The writer is the late Theodore, a senior professor at Harvard Business School. Levitt's classic articles on these issues, as the first person to put forward the concept of globalization, have repeatedly reminded enterprises that creativity cannot be turned into gold, and that "brainstorming" for innovation is meaningless. The real innovation is creativity plus execution.
Innovation is not so much a milestone as a sharpening stone. Some people appreciate the ideological liberation brought by enterprise innovation, but they are overly pessimistic about the disadvantages of following the rules in enterprises, thus blindly believing that creativity is better than adaptability. In fact, such people's opinions may eventually reduce the creative vitality of enterprises, because they often confuse ideas with implementation and regard abstract creativity and specific innovation activities as the same thing. They often don't understand the specific problems in the daily work of enterprises and underestimate the complexity of enterprise organizations.
Nowadays, among many suggestions to encourage enterprises to actively innovate, there is a fundamental problem: that is, the advocates of these suggestions usually cannot distinguish the difference between "exerting abstract creativity" and "becoming a practical innovator". It goes without saying that the former is relatively easy and the latter is much more difficult. Their definition of "creativity" itself is indeed biased. For them, "creativity" often means having great original ideas, and almost everyone focuses on the ideas themselves. In addition, their comments on creativity are mostly based on novelty and less on its potential benefits to consumers or enterprises. In this paper, I want to explain that in most cases, having a new idea may be creative in the abstract level, but it may be destructive in the operational level, which will not only be beneficial to enterprises, but will hinder their development.
Suppose you know two painters. One tells you his brilliant idea, but doesn't start painting; The other one had the same idea and spent it. You will obviously say that the latter is the great creative painter. But for the former, will you make the same evaluation? Obviously not. You can only say that he is a braggart.
The same problem also exists in today's enterprise creation. All kinds of speeches, books, articles and "creative seminars" praising creativity emerge one after another, with the purpose of cultivating more imaginative and creative managers and enterprises. Years of observation of these activities have led me to a clear conclusion; These people confuse "the idea of great painting" with "great painting" and mistake boasting for constructive action.
A great new idea is likely to be buried in the enterprise for many years, not because people don't realize its benefits, but because no one is responsible for putting the idea into action from words. Usually, what enterprises lack is not creativity that can form ideas, but innovation that can be put into action, that is, the realization of creativity.
Is creativity enough?
Why don't we have more innovations? I believe that one of the most common and wrong answers to this question is
Business people lack creativity, and they become slaves to conformity. It is said that American enterprises will be in an invincible position as long as their industries are more creative and willing to hire more creative talents and give them opportunities to display their talents.
However, as long as you visit any modern American enterprise, observe it carefully and talk freely and frankly with employees, I believe you will find a very interesting phenomenon: these enterprises are not short of creativity, nor are they short of creative talents. Their main problem is that the so-called creative talents in enterprises often (though not always) shift the responsibility of starting substantive work to others. They have countless ideas, but they never carefully follow the implementation of the work, and rarely take appropriate measures to make others listen to their ideas and give them a chance to try.
In a word, we don't lack the ability to conceive. In contrast, what we lack more is the ability to turn ideas into reality. Many people are full of whimsy, but they don't understand how organizations should operate to do things well, especially new things well. Their subconscious often has such a strange assumption that creativity will naturally produce real innovation activities. According to this wrong thinking logic, "conception" (or "creativity") is regarded as a synonym for "innovation". This kind of thinking is a special disease of "brainstorming" advocates, who often think that this way of letting the imagination run wild is the ultimate liberation force of enterprises. In fact, conception and innovation cannot be equated. The former refers to the creation of creativity; The latter refers to concrete implementation. It is precisely because people have never kept a clear understanding of this difference that the conservative atmosphere of some enterprises we see today prevails. Here, I also want to make it clear that it is not those innovations that can "make a positive result" that can be called innovation. Although the purpose of innovation is success, the success rate of 100% in advance will only make people afraid to try.
Indeed, gathering a dozen inexperienced people in a room to brainstorm will produce some exciting ideas. But it's no big deal. In fact, it just proves that these ideas are not uncommon in themselves. Because almost any worker with an average IQ can come up with these ideas as long as he is properly motivated in a similar environment. What we lack are those who have profound knowledge, abundant energy, extraordinary courage and persistent patience to put their ideas into practice.
No matter what the goal of the enterprise is, it is necessary to make money. You must do something to make money. But no matter from the perspective of enterprises or organizations, being creative does not mean that everything is fine. No matter in business, or in the fields of art, science, philosophy, politics, love, war, etc., creativity will not be realized by itself, only people can realize it.
Are you responsible for creativity?
Because an enterprise is an organization that must "make achievements", if it only puts forward ideas without follow-up, it can only be regarded as a personal behavior that "only blossoms without results". In a sense, this is even an irresponsible behavior. This is because: first, creative people throw out some ideas at will, but ignore their implementation, which is essentially the responsibility of evading action, because implementation is one of the fundamental requirements of enterprises; Second, his avoidance of execution is intolerable to the organization, and it is also a lazy style to put it mildly.
According to my observation, most of the so-called innovative behaviors now have a common problem. Many creative people have such a strange idea that once they put forward their own ideas, the work is finished. They think that making and implementing specific plans is someone else's business. Generally speaking, the more creative people are, the more irresponsible they are for their actions.
Usually, creative people keep sending suggestions and memos to everyone in the organization. These suggestions and memos are very concise, but they are enough to attract people's attention and quickly arouse their curiosity and excitement. However, they are too brief to make responsible suggestions on how to implement the whole thing and what risks exist. A student who studies the succession of business leaders once asked a question: Do people take their ideas seriously? He believes that some creative supporters may just use this as a clever means to attract others' attention. The so-called creativity is just a way of "public relations" in the organization.
However, things cannot be generalized, and irresponsible ideas sometimes have some positive aspects. Many effective managers often show short life and mild irresponsibility. However, his difference is that he can switch between irresponsibility and responsibility appropriately, and will not be irresponsible for a long time. They even think that this attitude is necessary for the free exercise of imagination to some extent. Once the idea comes into being, he will change into another attitude.
Will "creative talents" be responsible?
According to my definition of the word "creativity", people who continue to be creative are usually irresponsible, which can be seen from children's rambling fantasies.
Any kindergarten teacher can prove how creative children are. They are naive and curious, and often ask questions that adults are stumped by, such as
Why can you see through the glass? Why is there a hole in the doughnut? Why is the grass green? It is this mentality that makes them like to ask why everything, and gives their young minds a fresh creativity. However, the reason why children have such a unique way of thinking is that in an orderly society, they are hardly criticized, do not have to work, and are not responsible for other daily affairs. Even the law expressly stipulates that they are not responsible for their actions. Almost all the data confirm children's creativity, and even biblical stories assert that "baby's mouth" can spit out words full of wisdom. In the authoritative scientific literature, we often see that scientists compare the integration mechanism of adult creativity with children's thinking process, and children's thinking process is shown before school age, even as early as babbling. ...
In Rorschach ink test and stroboscope test, clinical psychologists also found examples of irresponsible innovative talents. An analyst said: "People who are keen on Rorschach ink test, when they see the ink pattern formed by folding and unfolding, just like ducks see water, the' imaginary wings' can't help flapping, sometimes even flapping too much; Some people actually daub ink stains on paper according to their own imagination. These people show the arbitrariness of human thinking activities to the extreme. " In short, they are the least formal, and they are also the least bound by various facts proved by past experience. They let their brains explore new, untried and strange ways of doing things.
Another psychologist pointed out the significance of this discovery for organizational analysis. The psychologist pointed out: "Theorists don't care about being in danger." The reason is obvious. Theorists are not directly responsible for taking action. He is happy to live in danger, because all he does is put forward ideas and won't really get hurt. If you are responsible for the implementation, you will inevitably bear certain risks, and life will not be so easy. So the safe way is to avoid the realization work and all the messy specific work.
Who is the spokesman of creativity?
Therefore, we can imagine that the most loyal supporters of enterprise creativity nowadays are often professional writers and consultants. Professors and executives of advertising companies. Few of them are in charge of arduous daily innovation work in an ordinary enterprise, so they are keen to put forward novel business ideas, which are powerful but actually very complicated. Few of them are in charge of specific work in traditional complex organizations. Therefore, they are not doers in the usual sense. These people always remind us of doctors who tell patients to "do as I say, not as I say", and also remind us of the classic teaching of boxing managers to boxers: "Fight, they can't hurt us!"
Some people also put forward a thought-provoking warning, seriously listing the advantages and disadvantages of creativity one by one. However, most lecturers are "laymen" outside the core areas of business.
Of course, it is unfair to crusade against consultants, writers and professors for no reason. Because American companies seem to benefit from their existence. However, if top managers can't rationally realize that these people are actually helping them evade management responsibilities, it will be harmful to enterprises. It is difficult for us to accept such a seemingly reasonable proposal: the simple way to save these enterprises is to exert creativity, which will naturally and continuously produce innovative activities that can bring profits.
Is dissatisfaction with the status quo an innovation?
As I said before, conception is not synonymous with innovation, and adaptation is not its antonym. Of course, innovation is not the automatic result of "creative thinking" In fact, what some people call conformity in enterprises is not so much a lack of abstract creativity as a failure to take responsible actions. Neither the new idea nor the old one has been put into practice.
The evidence of this statement is that in most organizations, many creative people under top management are extremely dissatisfied with the present situation around them and are full of ways to deal with it. They are usually considered as "dissatisfied with the status quo of the enterprise". These people are always complaining, and even think that the tissue is infected with a fatal disease that meets all requirements, and the wound is festering. The organizations in their eyes are all old people who stick to traditional ideas and turn a deaf ear to new ideas.
Why is the idea rejected?
The reason why these creative people complain so much is usually because after they put forward their ideas to the boss, the boss soon cools down and sometimes tells them to go away. Faced with their endless entreaties, these senior officials even simply closed the door and refused to listen to their opinions.
Why is this happening? There is a reasonable explanation. The reason why senior managers often refuse to accept new ideas is because he is a busy man and has endless problems every day, which is also his primary task every day. He keeps receiving endless questions and must make a decision at once. He always has to deal with some problems that need to be solved urgently but he doesn't know how to solve them. In this case, many wonderful new ideas put forward by subordinates to him sound really good, but creative advocates must clearly know that top managers are busy people, and every idea will bring him more problems, and he has enough problems.
An example in another field is worth thinking about. For example, although many members of the US Senate and House of Representatives had the opportunity to ask a political science intern for help, some members refused this kind of "help" because these interns had too many ideas and disrupted their daily work.
How to knock on the door of decision makers?
But enterprises should be innovative, and innovation should start with personal proposals. How should those with new ideas knock on the door of decision makers? I have two suggestions.
First, follow the trend. The top brass was bombarded with many questions, so it is understandable that he didn't want to consider any new ideas. People who like innovation must learn to accept this unchangeable fact and act accordingly.
The second is to concretize creativity. When putting forward an idea, you should at least list some basic information about cost, risk, manpower, time and even the specific implementer. Because this responsible method can facilitate decision makers to evaluate proposals, and it rarely causes problems. This is a reasonable way to turn creative thinking into innovative action as much as possible.
Of course, some people will raise objections: whether putting the burden of formulating implementation details on creative people will constrain or even stifle their unique talents. This may be true. But doing so is good for the creator himself and the enterprise. Creativity is futile unless people use it. Their value can only be proved by implementation, before which everything is a question mark. If the great work pressure of the decision-maker means that he can only listen to the expressed ideas in a responsible way, then creative and irresponsible people are useless to the organization. If we insist on asking the creative person to undertake certain implementation responsibilities, to some extent, his ideas will be suppressed, and his ideas may be reduced, then these few but refined ideas will be more easily considered and the chances of implementation will be greatly increased. Policymakers should also try to create a meeting where creative people are satisfied, because their ideas are listened to carefully, so that they won't complain.
What are the chances that this idea will be adopted?
How likely the idea is to be adopted depends on the following four factors.
First of all, the position or rank of creative people in the organization. How much responsibility a creative person needs to take for his creativity obviously depends on his level. A powerful CEO only needs to give an order, and his subordinates have to accept his ideas and develop them further-his position is enough for others to listen to his ideas and then put them into practice. In this case, "saying" is actually "doing". Similarly, department heads can do the same thing within their jurisdiction. However, when ideas flow in the opposite direction, that is, from bottom to top, rather than from top to bottom, unless supported by the subsequent implementation work plan, the flow is likely to be blocked.
Second, the complexity of creativity. The more complex the problem of creative design is, the more demand there is for the change and adjustment of internal organization and current operation mode. Therefore, when making suggestions, it is obviously more necessary to explain the aspects that need to be changed in a responsible manner.
But this does not mean that creative people need to discuss in detail the question of "how to do it". They don't have to discuss whether to implement or abandon a proposal like the executive Committee of a big company. If we demand so much of them, it is hard to say that creative resources will not be exhausted, because creative people have no time, ability and help to do so much work.
Third, the nature of the industry. How many auxiliary details subordinates should provide when putting forward ideas often depends on the industry involved and the purpose of the idea. For example, the advertising industry attaches great importance to "creativity", one of the reasons is that the first condition of advertising is to attract attention. Therefore, in this industry, "creativity" always revolves around how to achieve the best visual or auditory effect, so that advertising creativity can stand out from the increasing noise that makes consumers feel dizzy. In this sense, the "originality" of advertising industry is completely different from that of steel industry. It is easy to "do it right away" by matching the protagonist of the shirt advertisement with a black eye mask. Creativity and execution are almost the same thing here. However, taking the steel industry as an example, an idea aimed at encouraging cold-rolled steel plate customers to reduce the number of orders but increase the number of orders will involve various complicated issues. At this time, there is a big gap between creativity and implementation, and even an action plan is not mentioned. Therefore, if such an idea wants to win the understanding and support of others, it must be supported by a lot of facts and logical arguments when it is put forward.
Fourth, the attitude and work of the creative submitter. As we all know, some bosses are more receptive to new ideas, while others are more open-minded and can accept extremely avant-garde ideas. The degree of acceptance of creative submitters often determines the degree of detail of the facts and theoretical basis needed for new ideas in the initial stage.
A top manager's attitude towards creative people also depends on his boss's attitude towards taking risks and making mistakes. In a company I am familiar with, two top managers are particularly receptive to novel ideas. Sometimes the bolder the idea, the more they like it. As a result, no matter how vague and extreme the expression of new ideas is, they can be booed by the whole company and get a chance to make a statement soon. But there are very few such organizations.
Why are organizational constraints necessary?
Writers who pay attention to creativity and innovation all emphasize that "creative impulse" is the first. Then, by the way, they will talk about how it is necessary to teach people to sell their ideas and urge decision makers to listen to the ideas of subordinates and colleagues. Next, they will point out that it is very important to create a tolerant organizational atmosphere for creative talents, and casually propose some improvement methods. They rarely analyze the stressful work of decision makers, and rarely talk to creative talents to teach them how to change their behavior to meet the requirements of their superiors. Their articles always warn bosses to improve their working methods. This bias towards creative talents is probably because they are as hostile to the concept of "organization" as creative talents themselves. They don't like organizations, but it's hard to say why.
I think I know why. Organization and creativity always seem to be incompatible, but organization and adaptability are perfect and harmonious. Advocating to create an "inclusive" creative environment in an organization is only a hidden attack on the concept of the organization itself. Once people realize that one of the incidental purposes of an organization is to prevent the unrestricted spread of new ideas and creativity, their attacks will become obvious.
But there is no doubt that the purpose of the organization is to maintain a certain form and a certain degree of mission. Organizations exist to restrain and guide individuals' behaviors and make them behave within predictable and controllable norms. Without organization, there will be chaos and decline. Organizations also exist to create the necessary stability so that the most urgent work can be completed efficiently and on time.
Creativity and innovation will disturb this order. Therefore, the organization is not an environment suitable for giving full play to creativity and innovation, although without creativity and innovation, the organization will eventually die out. This also explains why small individual studios are usually more dynamic and innovative than large companies. They are actually unorganized (because they are personal studios) and are often run by impulsive people. They are arbitrary and do their own things.
This organization was set up to maintain order. It has clear policies, procedures and strong binding rules. Without these, the mission of the organization's existence cannot be completed. This leads to so-called compliance.
From creativity to innovation
However, if adaptation and rigidity are the necessary conditions for the existence of an organization, if they will in turn inhibit creativity, and if creative talents are deeply suffocated because they have to list all the details when turning ideas into effective innovations, does all this mean that modern organizations have evolved into a complex monster, destined to face the same fate as dinosaurs-they are too big and too bulky to survive?
The answer is no, first of all, we want to ask, once creative people have to bear certain executive responsibility, will their creative impulse really fade automatically? In fact, those who insist on their creativity rarely suggest that they need a greenhouse to grow beautiful flowers. In fact, some important characteristics of large organizations help to promote innovation. Its powerful risk dispersion ability can spread risks among the broad economic base and all those who implement new ideas, thus making it easier for creative people in the organization to open up new horizons.
Another view that often misleads people is that if there are major changes in business activities or organizational policies, then the organizational structure must be adjusted accordingly. But one advantage of large organizations is that, at least in the short term, their organizational inertia is irreversible, and their organizational structure is almost unshakable for various practical purposes. This is like a big machine, which exists to complete a certain job. No matter how many revolutionary changes there are in business activities or organizational policies, this work must continue to receive people's meticulous attention. It is possible and inevitable for a ship to shake, but one advantage of a big ship is that it needs a lot of strength to be shaken. On this big ship, some people and some departments may feel the ship shaking more than others, and they will try their best to avoid it. The "huge" scale and collective decision-making mechanism of large organizations can play the role of internal stabilizers, thus strongly encouraging people to take risks and try things that lead to "shaking".
Finally, large organizations also have an organizational mechanism that can resist the so-called "large-scale organizational conservatism." There is evidence that even a relatively strict organization can inject some flexibility into its structure and provide a home for creative but irresponsible individuals. What is needed here (especially in large organizations) is not a suggestion box system, but a special team to accept, organize and analyze ideas and implement them in a necessary way. It is best for the team to carefully evaluate everyone's ideas first, and then submit the ideas and necessary implementation plans to the relevant senior management, so that the ideas will be more acceptable.
For example, the marketing director of Mobil Oil Company has established an organizational mechanism with a similar structure. Schering Company also has a similar organization, which is named "Management R&D" and its purpose is to cultivate and develop new ideas and new decision-making methods.
Some suggestions are not entirely based on specific organizational forms. For example, Murray, president of the National Insurance Company? Lincoln proposed to set up a vice president in charge of innovation in the company.
In addition, because each enterprise faces different problems and needs, they must find a unique way to solve the problems discussed in this paper. But in any case, we must realize that it is necessary and valuable to establish a system that allows creativity to generate more innovative activities.
Some companies need these measures more than others. As mentioned earlier, this demand depends to some extent on the nature of the industry. American industry critics and consultants who repeatedly call on enterprises to need more creativity might as well try to understand the huge difference between creativity and innovation activities, and then spend more time calling on creative talents to assume certain executive responsibilities. The possibility of transforming creativity into innovation results varies with industry, organizational atmosphere, the level of creative people in the organization, the problems, pressures and responsibilities faced by creative people. If we don't understand these facts thoroughly, we will pretend that the company can only grow and develop if it has more creative talents, and it will only be empty in the end.