Ronald Burt, structural holes and creativity

Burt’s theories on structural holes were immensely influentual when i was writing “Faceted Id/entity.” Thus, i was stoked to read a discussion of his work in the NYTimes: Where to Get a Good Idea: Steal It Outside Your Group. The article concerns his current research on creativity and how creative people are often noted to be bridges between diverse groups. They are taking material that is not valuable to one community and making use of it elsewhere where it is exceptionally valuable.

[Note to the operationally minded: Read the logical ordering of the above statements again. Burt’s research concerns tracking creative people. This does not necessarily mean that one becomes creative by positioning oneself as bridges. Logical ordering matters.]

“Think Tank”
by Michael Erard

[Ronald S. Burt, a sociologist, says: “Creativity is an import-export game. It’s not a creation game.”]

Got a good idea? Now think for a moment where you got it. A sudden spark of inspiration? A memory? A dream? Most likely, says Ronald S. Burt, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, it came from someone else who hadn’t realized how to use it. “The usual image of creativity is that it’s some sort of genetic gift, some heroic act,” Mr. Burt said. “But creativity is an import-export game. It’s not a creation game.”

Mr. Burt has spent most of his career studying how creative, competitive people relate to the rest of the world, and how ideas move from place to place. Often the value of a good idea, he has found, is not in its origin but in its delivery. His observation will undoubtedly resonate with overlooked novelists, garage inventors and forgotten geniuses who pride themselves on their new ideas but aren’t successful in getting them noticed. “Tracing the origin of an idea is an interesting academic exercise, but it’s largely irrelevant,” Mr. Burt said. “The trick is, can you get an idea which is mundane and well known in one place to another place where people would get value out of it.”

Mr. Burt, whose latest findings will appear in the American Journal of Sociology this fall, studied managers in the supply chain of Raytheon, the large electronics company and military contractor based in Waltham, Mass., where he worked until last year. Mr. Burt asked managers to write down their best ideas about how to improve business operations and then had two executives at the company rate their quality. It turned out that the highest-ranked ideas came from managers who had contacts outside their immediate work group. The reason, Mr. Burt said, is that their contacts span what he calls “structural holes,” the gaps between discrete groups of people.

“People who live in the intersection of social worlds,” Mr. Burt writes, “are at higher risk of having good ideas.”

People with cohesive social networks, whether offices, cliques or industries, tend to think and act the same, he explains. In the long run, this homogeneity deadens creativity. As Mr. Burt’s research has repeatedly shown, people who reach outside their social network not only are often the first to learn about new and useful information, but they are also able to see how different kinds of groups solve similar problems.

Mr. Burt began developing his idea about “structural holes” – the notion that people can find opportunities for creative thinking where there is no social structure – as a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the 1970’s. A student of the eminent sociologist James Coleman, he was assigned to study patterns of exchange between companies using a technique called block modeling, which classifies individuals and organizations according to a large amount of data on what they buy, who they know and more. Structural holes between companies was a theme in his 1977 dissertation and became a focus in his 1992 book, “Structural Holes,” which applied it to individual behavior.

In 2000 Mr. Burt took the idea of structural holes to Raytheon, where he was hired to help integrate a group of recent acquisitions. What he discovered was that many potentially good ideas died at the hands of those who brought them. Raytheon managers had a wide gap between coming up with good ideas and making them happen.

“Although managers with discussion partners in other groups were positioned to spread good ideas across business units,” he writes, “the people they cited for idea discussion were overwhelmingly colleagues already close in their informal discussion network.” The result was that the ideas were not developed. Instead, he says, they should have had discussions outside their typical contacts, particularly with what calls an informal boss, a person with enough power to be an ally but not an actual supervisor.

Wayne Baker, a professor of management and organization at the University of Michigan Business School, said the structural holes approach reminds people to continually open up their networks, which naturally drift toward closure.

Mr. Burt’s theory may offer some caution for people who have been trying to enlarge their social networks on the Web by using “social software” at sites like Friendster, Ryze and MySpace. The idea underlying these computer hookups is that the better connected you are, the more valuable social capital you will have. But Mr. Burt’s work suggests the opposite: expanding your network may fill in the structural holes, eliminating their creative benefits. By linking everyone together indiscriminately, it becomes increasingly difficult to reach outside your regular contacts and surprise anyone with a new idea.

“My M.B.A. students tell me all the time: `Don’t disseminate this. This should be our little secret,’ ” Mr. Burt said. But he tells them there are more than enough structural holes to go around. The reason? Laziness, mostly. “Often people are like sheep eating grass,” Mr. Burt said. “They’re so focused on what’s right in front of them, they don’t look for the whole.”

Mr. Baker, who has evaluated thousands of personal social networks with a Web-based tool (, argues that neither model offers a formula for success, though. “If there is a rule of thumb in practice,” he said, “it is to have a hybrid network that has features of closure and structural holes.”

Mr. Burt offers somewhat different advice: “The easiest way to feel creative is to find people who are more ignorant than yourself.”

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company. Reprinted from The New York Times, Arts & Ideas, of May 22, 2004.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 thoughts on “Ronald Burt, structural holes and creativity

  1. Theresa Quintanilla

    While bridging does not make you creative, bridging is does help creative people get their ideas implemented. So Burt’s observations can be prescriptive for creative people. My favorite kind of research.

  2. Mike Churchill

    “Mr. Burt said. “The trick is, can you get an idea which is mundane and well known in one place to another place where people would get value out of it.”

    Alternatively, you can take a concept you don’t understand and riff on it. If it’s out of your audience’s expertise as well they may either a, call your bluff and ask questions, though doing so riskes exposing the holes in their own knowledge; or b, smile and applaud your genius. The answer, in some departments at least, is to complement the emperor on his fine clothes:

    _Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science_ By ALAN SOKAL and JEAN BRICMONT

    a quick introduction, snipped from the website for the book (below)
    great blog, btw!

    2) Importing concepts from the natural sciences into the humanities or social sciences without giving the slightest conceptual or empirical justification. If a biologist wanted to apply, in her research, elementary notions of mathematical topology, set theory or differential geometry, she would be asked to give some explanation. A vague analogy would not be taken very seriously by her colleagues. Here, by contrast, we learn from Lacan that the structure of the neurotic subject is exactly the torus (it is no less than reality itself, cf. p. 20), from Kristeva that poetic language can be theorized in terms of the cardinality of the continuum (p. 40), and from Baudrillard that modern war takes place in a non-Euclidean space (p. 147)–all without explanation.

    3) Displaying a superficial erudition by shamelessly throwing around technical terms in a context where they are completely irrelevant. The goal is, no doubt, to impress and, above all, to intimidate the non-scientist reader. Even some academic and media commentators fall into the trap: Roland Barthes is impressed by the precision of Julia Kristeva’s work (p. 38) and Le Monde admires the erudition of Paul Virilio (p. 169).

    4) Manipulating phrases and sentences that are, in fact, meaningless. Some of these authors exhibit a veritable intoxication with words, combined with a superb indifference to their meaning.

    These authors speak with a self-assurance that far outstrips their scientific competence: Lacan boasts of using “the most recent development in topology” (pp. 21-22) and Latour asks whether he has taught anything to Einstein (p. 131). They imagine, perhaps, that they can exploit the prestige of the natural sciences in order to give their own discourse a veneer of rigor. And they seem confident that no one will notice their misuse of scientific concepts. No one is going to cry out that the king is naked.

  3. Monkeymagic

    Mapping your blog mind revisited

    A while ago I posted some thoughts about creating a mindmap of your blog. I’ve spent the last couple of evenings fiddling around with tags, a little easy php and Ucinet, some SNA software. I thought I’d post the rough…

  4. Pingback: Think ‘Network Structure’ not ‘Networking’ « Connect « Innovation Leadership Network

Comments are closed.