Creativity on Organizations Not Only

¶ … creativity on organizations not only does a double-loop analysis by challenging the entire concept of 'creativity' but also approaches the concept of organizational creativity in an innovative and original manner. Levitt (2002) argues that creativity should not be the decisive elements that organizations should focus on. On the contrary, creativity can sometimes be detrimental to organizations, and conformity may be preferable. Creativity may be impractical and destructive to the business in various ways, such as by resulting in chatter or failing to consider important aspects to the organization consequently deterring innovation from occurring.

Organizations, often, place projects of creativity in the hands of so-called creative types, but Levitt (2002) argues that doing so is counterproductive to the very ethos of an organizational workplace, which is to run on predictability and order. Creative types usually do not understand these concepts. Counter-intuitively, therefore, for innovation to be introduced into the marketplace, projects have to be delegated to 'conformists' who, understanding the workplace ethos, will design and implement their ideas for innovation accordingly.

The key learning in this summary is a triple double loop approach. The first is the importance of creativity per se, particularly the traditional expectation of creativity as contravening (and having to contravene) regularity. Levitt, here, demonstrates, that creativity needs conformity (or adherence to principles of tradition, order, and structure) in order to survive. Similarly, creativity juxtaposes conformity rather than having to be oppositional to it as is popularly thought. And thirdly, creative projects should, therefore, be handed to the 'conformist' rather than to the 'creative' employees of the organization to structure and implement, for it is, thusly, more likely, that pragmatic and decisive results will occur.

Creativity may be more of a millstone than a milestone to the industry, says Levitt (2002), since creativity may result in a wastage of time discussing project with none or little results or worse with impractical results that squander the company's resources. People handed the responsibility of generating creative ideas may tend to confuse abstract creativity with the necessary pragmatics involved in generating results, and underestimate, if not condemn, the necessary intricate complexities and realties of business organizations that need to be considered and taken into account for an idea to succeed.

Creativity is a popular notion today (e.g. Osborn, 1953), but innovation demands living with the practical mundane ness and every-day-life and realties of the internal organization and its external environment in order to introduce an article of innovation that will actually maintain itself and work.

Many 'creators' says Levitt, are 'talker's rather than creators. They mistake brilliant talk and ideas for creation, and are deluding the company and wasting their time (and money) in the process. Idea-producing is easy. Innovation is the challenge, for, so often, you have new ideas that have been lying about in the organization's attic for generations with none implementing them. These ideas may be creative and even promising. Yet energy and the initiative are lacking to put these ideas to work. Ideation, consequently -- claims Levitt -- is common. It is implementation that is lacking. Creativity is not the problem; innovation -- producing original ideas -- is uncommon.

Ideation and innovation are not the synonyms that they are thought to be. People can have ideas a-plenty. It is the people who can implement these ideas who are more rare. It is the know-how, energy, daring, and staying with it factor that are the most important elements for 'creativity' and these are less common. In other words -- and this is one of Levitt's original contributions -- creativity is more common than it is, generally, thought to be. And more so, creativity is not the most important factor. Far more important, and an element that is often overlooked, are the characteristics necessary in order to implement a deserving idea. 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 implement it.

In short, discipline and knowledge of organizational rules and structure are needed for ideas to be implemented. 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.