Why Creative People Seem “Inefficient” — And Why That Might Be Your Brand’s Biggest Advantage

If you’ve ever worked with a truly creative mind, you’ve probably felt the frustration: the deadlines stretch, the process looks chaotic, and their workspace is… let’s just say “curated in layers.” But here’s the twist — this apparent “inefficiency” isn’t a bug. It’s the hidden mechanism that often fuels breakthroughs.

In an age where businesses are obsessed with operational efficiency, creativity is quietly being squeezed out of the system. And yet, the brands that win — Apple, Patagonia, LEGO — all have documented cultures that give creatives room to explore, experiment, and yes, procrastinate.

• Apple: Walter Isaacson’s Steve Jobs (2011) and Ken Kocienda’s Creative Selection (2018) reveal how Apple’s design teams were allowed iterative development cycles, often refining prototypes for months before release.

• Patagonia: Yvon Chouinard’s Let My People Go Surfing (2006) and a Harvard Business Review case (2018) highlight Patagonia’s deliberate space for creative autonomy as part of its environmental mission.

• LEGO: David Robertson’s Brick by Brick (2013) details LEGO’s “Creative Core” approach, where small innovation teams are shielded from corporate bureaucracy to develop unconventional ideas that became global successes.

  
  

The corporate myth is that productivity = speed + volume. But in creative work, rushing can lead to mediocre, derivative output. Research in Psychological Science shows that moderate procrastination can actually increase creativity by allowing the subconscious to connect disparate ideas (Grant & Parker, 2009). In other words, what looks like “stalling” may be idea incubation in disguise.

Incubation Effect – Stepping away from a problem lets your subconscious process it, often leading to more novel solutions (Sio & Ormerod, 2009). Default Mode Network (DMN) – Brain activity during “idle” moments is linked to divergent thinking and creativity (Beaty et al., 2015). Attentional Diffusion – Creative individuals notice micro-details others ignore, which can feel slow but leads to richer insights (Vallée-Tourangeau et al., 2011).

This doesn’t mean missed deadlines are virtuous. The key is structured freedom — clear boundaries and deliverables, but enough time for deep work. Without discipline, “creative inefficiency” can become actual inefficiency.

Pixar famously uses “braintrust” sessions, where early ideas are raw and imperfect, and iteration is expected (Catmull & Wallace, Creativity, Inc., 2014). IDEO embeds a “messy middle” phase into projects because premature neatness kills innovation (Kelley & Kelley, Creative Confidence, 2013).

Allowing breathing space in the Ideation & Concepting stage yields the biggest payoff. Compressing this stage in the name of speed often leads to costly revisions later in production or even post-launch.

Creative inefficiency — when managed well — has tangible benefits at every stage of the customer journey:

• Awareness: Distinctive, well-crafted creative stands out in crowded feeds, boosting brand salience (Sharp, How Brands Grow, 2010; Romaniuk & Sharp, Building Distinctive Brand Assets, 2018).

• Consideration: Unique storytelling creates emotional hooks, increasing dwell time and brand engagement (Heath & Feldwick, IPA, 2008).

• Conversion: Campaigns with high creative commitment are more likely to drive action and reduce last-minute drop-off (Binet & Field, Effectiveness in Context, IPA, 2022).

• Loyalty & Advocacy: Memorable creative strengthens attachment, turning customers into repeat buyers and brand advocates (Keller, Strategic Brand Management, 2012).

A 2022 IPA Effectiveness in Context report found that campaigns with high “creative commitment” achieved 2.7× more profit growth than those optimised primarily for cost-efficiency.

From my desk:

In a hospitality project, the brand identity phase appeared slow at first — multiple moodboard iterations, pauses between workshops. But that space allowed a cross-disciplinary insight to emerge: integrating heritage elements into product naming. This became the campaign’s signature hook, directly lifting engagement in digital channels by over 40% within launch quarter.

The same patience that fuels creative work also mirrors how customers make buying decisions:

• Priming: Subtle cues embedded in crafted campaigns influence later choices (Bargh et al., 1996).

• Processing Fluency: Unique but coherent creative is easier to recall and trust (Reber et al., 2004).

• Peak-End Rule: Emotional “wow” moments stick in memory, influencing repeat purchases (Kahneman et al., 1993).

  
  

Originality sells. Distinctive creative work increases brand recall, lowers long-term cost-per-acquisition, and drives premium pricing power — something “efficient” but forgettable creative can never do (Keller, 2012; Binet & Field, 2013).

As AI speeds up content creation, human creative inefficiency will become a differentiator. The market will value work that feels deeply considered, layered, and non-templated. Expect brands to market their “crafted” creative process as a selling point.

Brand Drill: For your next campaign, build in a deliberate “off” day between brainstorming and finalising concepts. Track how often the best idea comes after that pause.

Closing Reflection: In a world chasing speed, maybe the real competitive edge lies in giving creativity the one thing it truly needs: time to wander.

Do you think procrastination can be a brand’s secret weapon — or is it just an excuse? Drop your thoughts in the comments.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review. Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244. Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2015). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(8), 435–443. Binet, L., & Field, P. (2013). The Long and the Short of It. IPA. Binet, L., & Field, P. (2022). Effectiveness in Context. IPA. Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc. Random House. Chouinard, Y. (2006). Let My People Go Surfing. Penguin. Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories. Academy of Management Annals. Heath, R., & Feldwick, P. (2008). 50 years using the wrong model of TV advertising. IPA. Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. Simon & Schuster. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B., Schreiber, C., & Redelmeier, D. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less. Psychological Science, 4(6), 401–405. Keller, K. L. (2012). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson. Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative Confidence. Crown. Kocienda, K. (2018). Creative Selection. St. Martin's Press. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. Robertson, D. (2013). Brick by Brick. Crown Business. Romaniuk, J., & Sharp, B. (2018). Building Distinctive Brand Assets. Oxford University Press. Sharp, B. (2010). How Brands Grow. Oxford University Press. Sio, U. N., & Ormerod, T. C. (2009). Does incubation enhance problem solving? Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 94–120. Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Steffensen, S. V., Vallée-Tourangeau, G., & Sirota, M. (2011). Insight and cognitive flexibility. Thinking & Reasoning, 17(4), 420–439.