

Google's 20% time would be more successful if interviews tested creativity. - amichail

Google interviews test technical ability, not creative ability. This is suboptimal when it comes to innovation via 20% time.<p>One possibility is to also test creative ability via on-the-spot brainstorming during interviews.<p>I think the real issue here is that most people at Google think that people with strong analytic abilities are also creative, so there is no need to test for the latter.
======
anamax
> Google interviews test technical ability, not creative ability. This is
> suboptimal when it comes to innovation via 20% time.

The "uncreative" could recognize creativity and join creative projects. Better
yet, both could join valuable projects.

As someone who is said to be quite creative, I think that creativity is
usually mis-evaluated, that the problem isn't under appreciation or over
appreciation. (Oh, and much of what passes for creativity isn't. It's merely
different.)

Creativity is not a subsitute for other good things, even though it often gets
the blame when the failure is with those things.

~~~
amichail
_The "uncreative" could recognize creativity and join creative projects.
Better yet, both could join valuable projects._

So you need a lot of uncreative people who would be happy to implement other
people's ideas? Hiring too many creative people would be bad?

~~~
anamax
One finished project is usually worth more than seven half-finished projects.

> Hiring too many creative people would be bad?

Yup.

Focus matters.

