Ed Catmull, Co-founder of Pixar

Fostering Truth and Insight in Organizations with Mechanisms like the Brain Trust

Many companies claim to seek truth and insight, but often, leaders are surrounded by people who tell them what they want to hear, influenced by politics and career aspirations. Pixar's Brain Trust developed a unique mechanism to foster honesty and comfortable feedback, circumventing these typical corporate dynamics.

Steve Jobs had a different yet complementary approach to gaining insight. He believed there was no upside to being wrong and would change quickly upon understanding something new. Famously, during Pixar's decade as a public company, Jobs fired two board members because they never disagreed with him, asserting they brought no value if they didn't challenge ideas. Pixar's board meetings were lively arenas of strong disagreement, which Jobs embraced, even frequently engaging in lengthy discussions with the speaker where they often disagreed but ultimately reached better understanding.

The core mechanism for genuine insight, according to the speaker, is to consistently focus discussions on the topic at hand, not on who is right. In a Brain Trust meeting, for example, the goal is to solve problems in a film, acknowledging the creative team's vulnerability and ensuring that participants' personal desires to contribute don't overshadow the critical analysis of the work. This approach helps maintain focus on the underlying issues rather than personal acceptance or rejection of ideas.

Achieving deep insight requires continuously 'peeling away the layers' of a problem to understand its true underlying factors. This is an inherently long-term and difficult strategy, contrasting with the common shortcut of making quick decisions based on limited, surface-level information. Organizations need specific mechanisms to facilitate this deeper, more insightful process.

The reason he fired them was that they never disagreed, and he said, 'If they don't disagree with me, then they aren't bringing any value to the company.'

The Evolution of Pixar's Brain Trust and Steve Jobs' Unique External Influence

Pixar initially relied on an external 'outside force' for candid feedback on their films, a role filled by Disney's Tom Schumacher. He provided a crucial external perspective, identifying issues in fragile early-stage projects that internal teams, too close to the work, might miss. This occasional, fresh viewpoint was highly valued for its ability to jar creators out of self-contained loops.

When Schumacher left, Pixar attempted to formalize this external critique by establishing the Brain Trust, where directors would review each other's films. This didn't quite work as an 'outside force' because the directors were too integrated. However, it unexpectedly evolved into an immensely capable internal problem-solving group, fostering peer-to-peer assistance rather than purely external correction.

Steve Jobs later stepped into the 'outside force' role, but strategically banned from Brain Trust meetings due to his powerful influence. His presence in those early discussions would have dominated the room and set the tone, hindering the organic flow of ideas. Instead, Jobs would see films at board screenings, receiving prior notice from Ed Catmull if there were issues, and then provide highly articulate feedback.

Interestingly, Steve Jobs rarely offered entirely new insights. Many of the points he raised had previously been mentioned by others in the Brain Trust, but went unheeded. His impact came from his clarity and articulation, which allowed him to 'break through' and make previously disregarded feedback finally resonate with the directors, even if the content wasn't original to him.

Steve was so clear and articulate that saying the same thing would actually break through in ways that he wouldn't hear from the others.

Steve Jobs engineered Pixar's IPO to gain leverage against Disney's unfavorable deal.

Pixar initially entered a three-picture deal with Disney, which Disney executives, particularly Michael Eisner, viewed as a commitment for “boutique films” similar to The Nightmare Before Christmas. They underestimated the potential of computer-animated features, believing audiences wouldn't sit through long CGI films. This perception led to a deal that Steve Jobs considered one of the worst he had ever made, fostering a deep resentment towards Eisner.

When Toy Story proved to be a groundbreaking success and the highest-grossing film of its year, Jobs recognized the power shift. Despite Pixar being in dire financial straits and betting heavily on Toy Story, he devised a bold strategy: to launch Pixar's Initial Public Offering (IPO) in the same week the film premiered. This move was intended to secure independent funding and establish Pixar as a major player.

Steve Jobs's logic was to force Disney's hand. With the success of Toy Story, Pixar would have unparalleled experience and intellectual property in computer animation. By becoming publicly traded and financially independent, Pixar would effectively become “Michael Eisner's worst nightmare”—a direct competitor funded in part by the very deal Disney had initially made. This leverage would compel Disney to renegotiate for an equal partnership, a position Pixar could only achieve with significant capital.

The strategy proved successful. The IPO provided Pixar with the necessary capital and bargaining power. They renegotiated a new five-picture deal with Disney, critically excluding sequels, which Disney had previously profited from on VHS. This demonstrated Pixar's newfound strength and ability to dictate terms, transforming their relationship with the animation giant.

The Breakthrough Success of Toy Story 2 and the Dispute Over Sequel Contracts

Disney initially held a low opinion of sequels, viewing them as inferior to original theatrical releases and relegating them to direct-to-video distribution. This perception was influenced by films like 'Rescuers Down Under,' which, despite being a technical innovation using Pixar's developed paint system, performed poorly at the box office due to a weak story. This outlook meant that when Pixar began working on 'Toy Story 2,' it was initially planned as a direct-to-video project, which created a significant morale issue for the Pixar team who aimed for the highest quality.

Pixar advocated for 'Toy Story 2' to receive a theatrical release, which Disney eventually agreed to. The film went on to become an enormous success, marking the first time an animated sequel achieved significant theatrical success. This achievement fundamentally shifted industry perceptions, demonstrating that sequels could be first-rate theatrical productions rather than just secondary releases.

The groundbreaking success of 'Toy Story 2' set the stage for a heated contractual dispute over 'Toy Story 3.' Steve Jobs argued that 'Toy Story 3' should be recognized as a full theatrical film, counting towards their original agreement, rather than being treated as a lesser sequel that fell outside the contract's terms. Michael Eisner, however, adhered strictly to the original letter of the agreement, leading to a major conflict between Jobs and Eisner, which contributed to the larger 'Disney War' detailed in a book of the same name.

The dispute also highlighted the emotional investment of the Pixar team in their characters. The idea of Disney producing 'Toy Story 3' without Pixar's involvement was akin to 'somebody else raising my child,' deeply impacting morale and trust between the two companies.

It's like saying, 'Now somebody else is raising my child. Yeah. And they're gonna do a terrible job.'

Steve Jobs's Personal Battle and Commitment to Pixar's Future

Steve Jobs faced a challenging period as Pixar's contract with Disney was ending, coinciding with his cancer diagnosis. This created an emotional and uncertain time for him personally and for the future of the animation studio.

Despite his health battle, Jobs had clear priorities. He wanted to ensure his family's well-being, see his son graduate from high school, and importantly, make sure Pixar was in a strong position moving forward. He was resolute that Pixar would not remain with Disney under the terms of their expiring agreement.

This difficult time included moments like showing the first, then-secret, iPhone to colleagues, a stark reminder of his determination to secure his legacy across all his ventures. His focus on Pixar's stability highlighted his deep commitment to the company's independence and success.

he didn't know how long he was going to live...he wanted to make sure His family was taken care of, he wanted to see his son graduate from high school, and he wanted to make sure that Pixar was in, in good shape.

Bob Iger's Candor Leads to Pixar Acquisition

After Michael Eisner's departure, Bob Iger stepped into the CEO role at Disney with a clear understanding of the company's animation struggles. He observed that during a Disney park parade, all the popular characters were from Pixar, not Disney Animation, which underscored the critical need for change.

Upon becoming CEO, Iger's second call, after his family, was to Steve Jobs. In this conversation, Iger admitted Disney Animation's dire state, despite internal claims that issues were nearly fixed. This blunt assessment of Disney's "crappy hand" surprised Steve Jobs.

Iger's honesty, a rarity in high-stakes negotiations, immediately built a strong bond of trust with Steve Jobs. This candid approach was pivotal, allowing them to form a close relationship that paved the way for Iger's bold proposal to acquire Pixar, even against initial board resistance.

This acquisition was not just a business transaction but a strategic move driven by Iger's recognition of Pixar's value and his willingness to acknowledge Disney's weaknesses, ultimately revitalizing Disney's creative output.

I've got a crappy hand, can we talk?

Disney's Blind Spot: Why They Never Understood Pixar's Culture

For years, despite having contractual rights to observe all of Pixar's processes, no one from Disney ever inquired about their success, even as Disney's animation division declined and Pixar's thrived. Pixar's leadership found it curious that Disney remained incurious about the unique culture and operational methods that made them so different.

Ed Catmull theorized that Disney's lack of curiosity stemmed from a shallow conclusion: they believed Pixar's success was solely due to specific individuals like John Lasseter, Ed Catmull, or Steve Jobs, and thus irreplicable. This prevented them from exploring the underlying logic and distinct culture Pixar had meticulously built, which was unlike anything else in the entertainment industry.

This changed when Bob Iger became CEO. He immediately visited Pixar, arriving alone without an entourage, and spent an entire day observing their work, interactions, and ideas. His firsthand experience led him to understand the value of Pixar's operational style, prompting his controversial decision to acquire the company, a move the Disney board initially opposed as too risky.

Iger saw how well Pixar worked, the depth of their interactions, and their unique problem-solving approach to filmmaking. This observation highlighted that success wasn't just about individual talent but about the entire creative environment and culture, something Disney had overlooked for years.

There was a logic behind the way we built Pixar and the culture at Pixar, which is unlike anything else in the entertainment industry. There's nothing secretive about it. Nobody cared to know.

Pixar embraces difficult film projects and prioritizes team cohesion by sometimes changing directors.

Pixar deliberately takes on "hard problems" in filmmaking, believing that easy projects tend to be derivative. Tackling difficult concepts, like a rat who wants to cook, forces the creative team to innovate and find unique solutions, ultimately leading to more interesting and original films. This approach requires more time and effort, but the initial struggle is what differentiates the final product.

The studio prioritizes the spirit and cohesion of the team, even when early versions of a film are not working well. If the team is collaborating, laughing, and navigating challenges together, it's a sign to keep pushing through the difficulties. This collective faith is crucial for problem-solving and seeing a project to completion.

Pixar has a policy of changing directors if they lose the team's faith, a decision made even on major films like Toy Story 2. While directors can make various mistakes, losing the team's trust is the one thing they cannot do. This isn't a judgment on the director's skill but a recognition that collective belief is essential for a project's success.

The studio provides extensive support and guidance to directors, especially new ones, understanding the immense pressure of the role. However, if a director loses the team, a change is made to maintain momentum and ensure the film's quality. This flexibility even led to the development of "Inside Out" when a director, Pete Docter, pitched a new idea after taking a pass at an uncompleted project.

the director can't do, they can screw up in all sorts of ways, but they can't lose the team.

Quality as a Business Plan and Walt Disney's Embrace of Technology

John Lasseter, who led the production of Toy Story 2, coined the mantra "quality is the best business plan" which was a core belief at Pixar. This philosophy suggests that prioritizing the inherent quality of a product, whether it's a film or an everyday item, leads to long-term success rather than focusing solely on immediate growth metrics.

This quality-first approach stands in stark contrast to the short-term, growth-driven strategies exemplified by figures like Jack Welch at General Electric. While Welch was celebrated for high compound growth rates, his methods ultimately gutted GE's future research and led to its eventual fragmentation, proving that an exclusive focus on short-term financial metrics can make a company fragile and unsustainable.

Walt Disney, a pioneering innovator, embodied a similar long-term vision by consistently embracing new technologies. From early sound and matting techniques to partnering with Xerox to develop a specialized camera room for animation cells, Disney understood that integrating cutting-edge technology was crucial for invigorating his studio and creating groundbreaking experiences like Disneyland.

Disney's commitment to technological advancement and quality was foundational. He was always on the frontier, pushing boundaries to enhance the artistic and immersive aspects of his creations, which allowed his studio to maintain a competitive edge and produce enduring work that resonated with audiences for generations.

quality is the best business plan.

Ed Catmull's Driving Mission: Animation, Technology, and George Lucas

Ed Catmull's lifelong mission was to merge animation and technology. Early in his career, he attempted to bring technology to Disney Animation while in graduate school in 1973. However, the studio at the time, unlike Walt Disney himself, did not have technology in its DNA and rejected his proposal, even offering him a position on the Space Mountain ride instead, which he turned down as it conflicted with his core mission.

George Lucas was the first person since Walt Disney to truly believe technology would significantly impact filmmaking. After Star Wars, Lucas founded Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) because he couldn't acquire the specific technologies he needed for special effects. ILM became the high-technology hub of its time, solving complex cinematic problems through optical processes.

One subtle but critical problem ILM addressed was motion blur, which caused a distracting "strobing" effect or doubled edges in animation or stop-motion. While live-action cameras naturally captured blur due to exposure time, early special effects lacked this realism. ILM developed sophisticated motion control camera techniques and photochemical processes to artificially create and maintain natural-looking motion blur, making special effects more seamless and believable.

Recognizing that technology was rapidly changing, Lucas sought someone to lead further integration of computing into filmmaking. This quest led him to interview Ed Catmull after the first Star Wars, while Lucas was still working on Empire Strikes Back. This meeting marked the beginning of the Graphics Group, where Catmull's mission to combine technology and animation found a unique and powerful alignment with Lucas's vision.

The first person since Walt Disney to believe that technology was going to have an impact was George Lucas.

Ed Catmull Describes Post-Success Existentialism and the "Act of Separation"

Before the success of Toy Story, Ed Catmull had already learned a crucial lesson: about half of his theories would be wrong, a ratio he expected to continue throughout his life. This perspective wasn't pessimistic; instead, it allowed him to catch mistakes earlier and spend less time on incorrect decisions, making him more effective in the long run. He realized that acknowledging his fallibility was key to continuous learning and adaptation.

After Toy Story became a massive success, Catmull experienced an existential void, realizing his initial clear focus point had been achieved. He came to understand that the true "north star" for Pixar was not the technology itself, but the implicit long-term goal of making a good film. His new mission became building a sustainable, constantly changing culture that could continue to produce quality work, rather than just repeating past methods.

During this period, Catmull privately wrestled with a deeply personal question: how much of Toy Story's success was attributable to him, given his long journey in computer animation? He concluded that trying to answer this question was a "selfish" and detrimental "act of separation." He understood that major accomplishments are always the result of many people working together, and attempting to isolate one's individual contribution distorts this reality.

Catmull observed that true leaders, like Steve Jobs, understood the collective nature of success. He argues that asking "how much can I do on my own?" is the wrong question. Instead, the focus should be on "how much can I do with others?" Emphasizing individual credit undermines the collaborative spirit and the critical contributions of every team member, viewing colleagues as a "safety net" rather than essential partners.

asking the question might have been a natural thing to ask, but trying to answer it is an act of separation.

George Lucas Fostered a Collaborative Film Industry by Sharing Technology and Embracing Shared Success

George Lucas had a strong desire to contribute to the entire filmmaking industry, not just his own projects. He believed in sharing technological advancements developed at Lucasfilm, such as editing techniques and graphics or audio innovations, with other filmmakers. This approach aimed to strengthen the industry as a whole, rather than keeping advancements proprietary.

Lucas understood that the entertainment industry operates differently from other competitive fields. While a film's direct competitors might vie for audience attention, a healthy overall industry benefits everyone. If people enjoy going to the movies, it creates a larger market for all films, meaning that the success of one film doesn't necessarily detract from another.

This philosophy was evident in his relationships with fellow filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese. They would visit Lucasfilm to see new technologies, and Lucas and Spielberg celebrated each other's successes. For example, they recognized that an audience member watching Star Wars one day and Jaws the next created a win-win scenario, reinforcing the idea of a positive-sum game where shared success is mutually beneficial.

Lucas's perspective on competition was shaped by these experiences, leading him to prioritize a healthy industry over a cutthroat mindset. He actively developed tools and shared knowledge, believing that a thriving collective environment would ultimately uplift all participants.

If you go watch Star Wars today and Jaws tomorrow, no one loses in that situation.

George Lucas's Divorce Prompts Pixar's Sale to Steve Jobs Amidst Industry Transformation

George Lucas's divorce created a financial need that led him to sell the Graphics Group, the precursor to Pixar. Ed Catmull, who was running the group, had a vision to create computer-animated films, a goal not shared by Lucas, who was contemplating merging them into Industrial Light & Magic instead.

Steve Jobs showed early interest in the Graphics Group but then unexpectedly went silent for two months. This period of "ghosting" coincided with his departure from Apple, before he ultimately acquired the company.

The early 1990s, specifically 1991 to 1995, marked a profound transformation for Steve Jobs personally, for Pixar, and for the entire film industry. During this time, Jobs got married and had his son Reed, while Pixar signed a significant contract with Disney.

This era also saw groundbreaking films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park showcase electrifying computer graphics, fundamentally altering industry perceptions. The period culminated in the release of Toy Story in 1995, the first computer-animated feature film, leading to Pixar's public offering and ushering in a new world for animation.

years of '91 to '95 was when Steve made this major transformation.

Pixar built a peer culture to ensure all roles felt equally valued.

Pixar consciously developed a peer-based culture to avoid the common "first class, second class" dynamic found in many companies. From its inception, with a predominantly technical team, Pixar made a deliberate effort to integrate animators and artists, like Andrew Stanton and Pete Docter, as equals, not subordinates.

The studio's core principle was that technical and creative teams were not in service of each other, but rather collaborated as peers with the shared goal of making exceptional movies. This approach fostered an environment where individuals felt they were working alongside world-class talent across all disciplines, from art to sound and production.

This commitment to an egalitarian structure changed the internal group dynamics, setting Pixar apart from many traditional studios that often struggled to understand or implement such a subtle balance. While other studios might have a CTO, they often lack true technical expertise within their core "brain trust" at the top, leading to silos.

Despite the foundational effort, maintaining this peer culture was a continuous challenge. Even at Pixar, there were instances where groups emerged that felt marginalized or like "second class" citizens, demonstrating the difficulty and ongoing vigilance required to sustain such a dynamic.

it isn't like the technical people are in service of the filmmakers, the filmmakers are there just to show off the technology, it's we're all on this to make really great movies.

Cultivating Fun and Trust Through Subtle Signals and Irreverence at Pixar

Pixar noticed a cultural shift as its early, irreverent employees matured. New hires, observing their successful but now family-focused colleagues, became hesitant to display similar levels of spontaneous fun and irreverence, mistakenly believing it was inappropriate. This created a disconnect, as the original employees perceived the newcomers as lacking enthusiasm.

Recognizing that fun cannot be mandated, Pixar employed a bottom-up strategy. They identified "instigators" who would initiate playful, slightly irreverent activities without official corporate endorsement. These actions served as subtle signals, indicating to others that such behavior was acceptable and encouraging broader participation in spontaneous, creative expressions.

A core principle at Pixar was to minimize rules, believing that excessive regulations stifle creativity and force employees to constantly seek permission. Instead, they tolerated a wide range of behaviors, even those pushing boundaries, addressing occasional lapses in common sense individually rather than creating blanket rules. This approach fostered an environment where experimentation and bold actions, like disassembling a truck inside the office, were seen as part of the creative process.

Further reinforcing employee ownership and creative freedom, Pixar encouraged staff to radically customize their workspaces. This practice of continuous redecoration and personalization was viewed as a vital sign of a healthy culture, demonstrating that employees felt a deep connection to their environment and were empowered to shape it as part of their creative legacy.

As soon as you make more rules, then people are worried about, what are all these rules? Who do I have to ask for permission? So what we wanted was that people would do things without feeling they need to ask permission for everything.