Harvard Business Review's tips for dealing with creative people, and it's appalling

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04 April 2013   #31
I don't believe that this Dr Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic should deserve any recognition from us. The things that he has written about, are in my opinion, nonsense. People should read his other article about having lower self confidence and how it will make you perform better, and more successful too.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/07/les...re_more_su.html
 
Old 04 April 2013   #32
I don't even care about the fact that the article aims at "creatives"; frankly I find any essay that makes sweeping generalisations about huge groups of people, particularly when it doesn't cite any evidence or studies to back it up, totally asinine.

It's like people who make assumptions about other people's views based on their political leanings. I'm so tired of seeing that crap everywhere.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 04 April 2013   #33
I also don't see too problematic matters there. I think most people got offended when saw "pay them poorly". But the truth is, overpaying also decreases productivity, so there may be some truth.
Don't you agree than any of you would rather starve and die, creating amazing worlds? That's how they want to see you, definitely. May be, they are so different, they don't understand how people can make less by making what they love. But paying poorly is a stupid idea, as you can always find someone who pays more. What's then then?

I'd say most artists are willingly work for money, rather than for their ideas. Artists understand, you need to sell. When there's no market, creativity diminishes. People work to make money in the first place. Another point, is some jobs are interesting.
Michelangelo, Leonardo Vinci were creative. But they got a very good pay for what they did. So most famous artists of the past. Those, who are today considered geniuses and who didn't make much money, were sponsored! Tchaikovsky, Van Gogh, etc, . By the way, starving kills creativity. When you need to survive, you are not to think about how to make this wonderful stuff, you're fighting for your life.

Creative people today, and always were, is such a small percentage that it's hard to make any rules for them, and makes no sense therefore. Creativity is a mindset, which can be developed, but most schools don't teach it.

So creative people are the minority, such as concept designers, storytellers. Those, who are pre-production stage. If they are talented, they should get the most pay from all departments. If they make less, they are either stupid and underestimate themselves, or are in a difficult life situation. Either way, it's not good.

But what's "poorly"? Less than competitors? What's "creative"? Artists of any kind?
I can tell you that paying poorly for artists and even establishing monopoly didn't work even in Ukraine, as when you need the top talent, you will have to pay. Competitors will bite you and entice those artists. The more rare the talent, the more difficult it will be finding it and yet to keep. So good luck paying poorly, poor managers.

PS: this article is a manipulation stuff, nothing too difficult. Treat good, and pay poorly. That's the key idea. You'd be blind not to see it. Oh yes, some make mistake and treat bad but pay poorly. Here's the progress.

Last edited by mister3d : 04 April 2013 at 03:26 PM.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #34
Obviously I'm going to balk at "pay them less" but the article is sound. "Pay them less" is simply stating that creative types are going to be less motivated by money and more so by accomplishment or fulfillment. There are a lot of points in the article that initially made me want to fuss the guy (because he's talking about me) but most of it is true. I just don't like it. I could give the good ol' point-by-point... but I don't wanna.
Originally Posted by leigh: I don't even care about the fact that the article aims at "creatives"; frankly I find any essay that makes sweeping generalisations about huge groups of people, particularly when it doesn't cite any evidence or studies to back it up, totally asinine.

I'm sure the lack of evidence is because in the psychology world the statements in this essay are common sense.
There's nothing wrong with making sweeping generalizations when they are easily proven. People think differently, very differently. I don't mean their opinions and how they feel about something I mean their core thought processes. How they come to decisions. Arguing that is like saying there's no difference between men and women. Now I've done it.

In the end I fall back on my old axiom. "All people are different." These guidelines will be good for handling a large number of the "creative" types but then you should be fluid enough to see when something doesn't work and adjust your style.
__________________
HMC: Model Collection
WIP: Harris Nut House
WIP: WarCraft Troll
wyattharris.com Dig it!
 
Old 04 April 2013   #35
Originally Posted by WyattHarris: Obviously I'm going to balk at "pay them less" but the article is sound. "Pay them less" is simply stating that creative types are going to be less motivated by money and more so by accomplishment or fulfillment.

But pay less than what? Than what they ask? Or what others make? It sounds as "pay them less than what they deserve".
 
Old 04 April 2013   #36
It's amusing to see all the corrections, and even an apology, that have been added to the article. If a business relations PhD can't even proofread his own article, how are we supposed to take it seriously? And I'm sorry, but adding "my research shows..." is not a valid qualifier.

It is also not made clear who he is talking about, high-level development or designers (like, say, someone in advanced R&D at Apple) or layout artists at an ad agency. The author seems very unaware of an entire class of semi-creative craftspeople whose job doesn't demand 24-7 out-of-the-box thinking. I have worked with hundreds of "creatives" I would put into that category and some had better artistic skills than others and some were difficult to work with and some were not. I believe the ratio of good/bad or easy/hard coworkers is probably no different than in any other field of work.

I'm also shocked at how many people here think that his assumptions and generalizations are correct. Contradictions are running rampant, with comments like "The article is basically correct" and then adding that "all people are different and need to be handled differently." Well, that pretty much goes against everything the article says, doesn't it?
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
Old 04 April 2013   #37
The redaction is not clear or good, but it's a blog anyway, not a science article..

People should be paid to the point where they don't need to worry for money, but not to the point where they see it as a reward, in other words, money should never be a motivation.
In many cases that means, pay them more, actually..
(the article now says: Don't overpay them)

Other than that, people is taking it personal, but specially with miss-interpretation.
Internet is not something to read literally. Disappointingly , most people do.
__________________
may not be following this thread.
.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #38
whether you like it or not the reality is that creative people are controlled by people (one who wrote that article) of such mentality, the MBA holders, the shrewd businessmen who analyze art through profit and losses, an artist might starve and die in poverty and misery but collectors and critics can make millions of his art.
it is not just with the vfx or art industry in general its almost every field that can generate some income. farmers get a little profit for what they grow, speculators earn in millions. actors and singers pay a big percentage to their managers.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #39
Originally Posted by Ruramuq: Other than that, people is taking it personal, but specially with miss-interpretation.
Internet is not something to read literally. Disappointingly , most people do.


You are missing the point. It's not that people are "taking it personally." It's that the "information" being put forth by a supposedly reputable author to an entire industry, or multiple industries, is so ignorant and shortsighted. It's not about being offended, if about spreading abhorrent information from a position of authority to people who may not know any better.
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
Old 04 April 2013   #40
Originally Posted by Ruramuq: (the article now says: Don't overpay them)

It seems it says underpay them. If money is not motivation, put them in a situation where they need it to survive.
Overpaying is paying more than average. Nowhere it says pay them equally, but not overpay. It clearly says "pay less" (than others).
 
Old 04 April 2013   #41
Quote: I'm sure the lack of evidence is because in the psychology world the statements in this essay are common sense.There's nothing wrong with making sweeping generalizations when they are easily proven. People think differently, very differently. I don't mean their opinions and how they feel about something I mean their core thought processes. How they come to decisions. Arguing that is like saying there's no difference between men and women. Now I've done it.


You can't defend an assumption by making one of your own. And no, the lack of evidence has nothing to do with this being "common sense". I haven't been back since I read the article yesterday, but he DID provide links within the article to some of what he considered to be his "evidence". Not surprisingly his studies were set up to yield to a pre-determined bias. The questions and situations were all "leading" (which is a no-no in the "scientific" world) and they all seemed to set up to support the conclusions he tries to come to with his "meta-profiling" website.

Quote: There's nothing wrong with making sweeping generalizations when they are easily proven. People think differently, very differently. I don't mean their opinions and how they feel about something I mean their core thought processes. How they come to decisions.


These sentences completely contradict each other.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #42
The title of the thread should read:

Ruthless A@hole business man article backfires. YES!
__________________
LEIF3D.com
 
Old 04 April 2013   #43
This is the reason why more of us should develop and own our own IP then hire the jokers like this one to manage the books. Then we could write obnoxious articles like "7 ways to manage overprivileged ivy league educated business organizers/accountants." At the end of the day the only reason they are in power is because too many of us are too afraid to commit to learning the business end.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #44
Originally Posted by PhilipeaNguyen: ....the only reason they are in power is because too many of us are too afraid to commit to learning the business end.


Or we're, you know, busy working our asses off doing our own jobs.
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
Old 04 April 2013   #45
I've been very lucky to have great managers and bosses, who appreciate my art/graphics abilities, but I've seen other people in this world that look upon art professionals as a semi joke. Sure, they need that art for an ad or movie to push their product, but hey, the artist is just playing on a computer and getting paid to make art.

'You love doing it anyway, and certainly working on my corporate ad campaign gig brings you just as much satisfaction and pleasure as your personal projects, so the money isn't that important to you, it's the art!' Pffff.

Admittedly, they do hard work like pushing papers, setting up meetings, tracking down clients, etc, and by comparison what we do may not seem as hard to them. But the difference is that I acknowledge what they do is hard work, and I feel they should be paid accordingly. However, I'm afraid they do not acknowledge the same of artist/creative types. They look upon us as getting paid to play with MS paint.
__________________
Daniel Broadway 2013 Compositor Reel

Vimeo Videos
Daniel Broadway


Last edited by Daniel-B : 04 April 2013 at 09:21 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.