On my Labor Day road trip, I listened to “Live at the BBC,” a 2-cd set of recordings The Beatles made on BBC Radio from March 1962 to June 1965. It made me think about an old book definitely worth checking out if you’re interested in the musical creative process.
“The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono” is a transcript of interviews the pair did with writer David Sheff right before Lennon’s death in 1980. In one section, Lennon walked through the entire Beatles catalog, discussing the creative origin of each song with Paul McCartney. Sometimes it was true collaboration; at times it was the other person adding a small, yet critical element that made the song. Many times, particularly in later years, it was primarily individual creation. Yet because of publishing agreements, and perhaps a recognition that their creative styles were inexorably shaped by each other, all of their songs were jointly credited as Lennon-McCartney.
R.E.M. in its original line-up also credited every song to all members – Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe - irrespective of how it was composed, acknowledging that through the recording process, each band member had shaped the final creation.
I’ve always loved that creative team approach. In the best creative work in which I’ve participated, I enjoy the phenomenon that once it’s done, it’s very difficult to actually recall which person contributed which theme, idea, line, or edit.
That truly reflects a collaborative creative team.
2 comments:
Of course collaborative environments are where the best creative work happens, where the deadweight pressure of / focus on individual performance has been replaced with a culture celebrating achievement of the group and the performance of the whole. (with appropriate value and incentives placed on team performance over that of th eindividual) In fact, I would venture that this extends beyond creative work to all measures of success are vastly improved when team performance is given greatest consideration.
That said, how can we apply this in a corporate setting where focus on individual performance is so strong - where opportunities for advancement are few, and usually based on an individual appearing to submit superior work in relation to his or her peers?
As managers, how can we foster the team-based collaboration principle, particularly in matrixed organizations where teams are usually made up of cross-functional members with at least minimally varying agendas?
Do we chunk projects into tasks so small that their contribution to the whole is almost unmeasurable? I doubt Paul & John agreed to each contribute 100 different phrases, and how they were leter combined into songs made each member's contribution unmeasurable. (As an interesting aside, Paul later petitioned Yoko to change the credit on "Hey Jude" to McCartney-Lennon, in reference to both Pauls' relative contribution and the song's importance to him. Of course, staying true to the virtue of the team aesthetic that Paul & John had originally established, Ms. Ono denied the request.)
Conversely, do we leave task definition so broad that it can legitimately be said that everyone had shared a part in is creation. This seems to fit more with what the groups you mentioned were trying to do, in essence say that Bill, Michael, Peter & Mike had responsibility for the creation of the R.E.M. catalogue, and the only appropriate measure of either them or of their work was at that level.
The latter seems to fit much more with what you have stated on the nature of quality of creative output deriving from true collaboration. Its just that I don't see that as consistent with how the beancounters, project managers, and managers unable (or too lazy) to consider team contribution, actually measure output. Often, the "individual responsibility" model of management & measurement seen in business represents a critical limitation to the quality of work we can achieve through group composiiton, and most of us struggle to get around / beyond.
P.S. It appears the secret formula for getting me to respond to posts is to put creativity, strategy or business into musical context.
So much for throw-away, fluffy music posts. ; )
You’re right that there can be little in certain business situations that fosters team collaboration. Having a fairly good longitudinal view (albeit a narrow one relative to multiple businesses), there are clearly waves where collaboration “appears” to formally work better and worse than at other times.
Speaking personally, I’m where I’m at because the times that it’s worked have far outweighed the times that it hasn’t (I’ve gotten the hell out of other non-work situations where it’s been reversed).
But irrespective of the level of “formal” sanction for teamwork at any given time, there are ways to make collaboration work for the better performance of the group (primarily) and yourself (secondarily).
The underpinning of approaching business this way isn’t universally shared, however. So in the desire to work a certain way, you realize that you’re going to have your successes, and during certain periods, you’re going to take your hits. My views on what it takes for me to deal with those successes and frustrations usually are at http://aligningyourlifeswork.blogspot.com.
Post a Comment