The Myths of Creativity Under New Management
Listen to Episode 69:
Episode 69 Transcript:
Chris Curran: Growth Igniters Radio with Pam Harper and Scott Harper, episode 69: The Myths of Creativity Under New Management. This episode is brought to you by Business Advancement Incorporated − enabling successful leaders and companies to accelerate to their next level of success. On the web at BusinessAdvance.com. And now, here’s Pam and Scott.
Pam Harper: Thanks, Chris. I’m Pam Harper, Founding Partner and CEO of Business Advancement Incorporated. And right across from me as always is my business partner and husband, Scott Harper. Hi, Scott.
Scott Harper: Hi, Pam. It’s always exciting to join you for another episode of Growth Igniters Radio. As you know, our purpose is to spark new insights, inspiration, and immediately useful ideas for visionary leaders like you − and your company − to dramatically increase momentum for game-changing results. So Pam, what are we taking on today?
Pam Harper: Myths surrounding creativity, especially as it pertains to management practices. As our companies grow, one of the paradoxes we face is that the environment that supports us, for instance with more employees and more resources, also constrains us with new management challenges.
Scott Harper: Yeah, that’s true. But in spite of that, it’s so easy to rely on tried and true best practices, especially in management. After all, we develop them over the years from what we’ve learned over time − what we’re taught. They become our habits.
Pam Harper: That’s right. However, to be the disruptor and not the disrupted, as we hear people saying they want to be, we need to be open to continuously questioning these habits and developing new management practices that are in sync with today’s reality.
That’s why we’re pleased to have David Burkus as our guest today. He’s an educator, speaker, and author of 2 books, The Myths of Creativity and his new book, Under New Management. David writes regularly for Harvard Business Review, Forbes, Psychology Today, and 99U. He’s also written articles for Fast Company, Bloomberg Businessweek, and an assortment of other publications. In addition, he’s the founder and host of Radio Free Leader, a podcast that shares insights on leadership, innovation, and strategy.
He’s delivered keynote speeches and workshops for a variety of audiences such as Fortune 500 companies, TEDx events, and governmental leaders and future leaders at the US Naval Academy and Naval Post-Graduate School. He tells us that when he’s not speaking or waiting in airport lounges, he’s also an Associate Professor of management at Oral Roberts University, teaching in areas of organizational behavior, creativity and innovation, and strategic leadership. David, welcome to Growth Igniters Radio.
David Burkus: Thank you both so much for having me. You pretty much covered it in the intro. I don’t know what I’m going to supply here, but thank you.
Pam Harper: Well, that’s all the time we have…. That’s right. [laughter]
Actually, there’s a lot to talk about. One of the things that we were particularly interested in is that you have these 2 books. We’ve never really talked about 2 books at once, but they kind of go hand in hand, to me at least − The Myths of Creativity and also Under New Management. What prompted you to write these books? To me, they’re cousins.
David Burkus: Yeah, I definitely see them as that. There’s the sort of through line throughout everything that I do in trying to bring evidence-based, empirical research-based insights into the practitioner realm. It just so happens that I tend to favor the ones that are a little bit counter-intuitive, right? − that go a little bit against the grain. Myths of Creativity − actually I set out not to write a creativity book. It was actually supposed to be a leadership book about what it takes to lead creative organizations and innovative organizations. What I found was that there was this whole series of misconceptions that needed to be addressed first, and then if you could kind of strip that away, at that point it really looked like the same practices that work for a lot of leadership work.
It’s the stories that the leaders are telling and the stories that leaders are letting people say about themselves that are really blocking a lot of peoples’ potential. That was Myths of Creativity. Along the way I started to notice that the companies that I was interviewing and profiling in the book − they did things a little bit differently. That created the rabbit trail that turned into Under New Management. Why are these really successful, really innovative companies doing things different than best practices as you talked about in the intro? Why is that, and why is it working?
My background’s as an organizational psychologist, so it was a different perspective on it. I could see quite clearly why all these ideas are working. It wasn’t just because they were new and crazy, it was because there’s real psychological science behind why these are better for the type of work that we’re asking employees to do now.
Scott Harper: Well, we all know that we have to be creative, we all have to be innovative, but there’s still a lot of myths around creativity, especially in how it and innovation can be applied in companies. Why do you think that is?
David Burkus: Well, two reasons. I think it actually gets propagandized from both sides. The people who regularly do creative work and the people who sort of don’t want to or are afraid to et cetera, to the people that don’t see themselves as creative. If you’re that type of person that every drawing you’ve ever done past your adolescence was a stick figure drawing type of thing and you say, “I’m just not very creative” − I think a lot of times we let these myths and these misconceptions propagate because they give us an out. They give us an excuse. Everybody − and this is what the research says − everybody has some level of creative ability, and they just need to be better at practicing it. Then you’re not off the hook, right? You have no excuse for not trying to bring you creative side to work, for not trying to help your organization innovate.
In the same token, I think a lot of people in the sort of “creative” industries, the ones that we normally associate with being prolifically creative … A lot of times I think there’s this idea that if you are sort of blessed by the gods − not that a lot of people still believe in the divine muses of ancient Greece and that sort of thing − but if you can keep that up that there’s something special and unique about you and it has nothing to do with effort, it came from some sort of luck of the gene pool, then you’re sort of cornering the market. You’re creating a monopoly out of this sort of misconception. Actually, I think you do yourselves a disservice. To the person that actually would say they’re very creative, it actually does them a disservice in the long term because it kind of caps the appreciation we can have for the effort that they put into it.
In both cases I think there are reasons why we want these misconceptions to stay, but in both cases I think they inhibit what society and what organizations need to be innovative. Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.
Scott Harper: I like that.
Pam Harper: Well, so if you take that whole line thinking around creativity, it’s interesting because we do get caught in our habits of thought, especially with regard to management. At least that’s what we’ve seen. What do you think is the biggest myth of creativity related to management practices?
David Burkus: I think one of the biggest ones is that idea − I call it “the breed myth” in The Myths of Creativity − we don’t normally say that because somebody has a certain genetic code or a certain sort of mix of things when they were born that makes them creative or not, but we do suffer the myth in organizations of saying that certain roles lend themselves to creativity and other ones don’t. A lot of times when I give speeches, I make a joke about how every single department and every single role can benefit the organization by bringing its creative side to work − except accounting, right? That’s the joke, but the truth is that like double-entry bookkeeping from the Middle Ages, that was a huge innovation, right?
Even that kind area can kind of benefit from creativity, but we don’t tend to see that. We see the marketing side as creative; a lot of times we see strategy as a creative process. We don’t see finance and accounting as-
Pam Harper: Well, you don’t want to say creative accounting, do you?
David Burkus: Well, no. That’s very true, right? The truth is that every …
Scott Harper: There’s Manufacturing…
David Burkus: Right, exactly. Manufacturing, if you go into sort of agile and you go into a lot of the work of TQ, before that, there’s a lot of innovations that came through manufacturing. We sort of need to recognize that; that creativity is everybody’s business. We don’t say it’s certain breeds, but we do tend to say in organizations that we’re trying to manage that only certain departments and only certain roles are responsible for creativity. That’s a really limiting belief for most organizations.
Pam Harper: That’s true. What’s especially interesting in your new book is that you actually talk about management practices, regardless of department, and some of the things that we would never even question. That’s something that we’re going to talk about in our next segment.
We’re going to take a quick break now, and when we come back, we’ll speak more with David Burkus, author of The Myths of Creativity and also Under New Management, about the myths of three management best practices, and how to bust them. Stay with us…
Scott Harper: You’re listening to Growth Igniters Radio with Pam Harper and Scott Harper. Brought to you by Business Advancement Incorporated, on the web at BusinessAdvance.com. We enable visionary leaders and their companies to dramatically accelerate to their next level of growth in success. And just a reminder − check out our show notes for today’s episode at GrowthIgnitersRadio.com, episode 69. You can download resources for the conversation today, including links to previous Growth Igniters Radio conversations with award-winning CEOs of middle-management companies who have made management innovation a way of life. You can also view David’s bio, and you can share on social media so more people can find us. You can also sign up for our weekly alert of upcoming episodes, so you’ll always be up to date.
Pam Harper: Welcome back to Growth Igniters radio with Pam Harper − that’s me − and Scott Harper. Scott and I are talking today with David Burkus, author of The Myths of Creativity and his new book Under New Management, about some of the myths of creativity, especially as they relate to management practices. David, how can people find out more about you and your books?
David Burkus: Probably the best place is www.davidburkus.com. I know that’s a pretty old school way to do it; it’s not the most creative URL for a website or anything like that. I was blessed with a very odd last name, so davidburkus.com is open − like every username for any social network that’s ever invented is open. It’s a great thing. Even if you just want to check out more info and more resources, there’s a ton of resources that can help you and your organization at www.davidburkus.com.
Pam Harper: That’s great. Of course, we’ll have resources on the episode page 69. Go to GrowthIgnitersRadio.com, scroll down, you’ll get a link over to David’s podcast.
Now, let’s get back over to our conversation. We were starting to talk about management practices. It’s so common to hear about best practices, which we’ve seen and have talked about for a long time as sometimes being “worst practices” if they don’t work for your organization. Let’s dig into some of these myths and misconceptions about some of the most prevalent best practices out there [for management], and what you’ve seen as creative alternatives. Let’s start out with email.
David Burkus: Yeah, so we have a love-hate relationship with email, right? We love it; we can’t live without it, but we also hate what it’s doing to our work lives and to our home lives and all that sort of stuff. Typical of a lot of technologies, we never really had a conversation once it was invented about how we should use it properly. Instead we said, “Oh, this is awesome. Let’s just use it.” The challenge is that email now, in 2016, doesn’t have the same geographic limitations that it used to when it was just on desktop computers. There used to be the work phone number, and that was your office phone number. It was considered only polite to sort of call that. You don’t call someone’s cellphone unless it’s an emergency.
Now, by definition, if you have a smartphone − if you have your work email on your smartphone − you bring your work home with you every single day now. But there are a lot of organizations that are finally sort of starting to have that conversation. They’re finding that even when you’re working, even from the sort of 9 to 5, if your email software is checking email every 5 minutes, then it’s distracting you. As I like to say now a lot of times, we don’t check email anymore, email checks us. It bothers us. If you’re doing that every 5 minutes, you’re really not capable of getting the focus you need to do the deep work that really actually creates value for an organization.
So many companies are banning internal email. It’s okay to email with clients and that sort of thing, but internally pick up the phone, walk down the hall, or a lot of them are turning to sort of better less interruptive but equally beneficial digital systems. Slack is probably the biggest off the shelf system. What I see is a lot of companies are having to build something that’s kind of a hybrid of Slack and message boards and a couple other things that are right for the organization.
The uniform thing is that they’re trying to do away with that constant disruption that email creates, and the research supports this. We’ve actually done studies where we limit peoples’ email or we ban it entirely for a couple days, and we find reduced stress levels and increased productivity and just an overall increase in well-being. Actually, one study showed that it reduced stress to the same level that teaching mindfulness or workplace meditation or deep breathing exercises to employees does, which-
Pam Harper: It’s fascinating.
David Burkus: I love to summarize it as banning email might not take you to your happy place, but it’ll make you feel like you’re there, right? It’s because the level of reduction of stress is the same.
Most people, I think, don’t need to ban email entirely from their life − it’s a really useful system − but they do need to set some limits. What I tell a lot of people is turn off push notifications, which means your email’s not checking you, it’s just there when you check it. Then, physically drag the email icon to the rear-most screen on your phone. You know how most Android or iPhones have multiple screens? Most of us we put it front and center, but actually when you get home drag it the furthest away from your center screen as you can. When you get to work the next day, drag it back.
Just do something to kind of declare that this time is off limits so that you can actually be at home with your family, your significant other, and your friends, whatever it is. The organization needs that of you, too. They might feel like they need you to respond right away, but what they really need is for you to get enough rest to be effective when you get back to the office.
Pam Harper: That’s very true. I think the thing that’s important to emphasize here is that the leader, the CEO of the company, has to model this. If somebody from the middle just says, “I’m going to tune out of this,” it’s not nearly as effective as when these things are defined decisions that come from the top and we say, “Look, this is what we’re going to do, and you’re not going to get penalized.”
David Burkus: Totally. I do think you need some level of management support. It works best when it is the top level, the senior leadership of organization saying this. I think it’s possible if you’re a manager though, to still kind of create a pocket of excellence inside the organization, and almost use your role as a human shield to block this off for your people so that they can focus. You’re absolutely right. This is one of those rare things that it’s applied best if it actually goes top down instead of organic.
Scott Harper: To your point, back when I worked as a director in corporate before I joined Pam, I saw email actually as destroying communication sometimes. I would be copied on peoples’ emails, and if I saw a string go more than 3 emails I would step in and say, “Nope. It’s time for a conversation face-to-face. No more email.”
David Burkus: Yeah. I have an article on Harvard Business Review. So often we lead meetings and we think, “Ugh, that whole thing could’ve just been an email.” I have an article on the hbr.org site that says, “No, that meeting could not have been an email, because you’re going to lose a lot of vital information, and it’s not actually quicker.”
Scott Harper: Yeah. Now let’s talk about another one. There’s something that we’ve all experienced, or many of us have especially in corporate: non-compete agreements. “You can work here, but you have to agree you can’t go to a competitor for X number of months or years.” Lots of companies think that this is a good way to protect their talent and protect their intellectual property, but research says otherwise.
David Burkus: Yeah. This, and a couple other things in the book like performance evaluations, et cetera − there’s a lot of these practices that are noble in their goal [but don’t always work the way they’re intended]. I get the idea of a non-compete clause. It’s noble in its intent − “why would we bother to invest all of this money into people and developing their talents, their knowledge, their skills, abilities, that they can just take that and go to a competitor.” I get that. Unfortunately, the research doesn’t really bear that out. At the individual level we see that people who are asked to sign a non-compete clause both in practice and in the lab, when they’re given that sort of lack of mobility that a non-compete clause creates, they work less hard, they think of less innovative solutions, they’re less engaged overall.
The other thing that we see is that when a person migrates from firm A to firm B, both firms actually benefit from an exchange of knowledge. It’s not like we cut that person off entirely. They maintain relationships through the past people they worked with. What you actually create when you have the migration is a new network connection between two organizations that can benefit. We actually see this in so far as the ultimate thing we’re probably trying to prevent; we see this in patent information, too − what company cites which patents and all that sort of stuff. We see all sorts of benefit.
We even see it at the societal level. States that refuse to enforce non-competes generally end up with kind of a more innovative economy overall. We actually see some states that used to not do it and then flipped to actually changing the law so that they could enforce non-compete agreement. We saw talent migrate out of those states to states that protected their right to mobility. At every level − the individual, the company and society − while the goal is totally noble, the experience and the research on how we’ve been doing with these non-compete clauses leads us to another conclusion.
Pam Harper: What would be some alternatives here?
David Burkus: Every organization now is in the information age… We’ve passed the age of knowledge work and we’re in the age of creative work for every organization. We only benefit from building relationships with everyone inside the network − competitors, vendors − people we might not even think are relevant to our industry. You see this from traditional consumer goods companies like Procter and Gamble to a lot of advertising and design firms which are realizing they need to kind of have a much more porous dividing line on their “who’s in their organization and who’s not,” so that they’re reaching out and working with people outside of the organization a lot more. The benefit of knowledge sharing really outweighs any cost of possible intellectual property leaks et cetera.
Pam Harper: Absolutely. We’re seeing that companies that are working in more strategic partnerships of various sorts understand this very promising benefit you’re talking about. Let’s talk about one more − organizational charts. This is something that is the bane for many companies. They certainly don’t work like they used to, and yet the standard hierarchical org chart still exists. What does research tell you?
David Burkus: We all know it’s really hard to get an org chart right, and there’s a good reason for that. An org chart was a great tool for what it was invented for, which was managing the railroad, right? The first org chart in history was developed in the mid-1800s and it was developed to manage the railroad, which is the ultimate definition of a business model that sort of doesn’t change. Once you lay the track, it’s incredibly expensive to move it. For most organizations that aren’t hauling people or hauling freight along railroad lines, a need for resiliency and adaptability is so much higher. This is the problem with org charts. There’s this idea that as soon as the environment changes, we probably need to be changing the org chart, but reorganizations sort of demotivate everybody, right?
My recommendation is we write the org chart in pencil. You might still need reporting relationships and that sort of stuff, but you need to communicate fluidity in all of this. The research supports that the best performing teams, when it comes to creativity and innovation, are actually temporary. They’re not the, “Well, we had the same boss for 5 years so we were the same team for 5 years,” type things. They’re teams that form by taking the best people for that specific problem, let them deal with that problem, and then disband to go back into the network and reform teams. That’s a much more fluid org chart than normal. That’s really what we need to be able to respond to the ever-changing complexity that is the business environment today.
Pam Harper: Absolutely. I want to emphasize that the kinds of things we’re talking about here can apply to any size organization. These kinds of practices are not just in one department, they’re throughout the entire company. Every function can take advantage of the kinds of things that you’re talking about. That’s why I really love this book.
Now, we’re going to take another break. When we come back, we’re going to talk more with David Burkus, author of Under New Management and >em>The Myths of Creativity, about immediately useful ideas for adopting these creative management practices for more powerful results in your own organization. Stay with us…
Scott Harper: You are listening to Growth Igniters Radio with Pam Harper and Scott Harper. Brought to you by Business Advancement Incorporated, on the web at BusinessAdvance.com. We want to thank those of you who’ve reviewed and rated our podcast series on iTunes so more people can find us. However, some people have told us that they’re not really sure how to do it; it’s not completely intuitive. That’s why I’ve created a short video which removes the mystery from the process in just 3 easy steps. First, go to GrowthIgnitersRadio.com. Second, look over to the sidebar on the right and you’ll see a headline “Subscribe to Growth Igniters Radio.” Third, click on the blue button underneath that says, “How to review Growth Igniters Radio in iTunes.” This will take you to an 84 second video showing everything you need to know about how to review and rate the podcast. And thanks again for helping us spread the good word about Growth Igniters Radio.
Pam Harper: Welcome back to Growth Igniters Radio with Pam Harper and Scott Harper. Over the last 2 segments Scott and I have been talking with David Burkus, author of The Myths of Creativity and Under New Management, about myths surrounding bringing creativity and innovation to management practices. Dave, how can people find your books?
David Burkus: The best place is IndieBound, right − support your local independent retailer, or my website, www.davidburkus.com. From there there’s links to wherever you’d want to go; there’s links to my podcast. We’ll even link back to this one. You can do this endless cycle of being on this podcast website then being on mine, then clicking back and just keep going.
Pam Harper: How about that. And you can go to episode 69 for GrowthIgnitersRadio.com, and you will then get those links.
Now, let’s go back to the conversation. This is the part of Growth Igniters Radio where we like to talk about the immediately useful ideas. We’ve been talking about creative management practices. How can a company take something like this, because they’re very innovative, and make it right for them?
David Burkus: This is actually something that’s not in either book, and I wish it was. It was sort of one of those realizations I had afterwards. The fun thing about writing a book is that other people read it and then their ideas spring new stuff. One of them pointed out that there’s 13 new ideas in Under New Management, but each one of them is actually less of an idea to implement and more of an idea of elimination. What you as a leader, and again any size organization, really need to be thinking about are, “What are the practices we’ve adopted over time that are actually getting in the way,” and keeping an open mind. It doesn’t matter the reason that you implemented them before. If they’re limiting your peoples’ ability to do their best work, then we should think about how we can eliminate them or how we can replace them with something better.
Everything we’ve talked about today stems from that − a realization from a leader that a certain thing − non-compete clauses, or a belief that only certain departments are creative − all of those things were ideas that needed to be eliminated so that people could do their best work.
Pam Harper: You know, it’s interesting. One of the things that we also have found is that the more that somebody looks at desired outcomes − what is it they’re trying to do, whether it’s to attract more talent or to become more streamlined in terms of introducing products or services − the easier it is to adapt innovations. Sometimes the conversations that we’ve heard people will say, “This particular practice is getting in our way.” It goes to what you’re saying, Dave, about how certain things are limiting. It’s the recognition that you have to be looking at what is it that we’re trying to accomplish.
Scott Harper: Focus on the behaviors you want to happen, and then what has to happen to make that go.
Pam Harper: Would you agree with that?
David Burkus: Oh, totally. As I say at the end of Under New Management, great leaders don’t innovate products, they innovate the factory − right? In the industrial age they were innovating the factory in order to physically force people to sort of be more efficient, but in a knowledge work economy it’s more about reinventing the factory to give that empowerment back to people so they can do their best work. It used to be that they needed that structure, those policies, those practices [to work efficiently]. It’s kind of flipped now. What they need is for leaders to figure out how they can engage their peoples’ best mind so that they can do their best work.
Scott Harper: Great. What’s another practical thing that somebody can do − someone they can talk to or an idea they can write down to make that happen?
David Burkus: I think the next kind of most practical thing is that actual conversation with your people, right? A lot of times we as the leader, we have policy creep, which is why I was talking about the elimination thing. A lot of times those policies are from observing behaviors instead of having that conversation about what triggered them, whether or not it’s a unique situation, or whether or not it’s a systemic thing. Today, in 2016, a lot of company policies need to be a more sort of democratic or collaborative process. As a leader, that’s your job. Less of that kind of top-down instigation and more about that conversation about what we want our workplace to look like. What are we trying to accomplish, as you said, and how do we get that.
I think for a lot of leaders, as you’re tying to scale the organization, it could become really easy to stop having those conversations or to only have them with a few people in the organization instead of everyone.
Pam Harper: Another immediately useful idea that we’re hearing, then, is to schedule those conversations. Make sure that they happen-
David Burkus: Make sure they don’t happen over email.
Pam Harper: This is true.
Scott Harper: And you have to create an environment in the company that makes it safe to have those conversations. Some people may think, “I don’t like this,” but they’ll never say it because they don’t feel safe.
David Burkus: As a leader, if somebody is brave enough to sort of speak up and give you negative or constructive feedback, being very public about your acceptance of that feedback and your willingness to make public changes about it is hugely important. Exactly what you said − if you crucify every messenger then pretty soon you have no messengers left.
Scott Harper: That’s right.
Pam Harper: That’s absolutely true. Another thing − and maybe you’ve seen this too − is you get somebody who’s very enthusiastic; maybe somebody sees the light right now and they’re listening to some of these ideas, [but they can get ahead of themselves]. One of the things I’m wondering about is have you seen that if you’re going to adjust one practice, like email, you have to be sure that you don’t have something else in another policy that’s going to actually cancel out the benefits of what you’re trying to do?
David Burkus: Yeah. Politicians and corporate executives are great at this idea of unintended consequences. We establish a policy, and we don’t think about what the [resonant effects] of that will be. That’s one of the reasons for that conversation piece; your people are going to notice what the implications of a policy are going to be better than you will, because we’re all selfish creatures − we’re thinking about ourselves − and so if we are given the opportunity to speak to a policy, we’re going to have an ability to see how it affects us better than the leader will. If it negatively affects us or if it positively affects us, we’re going to speak up on that. It’s another reason for that conversation to happen; it’s going to help you see what the unintended consequences of any decision are.
Pam Harper: That’s true. Ultimately it comes down to making the implicit explicit − which goes from “we somehow think we’re going to feel that something’s working” to actually having those conversations and saying, “How will we know if this is really working” − which is a real basic kind of thing.
David Burkus: Right. That’s a really important point. To add to that, deciding that ahead of time, right? So often we look back at a policy and go, “Yeah, it worked because of this.” Well, unless you decided before you implemented it that that was how you were going to be measuring success, then that’s not a valid measurement. You have to decide that ahead of time − “We’re going to do this; here’s the metric we’re going to use.” Maybe it’s not even a metric, but it’s just a thing like “if this event happens” or whatever it is, but you have to decide it ahead of time. Otherwise, you’re … In logic it’s called affirming the consequent, I believe. It’s a logical fallacy that we commit all of the time.
Pam Harper: Exactly. These are a few of the ways that we can start exploring what kinds of new management practices might work for today’s reality.
Any final thoughts about “Under New Management?”
David Burkus: I already sort of gave away my usual big final thought, which is that idea that great leaders don’t innovate the product, they innovate the factory. No matter what size your business is, as soon as you start to add scale to it or if it’s already scaled to be fairly large, your role as a leader or even a mid-level manager is to decide what changes need to be made to the factory. “Factory” is obviously a metaphor for any office or any workplace. What changes need to be made to that to allow your people to do their best work?
Pam Harper: Okay! Well thank you so much for being our guest today.
David Burkus: Thank you for having me.
Scott Harper: Again David, thanks so much. To get show notes and resource links for this week’s episode, go to GrowthIgnitersRadio.com, episode 69.
Pam Harper: Until next time, this is Pam Harper…
Scott Harper: And Scott Harper…
Pam Harper: Wishing you continued success and leaving you with these questions to discuss with your team:
Scott Harper: What myths can we bust about our own management practices, and how can we increase our management creativity to achieve game-changing results starting today?