5.2.3 Creativity In Organisations

There is a Chapter following on Organisational Matters – but here I will kind of, borrow a Sub-Chapter from it as I believe that the subject matter of creativity in organisations fits better under Creativity than under Organisational Matters.

The reason for this is firstly the ease of reading and flow of the website in general, but also the reality that individuals in organisations can be very creative even if the organisation itself is not creative at all – is top down, or has a lot of characteristics and traits that inhibit creativity.

I’m pretty sure that artists [1] and technologists developed together.

That is, thousands of years ago some of us were inventing tools (almost always, to make our lives easier) and more of us were drawing in caves (to create beauty, express our inner spirit, or communicate matters of importance in code). In a way, our evolution kind of parallels the left-brain – right-brain development in the growing human that I mentioned already.

And, let us not forget, parents were probably discovering that doing the unexpected when raising children – that is, being creative – yielded more positive results when their children weren’t behaving themselves than shouting at them or punishing them severely.

I have often wondered, apart from providing us with entertainment and excitement, and nurturing our spiritual selves, what artists contribute to the world in a practical sense.

I have a hunch that the existence of art and music (and all forms of what we term creative endeavour) provides some sort of catalyst for technologists, or, more specifically, indirectly supplies technologists with ideas. (Actually I sometimes wonder does all art eventually become technological – and is that a good thing)?

And I have no doubt that the more exposure that technologically minded people have in the world of art the more innovative and creative they will be.  I believe the same is true for artists.  That is, I believe that knowledge of and interest in matters of a technological nature will enhance their skill level in their chosen field. 

Nowadays a mixture of art and technology is generally accepted in the world of mainstream education – where what we call a broad education is provided before a student specialises in her particular area of interest.

When I was discussing systems theory and critical mass I wrote at some length about patterns. In both art and technology, patterns are very important.

I believe that creative organisations encourage their staff members to see patterns and trends in people’s lives and circumstances.

For example – in Ireland anyway- in some areas affected by crime and imprisonment, it is often observed that everyone knows everyone else, and/or has close relatives nearby. This, on the surface, could be seen as a problem – as many practices which are harmful to people and in particular children propagate from extended family to extended family and/or people who are involved in crime in families have undue influence because of close familial relationships.

However, everyone knowing everyone can be viewed, by an organisation that is committed to creativity, to bring benefits too.

(These benefits were mentioned when I wrote about the Focus Group in Section Two and specifically here. While it will not be obvious to everyone, it will be obvious – or at least evident – to the keen observer who is creative).

Is helping people in distress an artistic project or a technological one? Perhaps it is a bit of both – more like a kind of craft, where, as I stated above, our right-brain artistic tendency is complemented by our left-brain logic – and the two grow in parallel.

[1]. I am going to use the general term artists to denote artists, musicians, playwrights, sculptors, storytellers, actors, etc. etc.

I believe that if our organisation is creative it will allow us to be, and focus on relationships. Valuing processing is important, so that we aren’t always rushed from place to place, task to task, doing things. The creative organisation will not crowd us out with busy-ness. We are, after all, human be-ings, not human do-ings.

Allowing time to share stories is also important. Sharing stories can give us space to nourish our spirits.

Solitude and reflection are most beneficial as they give us time to fashion ideas, to offer new perspectives on old problems, to daydream about what might be possible, to explore the unfamiliar, step outside the well-worn comfort zone, and imagine the future. Translating the imagining into reality is another day’s work – but imagining is the first step – and remember, dreams won’t cost us anything.

Many scientific inventions and developments have come to people when they were engaged in something else – almost by accident.

Formal planning or development days, SCOT (Strengths, Constraints, Opportunities, Threats) exercises, strategy days and the like are great but just as many ideas come from non-formal encounters.

We will often see possibilities in what our colleagues are doing, grafting our own idea onto others and then (if it works out well) embedding it in practice.  Good communication offers constant possibilities for cross-fertilisation of ideas and growth of our organisation in general. Equality and democracy, and getting rid of as much comparison and competition as possible are important too, of course.

Do you ever wonder why, as we get older, we tend to gradually lose idealism, zeal, perceptiveness, and the enthusiasm of youth?  Sometimes we lose our sense of injustice at the world, or our sense of fair play as we succumb to what we perceive to be inevitable not only in our working life but in the world in general.

(I attempted to track how this happens in the Chapter on Energy, Sub-Chapter on Myth vs. Reality).

In order to counter this tendency, it is most important that we maintain a sense of wonder, mystery, and adventure in our day-to-day work.  Often a child can spot the obvious, and reality is staring us adults in the face but we don’t want to see it.

But the abilities to spot the obvious or maintain a sense of wonder are in all of us – they may be dormant – but they are there.

A positive by-product of maintaining a sense of wonder (like I said above about creativity) is that it is very attractive to people.

I believe that there is a danger that the wrinkles of inspiration and innovation are ironed out of us in formal academic education because they cannot readily be regurgitated in an exam.

But we can restore the freshness and vitality of youth by allowing time and space where such elements can flourish.

The reason that allowing time and space works is that thinking hard does not really enable creativity – in fact it might often work against it.

Rather, creativity resides in ever-changing patterns in our brain/mind generated by our perceptions, experiences, intuitions, emotions and connections that are ongoing in our unconscious all the time. 

This is why we might wake up after a night’s sleep with a great idea about something that has been bothering us for a long time, or remember the name of a film star or a long-forgotten song title that we couldn’t remember the night before.

Now – allowing people space and time can be very challenging for management.

I believe that asking us to explain ourselves too quickly if we come up with an idea or a new innovative work practice can work against creativity.  This is because creativity is a messy process – and ideas take a while to cohere into something that is practicable, feasible, and then doable.

A brainstorm is a process where everyone taking part offers suggestions to solve a problem or learn more about a topic under discussion. We do it together to come up with new ideas.  There is no right or wrong, good or bad, all ideas are valued.  When the brainstorming is over coherence takes place. (Once again, this parallels the right and left brain balanced development. The brainstorm – spontaneity and free association – stimulates the right, and the later discussion – coherence and decision making – the left).

The equivalent of the formal brainstorm in day-to-day discussion or normal interaction is the thinking out loud and generating (and then maintaining) an atmosphere of safety, acceptance and non-judgment for all.

Dissent is an interesting phenomenon to look at in an organisation.

Does it foster creativity?  Is it a destructive force?  Should dissent be forbidden, ignored, or treated in a dishonest manner and deflected?

My own opinion is that dissent is the true test of creativity in an organisation, both on the leadership side but also for the dissenter!

Careful reflection is needed by all concerned to determine the reason for the dissent.  Does it have destructive tendencies, i.e. born of unresolved issues on the part of the dissenter, or is it motivated by a genuine effort to enable us to fulfill our mission more effectively?