Click here to view the embedded video.

“What if I stood at a real whiteboard and you actually filmed me drawing?” I suggested. Ryan agreed to give it a try but stressed, “We won’t be able to refine or manipulate your drawings to look perfect… like those in the UPS commercials.” After purchasing a 4’ x 8’ sheet of whiteboard material, we set up a makeshift studio in Ryan’s living room and did a few quick tests. Before long, we concluded while this approach was somewhat problematic—and not real plausible—it was possible. That was all it took.

After writing an outline and creating visuals to support my words, I had another friend, Megan Kearney produce my drawings in Adobe Illustrator for reference… and then I flew to San Antonio to deliver a 90-minute keynote to an audience of educators, followed by a Q&A session with the leadership team. Feeling somewhat exhausted, I arrived back in Chicago late Thursday night only to realize we were scheduled to make this video in the morning.

Running on few hours of sleep and many cups of coffee, I arrived at Ryan’s house Friday morning to find him bright-eyed and ready to go. “I’ve been thinking, I really like the idea of making this video in the spirit of early recording artists,” he said. “What do you mean?” I asked, trying to appear awake. He cited numerous songs, examples and musicians including Robert Johnson, Aretha Franklin and Bob Dylan. “They just went into the studio and performed. They didn’t rely on digital manipulation, special effects or post-production tricks to make the work appear ‘perfect’… like most current artists and the UPS commercials do. They’re real, spontaneous, unique, authentic and unrefined… and that’s what makes them great.”

I knew Ryan was being sincere… I also knew he was aware of the fact I can be an extreme perfectionist at times. Additionally, not being a professional cartoonist… he didn’t want to spend hours recording me, making refinement after refinement. By connecting words like “real”, “spontaneous”, and “unrefined” to “being great”, he established our paradigm for the shoot.

“Okay, Ryan, your idea resonates with me,” I said, reflecting the “unique” and “unrefined” but “great” garage bands I played in when I was younger. Besides, I didn’t have any extra energy to debate him.

“Great… let’s do it. One camera and one take—you and me—start to finish!” Ryan announced. That’s exactly what we did. While I would have liked a do-over (or two or three), we agreed that “keeping it real” was more important.

After all, “Pink Bat” is about “Turning Problems Into Solutions”… and that sheds much light on the making of this video. I hope you enjoy it. Click here to purchase the book.

Perhaps the stars were aligned just so that week, but of the three consultancies invited to present, the first two started their presentations the exact same way… by challenging us with a nine-dot puzzle. Solving it required connecting each dot using four straight, continuous lines—without lifting the pen from the paper.

The first consultant seemed taken aback by our questions and passion toward solving it. Apparently he had come in expecting to present the puzzle, answer a few predictable questions, watch us make some failed attempts, and then give us the answer. Until that day, he had only presented to business executives who had little interest in solving visual puzzles—not graphic designers.

By using a very wide marker, all nine dots could be connected with only one line.

When I asked him if we could use one line rather than four, he just smiled. “If you can solve the puzzle using only one line, by all means, be my guest. Just make certain it’s a straight line… and don’t lift your pen.” Before I could respond, he added, “If you solve it with four lines, lunch is on me… solve it with one line and I’ll make certain you get a raise… and bonus, too,” then winked at the president of our firm.

When I explained that my solution required a very wide pen, he began shaking his head and then with a dismissive laugh said, “No… I’m afraid that would be cheating… you have to use a standard size pen.” Then he held his marker up for everyone to see before asking again, “Okay, are you ready for the answer?”

When we shook our heads, he seemed concerned. His concerns grew when a senior designer stood and presented another solution. Having folded his puzzle like an accordion, he carefully angled his marker and hit all nine dots in one pass.

Shaking his head once again the consultant announced, “I’m afraid you can’t fold the paper either… you must use four continuous straight lines without lifting the pen from the paper… and it must stay flat… no folding is allowed.”

Folding the paper didn't exactly solve the problem but it was an interesting direction.

By repositioning the dot, the puzzle could be solved in a number of ways.

As I stopped folding my paper to consider the newly established rules, the designer sitting behind me shared another solution. By carefully cutting out each dot and repositioning them on the paper, she not only solved the puzzle, but also did so without violating the established rules. Her solution also confirmed my suspicions… I really had smelled rubber cement.

Before she could expound on the merits of her solution… or before someone else could share another solution, the frazzled consultant grabbed his marker, drew four quick lines on the easel and announced, “To find the solution, you must… THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!”

This is "the" answer the consultant expected.

You might imagine how the second presentation went over. What still eludes me is the number of business people back then that accepted this puzzle as some form of empirical evidence. What’s more preposterous: accepting that an executive with poor puzzle solving abilities can’t solve business problems… or that a consultant who solves the very puzzle he just presented, can? Maybe it’s a toss-up.

What I also found interesting was the similarities between the first two consultants. Each presented the puzzle as THE litmus test for business innovation… yet, ironically, both assumed that only one answer existed. Why couldn’t they let us explore more ideas or discuss the answers we proposed? Because they were really outside the box! Besides, if another solution existed, their presentation “theme” wouldn’t have worked. By trying to expose our imaginary boundaries, they were actually exposing their own.

It’s funny… they wanted to be perceived as innovators—cutting-edge problem solvers—but the more they repeated the phrase, “Think Outside the Box,” the clearer it became… they were anything but. I’ve often wondered how long it would have taken us to find this solution… more importantly, what other solutions and potential directions would we have discovered along the way?

Most people have seen The Wizard of Oz—at least once. It’s been playing since 1939. If you haven’t, you should consider doing so. For those who have seen it, reflect back to the scene where Dorothy, her little dog Toto, the Scarecrow, Cowardly Lion and the Tin Man are all standing before the great and powerful Wizard of Oz. As he blows fire and warns them not to incur his wrath, Toto casually walks over and pulls back a curtain to reveal that the intimidating Wizard of Oz is no more than a little man projecting a big image onto a screen, pushing buttons and yelling into a microphone.

Hoping he hadn’t been seen, the wizard quickly pulls the curtain closed and announces into the microphone, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” But it’s too late. The truth had been exposed.

Over the years, I have met other people (experts) professing to have “the” answer, too. These modern day wizards often hide behind titles, organizations and use fancy argot to appear knowledgeable. But like Toto, it’s important to look past illusion (and clichés), pull back the curtain, and deal with reality. This is paramount to finding “real” solutions.

Why didn’t they accept it at first? Simple. With a duck-like bill, an otter-like body, a tail like a beaver, and webbed feet, the platypus didn’t fit an established category. So it couldn’t possibly be real! While this may seem funny, the idea of rejecting ideas (new realities) that don’t fit neatly into accepted categories, still happens on a regular basis.

I learned this firsthand while working with Michael Jordan on his book, Rare Air. It was my first retail book experience so I was naive to the process. After working hard and putting a presentation together, I flew to NYC to meet with several prominent publishers. (By the way, when Michael writes a letter on your behalf, asking someone (anyone) to meet with you… they will.) By the end of my first meeting, I learned that since Rare Air didn’t fit an existing category, it couldn’t be “real.”

Like the scientists and the platypus, every publisher who initially saw Rare Air rejected it. By reinforcing each other’s beliefs… they shook ours. When Michael asked whom we had selected to publish his book, we were speechless. We had one last meeting set up in California with Harper Collins. But this time we were prepared… since a category didn’t exist, we decided to create a new one. We called it a “pictorial autobiography” and the publisher bravely (or naively) accepted it. Rare Air went on to become a NY Times best-seller, sold more than a million copies in numerous languages… and established a new publishing niche.

Years later, I reconnected with one of those NY publishing executives on another project. “What were we thinking?” he asked me. He went on to say, “After Rare Air’s phenomenal success, I would often lay awake at night reliving your presentation… it was so obvious! Why on earth couldn’t we see it then?” The answer to his question was… and still is… obvious. He and the other publishers were so focused on the status quo, and established categories, they couldn’t see new possibilities. They chose accepted categories over reality. Categories exist everywhere. They can help us, but also blind us if we’re not careful. Most importantly, they don’t define reality unless we let them.

Before you throw out a great idea, stop and question the existing categories… it might be time for a change. Creativity is constantly exposing reality, and in the process, changing and creating new categories.

According to Nuno Sousa at the University of Minho in Portugal, there’s a good reason for why this happens. Sousa found when lab rats are stressed out; their responses to familiar routines become very repetitive. For example, rather than trying new maze paths that lead to food, chronically stressed rats repeatedly ran down the same dead-end paths.

Robert Sapolsky, a neurobiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine said, “This is a great model for why we end up in a rut and then dig ourselves deeper and deeper into that rut.”

When we’re stressed out we become repetitive and don’t recognize that our normal coping mechanisms aren’t working properly. So rather than trying something new or taking a different approach, we become compulsive and do the same things—repeatedly.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”

Maybe Einstein’s definition applies to stressed out people as well?

By reducing our stress levels, over time, we can regain our natural creative capacity. Through meditating, breathing, exercising and simply relaxing the neurons and synapses in our brains recover and begin to make new connections.

Making new connections is at the center of creative thinking and developing innovative solutions. It’s easy to become stressed out—especially in light of today’s hectic and competitive world.

By learning to relax (and making the time to do so), you’ll not only eliminate stress from your life but you will be contributing greatly to your creative development. For your health and your creative capacity—make time to relax.