 |
Featured
Image: Ivelin Radkov/Shutterstock
|
Creativity
Is Overrated — Eliot
Gattegno
Today’s creative workplaces work hard to obscure
the uncreative labor that makes them run. While “creativity” is presented as
the panacea for our overly cubicled society, this often leads to a
narrow-minded focus on the stuff that dreams are made of — to the detriment of
those keeping the company afloat.
Alas, our obsession shows no signs of stopping.
In 2000, we read books promising that the “corporate winners of the next
century” will be businesses that use “every scrap of creative talent they
possess;” by 2013, we were breathlessly devouring articles about “12 weird things that tech companies do to encourage employee
creativity;” and last year, we saw the launch of a perfume meant to inspire creativity itself.
But are we worshiping a false god? Much of what
passes for “creative” in the workplace seems suspiciously surface-level
(beanbag chairs at work, unlimited sushi lunches and the like.). Though it
might change the floor plan of the office, it doesn’t seem to do much to change
work, particularly from lower-level employees.
When employees actually sit down to their
workstations (or tote a laptop to the conversation pit), are they really
letting their imaginations run free? Or are they focusing on specific, concrete
tasks necessary for the operation of the company? Usually it’s the latter:
After all, someone has to debug code and manage spreadsheets. Smart managers
and executives should recognize that no amount of creativity can replace the
less glamorous (and sometimes rote) work it takes to make their companies
function. Let’s start celebrating the non-creative, too.
Creativity is a serious investment
Take a look at some of the most incredibly
“creative” products of our time and you’ll see that creativity isn’t so much a
flash of lightning as it is a long, lonely trudge. Look at Pixar, whose films
are consistently praised for their vision, humor and heart — not to mention
their mind-blowing animation. But these clearly creative products take 4-7 years to complete, and the process is incredibly arduous, as each project must go
from sketch, to storyboard, to modeling process, to layout process, to — you
get the idea.
Almost any creative project has an incredible
amount of training and effort behind it, no matter how instantaneous it may
seem — from the master jazz musician improvising “in the moment” (something he
couldn’t do without lifelong practice) to the radio show This American Life,
which sounds like “friends swapping stories around a campfire” but takes months
to bring each seemingly spontaneous conversation to life. This sort of time to
create isn’t usually something that companies can afford to give their workers
without significant investment. But investing in creatives is absolutely worth
it, right? Not necessarily.
“Bohemians” don’t pay the bills
In an era where some companies are hiring
splashy “internet kids” off of Reddit and Instagram, it has
become trendy to consider “creativity” a credential in its own right. But the
evidence simply doesn’t back this up. A study in Economic Geography found that workers’ education level, not their
creativity, creates most of the productivity gains associated with the
so-called “creative class.” “Bohemians” (as the researchers call creative
people without a college education) actually contribute less than uncreative,
but educated people on the whole. While exceptions clearly exist, it’s
generally education, not creativity, that really makes the difference in performance.
Managers could have learned this lesson from the
creatives themselves. The iconic author Haruki Murakami provides a great
example of how important training is to the creative life. His memoir “What I
Talk About When I Talk About Running” is essentially one long extended metaphor
comparing long-distance running to writing novels. He argues that for artists, “focus and endurance” are almost
as important as talent — and far more achievable, “since they can be acquired
and sharpened through training.” To Murakami, creativity is only a starting
point — to bring his or her projects to fruition, the real creative needs
training and an unstoppable work ethic.
The message is clear: Don’t let a potential
hire’s impeccable Instagram profile overshadow his uninspired resume. For most
jobs, employers need people who are qualified first and creative second, not
the other way around. And be sure they’re willing to help implement their
groundbreaking ideas with plenty of hard work.
Creativity requires control
Companies that want to encourage employee
creativity over other useful qualities may face difficult trade-offs down the
line. A study in the journal Accounting, Organizations
and Society discovered that the more a company relies on employee creativity,
the more control the company needs to exert over potential dysfunctional
behavior. Otherwise, employees can become so focused on individual tasks that
they lose sight of team and company goals. It’s no surprise that many companies
limit “creativity” to beanbag chairs — dealing with hyper-focused creatives who
aren’t meeting company deadlines is too much trouble.
Even at Google — the guiding light of the creativity-in-the-workplace
movement — certain much-revered creative practices have apparently become
unsustainable. Remember their mythical policy that employees can spend 20
percent of their time (an entire workday per week!) on a self-directed project
— a policy that led to the invention of Gmail? Former Google employee and
current Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer tore down the curtain when she declared, “I’ve got to tell you the dirty little
secret of Google’s 20% time. It’s really 120% time.”
In recent years, Google has reportedly been moving away from the 20 percent time idea altogether
and prioritizing top-down innovation instead — projects approved by managers,
etc. Some have argued that this attempt to control innovation will
damage Google’s much-praised culture of rag-tag, free-floating creativity. It’s
a difficult dance, the one between magic and matter. Uncontrolled creativity
can result in employees losing sight of company goals; controlled creativity,
you could argue, is no creativity at all.
None of this is to say creativity has no value in
the workplace at all. Someone has to dream up the next Gmail, just like someone
has to manage spreadsheets and answer phones. But creativity shouldn’t be
thought of as the be-all end-all, a fast and poetic track to success.
Today, when hiring, smart companies should be
looking for diversity not just in age, gender and race, but also personality
types — creative versus non-creative, introverts versus extroverts,
flights-of-fancy innovators versus boots-on-the-ground implementors. Take Slack
Technologies: An interesting mix of artistic types (a co-founder with a philosophy degree, for example) and
engineers has contributed to the success of the company and its ubiquitous
collaborative work software.
The trick is ensuring that all employees — not
just the exciting, colorful thinkers — are valued, celebrated for what they
contribute to the company, its products and its culture. Why even draw the line
between creative and non-creative? Surface effects shouldn’t be valued over
work like engineering — arguably some of the most exciting and creative work
that our age has produced. By focusing too much on creativity, managers could
very well find themselves with a workplace full of creative sound and fury,
implementing nothing.
Eliot
Gattegno is a Clinical Professor of Business and Arts at NYU Shanghai, where he
teaches in the Program on Creativity and Innovation. Previously, he was the
director and founder of the Center for Innovation, Design, and Entrepreneurship
at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and a professor at the CUHK
Business School.
 |
Image
credit/source: Lidor Wyssocky/Seempli
|
Is
Creativity Overrated? — Lidor Wyssocky
Synopsis
Some argue
that Creativity is overrated. If anything it is underrated. Here's why...
I must be honest with you. While I don't mind a
good passionate discussion well just about any topic, I don't really like to
argue with articles, or more accurately with their authors. Not that there's
anything wrong with that, but I like to see and hear whoever it is I talk with.
But there are times when I can't just read an article and leave it as is. I
find myself arguing with it inside my head. And sometimes, when that happens, I
feel I have to respond. In a sense, Eliot
Gattegno's article "Creativity is Overrated" is an excellent
article, not because I agree with the author's opinions, but simply because it
has driven me to respond.
So let's start with the bottom line of my view:
Creativity is not overrated. If anything it is underrated. Here's why...
What is Creativity
To evaluate something or say that it is
overrated, you must first define it. Unfortunately, Eliot Gattegno does not
bother to define Creativity in his article, so I will go for the definition I
use. It might seem like a simplistic definition at first, but I think that's
exactly why it is so powerful.
Creativity is the ability to see things
differently. The beauty in this broad definition is that it is so easy to apply
it to almost any context. What Gattegno refers to as Creativity is, in fact, a
very specific application or interpretation of creativity (judging from the
examples he lists). It is merely a fraction of human creativity. And, dare I
say, not necessarily the important fraction in the context of this discussion.
So, once we define Creativity as the ability to
see things differently, we can move on to the first issue: Creativity is not
just for a few "chosen ones."
Creativity for All
I must admit that when I first read the article,
I felt a certain unease. The author's claim is basically that not everyone can
be creative, so let's give all these valuable colleagues who simply "don't
have it" a big hug and let them know they are important to the
organization. Of course, they are! But why are we labeling anyone as
"non-creative"?
If Creativity is all about seeing things
differently, finding new ways to interpret or apply what seems to be very
obvious and concrete, and imagining (yes! imagining!) a better-unexpected
alternative, I've got news for you: Anyone can do it! And anyone
should, for their personal benefit as well as for the benefit of the company.
We are all born with the ability to see things
differently, imagine, and invent. We are practicing it fluently when we are
young children. Unfortunately, for many of us, this ability quickly deteriorate
with time because we are not expected to use it (in school, and later in work).
But we can regain this ability, redevelop it, and master it with ongoing
practice.
So instead of "celebrating the
non-creative," let's set a clear goal: we can all be more creative. Just
like we can all improve our physical fitness, even if only a few of us will
make it to the Olympics.
And yes, I do expect the people who are debugging
a piece of code or working on some Excel sheet to be creative. I do expect them
to imagine (and then try to apply) new ways to do their tasks. Or redefine
their tasks altogether. That is exactly how organizations improve, become more
effective, and achieve their goals. Any company that doesn't expect its
employees to do that is doomed. Doing the same things in the same methods is a
sure recipe for becoming irrelevant.
And that is not the task of "the dreamers."
It's everyone's task. Sure, the dreamers might come up with the big idea for a
new never-done-this-before product. But that product will never reach its
launch day if everyone else will just do the same thing they've been doing for
years. Everyone needs to innovate in their scope and level.
And don't expect this to be easy!
Creativity is not Easy
Next, Gattegno claims that we are caught up in an
illusion that creativity is easy while in fact, it takes huge effort and
resources which you might not be able to afford.
Surprisingly, I agree! Of course, creativity is a
serious investment, especially if you want it to be part of the company's DNA.
And maybe some companies think they can't afford that. I'm willing to bet some
companies think can't afford developing the skills of their employees. Some
companies believe they can't afford investing in reasonable workstations. And
the list goes on. The fact that developing and practicing Creativity is a
serious investment does not suggest that it is not an essential one.
Investing in Creativity (at all levels) is
probably the best investment there is, simply because it is an enabler for so
many things. If you really invest in developing a culture of creativity and the
skills that enable it, you are going to be ready to whatever your next
challenge is. As simple as that.
Imagine a team of people who are masters in
seeing things differently facing a problem. Imagine how they examine it, think
of it, come up with surprising ideas from other domains. Now imagine a team of people
who were expected to do the same thing using the same method for the past five
years. Which team do you want with you for your next big challenge?
Creativity Enhances Productivity
Which bring us to the last argument in Gattegno's
article: people with higher education contribute more to organizations than
creative people. Wait, what? I have to admit I stared at this statement for
quite some time trying to understand its logic: why are creativity and
education being compared as if they are mutually exclusive?
Creativity does not come at the expense of
education, skills, motivation or any other aspect you would normally take into
account when hiring people. If anything, Creativity feeds by these aspects and
enhances them at the same time.
Creativity is like the spice that makes the
difference between a dull dish and an amazing one. No spice in the world can
replace good ingredients. But great ingredients with zero spices are not likely
to result in a dish you would remember.
When applied to all levels of the
organization, Creativity enhances productivity. The idea that to get
things done you have to put Creativity aside is a nothing less than dangerous.
Are we destined to do more of the same to be productive? Can any company
survive by doing more of the same for too long? I think the answers to these
questions are clear.
But unfortunately, in many (if not most)
organizations the answers to these questions are not that clear. Which brings me
to the bottom line.
Bring Creativity to the Front
Creativity is definitely not overrated.
Individuals and organizations will flourish when Creativity is applied at all
levels. Anyone can develop and master Creativity. It is never an easy task. It
sure does require serious investment, but almost anything with a significant
long-term benefit does. Creativity does not contradict productivity. It
enhances it.
But all these arguments are really not the key
issue. Creativity is not overrated simply because in practice it is
underrated!
Many companies talk about Creativity. Innovation
is a great buzzword, and so it found its way to the mission statement of most
organizations. But in practice, most companies still don't invest in Creativity
on a daily basis. Most companies would still prefer short term results over
long term investments in soft skills such as imagination. Many companies might
nurture a few selected Creative employees but fail to develop a culture of
Creativity throughout the organization. So how can one argue that Creativity is
overrated?
The companies most likely to thrive are the ones
with Creativity flowing in their organizational veins. These companies will not
be affected by the argument that Creativity is overrated. If you are leading
any other company, you can certainly use any of the arguments in Gattegno's
article to reinforce your approach. That would be the easy thing to do.
Alternatively, you can stop for a moment and
think. You can challenge these arguments and try doing something different. You
can start investing in Creativity as if your company's life depends on it. If
you do that seriously, with real intent, you won't need to read any article to
know the value of Creativity. It won't be over- or under-rated. It will just be
part of your DNA. And when this happens you will find out that anything is
possible. Literally.
Lidor
Wyssocky Column:The Creativity
Game Igniting Creativity
Lidor
Wyssocky is a fine-art photographer and the creator of seempli - a
revolutionary platform for igniting creativity and imagination in everything
you do. Lidor’s
visual artworks, which are focused on the things hundreds and thousands of
people pass by in the street every day, led him to create seempli to inspire
people to practice creative observation on a daily basis.
Using
seempli Lidor works with individuals, teams, and organizations seeking to
develop, master, and apply creativity. Find out more at https://seempli.com
No comments :
Post a Comment