Anyway, I turned down the position because I’m vying for a promotion right now (not that I’m necessarily very close to a promotion, but I’m actively working on getting one ), and I was told quite bluntly that there was no chance for promotion in the new assignment. One of those issues that sort of goes along with working in Corporate Functions. I was pretty upset about having to turn down the position, which of course made me second guess whether or not I was making the right choice . . . and I finally figured out why I was so upset. I sold out. I put my career and getting ahead in the company in front of doing important work, making a difference, and enjoying my job . . . something I never thought I’d do.

I’ve always dreaded the day that I would become a “Proctoid” – you know, one of those mindless office workers following orders and adapting to every whim of management just to get a little bigger piece of the pie. Procter and Gamble is notorious for its very efficient mass production of Proctoids (thus the name). My friends always told me I had it in me to become one, and I always laughed it off, certain that I was different. Well I might not be a Proctoid yet (I really hope not at least), but I certainly feel one significant step closer to the edge.

Bah. In spite of all that, I know I made the right decision. I can come up with all sorts of excuses for why it wasn’t really selling out, but at the end of the day it was just a crappy decision to have to make. I’m fairly certain that in the long run I’ll be more productive because I turned down the job. I just don’t feel very good about it right now.

Meanwhile artists and designers, long the idle and unemployed of society, have found themselves in high demand by large and reputable companies. They are given “creative spaces” and “creative time”. They are wined and dined like royalty.

Now don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a “woe is me” story. And I don’t disrespect designers – afterall, there must have been a damn smart designer somewhere that gained his (or her) profession a respectable name. But hear me out.

Scientists are now being taught about “design thinking”, being told that they need to find more “creative solutions”. Which I think is an excellent idea, aside from the fact that someone is assuming that scientists aren’t creative by nature (excuse me, but the reason I studied science was because of world of possibilities that it opens up. and an open air cube isn’t what I had in mind). Anyway. At the same time we are being told that we’re too expensive (this is a tough economy after all), so we need to become more efficient and find ways to measure and prove that we are being creative.

So my question here is: if we expect scientists to be creative, why not give them the type of environment that designers “require” to be creative? (Or if the environment isn’t really required, then how come the designers don’t have to live in cubes? But I hope that’s not the conclusion you draw from this).

Designers get their inspiration from unrelated things. Car designers study wild animals. Perfume bottle designers study male and female figures. These are now classic examples. But GM once told designer Bill Mitchell to “make this car look cool and powerful”, and Bill Mitchell went fishing. It’s a good thing he didn’t get fired though, because he came back with the design for the classic 1963 Corvette Sting Ray inspired by a Mako shark. The point is that neither Bill nor his boss knew that a shark was going to be the inspiration for the car.

I like photography. A lot (in case it doesn’t show). But P&G didn’t hire me because they thought a photographer would have the perfect insight into making diapers fit better. Nor did they hire me because my background in biochemistry was going to explain the physics of a diaper. Actually as far as I can tell they hired me because I sat down at my interview and explained how I thought a diaper could be improved to fit better (when asked – I didn’t prepare that one ahead of time :p ) But I can assure you that I have employed photography, video editing, biochemistry, psychology, health science, physiology, neurology, mathematics, design, architecture, rock climbing, and ok, maybe a little physics to improving diaper fit. Honest.

So that certainly does beg the question . . . why not give scientists the space to be a little more creative?