discussion about showing vulnerability as a leader – showing your human side is OK and may well elicit trust and open up discussions with your teams.
A really interesting topic that was well covered in the discussion was that of getting enough sleep in the interest of maintaining positivity and avoiding a tendency towards abusive behaviour (a manifestation of feeling tired and frazzled). David Fitzgerald advised leaders to pare it back to basics – do get enough sleep, do allow for recovery time from work, turn off your phone from time to time, don’t send or answer emails at 10pm at night, make time for one to one conversations with members of your team.
I am fascinated with culture and how it affects creativity in the workplace. I have a growing interest in wellbeing and its importance in maintaining good workplace culture. It’s really great to be able to get along to events like this and hear discussion about such an important topic.
“The good thing about working for big studios was that you got classy, quality support. Even if you asked for the moon, they could get the moon for you, which was amazing.” ~ Shaw Brothers Studios director Chor Yuen. “Strange things happen in the night fog. This is ‘Moonlit Sky’, a well-known scenic place by […]
I am currently preparing a new lecture that I will be giving in Vienna next week, “Diversity work as Emotional Work.” I will be drawing on some old material that I published in On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional life (2012). It is interesting going back because you arrive with a slightly different lens, and you notice things even in your own interview transcripts that you just hadn’t noticed before. I have so enjoyed it: that reminder that projects are never over, that our materials are as full of life as we are. Or maybe more full of life, because sometimes we can feel depleted.
And that is what I am thinking about right now: feeling depleted. It is not that feelings are themselves being depleted (the rather economic model of emotions that is evident for instance in some uses of the concept of “compassion fatigue,” in which is…
“He painted all the time to do a really good painting and, like any artist, sometimes he did great works and sometimes he did not so great ones.” Brett Lichtenstein on Brett Whiteley, p. 81, Whiteley on Trial, by Gabriella Coslovich
I am currently reading (and enjoying) Gabriella Coslovich’s book Whiteley on Trial, a fascinating account of the biggest case of alleged art fraud in Australia. As well as providing a detailed retelling of the court proceedings, Coslovich also includes accounts of her interviews with a fascinating cast of characters, all connected with the late artist Brett Whiteley, or his artworks, or the apparent forgery of his style.
The above quote comes from a conversation the author had with the master framer Brett Lichtenstein. It caught my eye because I have been lately ruminating on the willingness of artists (from any discipline) to embrace experimentation and risk in their work. In my life, I have worked in both the arts industry and other sectors. It came as a rude shock to me, when I left the arts to go and work in the community and tertiary sectors, to realise how risk averse a lot of people were in comparison to the artists I was used to working with.
There is a myth that artists are woefully chaotic and badly disorganised, and spend their lives mucking about ineffectually to make all kinds of weirdly arcane stuff. The older I get the wearier I am of hearing this, usually from people who have no experience in the arts industry. The truth is – take it from one who has worked both within and out of the arts industry and can compare – that the percentage of artists who are bimbos and flakes is no higher or lower than the percentage of bimbos and flakes in other sectors.
The process of making art is messy; the process of creating something is full of trial and error. Perhaps this is why, to the outsider, artists look disorganised in their work. Whiteley was a great artist; many of Coslovich’s interviewees call him a genius. But as Lichtenstein attests above – and as Whiteley’s favourite framer he developed an intimate knowledge of Whiteley’s work over the course of many years – this genius “sometimes did not so great” work.
But to get to that “really good painting” Whiteley had to paint “all the time”, had to keep painting pieces that fell a little short until he produced a great work that didn’t. And as Lichtenstein says above, this is “like any artist”. Any of us working creatively are going to churn through this process of trying to find that sweet point where technique aligns with inspiration. In Whiteley’s case, his great works were really great. But even if most of us can never match his outcomes, we can still learn from his process.
“Forgiveness. The ability to forgive oneself. Stop here for a few breaths and think about this because it is the key to making art, … I believe, more than anything, that this grief of constantly having to face down our own inadequacies is what keeps people from being writers. Forgiveness, therefore, is key. I can’t write the book I want to write, but I can and will write the book I am capable of writing.”
I wish, I really really wish, someone had given me this advice when I was a young dancer and choreographer. Being creative is tough. You constantly have to weather the disappointment of not being able to reproduce the inspirational thing in your head as a real tangible outcome, you come up short, or it doesn’t turn out the way you thought it would, or you try too hard and overcomplicate things.
But to make the thing you are capable of making, you have to keep trying, make some bad work, move past that, keep trying, make some OK work, learn from that, keep trying, make some bad work again, reflect some more, keep trying, and then make that capable (even great?) piece. Then move on from that. Keep trying. Make some more bad work. Keep trying. And so on. And so forth.
If you want to experience insight into creativity, especially in how to apply it to innovation, then come along to the Creative Melbourne conference, 18-22 February, which offers a unique experience in creative co-learning. For more information, please look here.