Starting in 1984 (the year I was born), John Stockton played 19 amazing seasons in the NBA with with the Utah Jazz. He still holds the record for career steals and career assists by a considerable margin (still leads by more than 3,000 assists). What is most amazing about Stockton is that, by today's standards, he would be accused by many of being the most boring, predictable players ever. Stockton played for one team, wore one number, and gathered most of his assist stats using just a few perfectly executed tactical maneuvers, most notably the pick-and-roll. To borrow from his Wiki page, Stockton was known for an "unassuming, no-nonsense approach to the game."
Comparing Stockton to other players, one could never call him a creative or innovative player. In the last decade, the guard position has been re-imagined by players like Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Kobe Bryant, Jason Williams, Steve Nash... Some of the things these guys do on the court - their movements, ball-handling skills - cause you to say, "Wow, how did he come up with that???" Quite ironically, these guys are the true "jazz" musicians, taking basic skills and riffing them in ways that dazzle and awe, through their creativity and skill.
Stockton was never this way - you could not say he possessed "creativity." During his time he was the anti-Magic Johnson, never sending off an extravagant pass when a simple one would suffice. I never even remember him taking an off-balance shot, something that made Magic an unbelievable force to be reckoned with (he was also a 6'6 guard, and that also helps).
What Stockton had, I would call "creativeness" or the ability to create consistently, solidly and endlessly. According to his shooting percentage (one year he shot 58% from the floor - unreal) and assist-to-turnover ratio, he stands as one the most efficient creators in the history of the game. Stockton made things happen for himself and for his teammates, many times out of thin air. In fact, there is not stat for steal-assist combinations, but I would guess that Stockton has to be up there with Jorden, Bryant, and James in this regard. Ok, enough about the little guy. Here's a clip from May 5th, 1988 in which he Stockton racks up an NBA playoff record 24 assists while accumulating an astounding .03 style points
John Stockton never won an NBA Championship, yet he produced more wins than Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Clyde Drexler, and Isaiah Thomas:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/597917-off-the-index-the-nbas-50-greatest-players-2011-remix
Here are a couple lessons I think we can learn from J.S. and basketball about creativeness:
1. There is room for both creativity and creativeness on your team. Not everyone has true "creativity" and that's way more than ok.
For argument's sake, let's continue to call "creativeness" the ability to consistently create something of value and "creativity" the ability to create something notably different. Teams, and the individuals that populate them, need both in order to be successful. Teams have to be able to think outside the box, come up with new ideas, and innovate in order to meet new challenges gain an advantage over competitors, keep consumers happy, and keep shareholders satisfied.
Creativity by itself has only novelty in the short-term. If it does not also create something of value, it it ultimately just another new idea. Creativeness wanes in a very different way - consistant, effective value creation has long term value, and is disrupted when the method or source of creation becomes outdated, insipid, or unable to adapt.
Here's where I blaspheme: Creativeness is too often underrated In MOST organizations, I want Stockton at the core of my team. There is room for creativity, but at the core of my operation I want a consistant, effective, boring creator. What made Karl Malone such a dynamic scorer, is that he knew when, where, and how, he was going to get the ball from Stockton - every time. Stockton's machine-like ability to create allowed his teammates to be creative, deceptive, and far less predictable.
Yes, I believe that it's possible (and quite common in some occupational circles) for an individual to possess both creativeness and creativity. However, I think it's important to know, as an creative soldier, where you fit along the spectrum. Are you a modern jazz, or utah jazz? What do you need to borrow or learn from the other end to be successful?
2. Creativity that can be appreciated comes from experience and pattern recognition - not from being a complete whacko.
Where does creativity come from? This question has been asked about bazillion times, and there are probably just as many good answers. Here's a good answer that I hear less often: Innovative creativity that has conveyable value comes from the ability to understand and possess creativeness. In other words, in order to produce a creative work that any one cares about, one must understand and identify how and why it's different from the norm.
(Small digression to make a point - let's talk about monkeys and Ritalin. An infinite number of monkeys, typewriters, and Ritalin can produce Shakespeare's complete works. Almost all of these monkeys will write very creative (although certainly unreadable) works of gibberish. Useless. One monkey will rewrite Shakespeare verbatim - but the problem is that we already have that. Give me the monkey that writes the version where everything is the same, except that all the characters names are replaced by 80's and 90's pop stars who possess the same personalities as the characters they have replaced. Now that's a feat worthy of a theorem.)
Here's the basketball example: the pick and roll. There are only 2, maybe 3 ways to run this maneuver. The key is deception, or thought of in another way, you want the opponent to understand what you are doing, all the way up to the moment where they don't. They are then forced into a defensive decision, and you, the offensive player reacts accordingly. The pick and roll is a pattern, that when adjusted ever-so-slightly, creates just the right amount of imbalance. Good creativity is like this. Just consider the modern techniques for product innovation...(substitution, attribute dependency, subtraction...) Everything is consistant with the pattern of the product, until one very particular strategic element is adjusted. (http://www.innovationinpractice.com/)
The point is that I believe those who possess valuable creativity and creativeness have something very important in common - they are able to recognize patterns, and often they are adept at smoothly creating from a given framework. How different is a measure of creativity, but as we know from Jon Stockton, it is the right difference, sometimes the most subtle, that make for truly valuable creativity.
