5.5 Can Organizations Show Creative Characteristics? (continued)

Here are some answers of these questions

Taylor says: "I have often wondered who the greatest killers of creativity were. At present, my strong conviction is that the person himself is the greatest killer of his own ideas. But if he doesn’t kill his own brain-child and sends it out into the world, there will be plenty of other people ready to finish the job by killing it for him. One also wonders which is more effective in destroying ideas within itself: an individual or an organization."

While Richardson states that: "The new-idea man may have to exert pressure and strain on the system in order for the system to change enough to allow the new idea in; otherwise, inertia will tend to cause the system to settle back into its old rut. I was fascinated to hear that an organization was planning a meeting to lean how to avoid settling into ruts and, instead, to keep itself young and alive and thriving. They have dubbed this proposed meeting as a “dry rot” conference."

Since the crucial part of organizations are the people in them, one of Taylor’s recent hunches is that an organization will be no more flexible than its least flexible link (of importance), and that it will be no more creative than its least creative link (of importance). In other words, one inflexible person in the right place can level the entire organization down toward his low degree of flexibility. Likewise, one uncreative person in a key position will tend to lower the creativity of the organization to his own level.

Richardson’s idea, about keeping an organization alive and thriving, is that you must have a system which will spot and cultivate and insist upon having creative minds continue to rise to the top. One of his staff reported that there are four stages in the life of an organization as it starts out like a newborn baby with all the potential in the world. It is formed by (1) a group of leaders who could be called “innovators”, who, in turn, tend to be replaced by (2) a group of leaders called “developers”, who, in turn, make their contribution and tend to be succeeded by (3) a group of leaders called “consolidators”, who, in turn, tend to prepare the organization and deliver it into the hands of (4) a group called “undertakers”. The last dying gasps of a corporation are when its leaders decide to write “a bigger and better rule book”. Under the reign of consolidators, what chance do creative minds have of giving the organization the “lifeblood of tomorrow” and of helping the organization not only to stay in the mainstream today, but even create the mainstream of tomorrow? That is, when an organization is in the hands of consolidators, “what chance does a creative mind have to rise to the top?” And what chance would anyone ever have of reversing the above trend across leader types?

In case a person encounters some hindering features in the organization that were built-in earlier by someone else in order to get control over other creative individuals, he may encounter resistance in trying to get these restricting rule or features removed. He can inquire as to when they were built-in and how did it all happen? He could ask what would be necessary to restore the organization to its earlier state where it still had potential to do all these things. But if he can get rid of the hindrances, the workers might be able to do even better work than at present. To bring about the changes he may have to keep a strain on the system that will only relax when he leaves or when it changes – and it will sometimes bitterly resist the latter. Some key people, unfortunately, may see this pressure as a power struggle, rather than a struggle for ideas to get a chance. A struggle between people for power is distinctly different from a struggle “for ideas to have a hearing.” This is like the difference between a person in revolt and a revolutionary. One is after power and the other is after having his ideas heard. If the ideas are given a good hearing, the latter one, but not the former may relax the pressure.

To show the various reactions of leaders to different types of workers, Taylor have sometimes described persons in leadership positions as falling into one of four types. The first type he calls a “creative leader”, in the sense that he has all the creative characteristics and is blazing new trails and opening new fields so many people can follow into these new fields to work – he is really a pioneer. A second type is not quite this kind, but at least he might be called a creative leader in the sense of being a catalyst and thus being somewhat of a party to, though not the real creator of, the new ideas generated in others. So he does enter into the process as a catalyst and deserves credit for an assist. The third type is a creative leader in another sense; he can at least allow or tolerate or even encourage creativity in others around him and thereby create a more favorable climate. And the fourth type, he calls “none of the above”.

Taylor also classifies workers into four types to set the stage for another point. One type may be a worker with hardly any ideas, so that what he does is almost entirely what he is told to do. The second one may be someone with lots of ideas and he tries them out but quickly realizes that ideas are not “welcome here”. So he goes underground with his own ideas and becomes, in effect, a “yes man”. A third type is one who tries his ideas out and, when he finds that they aren’t welcome, explodes and quits. But the question is where does he go or where can he go? He goes someplace else and great creativity may occur when the administration explains why he left. He probably leaves some psychological scars behind, so that thereafter the chances are reduced for idea persons like him ever being hired into that organization again. The fourth kind of worker is one who has ideas that he believes are needed for the organization to survive and thrive. He, therefore, stays and fights for his ideas.