Depending on the timeframe, consistent creative work is a paradox of sorts, at least in how we've been taught to think about it.
For example and from the outside looking in, creating a piece of art everyday and seeing all of them as part of the process isn't what we default to but rather try to view it as individual masterpieces.
By the way, should every creation be creative?
I don't know. Maybe the word creative could be redefined as a specific output that sparks an impulse inside us as opposed to something produced without knowing the explicit reason why.
Wait, it's should actually be the other way round. The redefinition is in reality a recognition of what creativity always was.
An aspect of my brain believes creativity and consistency are two words that don't go together, the former being perceived as something unsubstantial despite how impactful it might be when it strikes.
Consistency is often associated with discipline, the kind that chugs along with or without inspiration.
One can be consistent without being creative. It's not a requirement for the most part until the incremental progress reaches a limit and thinking outside the box is required to get to the breakthrough.
Vulnerable leaders
We're taught that the leader stereotype inspire confidence through certainty.
Partly because uncertainty feels dangerous when stakes are high, I think it also comes with the expectations of the position given the responsibilities they carry.
The image persists as someone who has the answers, projects strength, and perhaps also, never lets the mask slip.
But the leaders people actually follow into uncertainty aren't the ones pretending they have it all figured out.
There's something about a leader who says "I don't know, but here's how we'll find out" that cuts through the performance.
Very risky admitting you're navigating fog just like everyone else. Some will lose faith. Others, though, will lean in closer because finally someone is being honest about what everyone already sensed.
Authority and transparency don't naturally reconcile. My issue with authority figures is where "follow me" is coming from versus "I'm figuring this out too" that's usually closer to the truth of any complex situation.
As a leader, one needs people to trust their judgment while simultaneously being truthful about its limits.
These seem mutually exclusive until one realize that trust isn't built on infallibility but more so on the reliability in how they handle fallibility.
You will always face something you can't immediately solve, and the crucial question becomes whether you'll pretend otherwise or acknowledge it and work through it openly.
Slowness in Productivity
Speed has become a proxy for competence. How quickly did you respond and how many tasks did you clear within a relatively short amount of time?
The scoreboard tracks velocity, more than it tracks whether you're heading somewhere worth going.
Depth requires something speed can't accommodate, which is time to sit with a problem until it reveals what it's actually about, let an idea mature beyond your first clever thought, etc.
None of this fits neatly into productivity metrics, just can't afford that luxury.
The trap is that shallow work compounds into what looks like achievement. A mountain of finished tasks, none of which required you to grow or change or grapple with complexity could seem productive because things are getting checked off. But productivity toward what, exactly?
There's a particular kind of courage in working slowly in a world that's optimized for speed.
Now this is not the slow kind because one is avoiding getting cooked by deadlines/reasonable expectations.
Slow because you're actually engaging with something that can't be rushed: depth.
The math doesn't work on a dashboard via fewer things done, but done in a way that matters.
This is the square peg and every system you encounter will try to round you off, albeit with the best intentions of efficiency.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.