Most organizations say they want to foster creativity. But decades of research by Jack Goncalo, PhD o4, reveals they misunderstand it in fundamental ways: Leaders often implicitly reject novel ideas and penalize creative people when they’re up for leadership roles. In our Season 5 kickoff, Goncalo unpacks the science behind why—and shares some genuinely counterintuitive findings: the conditions we think suppress creativity sometimes do the opposite. And the costs of creative work? They show up in places no one is tracking—including what your employees might eat and drink after a big brainstorm. Goncalo joins organizational culture experts Jenny Chatman and Sameer Srivastava to discuss why the bias against creativity is worst precisely when organizations need it most, why constraints and even social rejection can actually fuel original thinking, and why asking people to be creative all day has downstream consequences leaders aren't accounting for. *The Culture Kit with Jenny & Sameer is a production of Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM.*
Most organizations say they want to foster creativity. But decades of research by Jack Goncalo, PhD 04, reveals they misunderstand it in fundamental ways: Leaders often implicitly reject novel ideas and penalize creative people when they’re up for leadership roles.
In our Season 5 kickoff, Goncalo unpacks the science behind why—and shares some genuinely counterintuitive findings: the conditions we think suppress creativity sometimes do the opposite. And the costs of creative work? They show up in places no one is tracking—including what your employees might eat and drink after a big brainstorm.
Goncalo joins organizational culture experts Jenny Chatman and Sameer Srivastava to discuss why the bias against creativity is worst precisely when organizations need it most, why constraints and even social rejection can actually fuel original thinking, and why asking people to be creative all day has downstream consequences leaders aren't accounting for.
*The Culture Kit with Jenny & Sameer is a production of Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM.*
(Transcripts may contain a few typographical errors due to audio quality during the podcast recording.)
[00:00:00] Sameer Srivastava: Hi, Jenny.
[00:00:00] Jennifer Chatman: Hey, Sameer.
[00:00:01] Sameer Srivastava: It's been a while since we've been on mic together.
[00:00:04] Jennifer Chatman: It's great to be back and to kick off our fifth season of The Culture Kit.
[00:00:09] Sameer Srivastava: Wow.
[00:00:10] Jennifer Chatman: I get to take off my dean's hat and become a podcaster again.
[00:00:12] Sameer Srivastava: So, before we bring our guest in today, I want to ask you something, Jenny. Do you consider yourself a creative person?
[00:00:19] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah, that's a really hard question for me. I mean, I have a sister who's a legitimate artist, and so I think of her as having gotten all of the creative genetic code for our family, and me having gotten none of it. But then, you know, I think about, in the field of culture, which I've studied closely, I've tried to identify new ideas and put together disparate constructs. So, maybe a little bit.
[00:00:47] Sameer Srivastava: Yeah, in the domain of art, I can definitely say that when I've tried to draw things like dogs or cats, they’re often confused as pigs. And so, in that domain, I definitely would not describe myself as creative, but there are other domains in which I think I probably am more creative.
[00:01:02] Jennifer Chatman: So, it turns out the question could be more loaded than it sounds, and our guest today has spent 20 years figuring out why. So, let's get to it. I'm Jenny Chatman, a professor and dean at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, and this is The Culture Kit.
[00:01:19] Sameer Srivastava: And I'm Sameer Srivastava, also a professor at Haas and co-founder of the Berkeley Center for Workplace Culture and Innovation.
[00:01:27] Jennifer Chatman: Today, we're joined by Jack Goncalo, a professor of business administration at the University of Illinois Gies College of Business, and one of the leading researchers on the psychology of creativity and organizations. So, Jack and I go way back. He did his Ph.D. right here at Haas, and we've actually collaborated on research together, which I'm sure will come up. Jack, welcome to The Culture Kit. It's so great to have you.
[00:01:53] Jack Goncalo: Thank you. Thank you for having me. It seems like yesterday I was contemplating whether to attend Berkeley to get my Ph.D. at Haas. It turned out to be the best decision of my career, so I'm really happy to talk to you.
[00:02:06] Sameer Srivastava: Well, let me join Jenny in welcoming you, Jack. I have followed your work, and it really raises some provocative questions about whether organizations actually want creativity at work.
[00:02:16] Jack Goncalo: Well, it turns out they don't, so we can stop the podcast here, because apparently nobody wants it.
[00:02:22] Jennifer Chatman: Wait, wait. Don't go yet. We still have questions. So, Jack, let's start with one of your most important and most uncomfortable findings that speaks to our theme today. Every leader I know says they want a creative culture, but your research suggests that when a genuinely novel idea lands in front of them, something very different happens. What did you find?
[00:02:46] Jack Goncalo: Yeah. Well, we were, sort of, skeptical of this idea that creativity is the source of all things good, new knowledge, advances, new innovations. And so, given that assumption that creativity is inherently good, we should just figure out how to get more of it. And so, what we found, in a series of studies, is that people will explicitly say they want creative ideas. But there's an element of uncertainty that causes them to reject creative ideas when they're actually confronted with them.
And so, what people really want is, sort of, the Diet Coke of creativity. They want creativity that's familiar. They want creativity that doesn't call into question what I already believe to be true. They want creativity that doesn't cause conflict. And so, we got at that by developing a measure of creativity evaluation that really is inspired by the Implicit Association Test, which, sort of, captures people's sort of unconscious reactions to the prospect of evaluating a creative idea, and we found a real disconnect between what people say they want and what people actually prefer.
[00:03:51] Sameer Srivastava: Can you just maybe say a little bit more about the Implicit Association Test for those who are less familiar with it, and then maybe also give us just a concrete example of this phenomenon you're describing? What does it look like, say, in a pitch meeting or a budget discussion?
[00:04:04] Jack Goncalo: It's basically how easily and quickly I can associate two concepts. And so, what we found was that when we gave people the ability to respond to the concept of creativity, they more quickly and easily connected that with negative words like "vomit" and "poison" than they did with positive ideas. And so, that implicit measure captured something that people couldn't really articulate but was nevertheless driving their decisions.
I can give you a concrete example from my personal life. My father worked for Intel for most of his career, and he worked under a CEO named Andy Grove, who famously wrote popular management books about, "You should disagree with your boss, and we want to hear all of your wild ideas, and we want to hear we… You know, there's no limits."
And the first time that my dad suggested something that was at odds with what the CEO wanted, he was escorted into early retirement. So, he retired at 53, not because he wanted to, but because he disagreed with the boss in one meeting, and it was over something very trivial. And so, I think that what we're left with is the reality that we're navigating a very treacherous environment in which people say one thing and they really want another. And so, if you want to get your creative ideas through, it's almost as though you have to formulate them to be as inoffensive and bland as possible or risk rejection.
[00:05:31] Jennifer Chatman: Well, and reactions to creative ideas or divergent ideas you found, it gets even more intense and more reactive when there's great uncertainty. So, the times when organizations probably need creative ideas most is when they're also most likely to reject them. Is that true?
[00:05:52] Jack Goncalo: Yeah. That's what we found. I mean, you would think that when times are uncertain, and we don't know the way forward, and we need new ideas to figure out how to navigate an uncertain environment, you want to welcome creative ideas, but that's precisely when people are uncomfortable and actually reach for the familiar rather than what's new and different and threatening.
[00:06:12] Sameer Srivastava: So, this next question I'm going to direct to both you, Jack, and to you, Jenny, because the two of you co-authored a paper on political correctness and creativity that I think will genuinely surprise our listeners. So, tell us what you found, and how did you even come up with that question?
[00:06:27] Jack Goncalo: Well, I think that project was about political correctness, and again, the theme is this concept of uncertainty. And when you put people in a situation where you ask them to be creative, it's a very uncertain process. I'm not sure how people are going to react to my ideas, but also interpersonally I may be in a team where there's a mix of people who are different from me. In the case of our paper, we looked at gender. And I may be in a mixed-sex group where men are worried that they're going to inadvertently say something sexist and inappropriate, women are worried that they're going to be stereotyped or misunderstood or rejected.
And so, people in those environments are really hesitant to share what they know or share their most unusual ideas. And so, people pull back and share the most boring ideas they have because they're safe. And so, our idea there was that there's a norm for being politically correct that, in the media, has been associated with an affront to the First Amendment right to free speech, for being un-American, for being a waste of time, for being a straitjacket. But what we found was that the opposite was true when we applied the politically correct norm to mixed-sex groups who were asked to generate ideas together.
And what we found was that the PC norm, sort of, counterintuitively provided a framework within which people knew what to expect when they were interacting with people who are different from them. And that uncertainty reduction made people feel more comfortable sharing their more novel ideas. And so, the only downside is we chose to make the point about uncertainty reduction in the value of norms using political correctness, which is the most socially charged and controversial term that we could have possibly used.
[00:08:14] Jennifer Chatman: But what was also interesting is that we tried other norms for reducing uncertainty, including the norm of politeness and the norm of sensitivity, and neither of those norms helped increase the level of creativity in the groups. It was something specific about the gender diversity that the politically correct norms addressed that allowed both men, who again were uncomfortable because they were worried they would say something that would be viewed as sexist, and women, who were worried that they would be stereotyped as not smart, it resolved those uncertainties, and so it really was quite profound. And we got interesting emails about the paper, but, you know, science is science, and we needed to present what we found.
[00:09:03] Sameer Srivastava: So, the paper was published a few years back. If you were to extrapolate to today's environment, do you think that finding would hold up in today's world?
[00:09:11] Jack Goncalo: That's interesting. I think it would hold. I think it would be even stronger, because I think that, if anything, political correctness is even more charged now than it was then. And so, maybe there, because it's under so much discussion, that people have an even stronger and more widely shared definition of what that means, and it's more closely tied. But there may be other terms that have replaced it, like "woke" or something that I'm not aware of. But it would definitely be interesting, 10 years later, to do a replication and see where we're at.
[00:09:43] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah, I mean, I agree with you, Jack. I think that if you got past the point where people just outright rejected the norm, saying, "We don't do wokeness," and if you let them take in this framework idea that Jack described, you know, making people feel more comfortable to take interpersonal risks and suggest new ideas, then I think the results would be exactly the same, but you'd have to get through that initial rejection of the norm.
I want to ask Jack about some of your findings on who is creative, because some of these ideas are pretty provocative. So, you found that narcissists are actually more creative in groups and that socially rejected people produce more original thinking.
[00:10:32] Jack Goncalo: So, with the narcissism, I will say that paper was written in 2010, before we fully understood the malignant effects of having narcissists around. But what we found in that paper was that it's not that narcissists are creative themselves. Narcissism as a trait doesn't confer any advantage in terms of creative problem solving, but what we found was that adding them to a group contributed to a dynamic that allowed other people to, or emboldened other people to, express their ideas.
And so, their confidence, their brashness, their willingness to interrupt, to call attention to themselves, seemed to have a stimulating effect on other people and, sort of, emboldening people. "Well, they can say that. Maybe I can say it, too." And they were at a particular advantage when they were asked to pitch ideas. And so, we asked them to, you know, narcissists to come into a lab situation and pitch an idea for a new movie, and they came in there and, "You're about to hear the best idea you have ever heard for a new movie. Let me tell you."
And so, we coded their actual movie ideas, and there was nothing, there was nothing. It was not that they were bad, but they were not good. But the problem is that if you don't know any better, if you don't have clear standards by which you can judge what's creative or what's good or what isn't, it's easy to fall for that because you think, "Well, they believe in their ideas so much. Maybe I can just go along with it."
And the flip side of that is, if you're really modest, like at the beginning of this podcast, "Am I creative? Well, I don't know. Maybe a little bit." Come on. You know, like, if you're modest, people will think, "Well, if they don't even believe in their own ideas, why should I endorse it? If you don't even believe in what you're saying to be true, why should I believe it?" You know, and onto the next one.
And so, the idea that narcissists are destructive and so forth, it's a point well taken. I think if you're rereading that paper now, I think what we wrote is a bit naive, more than a bit naive. But I think what we can take from the narcissist is confidence, but real confidence. I think what we want are people who really believe in their ideas. It's not that I'm playing a game or that I want attention or that I, you know, I'm just saying things to get away with something. It's that I walk in there and I really do believe that I've done good work and that my idea is good, and that confidence is, sort of, translated into charisma, into persuasion, and so forth.
And this goes back to, you know, even the 1960s, where they were showing that the act of taking the head seat at a meeting, whether your ideas are good or not, makes people listen to you. And so, that's where the narcissist gets it right. But I think we can take a kernel of narcissism, which is the display of confidence, and we can learn from that and jettison the malignant insecurity and aggression and so forth that we now know is characteristic of how narcissists navigate.
[00:13:27] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah. Actually, I was just going to comment on a paper that Juliana Schroeder, one of my colleagues here at Haas, and I have written on narcissists in groups, and it turns out that narcissists in groups help other narcissists in their groups to do better, but they don't do as much for people who are low on narcissism. So, I think it might be an acquired taste, but...
[00:13:51] Jack Goncalo: Interesting.
[00:13:52] Sameer Srivastava: So, sticking with this question of who is more creative, one of your other findings speaks to social rejection. Can you say a little bit more about that and how it influences creativity?
[00:14:03] Jack Goncalo: Yeah. So, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence and stories of creative people describing themselves as misfits, as outsiders, as rejects. And so, I was, sort of, curious, is the experience of social rejection an experience that can fuel creative thought? And so, I went to the literature on social rejection in psychology, and it painted a really dark picture that social rejection thwarted the human need for connection, causes people to literally feel physically cold, it interferes with problem-solving. But we found that creativity is an exception, and it depends on your sense of self.
So, we did an experiment where we brought people into the lab, and we put them through an experience of being rejected by their peers. And what we found is that, for people who have a very independent sense of self, "That I can go my own way, that I don't care what groups think of me, that I don't feel particularly connected." The experience of social rejection was interpreted not as a negative thing. It's not that I'm weird in a negative way, but it's just that I'm different, and that salient sense of being different helps people reach for more unusual solutions.
The opposite happens if you have an interdependent sense of self. So, the people who are needy and want to remain connected to the group and care what other people think, the experience of social rejection for those people is devastating. Their sort of posture toward the group was, "I will do anything, including telling you what you want to hear and playing it safe and being good so that you'll admit me back." And that is really the opposite of what you want for creativity.
But again, social rejection, I think of as almost a creativity vaccine that if you've gone through it, that you can put up with all of the socially controversial barriers, all of the biases, all of the things that people without that independent sense of self would cause them to run. And so, I think that if you're looking for people to be creative, and people who describe themselves as, "I never quite fit in, you know, I was always a misfit, I was never included, and yet I lived," those are the people you want, because they've already faced the worst of what the creative process has to offer and have profited from it.
[00:16:15] Sameer Srivastava: So, on a different topic, Jack, you've written that when people do creative work, it feels like an act of self-disclosure, like sharing something personal. Tell us a little bit more about that. And you've actually tested this in some pretty creative ways, I believe, including an experiment that involves unusual candle scents.
[00:16:32] Jack Goncalo: Yeah. Well, so just to take a step back. You know, we've had decades of research looking at idea generation with the goal of figuring out how to get people to generate more ideas and a wider range of ideas. And so, my colleagues and I have started to look at the flip side, which is that, if you ask people to engage in the process of being creative, in the process of generating ideas, are there downstream, psychological, behavioral, interpersonal consequences of this?
And so, the self-disclosure paper is really a part of that new stream of research that we're looking at. But with respect to self-disclosure, I think there's a view of creativity that's almost computational, that people, sort of, consider what's known, and we, sort of, dispassionately combine things in ways that maybe are novel and that we present them to the world.
But we found that actually the act of being creative is quite personal, that we reach into our prior experiences, our personal preferences, things that we've done in the past to come up with ideas that are creative, but it's deeply rooted in what we've experienced in the past. And so, creativity is quite personal.
And so, we had people, as you mentioned, generate ideas for new candle scents. And what we found was the most unusual ones were the ones where people had a memory. It's like, "I have a really deeply personal memory of a time that I lit a candle." And it could be a funeral, it could be my grandmother's kitchen, it could be a date, it could be anything. What's interesting is that everyone's unique in a lot of ways, and there is no duplicating an individual and their experience.
And so, to the extent that people rely on personal experience, you get creative ideas, but you also get people feeling as though they have engaged in an intimate act of self-disclosure. "I've not just shared an idea, I've shared something about myself with you," which I think provides a deeper explanation for why people are so hurt by rejection. It's not because you rejected my idea, it's that you also rejected where it came from, that I took the opportunity to share something about myself with you that is intertwined with what that idea is, and when it's rejected, that it's hurtful.
I'll also say one of the interesting findings, too, is that it's an interpersonal phenomenon. So, we put people into pairs, and we had them generate ideas and then read each other's ideas to each other, right, to their partner, and then we had them rate the extent to which they were confident that they understood this person's personality. And we found that when you share your creative ideas with someone, it makes your partner feel as though they understand something about you.
So, it's not just that you feel as though you've disclosed. It also is a way of allowing people to understand part of who you are. And so, again, the theme here is that engaging in the creative process isn't a benign thing. It's a psychological experience that has downstream consequences.
[00:19:29] Jennifer Chatman: Okay, so this might be one of my favorite studies that you've ever done. So, you recently ran a series of experiments with something like 3,400 people, looking at what happens to employees after they've done creative work, and the findings involve, like, burgers, cocktails, and workout plans. Tell us everything.
[00:19:51] Jack Goncalo: Well, the working title of that paper was "Fat, drunk, and lazy." This was another paper in the stream of research we're looking at, what are the psychological consequences of engaging in the creative process?
And so, we thought that, building off of earlier work where we found that people who generated creative ideas felt as though it was liberating, that I was free to cross categories, to generate unusual ideas, to overturn conventions, to break norms, that when I was done with all that, I, sort of, felt like I could diverge in whatever way I want, and that included decisions about what I want to do after the creative act is completed, and that involves self-indulgence.
And so, the idea is that being creative is disinhibiting, and it disinhibits people from controlling or constraining themselves to doing things that are necessarily healthy.
And so, we set up a bunch of experiments where we had people generate creative ideas and then build their own burger, where we tracked the number of calories in the burgers that they were building. We asked people to build their own cocktails, tracking the amount of alcohol they put into the cocktail. We asked people to build their own exercise routines, tracking the number of calories burned.
And what we found was that people who generated creative ideas built hamburgers that were more caloric, they constructed cocktails that were more alcoholic, they generated exercise routines that burned fewer calories, hence "Fat, drunk, and lazy." And it was all, sort of, mediated by this sort of sense of disinhibition that occurs when people are, sort of, immersed in this creative process.
And it's consistent with an earlier paper where we looked at how people manage the physical burden of keeping a big secret. And previous research found that keeping a secret is actually not just psychologically burdensome, but physically burdensome, that it feels as though I'm carrying a big weight. And what we found was that giving people the outlet of being creative, because you experience this liberating effect, it actually lifted the physical and psychological burden of secrecy.
We're still at an early stage, starting to piece together what these consequences are, but I think my money is on this idea that it's somehow disinhibiting rather than, sort of, a sense of entitlement, like, "I've done something great." It's more about that I've been free to roam and free to question things and free to do all kinds of break norms and do all this stuff, and now I feel free to, you know, wash that burger down with a couple of martinis.
[00:22:28] Sameer Srivastava: Yeah. If we take the premise, Jack, that this disinhibited mindset that, on one hand, makes people more creative also carries over into these personal choices and may lead them to make less good personal choices, what does that mean for organizations, which, increasingly, are asking employees to be creative all day, every day?
[00:22:45] Jack Goncalo: You better put in your budget something for, you know, a treadmill or a gym so that people can work it off. I mean, I think the big picture is that, again, this is a very new stream of research, and so we are starting to piece together the upsides and downward consequences and risks of putting people through this creative experience. And we found some positives. So, this, you know, this liberating effect, that it's an outlet, that it helps me lift psychological burdens, it gives me a sense of autonomy, it helps me connect with people.
On the other hand, it may make people self-indulgent in ways that might add up to unhealthy behaviors. And I can't speak beyond our lab data, so I don't know if, you know, this is the kind of behavior that's going to add up to create real, measurable health problems. But I do think it raises caution flags around the idea that asking people to be creative at work is consequence-free. And yes, you get creative ideas, but what we're finding is that you get a lot of other byproducts that may or may not be positive, and that we know very, very little about.
I guess that's what I really want to convey, is that this is a very early stream of research, and we're just now starting to, sort of, piece together the full picture of what I think will add up to what it means to have a creative lifestyle, for all of the deficits and costs that it might incur and all the rewards, too. And so, we'll see.
I think that maybe you can invite me on in five years, and I might have more to report, but I guess what I'm really excited about is this, sort of, new stream of research, because there's so much work to do to understand the psychological consequences of putting people through this experience that I think most organizations take for granted. You know, it's cheap and easy to say, "Go be creative," but it's hard to appreciate what the consequences might be for people who are actively engaging in that process.
[00:24:41] Jennifer Chatman: So, one thing I want to make sure we address before we wrap up is that a lot of organizations are using AI to generate creative ideas, like first drafts, design concepts, product ideas, right? You name it. If your research is right that the value of creativity isn't in the output, but in the act of creating it, what do leaders need to think about?
[00:25:05] Jack Goncalo: I think that we have to grapple with the fact that there are real losses incurred if we have technology bypass the experience, the personal experience of engaging in this creative process.
There is a human element to this process, and I think that not only will using AI, I think, cause people to lose the ability to be creative, which is scary enough, but it will also, I think, cause us to lose what makes us human in the first place, the fact that, for instance, there is only one me in this world. There is only one experience that I have had. There's only one way, really, to share that with the world, and that's through the creative acts that we share with others. And if I'm farming that out to AI, I have lost the individual windows that human beings present as opportunities to us, and to me, that's a profound loss.
And I tell my students that, who want to use AI to write everything. Where are we going to get the next Hemingway? Like, where are we going to get the next unique voice that comes about because you actually undertook the effort, the process of trying to share something of yourself with the world. And I know it's cheap and easy, and so this is something that, you know, I struggle with as a teacher. There's this impulse, and I had students, for instance, brainstorm alternative uses for a brick, which is just a classic alternative measure of cognitive flexibility. Immediately, they whip open their laptops, "ChatGPT, tell me some alternative uses for a brick."
So, I said, "Well, give me your alternative uses for a brick." "Well, build a bridge, build a castle, whatever." And I was like, "Well, did anyone come up with 'use the brick as a topic of conversation,' 'use the brick to cast a shadow,' 'use the brick as a sundial,' 'pulverize the brick into dust and use it to exfoliate your face'?" No, because that would've taken your idiosyncratic personal experience that you would've had to make the effort to share with everyone else.
And what you get by using these AI tools is a bunch of boring, mundane stuff that already exists in the world. You've lost your opportunity to think and to share and to, you know, dig into the process. And it's a loss, I think, and maybe I'm just an old, close-minded curmudgeon, but I do think that when you remove the human equation from this process, that we've really lost something.
[00:27:41] Sameer Srivastava: Yeah. So, keeping the human equation in mind, if a leader were listening to us right now, and that leader wanted to know from you three things that he or she could do to make their organization be more creative and treat creativity differently, what would you advise?
[00:27:56] Jack Goncalo: Well, I think a few things. One is you have to think about the mix of people that you're working with. And as I mentioned, I think that if I had to pick a team, it would be the people who said, "You know, I didn't fit in. I have a history of not seeing things the way everyone else does." Once you get people like that, I think you have to be supremely attentive to social norms in how they operate in groups.
And I think that there are two alternatives, depending on... Again, this is a subtle, there are boundary conditions. But if you have a group, for whatever reason, that is feeling a heightened level of uncertainty, then you want to make sure that you use social norms to provide a framework that guides people and gives them a set of expectations that make them feel comfortable sharing.
If not, I also think there is value still to creating norms that allow people to stand out, to be different, to assert their uniqueness, to engage in conflict when it's constructive and when it's appropriate. And I think that that kind of atmosphere is very easy to lose because people tend to converge very quickly around things that they can find agreement over, and not, sort of, dwell in disagreement and ambiguity.
And I think the next thing to consider is that if you get the process right, you're going to have a wide range of creative ideas from which to choose, but you can't pursue every idea to fruition. You have to actually have a process in place to fairly evaluate which idea you're going to pursue, so that you don't fall prey to the charismatic narcissists, that you don't fall prey to biases against creative ideas that are rooted in fear, that you have the criteria and the process in place to contain—for instance, there are always hierarchies. People at the top will speak first and speak often. How are you going to shield the people who may be more shy and fearful at the bottom of the hierarchy, who may have better ideas than the people at the top? What's your process for doing that? And I think that thinking about how you define what's creative in advance, what's the process you're going to follow, how is it fair, is it going to be anonymous or not, what kind of ideas are you looking for, I think those are really important things to keep in mind.
[00:30:17] Jennifer Chatman: Well, Jack, this has been incredibly interesting, and you brought up some very, very deep and profound questions about the value of creativity. So, I've learned a lot from you, and we can't wait to host you this coming year at Haas.
[00:30:35] Jack Goncalo: I'm so looking forward to it.
[00:30:38] Sameer Srivastava: Thanks so much, Jack. Looking forward to having you here.
[00:30:39] Jack Goncalo: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
[00:30:44] Jennifer Chatman: Thanks for listening to The Culture Kit with Jenny and Sameer!
[00:30:47] Sameer Srivastava: The Culture Kit podcast is a production of the Berkeley Center for Workplace Culture and Innovation at the Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM. If you enjoyed the show, be sure to hit that subscribe button, leave us a review, and share this episode online so others who have workplace culture questions can find us, too!
[00:31:08] Jennifer Chatman: I'm Jenny.
[00:31:09] Sameer Srivastava: And I'm Sameer.
[00:31:11] Jennifer Chatman: We'll be back soon with more tools to help fix your work culture challenges.