Can creativity thrive at a distance?

When we predict the future we tend to look to the past. We examine the past and imagine the future as a logical continuation of it. Few things follow a logical path so predictions can range from the unambitious to the downright hilarious.

There's one prediction of the future that has held steadfast for centuries. That is of the inevitability of mega-cities. The idea that the future would revolve around incredibly large and dense cities is somewhat dystopic but it seems inescapable.

It's a future that has seemed inevitable for centuries. Visible in countless science fiction fantasies, it is based on an unseen and powerful economic force. One in possession of such a wonderful name I find it shocking to have only just encountered it: Agglomeration. Say it to yourself. Very satisfying yes?

Agglomeration holds that density creates growth. Geographic proximity reduces transportation costs and facilitates the exchange of knowledge and sparks innovation. As the movement of goods and knowledge across space becomes easier then, the benefits of agglomeration should reduce right? That's not what has happened. Despite globalization and barriers to communication eroding, cities have thrived since the 1970s. Economic activity, has continued to cluster together. Take India or China; these economies grew servicing distant partners. Despite that, agglomeration took hold creating remarkable clustering of populations.

The rationale for continued clustering is the need to collaborate and connect. It is not surprising then that as COVID has forced us apart, there's a belief that innovation and creativity have suffered. But if we have adapted to other aspects of remote work why has our ability to create and innovate remotely not adapted? What about innovation makes it require in-person contact? Once we return to the office, albeit a day or two a week, will the office be for collaboration and co-creation and the home office for productivity?

There is a pervasive belief that ideas are best generated by collaborative groups. The notion that many minds working together will generate more and better ideas. The opposite is more likely true. Per capita creativity actually declines rapidly with more than a couple of people in the 'room'.

Perhaps the most ubiquitous ideation process is the brainstorm. For ad agency folk the idea of a (client) brainstorm evokes eye rolls, but ironically it was invented by one of our own - Alex Faickney Osborn, the O in BBDO. Osborn actually withdrew from the business to evangelize for this approach to idea creation. He argued (without evidence, which was the style at the time) it would double the number of ideas a group could produce. This turned out not to be true. Despite its resilience as a business practice it has actually been proven to reduce the number of ideas vs. individual work.

Humans are prone to both social anxiety and 'regressing to the mean' when in group settings. This makes group ideation challenging in any situation. Other group work dynamics might even be exacerbated by remote collaboration. Social loafing, our tendency to stand by and take a free ride when others are willing to do the work for us is surely impacted when we 'aren't in the room'. Production blocking, the fact that only one idea can be expressed at a time, is also worsened by the remote group work and the inability to have fluid, informal side conversations.

When it comes to remote work and the challenge of ideation and innovation I believe we are focused on the wrong problem. The standard collaborative, group-based processes have always been ineffective. Physical distance may have just made it more obvious. Remote work actually represents an opportunity to free ourselves from these out-dated and time-sucking processes. Your organization's creativity actually has the potential to be improved if you develop your team's individual creative skills.

So then what is the real issue? Remote work threatens 'knowledge spill'.

Knowledge spill is different from collaboration. The latter is an intentional, often structured process. The former is an unintentional byproduct of human interactions. It relies on coincidence and serendipity. Knowledge spill comes from informal interactions, the intermingling of different ideas and expertise. At work you might call it "shooting the shit" (or breeze depending on your level of formality). The idea that these conversations could be so important is easy to dismiss (especially as the impact is hard to measure), but they are important in creating the diverse set of raw materials required for novel thinking. Seemingly 'low value' information can be essential in unlocking a creative idea.

TikTok is perhaps the ultimate model for remote creativity. TikTok's stars have quite literally become famous by collaborating digitally across the world and then generating creative ideas from the confines of their own bedrooms. But even these solo creators can benefit from knowledge spill. In LA, influencers have always come together to create support structures and build their respective audiences. But shared work spaces (or 'hype houses' as they call them) also offer the opportunity to informally learn from each other and grow. Take TikTok god Charli D’Amelio's word for it:

“I’m trying things outside my comfort zone that I might not have done if I was alone in my room”

Once we eventually head back into the office occasionally I fear many companies will use 'office days' to take advantage of the 'creative potential' of everyone being together. Structured co-creation days that will sap workers' time and energy. You can see this happening right? It's the wrong approach. Creative work can thrive at home as long as the unstructured interactions in-between are there to feed people with the necessary 'raw materials'.

The best way to use your in-office time in the future? Just go in to shoot the shit. That might be the real reason the forces of agglomeration is so powerful. We kind of like spending time all together.