These are the attributes that must be written about, researched, sought for, and retained. "Brainstorming" should not be the focus; implementation should be the key. The bottom line of business is to make money, and to do that it must get things done not to engage in endless 'brainstorming'.
Creative ideas need vigorous and systematic carefully detailed plans and proposals for following through. Very few of these 'creative types', according to Levitt, have the patience and oomph for this. It does not sustain their interest. Creative types are irresponsible and, therefore, responsibility for creating and implementing innovative ideas should be transferred to the so-called conformist type.
Four factors are needed for an idea to work:
1. Rank -- downward idea (i.e. Those emenatign from the upper hierarchy down) are more likely to work since they are accompanied by power. If one wishes for a reverse success, the idea had better be reinforced by concrete and solid demonstration of its working ability.
2. The complexity of the idea -- the less complex it sounds the more reality it will likely be accorded a hearing. The more complex it is, the more it has to be substantiated by evidence demonstrating its importance, its potential success, and ability to bring it to fruition.
3. The amount of supporting details that go into the idea often depend on the nature of the industry and the objective of the idea. Superiors may wish to avoid risk-taking, and the objective may sometimes be achieved in a simpler, less challenging manner. Similarly, an advertising agency, for instance, may wish for a more conspicuous, detailed, attention-grabbing idea than may a coal-mining industry. Complexity of ideas, therefore, should be streamlined to the particular industry.
Aside from that, two components determine the usefulness of the idea:
1.The innovator must work with the situation as it is, and,
2. All ideas should be supported by pragmatic and relevant factors such as cost, risks, manpower, time, and necessary manpower to...
It is, therefore, advisable that creation and implementation of ideas should be transferred to the hands of those who are literally more capable of implementing these ideas in a responsible fashion rather than simply 'brainstorming' and mentally creating them.
Levitt's (2002) article has inspired me in varying ways: firstly, it has changed my idea of creativity and its juxtaposition to so-called conformative types whom I had, until now, taken for granted that conformity cramps creativity, but more importantly, I have recognized within myself Levitt's image of the quintessential creative type who blows over with generation of ideas, yet fails to product them; or produces ideas so 'loony' that, original and innovative though they may be, they fail to be ever implemented.
I, decisively, agree with Levitt that know-how, energy, daring, and staying-with-it power are synonymous to and need to be merged with creativity in order for innovation to be produced, and that it is these factors that should be the holy grail for 'creativity' (in its literal sense) rather than abstract 'creativity' as commonly imagined. Even though a laissez-faire style of management may be helpful and productive for certain organizations (Cherrington, 1996) such as that evidenced by Branson's Virgin companies (Branson, 2008), creativity alongside order and structure in essential, and the best of these organizations evidence the mergence.
Reference
Branson, R. (2008). Business stripped bare: adventures of a global entrepreneur. London: Virgin Books
Cherrington, D.J. (1994). Organizational Behavior. USA: Alleyn & Bacon
Levitt, T. (2002). Creativity is not enough. Harvard Business Review, 137-145
Osborn, a. (1953) Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative thinking. NY: Scriber & Sons.
What I can learn
The counter-intuitiveness and contribution of this article
