CREATIVITY TO INNOVATION

These same rules that produce the so-called conformism that is so cheerfully decried by the organization's critics, and which seems to disrupt life inside the company.

Remember, where there are enough rules, there will also be silly rules, those that can be ruthlessly caricatured.

But some rules, which to some experts seem nonsensical are far from nonsense if they bother to learn about the problems of the company, the government, or any other group for which the particular organization of work is intended to face.

CREATIVITY TO INNOVATION

All of this raises a question that seems frightening. If conformity and rigidity are necessary conditions of organization, and if these help to stifle creativity, and, moreover, if the creative man can indeed be stifled if he has to spell out the details necessary to convert his ideas into efficient innovations, does all this mean that modern organizations have become such incomprehensible monsters that they have to suffer the terrible fate of dinosaurs, too heavy and unwieldy to survive?

Of course, the answer is no. In fact, great organizations have important attributes that facilitate innovation. Their abilities to spread risk over a broad economic base and among the many people involved in implementing the novelty are significant. They facilitate for the individuals involved personally a certain economic insurance, to thus increase the possibility of innovating.

What often misleads people is that making big operational, or policy changes also requires big organizational changes. Yet it is precisely one of the great virtues of a great organization that in the short term at least its course is irreversible, and its organizational structure is, practically, almost impenetrable.

A vast machine exists to do a certain job. This work must continue to receive the utmost attention, no matter how exotically revolutionary a major operational or policy change may be.

The « boat » may need to be shaken, but one of the advantages of a big boat is that it takes a lot to shake it.

Some people or some departments on the boat may feel the pitching more than others and try to avoid the incidents that produce it.

But the built-in stabilizers of the importance of group decision-making can be used as powerful influences to encourage people to risk these incidents.

Finally, the large organization has an organizational alternative to the supposed “conservative” consequences of greatness. There is evidence that the relatively rigid organization can build into its own structure certain flexibility that would provide an organizational home for the creative, but irresponsible individual.

What may be needed, especially in a large organization, is not so much a suggestion box system as a specialized group whose function is to receive ideas, develop them and follow them as necessary.

This would be done after the group had evaluated each idea and, preferably, had a long discussion with its author. Then, when the idea and the necessary follow-up are passed on to the appropriate executive, they will be more willing to listen.

The important point is to be aware of the need or the possible value of a system that allows creativity to produce more innovation.

Some companies need such measures more than others. And, as we pointed out earlier, the need partly depends on the nature of the industry.

Certainly, it is easier to turn creativity into innovation in the advertising industry than in an operational company with elaborate production processes, long distribution channels and a complex administrative configuration.

The potential for creativity to mature varies enormously with the industry, the climate in the organization, the organizational level of the originator of the idea, and the kinds of day-to-day problems, pressures, and responsibilities of the people to whom he addresses his ideas.

Without clearly appreciating these facts, those who claim that a business will somehow grow and prosper simply by having more creative people worship their own illusions.