The lone genius, or leaders who tyrannizetheir creative teams:An alternative to the ‘‘mothering’’ model of leadershipand creativity

Jean-Francois Coget, Abraham B. (Rami) Shani, Luca Solari

Organizational Dynamics (2014) 43, 105—113

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

jo u rn al h om ep ag e: ww w.els evier .c o m/lo c ate /o rg d yn

Is there really a need to make the case for creativity andinnovation in organizations? In today’s context of globalizedcompetition, shortened product cycles, sustained scientificand technological progress, and entrepreneurial venturing,the capacity for creativity and innovation has become a keystrategic competitive advantage. It is therefore essential fororganizational leaders to understand how to hone and main-tain this skill in their employees.

While there has been considerable research on creativityat the individual level of analysis, research on leadership andcreativity is more limited. Yet, the literature on the topicseems to offer a consensus on how leaders should handlecreative people.

THE ‘‘MOTHERING MODEL’’ OF LEADERSHIPAND CREATIVITY

The prescriptive model offered, closely resembles the wayinnovative heavyweights such as Google or product develop-ment firm IDEO function. The key seems to be to adopt anopen and tolerant culture, one that might be deemed fem-inine and motherly, where creative individuals are encour-aged and coddled. Indeed, research shows that individualcreativity is enhanced by positive evaluation, intrinsic moti-vation, positive moods, freedom, good project management,sufficient resources, encouragement, recognition, time andchallenge. Furthermore, team creativity has been found tobe enhanced by diversity in the composition of the team andsuch positive team dynamics as collaboration, communica-tion, trust and psychological safety, backup and support,productive conflict (task vs. interpersonal), cohesion, team

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2014.03.0040090-2616/# 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

efficacy, help seeking, help giving, reflective reframing, andreinforcing. Following are two examples of what we label‘‘the mothering model of leadership and creativity.’’

Leadership and Creativity at Google

At Google, employees are required to spend 20 percent oftheir time on pet projects. Many of Google’s most successfulproducts, such as Gmail, came out of this program. Employ-ees are encouraged to informally enroll their colleagues towork on their pet projects and to be part of multiple teams.Google’s headquarter, the Googleplex, has been designed tofacilitate informal collaboration, with such social places ascoffee shops, communal kitchens, and play areas. Employeesare coddled with outstanding perks such as volleyball courts,foosball tables, lap pools, gyms, free bicycles, and free food.Mistakes are encouraged. For instance, when Vice PresidentSheryl Sandberg committed an error that cost the companyseveral million dollars and reported it to co-founder LarryPage, he said: ‘‘I’m so glad you made this mistake, because Iwant to run a company where we are moving too quickly anddoing too much, not being too cautious and doing too little. Ifwe don’t have any of these mistakes, we’re just not takingenough risk.’’ Co-founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin set thetone from the beginning. Their philosophy was to hire verysmart people and let them do what they wanted. Theybelieve in informality (reflected in the dress code) anddemocratic dialogue (reflected in the all-hands weekly TGIFmeeting where any employee is welcome to voice concerns,ideas, or ask questions to the leaders). They embody andpractice the ‘‘mothering model.’’

106 J.-F. Coget et al.

Leadership and Creativity at IDEO

Another successful example of the mothering model is DaveKelley at product development firm IDEO. Dave Kelley isapproachable, quirky, and funny. He doesn’t take himselfseriously. He encourages his employees to disagree with himand is proud that employees do not ask for permission to tryinitiatives, but rather forgiveness if they fail. At the heart ofIDEO’s creativity formula is what they call ‘‘The deep dive.’’When asked to design a new product, IDEO assembles a teamof diverse individuals (such as psychologists, medical schoolstudents, engineers, anthropologists, marketing experts)who work as a brainstorming team. There is no hierarchyin the team, except for a facilitator who manages the teamprocess. Team members gather data in the field, like anthro-pologists, from lay-experts and users. IDEO believes in thewisdom of crowds, as interpreted by its employees. A numberof mottoes capture IDEO’s culture, such as ‘‘One idea at atime,’’ ‘‘focused chaos,’’ and ‘‘enlightened trial and error bythe team succeeds over the insight of the lone genius.’’ BothIDEO and Google have been recognized by Forbes as amongthe most desirable places to work, reflecting the emphasisboth companies place on their employees’ wellbeing as avalue in itself, but also as a means to enhance creativity.

AN ALTERNATIVE: ‘‘THE LONE GENIUSMODEL’’ OF LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY

Despite apparent unanimity in the literature, supported bythe powerful examples of Google and IDEO, we have notedthe existence of leaders whose behavior flies in the face of allapparent wisdom. They are the likes of CEOs and inventorsSteve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and Howard Hughes; chefsFerran Adria (from El Bulli), Jiro, Marco-Pierre White, andGordon Ramsay; classical music conductors Riccardo Muti andHerbert von Karajan; or movie directors Alfred Hitchcock,Lars Von Triers, and Oliver Stone. We might call them creativetyrants, gurus, or geniuses. What characterizes them is thatthey do not coddle or encourage their creative teams. Theydo not give them freedom and positive evaluations. Theyhave big egos. They are difficult, irascible, moody, critical,demanding, and inconsistent. Their collaborators often com-ment on how difficult it is to work with them and pleasethem. They apparently fit the description of lone geniuses,whose intelligence is commensurate with their annoyingantics.

The existence of such leaders presents a conundrum forresearch on leadership and creativity. Despite doing every-thing wrong according to the literature, these leaders none-theless obtain extraordinary results. At the end of his life,Steve Jobs was hailed as the ‘‘rockstar CEO,’’ and the ThomasEdison of the 21st century. Chef Ferran Adria’s restaurant, ElBulli, was dubbed the best restaurant in the world, anointedwith three Michelin stars, and would fill up its reservationschedule for an entire season in just one day. What exactly isgoing on? What are these leaders doing? Why does it work? Arethere any negative consequences? How does their leadershipcompare to the prescriptive approach advocated in thecreativity literature and practiced at Google and IDEO?Should their examples change the way we address leadershipin creative endeavors? We tackle these questions in this

article and offer an alternative to the ‘‘mothering’’ modelof leadership and creativity. We do so through an in-depthanalysis of two examples: Steve Jobs at Apple, and chefFerran Adria at El Bulli. These examples describe differentindustries, different production processes, different con-texts (USA and Europe), but they both provide evidence ofa non-traditional leadership style in use in creativity pro-cesses.

STEVE JOBS AT APPLE

Apple has been viewed by many as a major pacesetter in thecomputer and electronic devices industry. Steve Jobs andSteve Wozniak, the company’s co-founders, triggered a radi-cal revolution that continues to transform the nature ofhuman-computer interaction to this day. Steve Jobs’ workat Apple, the complex relationships he had with his variouspartners (starting with Steve Wozniak) and design teams (inparticular, the Macintosh team, which sealed Apple’s earliersuccess) serve as the bases for our exploration of leadershipand creativity at Apple.

Background

Steve Jobs was a highly intelligent visionary who saw andunderstood the potential of the computer industry beforemany others did. He grew up in Palo Alto in the 1960s at atime when Hewlett Packard and other pioneering high-techfirm were the main employers. Steve Jobs was a geek andhighly interested in technology at an early age. He was alsodeeply influenced by the counter-cultural movements thatrocked Northern California in the 1960s. While studyingbriefly at Reeds College (before dropping out), he experi-mented with psychedelics, joined communes, and furtheredhis understanding of how to dazzle people by observingcommune leader and mentor Robert Friedland and imitatinghis ‘‘guru stare.’’ Steve Jobs was also spiritual. He oftenstated that he wanted to ‘‘put a dent in the universe.’’ Hewas interested in Zen Buddhism, and considered at onepoint becoming a monk. The combination of Jobs’ interestin computers and counter-cultural beliefs led him tobecome part of the emergent ‘‘hacker’’ culture. He wantedto use technology to empower himself, and the people, toresist ‘‘the man.’’ One of his and Wozniak’s earliest tech-nological feats was to invent a device that allowed users tomake free long-distance calls from pay-phones by hackinginto AT&T’s frequency tones. Jobs enjoyed being irreverentand, even at the peak of his success, often saw himself asthe underdog.

Jobs had a big ‘‘ego.’’ He liked to be in control, feltsmarter than most other people, and had little patience.This led him to behave in a very abrasive manner with hiscollaborators or competitors. On the one hand, he admiredintelligence and skill and would adulate collaborators whocould dazzle him with their creativity or technical ability. Onthe other hand, he could be quick to criticize them when hedisagreed with them, didn’t understand their work, or had adifferent point of view. He furthermore often swung hisjudgment on the same person, alternatively praising themlavishly or insulting them, thus bullying them with his unpre-dictability.

The lone genius, or leaders who tyrannize their creative teams 107

While Jobs was highly intelligent, he was not the technicalgenius that Steve Wozniak or other people in the Macintoshteam were. His intelligence and talent were more focused onthe big picture (e.g., understanding the computer industry),an understanding of aesthetics and user-interface issues,sales and marketing, and leadership. He thus realized earlyon that he needed to work with technical geniuses. The firstmeaningful encounter in that regard was with Wozniak. Theycomplemented each other perfectly. Both were enthusiastictechnical geeks. Both were part of a sub-culture group ofhome-based technical explorers/enthusiasts. They were alsoboth influenced by counter-cultural ideals. However, whileWozniak was introverted and the real technical genius, Jobswas extraverted and had a business sense. Furthermore, Jobshad a great ability to influence people, strike deals, and makethings happen. He was high energy and willing to take risks.

Later, after Apple had become an established company,and Jobs had relinquished his job as chief executive officer,he would shine with the Macintosh, which he built as a specialproject, with a rogue team of engineers working on thesidelines, against the main project of Apple at the time,Lisa. Macintosh would prove to be much more successful thanLisa. While Steve Jobs enraged a great many people due to hisirreverent, rebellious, abrasive style, he also enchantedothers with his visions, his idealism, and the quality of theproducts he led into being.

Intimate and Total Involvement

How do autocratic leaders interact with their creative teams?Steve Jobs was intimately involved in all aspects of everyproduct he helped design, from the circuit boards, compo-nents, displays, keyboards, software, to the look, esthetics,external enclosure, choice of material, colors, and fonts.Jobs was not just a leader of creative people. He, himself,was a creative worker. His role might be better understood asthat of ‘‘creative lead’’ rather than ‘‘leader of creativepeople.’’ Jobs was exacting and cared enormously aboutdetails that no one else emphasized at first, or that othersbelieved could not be changed, such as reducing the time toboot up a computer, having icons with round edges, reducingthe size of electronic devices beyond what was thoughtfeasible, choice of particular plastics and colors. Many ofthese details would arguably contribute to the success of theproducts. While Steve Jobs did not program, for instance, ordesign a motherboard, he nonetheless had enough expertiseto understand the variables involved in the design, and theability to appreciate technical difficulties and feats. Hewould be in constant dialogue with his creative teams,extolling them to do better, and giving them extreme stretchgoals.

Motivating the Creative Team

Steve Jobs was extremely good at motivating some of hiscreative employees. We write ‘‘some’’ because his style wastoo damaging for others, who would quit or be de-motivatedinstead. Jobs’ abrasive style acted as a filter. He was socritical that those who did not like being treated as harshly asJobs did would quit. Jobs understood this, and justified hisstyle as weeding out those who were not good enough. In his

mind, only the most technically competent would staybecause he criticized them less, and because they also caredabout the quality of the product more than having a comfor-table work-life. Jobs was an avid worker himself. He walkedthe talk. He expected his employees to give their best anddevote their life to the product they were working on. Familylife, and health were sacrificed in the name of ‘‘putting adent in the universe,’’ a sentence he liked to use whenrecruiting talented people in Silicon Valley. He would alsopay them well, but most of all, he would convince them tobuy into his grand vision. Many of them stayed only because ofthat. They had a sense that they were making history.

Believing in the Creative Team’s Product

Jobs never emphasized financial success. He also scornedmarketing studies. Like an artist or a chef, he felt that it wasnot the consumers’ job to tell him which design worked best,but rather his job to figure out what they didn’t even knowthey needed. His powers of observation, possibly honed by hisZen Buddhist practice, allowed him to notice details thatgreatly improved esthetics or usability, and that few others,let alone consumers in focus groups, would notice.

Pushing the Boundaries on Every Front

While Jobs could be very rude to engineers who did notdeliver at the quality or speed he expected, he would alsorespond well to those who stuck to their guns and confrontedhim with aplomb, as long as they could articulate theirreasoning sufficiently well to convince him of the validityof their views.

Jobs had nonetheless a habit that annoyed many of hiscollaborators: after having shot down an idea, he would oftencome around a week later and present the same idea as hisown, forgetting to give credit or apologize for having shot theidea down earlier. Jobs felt he did not have time for that.Maybe his ego was also so great that he could not apologize.

Telling the Story

Jobs developed a talent for dramatic new product unveilings,which contributed to the mystique of Apple. At those Appleevents, Jobs used his talent for theater, storytelling, andcharismatic leadership. His liberal arts training was put to theuse, at the service of extolling the virtues of his otherpassion: technology. Part of the collective storytelling thatwas purveyed to the customers was Steve Jobs as the soletechnical genius. The myth of the creative genius is persis-tent and easier to understand than the complexities of acreative team. Chefs, lead singers, orchestra conductors,movie directors, installation artists, and other known crea-tive figures often act as the face of a team of creative people.They embody that team and receive the glory that should infact be owed to the whole team. In that way, the myth of thecreative genius works similarly to the myth of leadership, asdescribed by Jeffrey Pfeffer in the Attribution theory ofleadership. While unfair, Steve Jobs’ ability to embody hisproducts and be considered a creative genius helped Apple byproviding a narrative that was more appealing and moreeasily understood by customers. (Maybe this advantage

108 J.-F. Coget et al.

would become a liability after Jobs’ death.) Apparently, it didnot overly de-motivate his team. But it probably did somedamage.

Triggering Team Creativity

One open question that we cannot answer with the sources ofdata we have is Jobs’ effect on team creativity dynamics. Thesame way that Steve Jobs didn’t believe in the wisdom offocus groups, he seemed to prefer one-on-one interactionswith key creative members of his team rather than a dialoguewith the whole team. When he addressed his team, he wouldoften do so by offering a charismatic speech that conveyedhis vision, rather than facilitating a democratic dialogue. Hewould, however, be open to challenging questions or points ofviews from courageous members of the audience. If he likedwhat they had to say, they might be promoted to his innercircle of key collaborators.

Given Jobs’ mode of operation with teams, we mightexpect that he lost the power of having a diversity ofopinions. In many ways he violated the principles that areat the heart of other companies hailed for their creativesuccess such as HP, Google and IDEO. To this day, Apple iscriticized for being too controlling, and not allowing enoughfreedom to users to customize their experience, or fordevelopers to push the limits of what can be done with Appledevices. This aspect of Apple’s culture reflects Steve Jobs’beliefs in controlling the vision.

One other way to understand Jobs’ role in the creativeprocess is to view his interventions as focusing more on theselection side of the process (judging and selecting ideas andpeople) and less on the creation side. It therefore makessense that his highly critical style was useful in discriminatingamong ideas. What is certain is that Jobs’ approach tocollective creativity is different from Google’s or IDEO’s orthe one suggested by the mainstream approach on leadershipand creativity, and it works as well, with certain advantagesand certain costs.

FERRAN ADRIA AT EL BULLI

Ferran Adria has been dubbed the most creative chef of histime, and his restaurant, El Bulli, the best restaurant in theworld. He has pioneered a new style of haute cuisine called‘‘molecular gastronomy’’ and inspired many young chefs tofollow suite. Despite having closed El Bulli in 2010, he con-tinues to work in the field of creativity and food and plans toreopen El Bulli as a center for innovation and design that willserve food on special occasions.

Background

Ferran Adria was born in 1962, in the Catalonia region ofSpain that also gave birth to painters Salvador Dali and JoanMiro, and architect Antoni Gaudi. While being one of today’smost celebrated chefs in the world, Adria did not set out tobecome a chef. He first started out in the restaurant industryat 18 years old as a dishwasher to make money for a plannedtrip to Ibiza, after dropping out from his business studies,which bored him. He nonetheless learned the basics ofSpanish cuisine from the chef de cuisine at his first job,

and subsequently further honed his skills as a cook duringhis military service. During this time, he became the headchef of the admiral in charge of Cartagena’s naval base, andeven reportedly cooked for the King of Spain.

Despite his early success and talent in the restaurantindustry, he was still not set on making a career out of it.Yet, after his military service, at 22, he got a job at El Bulli,the restaurant that would later house his fame. The restau-rant was already successful, anointed with two Michelinstars, one of only two such restaurants in Spain at the time.While he started as a kitchen staff, he quickly rose throughthe ranks, becoming chef de cuisine only 18 months later, andhead chef in 1987.

During this time, he voraciously read about NouvelleCuisine and self-educated himself about haute cuisine.Two of the final educational events that completed hisascension were a month-long apprenticeship with head chefGeorges Blanc, of the Pic restaurant, in 1985, and a seminarwith chef Jacques Maximin, in 1986, during which he wasstruck by Maximin’s answer to the question, ‘‘What is crea-tivity?’’ to which the latter answered ‘‘Creativity is notcopying.’’ This insight liberated Adria from the tyranny oftradition, and from having to copy traditional Spanish orFrench dishes. Adria describes this moment as a change ofidentity from being a technician to being a creator.

Adria describes his culinary philosophy as deconstruction-ist, and food critics have called it ‘‘molecular,’’ in reference tohis signature foam dishes, and his hi-tech equipment inspiredfrom science. Adria defines culinary deconstruction in his ‘‘ElBulli 1994—1997’’ tome as: ‘‘Taking a dish that is well knownand transforming all its ingredients, or part of them; thenmodifying the dish’s texture, form and/or its temperature.Deconstructed, such a dish will preserve its essence . . . but itsappearance will be radically different from the original’s.’’

Creating and Performing

El Bulli eventually obtained three-Michelin stars under Adria’sleadership, and earned the title of best restaurant in the worldfrom Restaurant magazine’s top 50 list in 2002, 2006, 2007,2008, and 2009, after which it closed. At the height of its fame,El Bulli received over 800,000 reservations requests per year,or 400 requests for each availability. It was only open from Aprilto September. From October to March, Adria and his team,right-hand man Oriol Castro, his younger brother Albert Adria,Marc Cuspinera, and Eduard Bosch would completely redesignEl Bulli’s menu. They would work out of a laboratory called ‘‘ElTaller,’’ set up in Barcelona. Adria would pick a theme, like‘‘water’’ in 2009, and the team would try different recipesaround that theme. A typical menu would consist of about 30 to50 small dishes, served in carefully selected dishware, inminute order, over 3.5 hours. Each dish was like a piece ofart, an experience that would summon the diner’s experienceof classic dishes, and challenge their expectations, dazzlingand thrilling them. Coming to El Bulli, according to Adria, waslike going to a night out at the theater.

Routinizing Teamwork

When El Bulli was open for the season, the kitchen wouldwork like clockwork, following a military-style iron discipline

The lone genius, or leaders who tyrannize their creative teams 109

typical of haute-cuisine kitchens. The kitchen was transpar-ent and within view of the diners. Watching the kitchen workwas part of the spectacle. Not a peep could be heard from thestaff, who worked diligently, in silence. The staff and thekitchen were maintained in impeccable cleanliness. Therhythm was sustained. The logistics involved orchestratinga 40-courses dinner for 40 guests over a 3.5 hours seating,which required order and precision. Prior to opening, thestaff was rigorously trained about how to perform the variousoperations needed to make the different dishes. A classicBrigade de Cuisine division of labor between chef, sous-chefs, line chefs, and the like was adopted to run the kitchen.Ferran Adria’s role in this organization was that of ultimatequality controller. He was the first client of the kitchen,tasting almost each dish to verify that they had been donecorrectly. His attitude was stern, and he would never hesitateto criticize a dish that was not up to par. He, himself, did notcook. He was solely dedicated to quality control.

Triggering the Creative Process

In El Taller workshop, during the creative phase of El Bulli’sseason, the organization was vastly different. Only Adria’sfive-person dream team was present. Ferran himself wasoften not present during the day, but would show up atthe end of the day to sample his team’s creations. Duringthe day, they would experiment with a dazzling number ofdishes, discussing their ideas with each other, and samplingeach other’s creations. Key in their mind was what Adria’sreaction would likely be. ‘‘Do you think Ferran will like this?’’Team-members seemed constantly preoccupied by thisworry. Indeed, when Adria would show up, at the end ofthe day, he would sit down and solemnly taste the dishes.More often that not, he would dismiss the dish, making suchdemeaning comments as ‘‘Why do you serve me this?’’ as if hiscollaborators should be ashamed not to have guessed hismind and palate.

The team did not display excitement, playfulness, enthu-siasm, or confidence. They seemed worried and fearful ofAdria’s judgment. They communicated a lot with each other,and documented all of their experiments, but they seemed todoubt their own taste. They seemed to believe that onlyFerran Adria had the ability to truly judge a dish. At any rate,he always had the final word and his judgment fell like aknife. Like Steve Jobs, Adria had a very clear and well-defined judgment and expectation of what quality he lookedfor. He may not have known what a dish should be, but hecould tell whether a dish presented to him had the ‘‘it’’factor or not.

Adria also had an encyclopedic memory of what dishes hadbeen tried at El Bulli in the past, and of savors, textures,taste. He also seemed to understand the haute cuisineindustry like no other, which gave him a unique avant-gardehedge over competitors. In this way, he seems similar toSteve Jobs with respect to the computer industry. He was theface of El Bulli and received most of the acclaim. He alsobehaved autocratically and critically towards his team. Yet,he relied extensively on his team’s expertise and talent, andprivately extolled their virtue.

Such was the success of Ferran Adria that he was and still isdubbed the most creative chef in the world. In 2007, he wasinvited to participate in the revered art show ‘‘documenta,’’

alongside world famous artists. He has been called theSalvador Dali of the kitchen and is considered to have ele-vated food to the level of art. Adria has extensively docu-mented his experimentations with food in various tomes ofand encyclopedia of ‘‘El Bulli,’’ from 1983 to 2009. Afterclosing El Bulli, he intends to reopen it as a center forcreativity.

Leading the Creative Team

Ferran Adria’s autocratic style of leadership, and its accep-tance by his team, can be, at least in part, attributed to theculture and tradition of haute cuisine. Most ‘‘grands restau-rants’’ kitchens in Europe and the US are still organizedaccording to the rigid ‘‘Brigade de cuisine’’ formalized byGeorges Auguste Escoffier, in his reference book ‘‘Le guideCulinaire,’’ in 1903, and inspired from military hierarchy.Furthermore, Adria’s austere style may also be attributed toSpanish culture, which can be described as austere andmacho, and ranks among the highest in the world for Hoft-stede’s dimension of uncertainty avoidance (which meansthat Spaniards are very uncomfortable with unstructuredsituations, and therefore find comfort in strict laws andrules), and is also relatively high on power distance (whichmeans that Spaniards expect and are comfortable with stronglevels of inequality between leaders and their subordinates).

Beyond these industry and national culture considera-tions, Adria’s style may stem from his power position, hisquasi-cult status, and his skill and knowledge. Like SteveJobs, Adria might be considered a self-made genius. Despitethe fact that he had no university schooling, or maybebecause of it, he has an insatiable curiosity and, it seems,an out-of-the-ordinary memory. In ‘‘El Bulli: Cooking in pro-gress,’’ it becomes evident that Adria’s team does not havethe same memory of all of the dishes, nor possibly, the sameability to taste and recognize subtle variation of a dish’sexperience. Beyond his own dishes, early in his career, Adriafurther demonstrated his exceptional memory skills by mem-orizing Spain’s foremost traditional cookbook treatise, ElPratico’’ and Escoffier’s 500-page Le Guide Culinaire.

Pushing the Boundaries at Every Front

In addition to this extraordinary memory and taste, Adria’scuriosity, enthusiasm, openness to new experiences, and highenergy make him hard to follow and give him an ability toperceive aspects of food that other people don’t. Like SteveJobs, Ferran Adria may be considered a genius in his field, andthat gives him little patience for collaborators who are notable to move as fast as him, remember the details heremembers, recognize the nuances he perceives, or under-stand the grand visions and realizations he has. Like SteveJobs, Adria never listens to his diners’ opinion. He very muchtrusts his judgment. This makes him autocratic, perhapsrightfully so, because he alone can form the visions thathe has.

Fame and cult status seem to favor the emergence of thetyrant in leaders. Adria’s El Bulli kitchen needed a tight,military style organization. It had to work with a Tayloristicclockwork to crank out dishes with precision and consistency.El Bulli’s laboratory, El Taller, was located in a different

110 J.-F. Coget et al.

space, creating a physical separation from the actual work,and releasing time constraints. This allowed the team toexperiment more easily. Yet, Ferran Adria did not change hisstyle at El Taller, and continued to be autocratic, although healso seemed to often leave the team to its own devices duringmost of the day, which might have allowed them to experi-ment more freely. The atmosphere at El Taller was veryorganized and studious. The same austere atmosphere foundin the kitchen of El Bulli carried over to El Taller. It seemedthat even when he was absent, the shadow of Ferran Adriawas still present in the laboratory, preventing his staff fromreally exploring wild ideas on their own. They were alwaysfocused on his vision and his taste, often appearing cluelessabout what he would really think of a given experiment, andwhether he would like it. They were very dependent on hisjudgment, and he often complained that they should knowwhat he wanted, and that he had to always be the final judge.Ferran made himself indispensable, and this was his limit,

om ”gnirehtom“ ehTleade rship and creat

Exemplars: Google, IStyle of leadersh ip Democratic an d servant /

by example Involvement of Leade r in the cr eat ive proce ss

Hand s-off / m otherin g

Source s of motivation for collaborators

- Fre edo m - Emula tion/ workin

other creative in di- Perks- Support

Division of labor / roles between leader and coll aborat ors

Collab orat ors work to get hteam on design proje cts, w clear hier archy .

Leaders prov ide supp ort aenco urageme nt.

Mark et decides which prowin or ar e discarded.

Climate Relaxed, open, fe minine, emot ions, pati ence , non- ju

Team dynamics Collabor ati on, open ness to diversity, multiple forumscolle ctive com munication exchange , fea r of conflic t.

Pac e of creati ve effort / Direction

Slow / Mu ltiple directions

Marketing / Outside percepti on

-Organizati on per ceived aopen commu nity tha t in viothers in. -No clea r owner ship.

Results - Some very successful crbut also a lot of failures: asuccess ful pro duc ts fi nanc explor ation of less s ucc es routes - Org aniza tion al cult ure aprocess es deemed a mode to or ganize for cr eativity.

Exemplars Massimo Bott ura (Che f), Chailly (Music condu ctor Mic hel s (S occer co ach), SSpiel berg (Mov ie directo r

Figure 1 Leadership and Creativ

maybe like that of Steve Jobs. In this way, both Jobs and Adriacan be thought of as Lead Creatives, assisted by a retinue,rather than Leaders of a creative team.

TWO CONTRASTING MODELS OF LEADERSHIPAND CREATIVITY: THE ‘‘LONE GENIUS’’VERSUS THE ‘‘MOTHERING’’ MODEL

The two examples explored above point to the existence ofan alternative to the prescribed ‘‘mothering’’ model ofleadership and creativity, one that we call the ‘‘lone genius’’model of leadership and creativity. In order to magnify theunique nature of the two perspectives, we compare andcontrast the two models in Figure 1.

On the basis of our analysis and the comparison in thetable, we are able to describe the key characteristics of the‘‘lone genius’’ model.

fo ledivity .

DEO

The “lon e genius” model of leadersh ip and creativi ty.

Exemplars: App le, El Bu lli leading Autocrati c and charisma tic

Very i nvolve d / directi ve

g with viduals

- Cha rismati c appeal (buy ing into a vision)

- Rep uta tionPra ise fr om leader- Pr ess ure / challen ge

er, as a ith no

nd

du cts

Leader initiates vision, evaluates and filters idea s/creative products of team.

Collabor ators work on projec ts assig ned by lea der.

Leaders decide which products win or are disca rded.

positive dg ment

Stress ful, cl osed, masculine, negati ve emotions, impati ence , jud gment.

of an d

Competition among differ ent fact ions, und er-do g menta lity, ind ividua l communi cations with the lea der, ne ed for leade r’s approva l, openn ess to conflict .

Fast / Focused on a few directions

s an tes

- Organi zati on perce ived as clos ed to ou tsid ers and excl usive -Leade r pr esen ts himse lf/ herself as the sole creativ e gen ius . -Leader as the owner of the final product / vision

eations, few e the

sful

nd l of how

-Widely succe ssful crea tions. Less failures. -Very depen den t on leader’s genius. If leade r dies or disappears, the organiza tion is crippl ed.

Ricc ard o ), Rinus teven )

J Allar d (Tech nical lea der of the Xbox 360 projec t, Mic rosoft), Josè Mour inho (S occe r coac h), Akira Kurosawa (Mov ie direct or)

ity — Two Contrasting Models

The lone genius, or leaders who tyrannize their creative teams 111

Leaders Who Possess a Unique Gift

Our analysis has important implications on how to leadcreative people in organizations. The examples of SteveJobs at Apple and Ferran Adria at El Bulli provide ground forthe marketing effectiveness of the ‘‘lone genius’’ model.When the single face of a genius can be attached to aproduct, like Steve Jobs’ to Apple products, or a fashiondesigner to haute-couture clothes, prospective customersmore easily construct a story in their mind that guaranteesthe quality of the product. However, this requires that‘‘creative geniuses’’ actually possess special skills and sen-sitivity that sets them apart: the chef or sommelier thathave a particularly sensitive palate, the perfume maker’snose, etc. Creative geniuses need to have special abilitiesand reach the highest level of mastery in their domain,which allows them to change the rules of the game, and notjust play by the rules, because they understand the game sowell. Only once they have achieved great recognition byplaying by the rules do they earn the right to change therules.

We note that such creative geniuses often seem to beassociated with a wider array of reference groups than mostpeople, which allows them to develop a unique point of viewand bridge gaps between different perspectives, elegantlyintegrating a wide array of point of views, thus appealing to awide array of people. Such geniuses may also be more likelyto feel like outcasts and rebels against a mainstream societythat misses some of the subtlety they recognize and seek.They are seekers of beauty and perfection. This rendersthem abrasive, impatient, and apparently lacking in socialgracefulness. They sacrifice politeness, social belonging,and relationships to their adoration of perfection andbeauty. J Allard led the team that made Xbox 360 into aglobal success, thanks to his reputation as a veneratedtechnical genius who was at the same time a gaming fanatic.At the same time he often rubbed people the wrong way likeSteve Jobs at Apple.

Leaders Who Shape a New Reality

On the basis of the uniqueness of the skills and networks ofthese individuals, the lone genius model of leadership andcreativity is consistent with Roberto Verganti’s model ofinnovation as changing the social meaning of a product,rather than mere technical prowess. Thanks to their cultreputation and status, recognized creative geniusesacquire the power to dictate or impose their taste toaudiences and critics, and their diva-like antics to theircollaborators. Such behavior would not be tolerated fromother less special individuals. A product or idea is typicallyjudged as creative by its audiences and critics. Therefore,once an individual has been recognized as a genius, it isvery hard to disentangle whether their productions arecreative because of their status or because of their intrin-sic value. This is a problem in the creativity field, wherecreativity is often judged based on the subjective evalua-tion of experts. Whether through intrinsic value or througha self-fulfilling prophecy, geniuses have the power toinfluence society and trigger the process of creating newmeaning for products.

Leaders and Followers with a Mission

The two examples also illuminate the nature of the teamsinvolved in these changes around the lone creative. Famouscreative teams within organizations, such as the Mac team atApple, or Skunk Works at Lockheed Martin adopt a rebellious,counter-cultural identity that places them at the fringes, inan underdog position that motivates them to perform beyondexpectations, creates attractiveness and status for rebel-lious, weird, smart individuals, and offers the freedom tobreak the rules and access to special resources. Such teamsmay be more likely to produce disruptive, radical innova-tions. We can therefore hypothesize that, within the ‘‘lonegenius’’ model, creative teams are motivated by competitionwith other teams within the organization that are viewed asinferior, average, and dull, and afferent negative emotionssuch as scorn, rage, and disgust.

Leaders on the Edge

There is a dark side to the lone genius model. Like charis-matic leaders, creative geniuses benefit from a cult-likestatus that motivates people around them to work reallyhard and buy into the myth, such that they perpetuatesuccess in a self-fulfilling prophecy pattern. While this is abenefit of the lone genius model, it also creates vulnerability.Lone geniuses and the organizations they represent arevulnerable to loosing their ‘‘mojo.’’ A saying in Hollywoodgoes ‘‘You’re only as good as your last project.’’ If customersand collaborators stop believing in the myth, or if the lonegenius dies, or leaves the organization, the self-fulfillingprophecy may collapse, and products that were formerlyconsidered creative may then be shunned as uninspired. Thismight be what is happening currently to Apple after SteveJobs’ death.

Some Implications of the ‘‘Lone Genius’’ Model

While we find evidence of the effectiveness of this quiteunexpected model of leadership for creativity in the trajec-tory of some world-renowned companies and iconic leaders,research has given scant attention to it. Our research pointsto the need to deepen our knowledge on how these processesunfold. Specifically, our research points to a set of issues thatmay be fruitfully explored. First, the ‘‘mothering’’ modelmight be consistent with a feminine perspective, whichemphasizes collaboration, shared credit, harmony, and themaintenance of a positive mood, whereas the ‘‘lone genius’’model is more consistent with a masculine perspective,where competition, hierarchy, individual prowess, reputa-tion, conflict, and negative emotions are emphasized asnecessary and energizing.

Second, the two models might reflect different types ofinnovations, whereby the mothering model favors a contin-uous type of innovation, whereas the lone genius modelfavors a discontinuous type of innovation. When facing dis-continuous innovation the team might require a strongerinternal commitment, and therefore a more autocratic style.

Third, the cultures and practices of certain industries(e.g., Haute Cuisine; Hollywood), possibly male-dominated,may favor the lone genius model of leadership and creativity,

112 J.-F. Coget et al.

whereas other cultures and industries, or founders (e.g.,Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google, David Kelley, of IDEO)might favor the mothering model. For instance, the strictmilitaristic organization of a restaurant kitchen and its typi-cal rough/outcast/pirate culture favor the appearance of anirate, strong chef at the head, and such a style is accepted bythe cooks.

Fourth, it could as well be that the idea of the ‘‘lonegenius’’ is a myth, because there is a team behind the lonegenius, and it nonetheless works for the same reasons thatare advanced in the attribution theory of leadership. Themasses need to believe in the inordinate agency of a selectfew ‘‘special’’ individuals (in this case, the creative genius),to simplify phenomena (in this case collective creative pro-cesses) that are too complex for them to understand. Thepeople who emerge as geniuses may benefit from chance —being there at the right time, and right moment — as arguedin Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers. They also have great market-ing and acting skills. They primarily market themselves as theoriginators of an invention, not hesitating to steal otherpeople’s work and forgetting to give credit for ideas thatoriginated in the team. They carefully manage their imageand create their own myth.

Last is the need to explore the role of the followers. Onecan understand this phenomenon by casting the blame moresquarely on the followers than on the leader: it is ourtendency to become ‘‘groupies’’ and to want to believe increative genius that leads us to forget the team behind thegenius rather than the manipulative actions that lead them toemerge as mythical figures. People are also likely to believe

in the myth of the sole genius because it is a commonexplanation advanced in Western culture. Ferran Adria, forinstance, is very surprised by his success and trajectory. Hepurports that he did not set out to become the greatest chefin the world. It just happened to him. The same might be saidabout Steve Jobs: he did not anticipate his success, althoughhe did seem to purposefully manipulate the myth in his latercareer.

CONCLUSION

In presenting an alternative to the mainstream model of howto lead creative individuals, we hope to have stimulated, andeven provoked the readers to consider that creativity may beenhanced in teams through other means than what welabeled the ‘‘mothering’’ model. Indeed, practitionersalready do practice this model. We are thus contributingto filling the gap between theory and practice. We are notarguing that the ‘‘lone genius’’ model is better than the‘‘mothering’’ model, no more than we could argue that AkiraKurosawa (the ‘‘lone genius’’) is better than Steven Spielberg(the ‘‘mothering’’ model). The ‘‘lone genius’’ model hasmerits and weaknesses. Further studies are needed to deter-mine those with more precision and accuracy.

The lone genius, or leaders who tyrannize their creative teams 113

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Our knowledge about how Steve Jobs functioned within Appleis based on his biography — W. Isaacson, Steve Jobs (NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 2011) — and a 1995 interview ondocumentary film — Paul Sen (director), and Robert X. Crin-gely (writer, actor), Steve Jobs: The Lost Interview, 2012.Information about Ferran Adria at El Bulli was mainly gleanedfrom Gereon Wetzel’s documentary film, El Bulli: Cooking inProgress (2011); and F. Adria, J. Soler, and A. Adria, A Day atEl Bulli (London: Phaidon Press Inc., 2008).

For readings about collective and organizational creativ-ity, we recommend the following: A. B. Hargadon and B. A.Bechky, ‘‘When Collections of Creatives Become CreativeCollectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work,’’Organization Science, 2006, 17(4), 484—500; and S. Cirella,M. Guerci, and A. R. Shani, ‘‘A Process Model of CollaborativeManagement Research: The Study of Collective Creativity in

the Luxury Industry,’’ Systemic Practice and Action Research,2012, 25(3), 281—300; Michael D. Mumford, ed., Handbook ofOrganizational Creativity (San Diego: Academic Press, 2012).For an in-depth exploration of creating meaning throughinnovation, see Roberto Verganti, Design-Driven Innovation(Harvard Business Press, 2009).

For insightful findings about creativity and leadership,we recommend T. M. Amabile and M. Khaire, ‘‘Creativityand the Role of the Leader,’’ Harvard Business Review,2008, 86(10), 100—109; C. Haag and J. F. Coget, ‘‘LeadingCreative People: Lessons from Advertising Guru JacquesSeguela,’’ European Management Journal, 2010, 28(4),278—284; and M. D. Mumford, G. M. Scott, B. Gaddis,and J. M. Strange, ‘‘Leading Creative People: OrchestratingExpertise and Relationships,’’ The Leadership Quarterly,2002, 13(6), 705—750.

Jean-Francois Coget is an associate professor of management at the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly, SanLuis Obispo, and a visiting professor at Politecnico Di Milano, Italy. He earned his Ph.D. in management from theAnderson School at UCLA. His research interests include emotions, intuition, creativity and leadership. (OrfaleaCollege of Business, California Polytechnic State University, 1 Grand Ave, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, USA. Tel.: +1805 550 7274; e-mail: jcoget@calpoly.edu).

Abraham B. (Rami) Shani (Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH) is a professor of management atthe Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University and a research professor at the PolitecnicoDi Milano, Milan Italy. He is the co-author or co-editor of Learning By Design, Organizing for SustainableEffectiveness, Research in Organization Change and Development, Creating Sustainable Work Systems, Behaviorin Organizations, and The Handbook of Collaborative Management Research (Department of Management,Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini, 4B — Milano, Lombardy 20156,Italy. e-mail: ashani@calpoly.edu).

Luca Solari is a professor of management at the University of Milan in Italy and a visiting professor at the OrfaleaCollege of Business, California Polytechnic State University. He earned his Ph.D. at Bocconi University in Milan. Hisresearch interests include person-organization relations and the evolution of management (Department of Socialand Political Sciences, University of Milan, via Conservatorio 7, 20122 Milano, Italy. e-mail: luca.solari@unimi.it).