sponsors and wel -known speakers from the world of sports, ultimately raising $50,000
in his first year running. It is no surprise that this dinner is now in its fourth year.
Rothstein later left a very successful career at Procter & Gamble to found a nonprofit organization cal ed “Coach for America.” His impressive ability to make bold ideas happen through great determination has enabled him to found such an organization despite a troubled economy.
To push multiple projects forward simultaneously—and succeed—you’ve got to have something special. People like Rothstein make you wonder if almost impossible feats become more possible through the application of simple convictions and practical methods like fol owing up—rather than, say, genius.
After al , none of Rothstein’s actions sel ing product at Procter & Gamble, securing venues for the 21 Dinner, or printing apparel were bril iant on their own. Rothstein’s bril iance lies with the fact that he always identifies the necessary actions for each project and then takes them (and enforces them) relentlessly. He always fol ows up until every action is done.
Further investigation of Rothstein’s system for organizing projects and ideas—and Action Steps—revealed a concrete method to his madness. Rothstein’s approach, though highly personalized for his own work flow and on-the-road lifestyle, incorporated many of the key elements of the Action Method. From the way he captured ideas and subsequent actions in every meeting to the way he processed them, Rothstein rarely missed a beat.
There are many stories like Rothstein’s among idea generators who fol ow through and are successful. At the core of each story, we find the same set of methods and convictions again and again. While each person’s system is personalized, the mechanics of how productively creative people work are fairly consistent.
Seek Constraints
Sometimes I ask teams to tel me about projects that were especial y difficult to execute. A surprising number of stories have a similar beginning: “The client was very hands-off.” “There was no defined budget; we were told to think big.” “The brief was rather open and there was no firm deadline established.” While the outcomes may vary, the beginnings of these nightmare projects share a common theme: the teams felt especial y free.
Sometimes this sense of freedom is real y a symptom of something missing. Perhaps the client is stil wavering about direction or awaiting more information from higher-ups.
In such cases, while the brief may appear very open, the client is likely to impose more unexpected restrictions later on in the project. Such surprises are likely to cause frustration and redundant work. But this is not the main reason why open-ended projects fail.
It turns out that constraints—whether they are deadlines, budgets, or highly specific creative briefs—help us manage our energy and execute ideas. While our creative side intuitively seeks freedom and openness—blue-sky projects—our productivity desperately requires restrictions.
During the summer of 2008, I was invited to the set of Engine Room , a reality-TV
series being produced by MTV and Hewlett-Packard. The program gathered four teams of four creative professionals each from Europe, Asia, South America, and the United States. These teams would compete as they addressed a series of seven creative briefs. Once the brief was shared, the teams would have anywhere from one to six days to brainstorm, plan, and execute their ideas.
On the set, I witnessed some miraculous col aborations take place despite extreme time limitations. Brainstorms were lean and ideas were quickly tested and, when necessary, discarded with little hesitation. Feedback was rapidly exchanged, and defined intervals of time were preserved for extreme focus during execution. The clock ticking discouraged team gatherings that weren’t actionable. And the output was pretty remarkable given the
in his first year running. It is no surprise that this dinner is now in its fourth year.
Rothstein later left a very successful career at Procter & Gamble to found a nonprofit organization cal ed “Coach for America.” His impressive ability to make bold ideas happen through great determination has enabled him to found such an organization despite a troubled economy.
To push multiple projects forward simultaneously—and succeed—you’ve got to have something special. People like Rothstein make you wonder if almost impossible feats become more possible through the application of simple convictions and practical methods like fol owing up—rather than, say, genius.
After al , none of Rothstein’s actions sel ing product at Procter & Gamble, securing venues for the 21 Dinner, or printing apparel were bril iant on their own. Rothstein’s bril iance lies with the fact that he always identifies the necessary actions for each project and then takes them (and enforces them) relentlessly. He always fol ows up until every action is done.
Further investigation of Rothstein’s system for organizing projects and ideas—and Action Steps—revealed a concrete method to his madness. Rothstein’s approach, though highly personalized for his own work flow and on-the-road lifestyle, incorporated many of the key elements of the Action Method. From the way he captured ideas and subsequent actions in every meeting to the way he processed them, Rothstein rarely missed a beat.
There are many stories like Rothstein’s among idea generators who fol ow through and are successful. At the core of each story, we find the same set of methods and convictions again and again. While each person’s system is personalized, the mechanics of how productively creative people work are fairly consistent.
Seek Constraints
Sometimes I ask teams to tel me about projects that were especial y difficult to execute. A surprising number of stories have a similar beginning: “The client was very hands-off.” “There was no defined budget; we were told to think big.” “The brief was rather open and there was no firm deadline established.” While the outcomes may vary, the beginnings of these nightmare projects share a common theme: the teams felt especial y free.
Sometimes this sense of freedom is real y a symptom of something missing. Perhaps the client is stil wavering about direction or awaiting more information from higher-ups.
In such cases, while the brief may appear very open, the client is likely to impose more unexpected restrictions later on in the project. Such surprises are likely to cause frustration and redundant work. But this is not the main reason why open-ended projects fail.
It turns out that constraints—whether they are deadlines, budgets, or highly specific creative briefs—help us manage our energy and execute ideas. While our creative side intuitively seeks freedom and openness—blue-sky projects—our productivity desperately requires restrictions.
During the summer of 2008, I was invited to the set of Engine Room , a reality-TV
series being produced by MTV and Hewlett-Packard. The program gathered four teams of four creative professionals each from Europe, Asia, South America, and the United States. These teams would compete as they addressed a series of seven creative briefs. Once the brief was shared, the teams would have anywhere from one to six days to brainstorm, plan, and execute their ideas.
On the set, I witnessed some miraculous col aborations take place despite extreme time limitations. Brainstorms were lean and ideas were quickly tested and, when necessary, discarded with little hesitation. Feedback was rapidly exchanged, and defined intervals of time were preserved for extreme focus during execution. The clock ticking discouraged team gatherings that weren’t actionable. And the output was pretty remarkable given the
Similar Books
![Moonlight Captivation [Moon Shadows Book 1]](/res/aob/book1.jpg)
