????只有三分之一的申請者最終能夠如愿選修該課程，不過，有一本新書介紹了教室里發生的一切，以及它對現實世界中的企業有何啟示。

????假設你身處于一屋子人當中，彼此之間此前都素昧平生，有人要求屋子里的人按照生日，即從1月1日到12月31日排成一隊——過程中不許說話。怎么辦？

????過去12年來，蒂娜?齊莉格教授一直在斯坦福大學（Stanford University）哈索?普拉特納設計學院（Hasso Plattner Institute of Design，常被稱為“D學院”）執教，開設一門關于創造與創新的課程，上述任務正是她給學生們出的難題之一。齊莉格還是斯坦福科技投資項目的執行總監。

????她在自己的新書《天才：創造力速成課程》（inGenius: A Crash Course in Creativity）中描述了學生們解決這一難題的常見做法——大多是靠某種臨時想出來的手勢語言，但很少能讓大家按正確順序排好隊。

????其實有些解決方法高效得多，但是很少有人想起來去嘗試一下，比如：每個人都把生日寫在一張紙上（不說話并不意味著不能寫字），然后按順序排隊；叫每個人都把自己的駕照拿出來，然后按上面印著的生日排隊；或是在地板上畫一條時間線，叫大家按順序站上去。

????“不論聽課者年齡多大，也不論他們的文化背景如何，這個簡單測試的結果都非常容易預測……不幸的是，大多數人都滿足于他們找到的第一種解決方案。”齊莉格寫道，而它“往往會帶來意料之中的平庸結果。”

????齊莉格指出，盡管如此，找出更好（乃至杰出）解決方案乃是人類與生俱來的本事。她說：“諾貝爾獎得主、神經生物學家埃里克?坎德爾說過，大腦是創意機器，天生為解決問題而存在。”她還補充說，書名中的“ingenious”一詞源于拉丁語中的“ingenium”，意為天生的能力或固有的才能。

????那么，為什么眾多企業覺得創新如此之難呢？很大程度上是因為：創造某種全新的東西意味著需要想出許許多多的點子，同時明知其中絕大多數都將歸于失敗。很少有企業作好了準備，可以容忍不可避免的失敗，更不用說鼓勵它們了。

????Facebook顯然做到了。其頂級高管知道“平均說來，他們嘗試的項目中有三分之一能成功，”齊莉格寫道。“這意味著，要取得四次成功，他們就得做十二次實驗。”Facebook每月舉行一次長達12個小時的“黑客馬拉松”（hack-a-thons），鼓勵員工們花上一整晚進行關于新項目的頭腦風暴，這帶來了數以千計荒唐、不切實際、毫無商業價值的點子——但也不乏一些好創意，比如Facebook Chat聊天工具。

????《天才：創造力速成課程》對任何真正希望創造出良好的環境、適宜新點子成長的企業來說都是一份令人向往的藍圖，齊莉格的許多學生毫無疑問也深有體會。可惜，教室里最大的風險無非是成績不佳，而絕大多數工作場所的情況并非如此，它們試驗失敗的風險實在太大了。

????譯者:小宇

????Only about one in three applicants gets into the course, but a new book tells what goes on behind the classroom door, and how it applies to real-world companies.

????Let's say you're one of a roomful of people, none of whom have ever met each other before, and someone asks the group to line up according to birthdays, from January 1 to December 31 -- without talking. How would you manage that?

????This is one of the tasks professor Tina Seelig gives students in a course on creativity and innovation she has taught for the past 12 years at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (known as the "D-school") at Stanford University. Seelig is also executive director of the Stanford Technology Ventures Program.

????In her new book, inGenius: A Crash Course in Creativity, she describes how students usually approach the problem -- most often by using some kind of improvised sign language, which rarely gets people lined up in the right order.

????A few of the far more effective solutions that no one thinks to try: Writing everyone's birthday on a sheet of paper (no talking doesn't mean no writing) and organizing the line accordingly; or having everyone pull out their driver's licenses and then lining people up by the dates printed there; or drawing a timeline on the floor and having everybody stand on it.

????"The results of this simple exercise are surprisingly predictable across ages and cultures…. Unfortunately, most people are satisfied with the first solution they find," Selig writes, which "very often leads to predictable and mediocre results."

????That's in spite of the fact that, Seelig insists, the knack for finding better (even brilliant) solutions is hardwired in humans. "Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist Eric Kandel says that the brain is a creativity machine, designed for problem-solving," she notes, adding that the word "ingenious" is derived from the Latin ingenium, which means natural ability or innate talent.

????So why do so many companies find innovation such a struggle? A big part of the answer is that trying to create something truly new means generating lots and lots of ideas, with the understanding that most of them are going to be flops. Few businesses are prepared to tolerate, much less encourage, the inevitable failures.

????Facebook is, apparently. Top management knows that "on average, about one-third of all projects they attempt will work out," Seelig writes. "That means that, in order to get four successes, they need to do a dozen experiments." Facebook's monthly 12-hour "hack-a-thons," where employees are encouraged to spend a night brainstorming new projects, have produced thousands of silly, impractical, unmarketable ideas -- but also some good ones, like Facebook Chat.

????inGenius is a fascinating blueprint for any company that's serious about creating an environment where new ideas can thrive, and many of Seelig's students doubtless go on to do precisely that. But in the vast majority of workplaces (unlike in, say, a classroom, where the biggest possible downside is a lousy grade), failed experiments are just too risky.