C
se

ox

IGS

os

j

¢ INNOVATION ABSTRACTS i2"
c

Published by the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development
With support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation

 

 

 

RESTRUCTURING FOR INNOVATION

In a recent issue of Business Week, the dean of a mid-western business school says, "We teach the things
that experience has taught us will be valuable to (students) in running a business. We do not try to teach
them creativity or risk-taking." This is a disheartening pronouncement to those who value creativity. In an
atmosphere of management that stresses specialization, standardization, efficiency, and quantification,
creativity may be seen as being too risky and expensive. After all, how can a manager be creative when the
mission of management is to reduce risks? How can a manager be creative when short-term goals are
emphasized to the detriment of a long-term view? Given these circumstances, it could be true that creativity
is not viewed as being "valuable."

Can we learn creativity?

Harrison Gough, Director of the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research at the University of
California-Berkeley, suggests three ways to view creativity. First, we can see the creative person as being
mad, or nearly so. Or, second, we can see the creative person as being essentially disconnected from the act
of creativity. Finally, we can see creativity as a possibility open to every person; as an expression of
personality that may be highly developed in some but which is present in everyone.

If executives see creativity as either madness or mysticism, and many of them probably do, they will not
want many creative people in their organizations, no matter how great the need may be for innovation. On
the other hand, if executives see creativity as a possibility to be developed in everyone, then the question
becomes not whether creative people should be encouraged in organizations, but how we can develop the
creativity that is already there. The difference is one of generative creativity—the in-born creativity of an
artist or scientist—and applied creativity—creativity that can be taught and developed. By seeing creativity
as a resource that already exists in their organizations, waiting to be developed, executives may be able to
reconcile the need for innovation with the need for conservative, low-risk management styles.

How can organizations tap creative resources and make them useful and profitable? One way is to reduce
organizational "certainties." In other words, to nurture innovation and simultaneously watch the bottom
line means an organization should provide the "triggers" to stimulate creativity, as well as the "certainties"
necessary to produce a profitable product.

Triggers

What might some of these creativity triggers be?

Sabbaticals, long a strategy of academia, can be used as a weapon against "burnout."

Another possible trigger is the trading of executives and managers; he or she would bring fresh
perspectives and skills to the new job.

Being given early freedom and responsibility for a project of some importance could trigger creativity in a
company’s new managers. William Ouchi, in Theory Z, gives an example of this in Japanese industry.
When one firm is faced with a major decision, the task of laying out the one best solution for consideration
is assigned to the youngest and newest member of the department involved. Although this young manager
obviously would like to come up with a recommendation acceptable to the boss, "the young person cannot
completely figure out from others what the boss wants, and must add his own thoughts. This is how
variety enters the decision process in a Japanese company." And variety, if it is consistently sought, can
lead to innovative solutions.

Incubation and illumination

These are three possible triggers that organizations might consider for encouraging applied creativity in
their organizations. If they sound a little far-out, it may be because we are accustomed to structuring
organizations primarily for the preparation of solutions and decisions, and for their verification. But
preparation is only the first step, and verification only the last step, of a four-step process of creativity that
was suggested by George Wallas in The Art of Thought. The full process of creativity begins with preparation,
during which all data are gathered, analyzed, and studied, and alternative solutions are suggested.

 

 

 

yi, Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712