Apple’s corporate image is one of the creative iconoclast; their motto, “Think Different.” Their products look great. Artsy people like graphic designers, photographers, and film directors choose Apples.

Does the ad campaign work? Does the average person-in-the-street think of Apple computers as being more creative? A recent study done at Duke University’s Fuqua school of business provides some evidence that it does. This research has been all over the newspapers and even on NPR, so you may have already heard the take-home message: research subjects were shown an image of either Apple’s corporate logo or IBM’s corporate logo, and immediately afterwards they were given a creativity test. The subjects who’d seen the Apple logo scored higher on the creativity test. Ready-made message for news reporters: Apple really does make people “think different”. I’m sure Apple’s PR department was high-fiving over this free publicity!

But the details of the study haven’t been reported at all, and when you look at the details, the message is more complex. First of all, the test used to measure “creativity” has some problems; it’s from a research article published back in 1958, and all it asks is “think of as many unusual uses as possible for a brick.” (It’s called the “unusual uses test”.) This is a measure of what creativity researchers call “divergent thinking” and it isn’t really what most of us mean when we talk about creativity. And in fact, no studies have been able to prove that a higher score on divergent thinking tests translates into real-world creative output. Second, the difference between seeing Apple or IBM was very small. The 219 subjects who saw an Apple logo, on average, wrote down 7.68 uses; the 122 who saw IBM wrote down 6.10. When independent judges rated the creativity of the answers, Apple answers got a rating of 8.44, IBM answers a rating of 7.98. These differences were statistically significant, but it’s not hard for small differences to reach statistical significance when you have so many subjects; it’s well-known in psychological research that a greater number of subjects raises the significance of the finding. And furthermore, when the researchers added a third experimental condition–no brand logo shown at all–the Apple subjects did not score significantly higher than these “no brand” subjects (they still scored higher than IBM subjects, though).

The researchers later did another experiment where they first measured how much each subject valued creativity–how much they wanted to be creative. Those who scored low on this measure, who didn’t really want to be creative, showed no differences on the unusual uses test with either Apple or IBM logos. But those who scored highly showed a difference, coming up with about 8 unusual uses for the brick in the Apple condition, but just barely over 5 in the IBM condition, and just barely over 5 in the no-brand condition. (And, the independent judges rated the Apple uses as being the most creative of all three conditions.)

One final interesting fact about this study: in the first experiment, the Apple and IBM logos were flashed on the screen for only about 13 milliseconds, so briefly that no one was consciously aware they had seen the logo. This was a subliminal effect. In the second experiment, the one that asked about your motivation to be creative, the subjects actually saw (and manipulated) images of generic-looking computers, with either an Apple or IBM logo prominently displayed on the computer’s monitor (or no computers at all, in the no brand condition).

You know how your car always seems to run better after you take it to the car wash? Of course, it runs exactly the same as before you washed it. In the same way, when you use a product that you associate with creativity, you should feel more creative (even though you’re probably not). However, discovering that exposure to corporate logos changed their score on a test is intriguing. I wouldn’t call the “unusual uses test” a measure of creativity; but the experiment makes you wonder, nonetheless. Should Apple feel proud about the results of this research? The headline would be very different if it read “Staring at Apple computers helps you think of strange ways to use a brick.”

I was sad to read of the death of Gary Gygax, co-creator (with Dave Arneson) of the legendary role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons.  I was first introduced to the game when I started college at MIT in 1978.  There, I learned that many of my classmates were already seasoned players from their years in high school.  (I guess they were early adopters, considering that D&D had only been published in 1974!)  Although I was never a player myself, in college I was surrounded by the rule books with “Gary Gygax” imprinted on the cover, so I immediately recognized his name atop the obituaries this past week.  If you haven’t heard of the game, you should know that in addition to sales that topped $1 billion, and 20 million players, D&D had a cultural influence far beyond the numbers.

The major national newspapers covered this passing (see articles in WSJ, NYT) .  I’m noting it here because, after a bit of research, I’ve learned that D&D emerged from the same innovation process that I’ve seen everywhere in today’s economy.  Although Gygax certainly deserves to be recognized for his important role, he was not the sole creator of D&D; it emerged from a long series of collaborations, from an almost invisible community of like-minded wargamers.  Innovation always works this way: Even though one person often gets credit for an invention, all innovations emerge from groups.  In Gygax’s case, the group included dedicated wargamers who lived around Lake Geneva in Wisconsin.  Many different Lake Geneva groups came together to play wargames, with names like the Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association and the Midwest Miltary Simulation Association.  There were so many groups that in 1966, they formed an umbrella organization called the International Federation of Wargamers (IFW), with separate chapters for different periods of military history—the “Castle and Crusade Society” for medieval wargaming, for example, and the “Armored Operations Society” for World War II wargaming.  IFW became nationally known by sponsoring an annual convention of gamers called GenCon, and publishing a magazine of wargaming called The Spartan.

These communities of hobbyists had been experimenting with medieval wargames using miniature figures, just like D&D, for years.  The first published set of rules appeared in 1967—for a game called Siege of Bodenburg, created by Henry Bodenstedt and published in Strategy & Tactics magazine, a wargaming fanzine created in 1966 by Chris Wagner.  (Wagner created his fanzine to compete with the magazine The General, published by the wargame-publishing company called Avalon Hill starting in 1964.)  The wargamers around Lake Geneva read these rules, and a couple of them began experimenting with their own variations.  In 1971, two of them—Jeff Perren and Gary Gygax—published their own set of medieval wargaming rules; they called it Chainmail and sold it through a company called Guidon.  Tolkien’s trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, was gaining a cult following at the time, and sales of Chainmail were surprisingly strong.  A third Lake Geneva wargamer, Dave Arneson, began experimenting with his own variation that he called Blackmoor.  When Arneson and Gygax began collaborating on the next generation of medieval wargame, they took most of Blackmoor’s features intact.  They intentionally named the main characters after those in Tolkien’s trilogy—orcs, ents, hobbits, wizards—to tap into its popularity.  (A lawsuit from Tolkien’s estate later forced the game’s publisher to rename some of these characters.)

I love stories like this one, because they show so clearly how innovation emerges from a collaborative process.  In my book Group Genius, I tell many similar stories—for example, how Monopoly emerged over a 30-year period from a national community of Quakers, frat boys, and economics professors.  Dungeons & Dragons was a collective creation, emerging from an unsung, almost invisible collaborative web.  With the help of Gary Gygax, this emergent phenomenon was disseminated far beyond the Lake Geneva community to become an international phenomenon.  When the International Federation of Wargamers faded from history in 1974, its passing was not noted—there’s no such thing as an obituary page for groups.  So we use the obituary pages to remind ourselves of the true nature of creation by recognizing those individuals who played key roles within genius groups—like Mr. Gygax, who died March 4 at age 69 at his home in Lake Geneva.  It’s all about collaboration; as Gygax himself said in a 2006 interview, “The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience.”  Rest in peace.

On Wednesday, the leaders of the world gathered in Davos, Switzerland for their annual schmoozefest known as the World Economic Forum (January 23-27). At no other annual event can you find country presidents and prime ministers mingling with CEOs of the largest multinational corporations, listening to talks by thought leaders from around the globe. The theme of this year’s event is “The Power of Collaborative Innovation”. Collaboration is, more and more, the driver of corporate success; but by choosing collaboration for this year’s WEF theme, Davos is acknowledging that collaboration is also the key to solving the most pressing global issues. In previous years, the Davos meeting received more attention for the anti-globalization protesters outside the gates, but this year’s theme doesn’t seem to have offended anyone.

Presentations include Matt Parker, of Nike, describing their Nike Plus gadget–a device that you put on your shoe and hook into your iPod, and also connect you to the Internet. The system allows runners to communicate, to come together and organize races for example. Reuters’ Tom Glocer described their company’s internal innovation program, where employees are encouraged to submit ideas in a quick one-page document.

In a typical Davos event, CNBC reporter Maria Bartiromo interviewed Bono, Bill Gates, and Michael Dell. They announced their support for the (RED) initiative (if you purchase a product that is “red,” the selling company makes a donation to fight AIDS in Africa). Soon after that, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown joined a powerhouse panel that included the CEOs of Cisco and Pepsi, to discuss why it makes business sense for corporations to establish social responsibility as a priority alongside profits.

A press release dated today was titled “Collaboration Key To Success As New Initiatives Are Launched In The Field Of Humanitarian Relief At Davos.” Members companies and the United Nations announced two initiatives to bring together the private sector and the humanitarian community, to harness their collective power collaboratively.

The theme of collaboration has five sub-themes. I was particularly intrigued by the first: “Competing while collaborating.” This is a central topic of Chapters 9 and 10 of my new book Group Genius. It sounds counterintuitive; but, over and over, the most innovative companies are the ones that figure out how to build collaborative webs with partners, customers, and even with their competitors. And because my book’s subtitle is “The Creative Power of Collaboration,” you know I’m excited to see the importance of collaboration recognized by such a high-profile event.

What happened in Iowa and New Hampshire?  Yes, we know it’s called “voting,” it’s the democratic process in action, blah blah blah.  But is this the best way to choose a president?

I should say right up front that my answer is “yes.”  I believe in the power of the people—that’s why I wrote my book Group Genius.  But is my belief in people power supported by scientific studies of groups?  For much of history, leading political scholars believed that “the people” generally made bad decisions.  Historically, most people were uneducated and illiterate, and they could easily be swayed by appeals to the basest emotions, grandstanding, and poor logic.  When scholars first began to study group dynamics, they focused on mobs, riots, and panics, making it obvious that these scholars weren’t big fans of groups.  In fact, even the founding fathers of the United States shared these concerns; that’s why they created a “representative” democracy, where the people didn’t actually make the decisions; they elected representatives, who presumably would be properly educated and cool-headed, and could be trusted to make good decisions. 

But in the last few years, research by my colleagues and I has begun to show that groups are often smarter and more innovative than the individual members of the group.  Think of a jazz ensemble—where none of the players is in charge, where no single musician knows exactly where its going.  That’s what I mean by “group genius,” and every one of us has been in a creative conversation, a successful energizing meeting, or a sports team where everything gelled together.

Is primary voting, for example in Iowa and New Hampshire, more like a jazz group—super creative—or more like a crazy mob?

As I’ve found in my research, for a group’s genius to be fully realized, several things have to happen.  First, the members of the group have to share a common body of knowledge—and on top of that, they each have to know some uniquely different information.  Second, they have to trust in each other.  But trust doesn’t mean everyone always agrees; it allows them to challenge other’s ideas, and to propose crazy ideas of their own.  Third, they need to interact with each other, in a special kind of open, improvisational conversation—where something unexpected can emerge.  The best genius groups are like improvisational jazz ensembles.  The outcome is unpredictable, and it depends on a complex sequence of small actions and interactions.  A lynch mob isn’t like any of these—in a mob, everyone is the same, everyone agrees, and the outcome is pretty much predictable ahead of time.

This research gives us some hints about why democracy is sometimes hard to export to other countries.  In a country where the citizens don’t share a culture of democratic values, where tribal and historical rivalries make it near impossible to trust each other, it’s hard to get the conversation going.  And without a truly creative conversation, the group—“the people”—can’t do its creative work.

In Iowa and New Hampshire, thankfully the process has been more like group genius than like a mob.  We’ve seen frequent conversations and debates, with voters and candidates alike.  In such small states, even the media often plays a constructive role, spreading communications among voters.  That’s why it’s a good idea to have the first primaries in smaller states, like Iowa and New Hampshire—because there’s a very real possibility that actual conversations between voters could influence the outcome.  And these interactions have, of course, resulted in unpredictable, emergent outcomes—even four days after Iowa, it was hard to say exactly what would happen in New Hampshire.  And still, we don’t know who the nominees will be.

Both parties have been tinkering with the primary calendar.  But true democracy should be a bottom-up process, one where the choices start in conversations among the people, and then gradually bubble up.  We don’t want a process that allows the party elite to choose their candidate and then ask the people to rubber stamp that choice.  The power of democracy is the power of group genius; and that’s what we’ve seen in these primaries.  If only we could think of a way to get every state involved early on, so that all voters across the nation could participate equally, and yet still allow this emergent creative process to unfold, unpredictably and from the bottom up.

Last week, I attended an exciting research meeting in Canada: a new $4 million research center to study the lessons of jazz improvisation and apply them to everyday life. The center, at the University of Guelph, was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) through an incredibly competitive review process. Only two grants were given throughout all of Canada, and I am one of 33 international scholars participating in this center . Before you invoke the spirit of Senator Proxmire and his infamous “Golden Fleece” awards, give me a few minutes to convince you that this research grant has incredible potential to change the way we think about community, policy, law, and education.

Take law, for an example. I spoke with three different law professors at the meeting, and it turns out that improvisation raises fairly substantial issues for intellectual property law. Think about it: if you want to get a copyright for a song, you have to prepare a musical score. But you can’t copyright an improvisation. But can’t you copyright a recording of an improvisation? Yes…but then, the concept of the “work” itself has changed. If someone improvises a slight variation, even if it sounds a whole lot like what you did, it’s still a different work and they aren’t violating your copyright. But with a song, any version of the song infringes on your copyright.

It’s about more than music, as well. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) forbids “mods” of computer software, no matter how trivial (you can’t even change the color of the background without infringing). So maybe it could help us, in thinking about the nature of intellectual property in a world of “collective intelligence,” to draw on improvisation, representation, and performance in music.

My involvement with the research grant is in the area of teaching. I have often argued that good teaching has to be improvisational. Not only because good teachers are always responsive to their students, that’s always been true; but because the nature of innovation in our economy today follows an essentially improvisational process (as I show in my book Group Genius). So students need to learn in environments where they have opportunities to participate in improvisational collaboration with others. Studying improvisation has the potential to help us reform schools to align with the future of innovation.

I’m exciting about this grant, and the team of powerhouse researchers coming together, collaboratively, to study these topics. After all, improvisation is the key to innovation, and innovation is the key to the future.

I was only seven when all the hippies went to Haight-Ashbury in the summer of 1967, so I didn’t realize that this was the fortieth anniversary until I started seeing articles in the newspaper–social commentary about what an important transformative period it was for American society. Then, I saw an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by musician Ted Nugent, taking an opposite position, calling it “The Summer of Drugs.” Other than the civil rights movement, Nugent writes, “the decade is barren of any positive cultural or social impact.”

Nugent is right about the drug use; that’s legendary. But he’s missed the cultural and social impact of the period (and so has most of the positive news coverage). It’s not in its liberal politics, or its free sex lifestyle, or the colorful clothing and long hair. Rather, forty years later, what stands out about the late 1960s is that it was when the roots of today’s collective intelligence first formed. The Internet, the personal computer, and open source software all have their philosophical and social roots in the Summer of Love.

Take the Internet–it’s a global version of what was originally called hypertext, in an influential alternative comic book called Computer Lib/Dream Machines written by Ted Nelson and published in 1974. Take the personal computer–created by a bunch of hippie hobbyists who wanted to bring computer power to the people. Take open source software–although the free software movement didn’t officially start until Richard Stallman’s manifesto in 1983, his long hair and beard, along with his claim that ideas should circulate freely, clearly owe a debt to the 1960s.

Nugent and I obviously have different musical tastes; I’m a big fan of the Grateful Dead, the most important of the San Francisco bands, which Nugent refers to as “mostly soulless rock music”. The reason why I like them is that they’re the most improvisational of all rock bands. The Grateful Dead, and other San Francisco bands of the period, borrowed the egalitarian musical ethos of jazz and adapted it to rock music. Long drawn out solos are not for everyone, but whereas improvised jazz has always been an art form with a relatively small audience, the Grateful Dead had almost three decades, performing to sold out concert halls. (I could never defend the drug usage: as Nugent would point out, the band broke up in 1995 when lead guitarist and singer Jerry Garcia died, after years of struggling with drug addiction.)

Even if you don’t like that improvised rock sound, it’s a manifestation of the collective and open cultural values that also resulted in today’s information technology revolution. It’s hard to imagine life today without the Internet or the personal computer. That’s what history should remember about the Summer of Love.

I just finished doing an interview with Adrian Savage (www.slowleadership.com) about how freelancers and the self-employed can best stimulate their creativity. This is a great question, because my research shows that significant innovations always emerge from groups and from collaborative conversations. The risk is that, if you stay in your basement office all week long, you’ll never have those impromptu conversations that prompt so many sparks of insight–that’s one benefit to the 20th-century practice of going to work with other colleagues in a central office location. If you’re one of those people who spend a lot of time working alone–whether because you’re self-employed, or because your job requires a lot of focused time (computer programmers, technical writers) then you have to make that extra effort to create space for collaborative conversation. Make a point of going out to lunch–and not always with the same group of co-workers, either. Attend networking events and trade group meet-and-greets. You’ll never be able to re-create the spontaneous water cooler conversation of the office, but you can still create opportunities for group genius to flourish.