Creativity in Organizations

TOP Note: This brief section highlights significant differences for creativity produced within an organizational environment. For more on organizations and achievement, see Table of Contents and use search.

The Taxonomy emanates from The Will-R and embodies the creative energy intrinsic to all human endeavour. This Root section of THEE is distinctly and solely personal. Organization and management feature more prominently in emanations from the Primary Hierarchies: in particular Decision and Action (PH1) and Communication (PH5).

Many of the «methods» offered for creativity reveal themselves, on close examination, to be better described as methods for making decisions or working. Of course this requires creativity: just as other frameworks in human endeavour require creativity.

Basic Principles

There is a wonderful spirit blowing through organizational theory and management consulting at present. It highlights and advocates the use of creativity at work, contrasting it usually with what currently exists. This confirms a basic and repeated finding:

  • Organizations should be striving to enable and enhance creativity but seem always to be at risk of deadening it. This risk flows from the unpredictable nature of creative energies and the group's need for sufficient control and conformity. Note that it is the group, i.e. the community, not just «the management», that finds it hard to tolerate mavericks.

Current thinking also touches on a second principle:

  • If organizations are managed in alignment with THEE frameworks, applied intelligently, then they are automatically poised to release creativity, insofar as that is possible given the particular individuals employed. Experience suggests that such vantage is worthwhile.

Employees are Agents

Although creative forces are personal, synergies within a group may be considerable. So an organization can produce a far grander and more complex creative output than would be possible for a single person.

However, a world of difference exists between:

  • challenges that are wholly personally owned

    &

  • challenges that are the responsibility of a group or organization.

The reason is to be found in:

Unlike entrepreneurs who provide employment, employees seek employment: i.e. employees actively seek to be an agent of the organization. So, by default, they choose not to be their own person in work. However dedicated and committed to their own work-challenges, it is not possible to fully own the organization's challenge. Nor could the organization properly allow a significant challenge to be handled at the sole discretion of any one employee.

It is not realistic to construe an employee's relation to their work within the organization as wholly willing. However much you want to work in a particular organization, you would not do it for nothing. If you sign the contract, it is in good part because you need to earn a living. Of course it is a two-way thing: organizations also need employees.

When a person is an agent, the specifics of willingness are abrogated to a greater or lesser degree. Willingness often remains indefinite within the formal contract as «a willingness to do whatever is requested within the terms of reference». However participative and co-creative the spirit at work may be, it is the employer, or contractor, or Board, or manager, or leader who has the last word. The agent often cannot be, or wisely chooses not to be, as fully willing as required for maximum creativity.

In addition, because the transcendental components of endeavour are largely out of their hands, managers focus excessively on the actualization components. Managers may further reduce creative activity in a myriad of ways, often blaming both their subordinates and their bosses: see more on teams and creativity.

Employees, many of whom are managers of other employees, have a complex relationship with the organization that employs them. For more details ► Closed visit the expectations of employment framework—located within decision and action-PH1.

Conclusion  

In applying this framework of creativity to an organization, we need to:

  • adjust the using willpower elements (Monads)
  • reconsider all Groups that have a specific willingness component
  • recognize organizational realities by revising the 3 upper Groupings:  RsH-G5, G6 & G7, that provide the psychosocial context within creativity.

Start here:

Originally posted: 17-Feb-2012