The Creativity Gap
There is a definite gap between the value an organization places on creativity and its ability to fully utilize the talents of its creative people.
Recently we conducted a survey, which went to both creatives and business leaders, and some of the results are quite surprising.
One of the questions we asked was, ‘in business should creativity have a commercial value?’ Pretty straight forward and as you would expect most people answered ‘yes’. In fact - 90%. Which is not all surprising when you think about it because unless creativity leads to a positive business outcome it isn’t all that useful. It needs to add value to your clients, your people and ultimately your company’s bottom line
BUT…what was surprising was the result from another fairly straightforward question. Do you fully utilize the talents of your creative people?’ Only 16% of people answered yes!
Now I don’t know about you but that rings some bells for me.
On one hand business emphatically understands the need for creativity to be of commercial value. Yet only 16% make full use of the abilities and wisdom of their creative people to achieve that. What’s even more amazing is that they know that they don’t!
It’s a bit like knowing you have to get a heap of stuff across a canyon but only using 16% of the bridge’s capacity. You’d either limit how much you carry across, do multiple trips which of course would take longer, or perhaps hire more trucks. Either way it’s inefficient because you have a very useful bridge with the ability to do the job.
So why is that? Well primarily it comes down to the fact that creative people work very differently and in order to lead them we need to understand them.
One of the challenges businesses face when working with creative people is that they think, feel and do very differently. So you need to understand why they think differently, how they do things differently, and what motivates them. Leading creative people requires a different set of skills. Leaders need to be mentors, guides, champions, custodians and not managers, bosses, or superiors.
And if you think that’s all a bit one sided then, yes there is room for many creatives to get their heads around how their leaders, businesses and ultimately clients think and work as well, (but that’s another topic for another day).
And if we can start to bridge the gap in understanding how creatives work and why they think the way they do then we are well on the way to bridging the creativity gap and improving the wisdom and genius we have at our disposal.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
I think part of the problem may be the way the question was framed.
Do you "FULLY" utilize the talents of your creatives - well anyone who answers yes to that is deluded. No organization "FULLY" ultizes the talents, energy, or creativity of its people. Nor does any individual truly give 100% (maybe athletes or soldiers that collapse at the end of their deal). It's not realistic.
Had the question been "EFFECTIVELY" utilize or tap into the responsess may have been quite different.
That said, I believe that most organizations do not effectively utilize the talent at their disposal. But more than not effectively utilizing the creativity of their creatives, organizations do not utilize the creativity of their productives and staff - many of whom have great ideas about how to improve they quality, quantity, impact of their work because they are close to it.
One reason is money - creativity - from what ever source - is about creation or change, both require an investment of resources, time, energy, money - often with an uncertain outcome. Many organizations have both implicit and explicit barriers to change for that reason - even something as simple as changing a report has cost - time to develop the new report, checking for bugs, and the EDUCATING all of the users as to how to use that report and selling why it is better. Cost and change that is likely to receive resistance - especially when someone else in the organization is invested in the existing report (process, activity, etc.) becasue they created it.
In addition, (and by the way I am a huge fan of creativity), many creative ideas have unclear returns, require work for others, and involve change outside of the decision makers comfort zone. And in truth a lot of the ideas from the creatives are not grounded in the realities of the business.
The point being harnessing creativity requires a LOT more than simply listening to the creatives. Harnessing creativity requires a deeper organizational approach - the cultivation of a culture of listening, of resisting the "not invented here" mindset, of developing decision makers that can (both effectively and politically) take counsel from subordinates and outsiders (rare in my experience).
Further the organization has to be willing to allow resources (time, tolerance, energy, money) for creative experiments to take place AND be willing to accept failure, and the need to adjust plans after the fact - because the creatives are not always right and a new way is not necessarily a better way - and even if it is there are likely to be be unforeseen ramifications to change. Many organizations rightly or wrongly to believe they have that kind of slack to allow for creative practice.
HI Scott.
Well said. Agree totally with your final paragraphs. Regarding the 'fully' - fair enough, however whether we sue 'effectively' or just 'utilise' the result would be that there is still a gap. Be interesting next time I run the survey to slightly rephrase and see what happens, although the point being that business needs to better lead it's creatives so a jolt is always more effective.
Hi Nigel,
The distance between believing in creativity and utilizing it is not surprising at all. Many companies profess they are all about leading edge something which amounts to a sort of creativity washing. Fact is most companies I know would love to be second to market thus avoiding the chaos and costs of being the pioneer. Sort of like drafting in a bike race.
Of course creativity does not simply mean "new things." It can be an enhancement or melding of known items, which indeed, is creative. But having the discipline and direction to foster and commercialize creativity is rare because it is intangible.
For sometime I have believed that people should be paid in direct proportion to their ability to delight others. Really this is what creativity has done when it has an economic return. But lacking the metrics that, say, determine the commission of an oil trader, determining the front-end valuation of creativity in most company cultures keeps it at 16%.
Great survey, interesting results, thanks! The thing I am curious from my own work with corporates on this is I guess a 3rd question: 'Do you want to fully utilise the talents of your creative people?'
My experience is that often corporates like to add a dash of creative input to a project, but are less ready to give their creatives full rein. A bit like the difference between adding a dash of spice to a dish versus doing a full vindaloo...
Any thoughts?
I think of the 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration observation as I read of this study. A ratio like this means, 1 inspired creative to every 99 perspiring others. The perspiring many, have their creative moments too.
It is easy to dismiss the creative activity that occurs everyday, as it is applied to social, cost, break/fix challenges. The business often looks at the creative in advertising, marketing, product design, technology and delivery.
As for commerical value, quanitfy it. The creative value gets in line with the risk takers, perspirers, and a host of others.
Creativity's reward is usually genuine self satisfaction, a pat on the back and a beer. Valuing creativity, as in paying for it, means it competes for the dollars invested with all perspirers.
Art
Interesting thoughts posted here, but it seems that none of them are from 'creatives' as you refer to them.
A five year old playing with play-dough may be creative or may not be, but what does it matter unless there is an objective that needs a creative intervention.
If you have ever seen Tiger Woods play golf, you have seen one of the most creative problem solving people on the face of the earth, but one must realize that his creativity has been developed as a means to an end, not as a hired gun or subordinate to a sales department and its goals.
Creative and capital objectives will almost always be at odds. The secret is inviting creative to involve themselves and then not interfere with them - no matter what. Creative and COO mixing is like oil and water - unless it is done wisely and slowly the emulsifying process to common ends will never happen.
Next question: is creative required, or just window dressing?