Kills debt creativity

Creative mindfulness and its barriers - an interview with Karl-Heinz Brodbeck by Sandra Winzer (part 2)

The following is the second part of the interview with Prof. Dr. Karl-Heinz Brodbeck from the University of Applied Sciences Würzburg-Schweinfurt and the University of Politics in Munich. Guided and recorded on March 23, 2012 by Sandra Winzer, Bauhaus University Weimar.

Part 1 of the interview appeared on this blog on October 20, 2012.

Winzer: The term creativity is currently used in a very inflationary way, not only in job advertisements. For me it was a trigger to deal with this topic. Even in finance professions I found the criterion of a “creative” way of working, and the creative industries are playing a growing role. Is it still the case today that creativity, as you say in your book title, is a success factor, the "future of our market economy"?

Brodbeck: Yes, definitely. But now it's more of a phrase. Look at the American economy: you were the most creative and innovative in the world in the 1950s. People were paid reasonable wages, they were given freedom within the company. The Japanese followed a different model that worked in a similar way. There were many hierarchical positions, but they were given a job guarantee - and they were then allowed to move relatively freely in certain areas within the hierarchy. And so they then developed a high level of creativity. You can see from an entire nation: If this works in the real economy, it will also lead to success. What they did then was the great neoliberal revolution of the 80s in the last century. It was the redirection of the processes to reduce costs, that was one thing. Not to mention the market liberalization. And the second thing was that you said: “Money can be causal, as it were everything bring forth. It just depends on how you finance it. ”It was about risk capital: You have to give young people who, for example, set up their own business after university, the opportunity to get the appropriate capital. That is all a very reasonable thought. Only then did it become completely independent in the form of financial products. Creativity has been diverted, if you will, by the real economy. There are they infinite creative; So what kind of financial products the bankers have come up with! Only has that at all no long-term economic value; in that case one just kept reinventing debt in a new form. In this I see a very disastrous course.

You yourself have included many artists and creative people in your research. Are there any clues that you say connect these personalities or their way of working? I filtered out for myself that a relatively similar process can be observed in the workflow despite the most diverse industries. It was also noticed that if you are self-employed as a creative person, the economic and creative logic must flow together in one person. Of course there is the artist who is interested in the best possible realization of the idea - but also in the same person the entrepreneur who has to orientate himself towards the market.

It is really important that these two ways of thinking are completely separated again and again in phases. Above all, I took care of musicians who were hopelessly in debt and had no idea about the economy. Tremendous talents then simply perished because of this economic restriction. But in the opposite case - if I only have the economy in mind - I am not able to achieve anything artistically. I also got to know people who try everything possible and immediately peered into the charts or the success of the concert. And this shot backfires.

How can this conflict be dealt with in a meaningful way?

By always separating both areas modally. That means: if I do one thing, the other mustn't play a role. If I judge my success critically, I really mustn't be creative in the meantime. (laughs) I just have to do the math and ask: What time and money can I afford? But if if you give yourself the time, then the entrepreneur has to drop out first. If you now ask about a personality profile: For me, it's less artistic or creative personality in focus, but above all that situation. When I paid attention to the creative situation in my examinations, it was a clear improvement, because I was able to judge more. But even there I cannot say that there are certain pattern situations; not to mention the creative type. I've met people who are just terribly hardworking. Of course it depends on the area; There is creativity in science too. But there are people who just sit down and brood and brood, very systematically, make lunch punctually (laughs) and have a perfectly harmonious life cycle. And you don't even think that anything sensible will come of it, but it does. Then there are others who simply need a completely unconventional lifestyle and, so to speak, have to use the freedom that you allow yourself; We have to live with it all the time, even in everyday life. And there comes also something good out. There you can see that they are not doing it right utilize can, of course that can happen. There are two extremes. The purely spontaneous, who does not allow any rules to apply and who is completely non-calculating with his own life, his body and his relationships, who also expects everything possible. And then there is the other, in whom every step is fearfully dared. But if he then picks up a brush and works meticulously ... I met a painter and you couldn't believe how meticulously he could paint. He made an art out of it. You always have to see the area, what Csikszentmihalyi the "Domain" is called. In the area of ​​creativity in which you are, there are of course differences from there. A mathematician is creative in a completely different way than a painter or a jazz musician, that's perfectly clear.

Have you noticed any significant features regarding the work environment?

Yes, yes. There is absolutely definable, definable creativityobstacles. What absolutely kills creativity is any form of fear. When I'm afraid If it comes up it will ruin everything. Fear in all its many forms that one may not even be aware of. "I'm afraid of my colleague, afraid of competition, afraid of my daily existence." That kills almost everything. You tend to be extremely self-critical and no longer be able to hug yourself if you make a mistake and say, “Hey, you're a creative, creative do Mistake, that's great. Next time you won't make that mistake again. ”If you don't have this attitude and everything is only dictated by the fear that can also come from outside, that's difficult. In the late 1990s, Japanese companies had the famous chalk circle. This was drawn around the office table to suggest that the job was in jeopardy. When you sit in such a chair, you are Not more creative.

That would be more of a psychological aspect, however. Were there also external characteristics relating to the work situation in your research? I spoke to an architect who said that he needed a bare room in which to work, that would not influence him from the outside - and that he would always start over.

Some say that. Others say something completely different. I haven't found a pattern that even appears halfway harmonious. You probably know Jean Piaget, the Swiss psychologist. He is considered to be one of the most innovative psychologists at all. I never got to know him personally, but he must have had a small separate house with a separate entrance to work. This was completely chaotic, there was no cleaning or dusting; everything had to stay exactly the same and the manuscripts piled up. He was very familiar with it himself, there was a certain order in it. But for an outsider, it was a completely chaotic work environment.

I originally tried - and today I am an opponent of this attempt because I made it myself - to mathematize creativity or innovation processes. There are individual aspects where this works a little, but that is so small that I have basically deviated from this attempt. During this time I looked very intensively for certain mathematical solutions, I calculated day and night. My desk was a mess. I finished my dissertation after two years. A colleague, a good friend of mine, was sitting in the next room. It was set up exactly like what you described earlier about the architect. He kept tidying up the desk immediately, it was freshly wiped, there was a sharpened pencil ... It looked great, I really enjoyed having tea with him because it was so neat. It was pure relaxation. However, he has not yet received his doctorate - and it will no longer be. He just didn't make it, maybe because of this compulsion. I've been watching a lady; a colleague in marketing whom I admire very much. She's extremely intelligent, and when she's working on a particular task, she's quite innovative in her solutions. But if you asked her to do some work herself and write a short text, she just didn't finish anything. Why? She started writing and always made sure that the text is beautiful right away. Error-free, formatted completely, and so on. And the goes of course not. I can't write a text and make it beautiful right away. (laughs) I have to go wild on an adventure. Then there are mistakes in it that don't look nice. I've worked a lot with architects, so I know a lot about them. There were two extremes for me. The one who is more of a civil engineer and the other as an artist. The pure artists are also very different. There are some, these are the aesthetes who always want very little and have beautiful rooms. Most of the time they are completely empty, as in Zen Buddhism. There is a flower there and that's it. (laughs) But then there are also others with completely overloaded tables. That only as an external feature. Or also with regard to the lifestyle: some did not pay attention to regularities, went out in the evening and it did not matter if they were hungover the next day. Then there were others who thought completely rationally and said: “Yes, I will have another glass of wine with me, but then I have to stop, otherwise I will not be fit tomorrow.” So they also had exactly this precise organization in their lifestyle. And both have produced very good results.

One last question: Is it possible to try to formulate what distinguishes the professionally creative person from other professions?

I'm a bit cautious about that, for the following reason: I assume that everyone has to be creative every day. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to walk down the street at all, avoiding people, making calls and looking into the shop window at the same time. These are microscopic but still creative nudes. Try programming that on a machine, it's almost impossible. And even if you carry out a purely routine activity - and there are those people who don't want anything else, but want to have a very clear job - you can still observe something that is common to all creative people: when they are happy or halfway satisfied are with their profession, we observe that these people carry out their routine activities like a ritual. They are vigilant and make sure that everything is in order. If you will, it also has a certain aesthetic appeal. But it's the aesthetics of the ritual - and that consists of repeating something. I would definitely count it, marginally of course, among the creative files. Because a ritualized process also awakens our mindfulness and fills a person. If you do something carefully, not reluctantly and, above all, fearlessly, something like this can work just fine. The creative, who may then be more intoxicated, is also in a moment of extreme alertness. It's always about this alertness. If you are dissatisfied with your work - and there are many - it is actually an uncreative act. Then my thoughts are completely different. This expands the creative field again; but that is exactly what makes creativity so great - and therefore so interesting.

About the interviewee:

Prof. Dr. Karl-Heinz Brodbeck, born in 1948, is Professor of Economics and Policy, Business Statistics and Creativity Techniques at the University of Applied Sciences Würzburg-Schweinfurt and at the University of Politics in Munich for Economic Policy. He researches and publishes primarily on the criticism of neoliberal economics, on creativity in human action and on Buddhist business ethics. He is Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Fairness Foundation, Frankfurt am Main, and a cooperation partner of the Finance & Ethics Academy in Diex, Austria.

The following books have recently been published by him:

The rule of money: History and systematics. Darmstadt: WBG (Scientific Book Society), 2nd edition, 2011.

Buddhist business ethics: An introduction. Berlin: edition Steinrich, revised new edition, 2011.

The questionable foundations of economics: A Philosophical Critique of Modern Economics. Darmstadt: WBG, 5th edition, 2011.

Decision to be creative: Ways out of the maze of habits. Darmstadt: WBG, 4th edition, 2010.


To the interviewer:

Sandra winemaker, 26, MA, first completed a bachelor's degree in media culture at the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, followed by a master's in media management with empirical research on the subject of "Creative work - between artistic freedom and economic imperative", in which she explores the influencing factors and conditions more creatively Professions examined. Her academic interest is in creative writing, creativity and its management, innovation, radio and new media as well as qualitative empirical research.