I was immediately struck by the statement, ‘Training does little for creativity’. One of the topics I teach about is creativity, and we have several goals — rethinking what we actually mean by the word ‘creativity’, supporting people in growing confidence in their own ability to work in a creative way, and helping people think about whether/how creativity (or skills contributing to creativity) can be taught. We have a whole module/course about transdisciplinary working, which thinks about, e.g., design thinking and the double diamond approach as techniques to support creativity and to help people build what Kelley and Kelley (2013) refer to as creative confidence. Because creativity is emergent, I definitely think that there is no single, concrete entity called ‘creativity’ that can be taught — but I do think that people can be supported in becoming more comfortable with creative ways of working. I also think that *other people* are essential to this process: creative confidence is not developed in isolation, but through interactions and exchanges with other people. So ultimately I do actually agree with everything on this page even if that one statement feels a bit uncomfortable for me!
“Because creativity is emergent, I definitely think that there is no single, concrete entity called ‘creativity’ that can be taught — but I do think that people can be supported in becoming more comfortable with creative ways of working.” — I definitely agree!
I enjoy this exchange between you/Caitlin and Harold.
(TANGENT AHEAD)
And while I don’t have much to add, I always recall what a friend (filmaker, photographer) shared as part of his exploration of creativity re: Christian Julmi’s work re: creativity. One paper shared – “Creativity in the corporeal, hermeneutic and analytical domains”, https://www.fernuni-hagen.de/scherm/docs/julmi__2017__-_creativity_in_the_corporeal__hermeneutic_and_analytical_domains.pdf … and this egan our spirited and sometimes snarky conversations about how some self-proclaimed ‘content creators’ somewhat hijacked the term creativity, as if implying their creativity (and therefore course work sold to teach people creativity) by virtue of being a content creator. (I’ll spare my soap box rant.)
What was in my blindspot, are where does the network is coming from and if there are some patterns associated.
It makes even more vivid relationships with the paradoxical theory of change in Gestalt:
Note: I had trouble to drop a line without posting the comment
it is only when we realise what is our network, that we can start to work on it. I really like the six basic categories: information, political support and influence, personal development, personal support and energy, a sense of purpose or worth, and work/life balance. And also the different taxonomies introduced it is helping me in a way to realise some link I forgot. It is fascinating, that people I meet every week and really valuable appeared way later in the introspection.
I would be curious to have more visualisation of network, I realised also inmaps or Linkedin Maps are discontinued. Do you have some easy tools we can use to try to see our Linkedin network, or even uploading some data to have a visualisation?
I’ve been thinking a lot about the results of this exercise, in which I had 14 different people (I don’t know if that’s a lot or a little), mostly from Spain, the US, and lately Brazil, and only three women (which I didn’t like at all). The number of women increases when I think of other domains/situations in which I seek expertise, so I’ve realized that the percentage changes depending on the questions you ask.
On the other hand, it’s a fundamental exercise: choosing the questions and what part requires my attention at this moment. Thinking about that is the best investment I can make.
Toni, While I don’t know if 14 is a lot or a little, when I’ve done this exercise during past workshops, my range for the network mapping has been 14-18 folks.
And I mention in my reply that I’ve come to realize the context of my network and current events/activities definitely shapes with whom I interact. In past years, I had a broader distribution of my more frequent interactions with folks outside of the US. However, because of politics and client projects focusing on domestic energy projects, I noticed shifts in various diversity factors, e.g., gender, racial, ethnic, age experience, and religion.
Taking inventory about from/with whom I exchange knowledge is always an interesting exercise. I did this lesson during the October 2025 course. As a returning student, below are my thoughts after responding to both the seven “Network Mapping” questions and “Alternative Questions” – as it is interesting to compare if/where there are overlaps of persons and the composition of diversity.
CONTEXT of my NETWORK
As a solopreneur, I’ve defined my “organization” to include an informal board of advisors and regular mentors associated with my environmental-related work and evolving my consulting and coaching practice. Historically, I defined my work primarily environmental-related. However, this has expanded as I’ve developed other interests, skills, and simply life experiences. I am among folks in the following spaces: behavioral science, applied improv, coaching (professional and personal development), technical writing, content creation, philanthropy (food security), and carer/caregiving.
CURRENT EVENTS and ACTIVITIES SHAPE MY NETWORK
I believe these four area – politics, solopreneurship, caregiving/health, retirement horizon – shape and have shifted with whom I interact, e.g., frequency, topics, communities. With the U.S. politics, I’ve chosen to associate with more folks sharing similar perspectives for advocacy and activism opportunities. I’ve been “reshaping” my business offerings. I am more active in the group for whom I’ve volunteered since May 2019. My Mom Carer role has been more prevalent, in addition to minding my own health. And while I’m not yet poised to retire, I keep it in my line of sight especially as I mind my finances.
COMPOSITION – I listed 14 among a potential of 28 unique folks. This is comparable to past workshops’ ranges (14-18 different folks). Of the 14, 6 are tried and true (e.g., family, mentors, advisor, close friend).
ANY SURPRISES?
There were no surprises but a few expected shifts since last year. I considered 9 of the 15 listed diversity factors. Among the shifts –
– AGE – an increase in folks older than me, which I attribute to my interacting with folks about eventual retirement
– LOCATION – an increase in more folks within the US/North America, which appears to be because of politics
– SEXUAL ORIENTATION – an increase of different sexual orientation, which appears to be diversity in groups I interact related to current events/politics
Consistent over the years include relative diversity among factors of race, ethnic, and religion.
ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS
I like the alternative questions because it looks at network/relationship interactions with a different lens of intentionality.
COMPOSITION
I listed 16 among a potential of 28 unique folks. 7 folks were also part of my Networked Mapping list, and therefore, 9 folks were different. Of the 16, 5 are tried and true (e.g., family, mentors, advisor, close friend) of which 2 are also part of network mapping folks.
ANY SURPRISES?
There were not any surprises but a few I found curious. As with the network mapping, I considered 9 of the 15 listed diversity factors.
I am curious about (since the last workshop) –
– AGE – an increase in folks older than me, which may be related to interacting with folks about eventual retirement
– LOCATION – There are much more in my same location (US), compared to last workshop.
– RACIAL, GENDER – It is balanced between same and different, for which last workshop was folks much more different.
Consistent since the previous workshop include relative diversity among factors of sexual orientation and ability.
I was immediately struck by the statement, ‘Training does little for creativity’. One of the topics I teach about is creativity, and we have several goals — rethinking what we actually mean by the word ‘creativity’, supporting people in growing confidence in their own ability to work in a creative way, and helping people think about whether/how creativity (or skills contributing to creativity) can be taught. We have a whole module/course about transdisciplinary working, which thinks about, e.g., design thinking and the double diamond approach as techniques to support creativity and to help people build what Kelley and Kelley (2013) refer to as creative confidence. Because creativity is emergent, I definitely think that there is no single, concrete entity called ‘creativity’ that can be taught — but I do think that people can be supported in becoming more comfortable with creative ways of working. I also think that *other people* are essential to this process: creative confidence is not developed in isolation, but through interactions and exchanges with other people. So ultimately I do actually agree with everything on this page even if that one statement feels a bit uncomfortable for me!
“Because creativity is emergent, I definitely think that there is no single, concrete entity called ‘creativity’ that can be taught — but I do think that people can be supported in becoming more comfortable with creative ways of working.” — I definitely agree!
I enjoy this exchange between you/Caitlin and Harold.
(TANGENT AHEAD)
And while I don’t have much to add, I always recall what a friend (filmaker, photographer) shared as part of his exploration of creativity re: Christian Julmi’s work re: creativity. One paper shared – “Creativity in the corporeal, hermeneutic and analytical domains”, https://www.fernuni-hagen.de/scherm/docs/julmi__2017__-_creativity_in_the_corporeal__hermeneutic_and_analytical_domains.pdf … and this egan our spirited and sometimes snarky conversations about how some self-proclaimed ‘content creators’ somewhat hijacked the term creativity, as if implying their creativity (and therefore course work sold to teach people creativity) by virtue of being a content creator. (I’ll spare my soap box rant.)
What was in my blindspot, are where does the network is coming from and if there are some patterns associated.
It makes even more vivid relationships with the paradoxical theory of change in Gestalt:
Arnold Beisser adaption John Leary -Joyce
Change happens when you accept who you are
Change is effort when you want to be different from who you are
Note: I had trouble to drop a line without posting the comment
it is only when we realise what is our network, that we can start to work on it. I really like the six basic categories: information, political support and influence, personal development, personal support and energy, a sense of purpose or worth, and work/life balance. And also the different taxonomies introduced it is helping me in a way to realise some link I forgot. It is fascinating, that people I meet every week and really valuable appeared way later in the introspection.
I would be curious to have more visualisation of network, I realised also inmaps or Linkedin Maps are discontinued. Do you have some easy tools we can use to try to see our Linkedin network, or even uploading some data to have a visualisation?
I used to include the LinkedIn Labs visualization tool in this workshop, but I have not found a decent low-cost replacement.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the results of this exercise, in which I had 14 different people (I don’t know if that’s a lot or a little), mostly from Spain, the US, and lately Brazil, and only three women (which I didn’t like at all). The number of women increases when I think of other domains/situations in which I seek expertise, so I’ve realized that the percentage changes depending on the questions you ask.
On the other hand, it’s a fundamental exercise: choosing the questions and what part requires my attention at this moment. Thinking about that is the best investment I can make.
Toni, While I don’t know if 14 is a lot or a little, when I’ve done this exercise during past workshops, my range for the network mapping has been 14-18 folks.
And I mention in my reply that I’ve come to realize the context of my network and current events/activities definitely shapes with whom I interact. In past years, I had a broader distribution of my more frequent interactions with folks outside of the US. However, because of politics and client projects focusing on domestic energy projects, I noticed shifts in various diversity factors, e.g., gender, racial, ethnic, age experience, and religion.
Taking inventory about from/with whom I exchange knowledge is always an interesting exercise. I did this lesson during the October 2025 course. As a returning student, below are my thoughts after responding to both the seven “Network Mapping” questions and “Alternative Questions” – as it is interesting to compare if/where there are overlaps of persons and the composition of diversity.
CONTEXT of my NETWORK
As a solopreneur, I’ve defined my “organization” to include an informal board of advisors and regular mentors associated with my environmental-related work and evolving my consulting and coaching practice. Historically, I defined my work primarily environmental-related. However, this has expanded as I’ve developed other interests, skills, and simply life experiences. I am among folks in the following spaces: behavioral science, applied improv, coaching (professional and personal development), technical writing, content creation, philanthropy (food security), and carer/caregiving.
CURRENT EVENTS and ACTIVITIES SHAPE MY NETWORK
I believe these four area – politics, solopreneurship, caregiving/health, retirement horizon – shape and have shifted with whom I interact, e.g., frequency, topics, communities. With the U.S. politics, I’ve chosen to associate with more folks sharing similar perspectives for advocacy and activism opportunities. I’ve been “reshaping” my business offerings. I am more active in the group for whom I’ve volunteered since May 2019. My Mom Carer role has been more prevalent, in addition to minding my own health. And while I’m not yet poised to retire, I keep it in my line of sight especially as I mind my finances.
NETWORK MAPPING
COMPOSITION – I listed 14 among a potential of 28 unique folks. This is comparable to past workshops’ ranges (14-18 different folks). Of the 14, 6 are tried and true (e.g., family, mentors, advisor, close friend).
ANY SURPRISES?
There were no surprises but a few expected shifts since last year. I considered 9 of the 15 listed diversity factors. Among the shifts –
– AGE – an increase in folks older than me, which I attribute to my interacting with folks about eventual retirement
– LOCATION – an increase in more folks within the US/North America, which appears to be because of politics
– SEXUAL ORIENTATION – an increase of different sexual orientation, which appears to be diversity in groups I interact related to current events/politics
Consistent over the years include relative diversity among factors of race, ethnic, and religion.
ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS
I like the alternative questions because it looks at network/relationship interactions with a different lens of intentionality.
COMPOSITION
I listed 16 among a potential of 28 unique folks. 7 folks were also part of my Networked Mapping list, and therefore, 9 folks were different. Of the 16, 5 are tried and true (e.g., family, mentors, advisor, close friend) of which 2 are also part of network mapping folks.
ANY SURPRISES?
There were not any surprises but a few I found curious. As with the network mapping, I considered 9 of the 15 listed diversity factors.
I am curious about (since the last workshop) –
– AGE – an increase in folks older than me, which may be related to interacting with folks about eventual retirement
– LOCATION – There are much more in my same location (US), compared to last workshop.
– RACIAL, GENDER – It is balanced between same and different, for which last workshop was folks much more different.
Consistent since the previous workshop include relative diversity among factors of sexual orientation and ability.