For Customer Insights this week, we were asked to read and reflect on How to Be Creative, an article in the Wall Street Journal that discusses new studies which show that creativity may not be the magical super-power we non-creative types have come to believe it is. New studies have shown that the reason creativity may be so difficult is because it’s not formulaic, like other skills we learn. While taking a break and having a beer may work best with one type of problem, continuing to think about something relentlessly may work for another. The good news, the author states, is that our brain tends to sense when we’re on the right track and when we’re not, we just have to learn to listen to it.

Having gone from a consulting job to an advertising job pre-business school, I completely agree with the author – creativity is something you can get better at. I don’t, however, think it’s something you can do alone in an organization. To be innovative, organizations have to help their employees by changing the constraints of the firm to allow for creativity. The three main factors organizations need to consider when looking to innovate are environment, motivation and team dynamics.

Reuben McDaniel’s class on Managing Complexity helped me to understand the difference between productive and unproductive working environments. To quickly summarize the class, organizations that operate on the principles of a complex adaptive system (CAS) often outperform firms who view the organization as a deterministic, machine-like structure. Some of the ways that a firm can embrace the ideas of a CAS are allowing for the firm to adapt, people to learn and improvisation to occur. These things can only happen in firms that are accepting of risk-taking and mistakes, yet carefully dissect and learn from errors. In fluffier terms, they create a “safe-space” for employees to experiment with different solutions.

In my past work experience, I have been in both types of organizations (creative vs. uncreative). The creative organization embraced autonomy for their employees and didn’t under staff projects, this allowed us the time and power to create the environment described above. In the uncreative organization, we were overloaded with work and deadlines, leaving us little time to self-organize and adapt to the changing needs of our clients. Start-ups are often guilty of this innovation killer. Books constantly recommend that firms start “lean,” but when this is taken to an extreme, employees spend too much time keeping their head above water and not enough time making adjustments to their course.

Additionally my previous work experience has shown me that I am most creative and innovative when I am very motivated to excel in my role. When I didn’t see a future at the company, my job became more task-oriented. I saw each assignment as something to finish rather than something to think about. As long as the work got done, it didn’t matter if it was wildly innovative or creative. In fact, even if I had an idea of how to improve it after I turned it in, I wouldn’t bother going back to it because I didn’t want to add more to my to-do list. When I did see a future at the firm, however, I saw each assignment as an opportunity to impress my bosses with my abilities and could make even the most mundane assignments come to life. I often went back to make notes on assignments that I had completed and wouldn’t hesitate to stay late to perfect something. More importantly, I felt inspired and excited to continue to work on the projects – which improved my ability to innovate.

Finally, when the creative work needs to be done by a team, the social dynamics of the group play heavily on its success. I believe that common goals, complimentary skills and mutual respect are the building blocks for creativity in a group. Common goals are necessary to determine where the group is going to focus their resources. It also can help to shift focus from someone’s “part” to the success of the group as a whole. By keeping everyone’s eyes on the larger goal, each individual is more likely to help others or think beyond their own assignment. At the same time, expertise in a given field is often necessary and bringing together experts from a variety of fields allows for this expertise but also allows for outsider views. Finally, while team members don’t have to be friends, they need to respect each other. When groups disintegrate into chaos, it’s often because of a lack of respect. When, however, there is solid respect and trust, each group member is more likely to speak up and take risks than when they feel their position in the group is threatened.

When I re-read this entry, all of the ideas I discussed seem obvious, yet I rarely see them executed on in real-life. I think this is a barrier to creativity in itself. The things we need to do to set the stage for being creative are so “obvious” that we just assume they are in place, when they are likely not. Until managers are given the go-ahead to spend time on fluffier aspects of the firm, the organization will be stuck in a task-oriented mind set.

{ 1 comment }