Arbitrary Deadlines Are the Enemy of Creativity, According to Harvard Research (qz.com)

Time can feel like the enemy to an employee in any role, and in any industry, but it's most acutely threatening to creative types. From a report: We may tease them for their diva-like behaviors when they feel persecuted by a deadline, but we have to admit that "develop an amazing new idea" is not something that slides into your schedule, like pick up lunch or respond to new clients. Nor can systems be tweaked and extra hands hired to help hit a goal that requires innovation, the way they can when mundane busy work is piling up. And yet deadlines are a fact of life for any company that wants to stay competitive. In a recent Harvard Business School podcast, professor Teresa Amabile, whose academic career has focused on individuals, teams, and creativity, offers some guidance for managers who struggle to support or coax their creative talent. She explains that although the creative process itself can't be controlled, certain structures can set up the conditions to move it along. When possible, managers should avoid tight deadlines for creative projects. In her work, Amabile found that creative teams can produce ideas on a deadline, and creative people may feel productive on high-pressured days, but their ideas won't be inspired.

Comments

Rumination

[omnichad]

Rumination is free labor. If I'm thinking about a project for several weeks when I'm in the shower, trying to sleep, driving - that's extra overtime for free.

Doing all of my thinking on a tight deadline while also doing the actual design or coding involves a lot of bad guessing. But there comes a point where I could just think about all the possibilities forever and never start or get anything done.

Re:Rumination

[ranton]

Doing all of my thinking on a tight deadline while also doing the actual design or coding involves a lot of bad guessing. But there comes a point where I could just think about all the possibilities forever and never start or get anything done.

Like most things, you aren't going to get good results if you don't have implementation teams you can trust to give realistic estimates. And management teams who listen to these estimates, while probably making slight adjustments based on past results (almost always adding time to the estimates).

I'm in a project right now where we were introduced to the project early October, sat down for a full day requirements gathering session mid-October, and gave estimates by the end of October. We estimated code completion in mid-January. They gave us a mid-December deadline. The product will now be complete at the end of January, after spending weeks in constant status meetings trying to hit that ridiculous deadline.

In the end the only thing that changed from the results we promised in our first estimates is now the team's two architect-level resources are prepping our resumes just in case this type of shit doesn't happen again and/or this year's bonus isn't a high five figure amount (aka starting with a 3+).

Re:Rumination

[jellomizer]

There is a difference between an Arbitrary deadlines vs no deadlines.

Often we will get a deadline, based on the Boss trying to impress a partner, or a customer, or just beat competition to the market. These deadlines are not based on what it would take to do the job right and best. However if someone went to me and say we need to solve this problem, I can usually give a fair ballpark figure on when it can be done by, and add some buffer for unforeseen problems, Then you can have a good deadline, where the project keeps moving and gets done, without stressing and taking shortcuts to meet it.

Re:Often deadlines are external

[HornWumpus]

Until a client has informed you that the marketer asked them to ask for a 'very short timeframe' in order to 'motivate the team' you haven't lived.

We found that out...it was the half the team (the competent half) or him. He is still working there. Never so glad to leave a place as that one.

Sometimes it becomes crystal clear what the bastards think. Vote with your feet.

Is time a special case for constraints?

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem A: think of a cool name.

Problem B: think of a cool name for a starship.

Which of the above two problems is easier and which is harder? If you solved both problems, which name was cooler?

My guess is that problem B was the easier one and it's also the one where you came up with the cooler name. Why? Because it had a constraint, and perversely, constraints cause creativity. Or so I've thought.

Problem C: think of a cool name for a starship, within 30 seconds.

I added another constraint, so you got even more creative, right? No. Something about time as a constraint is .. odd.

But wait a minute. Let's say I show you a mid-game chessboard, and it's white's turn. In one scenario, I give you lots of time to try to come up with the best move. In another, I give you only 10 seconds, and then you must make a move.

Which chess move to do expect to be the most interesting? Note, I didn't say the best, just the most interesting. I think maybe the time-constrained solution might come out on top.

Is this all bullshit, or is there something interesting about time?

Best Busines Reason Ever!

[avandesande]

Once I asked an application owner what was driving the absurdly short timeline and he replied with a straight face that it was when his yearly review was to occur.