How+to+Kill+Creativity??

ارجو ان تكون هذه المعلومات قد استفتم منها وهذه هو الرابط اذا ارد تحميله على صيغه pdf http://gwmoon.knu.ac.kr/Lecture_Library_Upload/HOW_TO_KILL_CREATIVITY.pdf


 * HOW**
 * TO KILL**
 * CREATIVITY**
 * Keep doing what you're doing.**
 * Or, if you want to spark innovation,**
 * rethink how you motivate, reward,**
 * and assign work to people.**
 * BY TERESA M. AMABILE**
 * WHEN I CONSIDER all the organizations**
 * I have studied and worked with over the past**
 * 22 years, there can be no doubt: creativity gets killed**
 * much more often than it gets supported. For the most**
 * part, this isn't because managers bave a vendetta against**
 * creativity. On tbe contrary, most believe in the value of**
 * new and useful ideas. However, creativity is undermined**
 * unintentionally every day in work environments that**
 * were established-for entirely good reasons-to maximize**
 * business imperatives such as coordination, productivity,**
 * and control.**
 * Managers cannot be expected to ignore business imperatives,**
 * of course. But in working toward these imperatives,**
 * tbey may be inadvertently designing organizations tbat systematically**
 * crusb creativity. My research shows that it is**
 * possible to develop the best of both worlds: organizations in**
 * Teresa M. Amabile is the M.B.A. Class of 1954 Professor of Business**
 * Administration and senior associate dean for research at the Harvard**
 * Business School in Boston, Massachusetts.**
 * ARTWORK BY BRYAN LEISTER • 77**
 * HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY**
 * which business imperatives are attended to and**
 * creativity flourishes. Building such organizations,**
 * however, requires us to understand precisely what**
 * kinds of managerial practices foster creativity-and**
 * which kill it.**
 * What Is Business Creativity?**
 * We tend to associate creativity with the arts and to**
 * think of it as the expression of highly original ideas.**
 * Think of how Pablo Picasso reinvented the conventions**
 * of painting or how William Faulkner redefined**
 * fiction. In business, originality isn't enough.**
 * To he creative, an idea must also he appropriateuseful**
 * and actionable. It must somehow influence**
 * the way business gets done-hy improving a product,**
 * for instance, or hy opening up a new way to approach**
 * a process.**
 * The associations made between creativity and**
 * artistic originality often lead to confusion about the**
 * appropriate place of creativity in business organizations.**
 * In seminars, I've asked managers if there**
 * is any place they don't want creativity in their companies.**
 * About 80% of the time, they answer, "Accounting."**
 * Creativity, they seem to believe, belongs**
 * just in marketing and R&JD. But creativity**
 * can benefit every function of an organization.**
 * Think of activity-based accounting. It was an invention-**
 * an accounting invention-and its impact**
 * on business has been positive and profound.**
 * Along with fearing creativity in the accounting**
 * department-or really, in any unit that involves**
 * systematic processes or legal regulations - many**
 * managers also hold a rather narrow view of the creative**
 * process. To them, creativity refers to the way**
 * people think-how inventively they approach problems,**
 * for instance. Indeed, thinking imaginatively**
 * is one part of creativity, but two others are also essential:**
 * expertise and motivation.**
 * Expertise encompasses everything that a person**
 * knows and can do in the broad domain of his or her**
 * work. Take, for example, a scientist at a pharmaceutical**
 * company who is charged with developing a**
 * blood-clotting drug for hemophiliacs. Her expertise**
 * includes her basic talent for thinking scientifically**
 * as well as all the knowledge and technical abilities**
 * THE THREE COMPONENTS OF CREATIVITY**
 * Within every individual, creativity is a function of three components: expertise, creative-thinking skills,**
 * and motivation. Can managers influence these coniponents? The answer is an emphatic yes-for better**
 * or for worse - through workplace practices and conditions.**
 * Expertise is, in a word,**
 * knowledge-technical,**
 * procedural, and intellectual.**
 * Creative- \**
 * thinking**
 * skills**
 * Creativity**
 * Creative-thinking skiiis**
 * determine how flexibly**
 * and imaginatively people**
 * approach problems. Do**
 * their solutions upend the**
 * status quo? Do they persevere**
 * through dry spells?**
 * Motivation**
 * Not all motivation is created equal. An inner passion to solve**
 * the problem at hand leads to solutions far more creative than**
 * do external rewards,such as money.This component-called**
 * intrinsic motivation-is the one that can be most immediately**
 * influenced by the work environment.**
 * 78 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998**
 * HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY**
 * that she has in the fields of medicine, chemistry, biology,**
 * and biochemistry. It doesn't matter how she**
 * acquired this expertise, whether through formal education,**
 * practical experience, or interaction with**
 * other professionals. Regardless, her expertise constitutes**
 * what the Nobel laureate, economist, and**
 * psychologist Herb Simon calls her "network of possible**
 * wanderings," the intellectual space that she**
 * uses to explore and solve problems. The larger this**
 * space, the better.**
 * Creative thinking, as noted above, refers to how**
 * people approach problems and solutions-their capacity**
 * to put existing ideas together in**
 * new combinations. The skill itself depends**
 * quite a bit on personality as**
 * well as on how a person thinks and**
 * works. The pharmaceutical scientist,**
 * for example, will be more creative if**
 * her personality is such that she feels**
 * comfortable disagreeing with othersthat**
 * is, if she naturally tries out solutions**
 * that depart from the status quo. Her creativity**
 * will be enhanced further if she habitually turns**
 * problems upside down and combines knowledge**
 * from seemingly disparate fields. For example, she**
 * might look to botany to help find solutions to the**
 * hemophilia problem, using lessons from the vascular**
 * systems of plants to spark insights about bleeding**
 * in humans.**
 * As for work style, the scientist will be more likely**
 * to achieve creative success if she perseveres through**
 * a difficult problem. Indeed, plodding through long**
 * dry spells of tedious experimentation increases the**
 * probability of truly creative breakthroughs. So, too,**
 * does a work style that uses "incubation," the ahility**
 * to set aside difficult problems temporarily, work**
 * on something else, and then retixrn later with a fresh**
 * perspective.**
 * Expertise and creative thinking are an individual's**
 * raw materials-his or her natural resources,**
 * if you will. But a third factor-motivation-determines**
 * what people will actually do. The scientist**
 * can bave outstanding educational credentials and**
 * a great facility in generating new perspectives to old**
 * problems. But if she lacks the motivation to do a**
 * particular job, she simply won't do it; her expertise**
 * and creative thinking will cither go untapped or be**
 * applied to something else.**
 * My research has repeatedly demonstrated, however,**
 * that all forms of motivation do not have the**
 * same impact on creativity. In fact, it shows tbat**
 * there are two types of motivation - extrinsic and intrinsic,**
 * the latter being far more essential for creativity.**
 * But let's explore extrinsic first, because it is**
 * often at the root of creativity problems in business.**
 * Extrinsic motivation comes from outside a person**
 * - whether the motivation is a carrot or a stick. If**
 * the scientist's boss promises to reward her financially**
 * should the blood-clotting project succeed, or**
 * if he threatens to fire her should it fail, she will certainly**
 * be motivated to find a solution. But this sort**
 * of motivation "makes" the scientist do her job in**
 * order to get something desirable or avoid something**
 * painful.**
 * Obviously, the most common extrinsic motivator**
 * managers use is money, which doesn't necessarily**
 * stop people from being creative. But in many sit-**
 * Money doesn't necessarily stop**
 * people from being creative, but in**
 * many situations, it doesn't help.**
 * uations, it doesn't help either, especially when it**
 * leads people to feel that they are being bribed or**
 * controlled. More important, money by itself doesn't**
 * make employees passionate about their jobs. A**
 * cash reward can't magically prompt people to find**
 * their work interesting if in their hearts they feel it**
 * is dull.**
 * But passion and interest-a person's internal desire**
 * to do something-are what intrinsic motivation**
 * is all about. For instance, the scientist in our**
 * example would be intrinsically motivated if her**
 * work on the blood-clotting drug was sparked by an**
 * intense interest in hemophilia, a personal sense of**
 * challenge, or a drive to crack a problem that no one**
 * else has been able to solve. When people are intrinsically**
 * motivated, they engage in their work for the**
 * challenge and enjoyment of it. The work itself is**
 * motivating. In fact, in our creativity research, my**
 * students, colleagues, and I have found so much evidence**
 * in favor of intrinsic motivation that we have**
 * articulated what we call the Intrinsic Motivation**
 * Principle of Creativity: people will be most creative**
 * when they feel motivated primarily by the interest,**
 * satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself-and**
 * not by external pressures. (For more on the differences**
 * between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,**
 * see the insert "The Creativity Maze.")**
 * Managing Creativity**
 * Managers can influence all three components of**
 * creativity: expertise, creative-thinking skills, and**
 * motivation. But the fact is that the first two are**
 * more difficult and time consuming to influence**
 * HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998 n**
 * HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY**
 * THE CREATIVITY MAZE**
 * To understand tbe differences between extrinsic**
 * and intrinsic motivation, imagine a business**
 * problem as a maze.**
 * One person migbt be motivated to make it**
 * tbrougb the maze as quickly and safely as possible**
 * in order to get a tangible reward, such as**
 * money-tbe same way a mouse would rush**
 * through for a piece of cheese. This person would**
 * look for the simplest, most straightforward**
 * patb and then take it. In fact, if he is in a real**
 * rush to get tbat reward, he might just take the**
 * most beaten path and solve the problem exactly**
 * as it has been solved before.**
 * That approach, based on extrinsic motivation,**
 * will indeed get bim out of the maze. But the solution**
 * that arises from tbe process is likely to be**
 * unimaginative. It won't provide new insights**
 * about the nature of the problem or reveal new**
 * ways of looking at it. The rote solution probably**
 * won't move the business forward.**
 * Another person migbt have a different approach**
 * to the maze. She might actually find the**
 * process of wandering around tbe different**
 * paths - the challenge and exploration itself - fun**
 * and intriguing. No doubt, this journey will take**
 * longer and include mistakes, because any**
 * maze-any truly complex problem-has many**
 * more dead ends tban exits. But when tbe intrinsically**
 * motivated person finally does find a way**
 * out of the maze-a solution-it very likely will**
 * be more interesting tban the rote algorithm. It**
 * will be more creative.**
 * There is abundant evidence of strong intrinsic**
 * motivation in tbe stories of widely recognized**
 * creative people. When asked what makes**
 * the difference between creative scientists and**
 * tbose wbo are less creative, tbe Nobel-prizewinning**
 * physicist Arthur Scbawlow said, "The**
 * labor-of-love aspect is important. The most**
 * successful scientists often are not tbe most talented,**
 * but tbe ones who are just impelled by curiosity.**
 * They've got to know what the answer**
 * is." Albert Einstein talked about intrinsic motivation**
 * as "the enjoyment of seeing and searching."**
 * The novelist John Irving, in discussing tbe**
 * very long bours be put into bis writing, said,**
 * "Tbe unspoken factor is love. The reason I can**
 * work so bard at my writing is that it's not work**
 * for me." And Michael lordan, perhaps the most**
 * creative basketball player ever, bad a "love of**
 * tbe game" clause inserted into his contract; be**
 * insisted that be be free to play pick-up basketball**
 * games any time he wished.**
 * Creative people are rarely superstars like**
 * Michael lordan. Indeed, most of the creative**
 * work done in the business world today gets**
 * done by people wbose names will never be**
 * recorded in history books. They are people with**
 * expertise, good creative-thinking skills, and**
 * high levels of intrinsic motivation. And just as**
 * important, they work in organizations where**
 * managers consciously build environments that**
 * support tbese characteristics instead of destroying**
 * them.**
 * than motivation. Yes, regular scientific seminars**
 * and professional conferences will undoubtedly add**
 * to the scientist's expertise in hemophilia and related**
 * fields. And training in brainstorming, problem**
 * solving, and so-called lateral thinking might give**
 * her some new tools to use in tackling the job. But**
 * the time and money involved in broadening her**
 * knowledge and expanding her creative-thinking**
 * skills would be great. By contrast, our research has**
 * shown that intrinsic motivation ean be increased**
 * considerably by even subtle changes in an organization's**
 * environment. That is not to say that managers**
 * should give up on improving expertise and**
 * creative-thinking skills. But when it conies to**
 * pulling levers, they should know that those that**
 * affect intrinsic motivation will yield more immediate**
 * results.**
 * More specifically, then, what managerial practices**
 * affect creativity? They fall into six general categories:**
 * challenge, freedom, resources, work-group**
 * features, supervisory encouragement, and organizational**
 * support. These categories have emerged from**
 * more than two decades of research focused primarily**
 * on one question: What are the links hetween**
 * work environment and creativity? We bave used**
 * three methodologies: experiments, interviews, and**
 * surveys. While controlled experiments allowed us**
 * to identify causal links, the interviews and surveys**
 * gave us insight into the richness and complexity of**
 * creativity within business organizations. We have**
 * 80 HARVARD BUSiNESS REVIEW September-October 1998**
 * HOW TO KILL CHEATIVITY**
 * Studied dozens of companies and, within those,**
 * hundreds of individuals and teams. In each research**
 * initiative, our goal has been to identify which managerial**
 * practices are definitively linked to positive**
 * creative outcomes and which are not.**
 * For instance, in one project, we interviewed**
 * dozens of employees from a wide variety of companies**
 * and industries and asked them to describe in**
 * detail the most and least creative events in their careers.**
 * We then closely studied the**
 * transcripts of those interviews, noting**
 * the managerial practices - or other**
 * patterns-that appeared repeatedly**
 * in the successful creativity stories**
 * and, conversely, in those that were**
 * unsuccessful. Our research has also**
 * heen bolstered by a quantitative survey**
 * instrument called KEYS. Taken**
 * by employees at any level of an organization,**
 * KEYS consists of 78 questions**
 * used to assess various workplace**
 * conditions, such as the level of**
 * support for creativity from top-level**
 * managers or the organization's approach**
 * to evaluation.**
 * Taking the six categories that have**
 * emerged from our research in turn,**
 * let's explore what managers can do**
 * to enhance creativity-and what often**
 * happens instead. Again, it is important**
 * to note that creativity-killing**
 * practices are seldom the work of lone**
 * managers. Such practices usually are**
 * systemic-so widespread that they**
 * are rarely questioned.**
 * Challenge. Of all the things managers**
 * can do to stimulate creativity,**
 * perhaps the most efficacious is the**
 * deceptively simple task of matching**
 * people with the right assignments.**
 * Managers can match people with**
 * jobs that play to their expertise and**
 * their skills in creative thinking, and**
 * ignite intrinsic motivation. Perfect**
 * matches stretch employees' abilities.**
 * The amount of stretch, however,**
 * is crucial: not so little that they feel bored hut**
 * not so much that they feel overwhelmed and threatened**
 * by a loss of control. ••**
 * Making a good match requires that managers**
 * possess rich and detailed information about their**
 * employees and the available assignments. Such information**
 * is often difficult and time consuming to**
 * gather. Perhaps that's why good matches are so**
 * rarely made. In fact, one of the most common ways**
 * managers kill creativity is by not trying to obtain**
 * the information necessary to make good connections**
 * between people and jobs. Instead, something**
 * of a shotgun wedding occurs. The most eligible employee**
 * is wed to the most eligible - that is, the most**
 * urgent and open- assignment. Often, the results are**
 * predictably unsatisfactory for all involved.**
 * Freedom. When it comes to granting freedom, the**
 * key to creativity is giving people autonomy con-**
 * Creativity thrives when managers let people decide how to climb a**
 * mountain; they needn't, however, let employees choose wbich one.**
 * cerning the means-that is, concerning processbut**
 * not necessarily the ends. People will be more**
 * creative, in other words, if you give them freedom**
 * to decide how to climb a particular mountain. You**
 * needn't let them choose which mountain to climb.**
 * In fact, clearly specified strategic goals often enhance**
 * people's creativity.**
 * I'm not making the case that managers should**
 * leave their subordinates entirely out of goal- or**
 * HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998 81**
 * HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY**
 * agenda-setting discussions. But they should understand**
 * that inclusion in those discussions will not**
 * necessarily enhance creative output and certainly**
 * will not be sufficient to do so. It is far more important**
 * that whoever sets the goals also makes them**
 * clear to the organization and that these goals remain**
 * stable for a meaningful period of time. It is difficult,**
 * if not impossible, to work creatively toward**
 * a target if it keeps moving.**
 * Autonomy around process fosters creativity because**
 * giving people freedom in how they approach**
 * their work heightens their intrinsic motivation and**
 * Deciding how much time and**
 * money to give to a team or project**
 * is a judgment call that can either**
 * support or kill creativity.**
 * sense of ownership. Freedom ahout process also allows**
 * people to approach problems in ways that**
 * make the most of their expertise and their creativethinking**
 * skills. The task may end up being a stretch**
 * for them, hut they can use their strengths to meet**
 * the challenge.**
 * How do executives mismanage freedom? There**
 * are two common ways. First, managers tend to**
 * change goals frequently or fail to define them clearly.**
 * Employees may have freedom around process, but**
 * if they don't know where they are headed, such**
 * freedom is pointless. And second, some managers**
 * fall short on this dimension hy granting autonomy**
 * in name only. They claim that employees are "empowered"**
 * to explore the maze as they search for solutions**
 * hut, in fact, the process is proscribed. Employees**
 * diverge at their own risk.**
 * Resources. The two main resources that affect**
 * creativity are time and money. Managers need to**
 * allot these resources carefully. Like matching people**
 * with the right assignments, deciding how much**
 * time and money to give to a team or project is a sophisticated**
 * judgment call that can either support or**
 * kill creativity.**
 * Consider time. Under some circumstances, time**
 * pressure can heighten creativity. Say, for instance,**
 * that a competitor is ahout to launch a great product**
 * at a lower price than your offering or that society**
 * faces a serious problem and desperately needs a solution-**
 * such as an AIDS vaccine. In such situations,**
 * both the time crunch and the importance of**
 * the work legitimately make people feel that they**
 * must rush. Indeed, cases like these would he apt to**
 * increase intrinsic motivation by increasing the**
 * sense of challenge.**
 * Organizations routinely kill creativity with fake**
 * deadlines or impossibly tight ones. The former create**
 * distrust and the latter cause burnout. In either**
 * case, people feel overcontroUed and unfulfilledwhich**
 * invariably damages motivation. Moreover,**
 * creativity often takes time. It can be slow going to**
 * explore new concepts, put together unique solutions,**
 * and wander through the maze. Managers who**
 * do not allow time for exploration or do not schedule**
 * in incubation periods are unwittingly**
 * standing in the way of the creative**
 * process.**
 * When it comes to project resources,**
 * again managers must make a fit. They**
 * must determine the funding, people,**
 * and other resources that a team legitimately**
 * needs to complete an assignment**
 * - and they must know how much**
 * the organization can legitimately afford**
 * to allocate to the assignment.**
 * Then they must strike a compromise. Interestingly,**
 * adding more resources above a "threshold of sufficiency"**
 * does not boost creativity. Below that threshold,**
 * however, a restriction of resources can dampen**
 * creativity. Unfortunately, many managers don't**
 * realize this and therefore often make another mistake.**
 * They keep resources tight, which pushes people**
 * to channel their creativity into finding additional**
 * resources, not in actually developing new products**
 * or services.**
 * Another resource that is misunderstood when it**
 * comes to creativity is physical space. It is almost**
 * conventional wisdom that creative teams need**
 * open, comfortable offices. Such an atmosphere**
 * won't hurt creativity, and it may even help, but it is**
 * not nearly as important as other managerial initiatives**
 * that influence creativity. Indeed, a problem**
 * we have seen time and time again is managers paying**
 * attention to creating the "right" physical space**
 * at the expense of more high-impact actions, such**
 * as matching people to the right assignments and**
 * granting freedom around work processes.**
 * Work-Group Features. If you want to build teams**
 * that come up with creative ideas, you must pay**
 * careful attention to the design of such teams. That**
 * is, you must create mutually supportive groups**
 * witb a diversity of perspectives and backgrounds.**
 * Why? Because when teams comprise people with**
 * various intellectual foundations and approaches to**
 * work - that is, different expertise and creative thinking**
 * styles-ideas often combine and combust in exciting**
 * and usefxil ways.**
 * 82 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998**
 * HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY**
 * Diversity, however, is only a starting point. Managers**
 * must also make sure that the teams they put**
 * together have three other features. First, the members**
 * must share excitement over the team's goal.**
 * Second, members must display a willingness to**
 * help their teammates through difficult periods and**
 * setbacks. And third, every member must recognize**
 * the unique knowledge and perspective that other**
 * members bring to the table. These factors enhance**
 * not only intrinsic motivation but also expertise and**
 * creative-thinking skills.**
 * Again, creating such teams requires managers to**
 * have a deep understanding of their people. They**
 * must be able to assess them not just for their**
 * knowledge but for their attitudes about potential**
 * fellow team members and the collaborative process,**
 * for their problem-solving styles, and for their**
 * motivational hot buttons. Putting together a team**
 * with just the right chemistry-just the right level of**
 * diversity and supportiveness-can be difficult, but**
 * our research shows how powerful it can be.**
 * It follows, then, that one common way managers**
 * kill creativity is hy assembling homogeneous teams.**
 * The lure to do so is great. Homogeneous teams often**
 * reach "solutions" more quickly and with less**
 * friction along the way. These teams often report**
 * high morale, too. But homogeneous teams do little**
 * to enhance expertise and creative thinking. Everyone**
 * comes to the table with a similar mind-set.**
 * They leave with the same.**
 * Supervisory Encouragement. Most managers are**
 * extremely busy. They are under pressure for results.**
 * It is therefore easy for them to let praise for creative**
 * efforts-not just creative successes but unsuccessful**
 * efforts, too-fall by the wayside.**
 * One very simple step managers**
 * can take to foster creativity**
 * is to not let that happen.**
 * The connection to intrinsic**
 * motivation here is clear. Certain-, . , r i •**
 * ly, people can find their work time^consummg kyers or evaluation.**
 * interesting or exciting without ^ "^**
 * a cheering section - for some period**
 * of time. But to sustain such passion, most people**
 * need to feel as if their work matters to the organization**
 * or to some important group of people.**
 * Otherwise, they might as well do their work at**
 * home and for their own personal gain.**
 * Managers in successful, creative organizations**
 * rarely offer specific extrinsic rewards for particular**
 * outcomes. However, they freely and generously**
 * recognize creative work by individuals and teams -**
 * often before the ultimate commercial impact of**
 * those efforts is known. By contrast, managers who**
 * kill creativity do so either by failing to acknowledge**
 * innovative efforts or by greeting them with**
 * skepticism. In many companies, for instance, new**
 * ideas are met not with open minds but with timeconsuming**
 * layers of evaluation - or even with**
 * harsh criticism. When someone suggests a new**
 * product or process, senior managers take weeks to**
 * respond. Or they put that person through an excruciating**
 * critique.**
 * Not every new idea is worthy of consideration, of**
 * course, but in many organizations, managers hahitually**
 * demonstrate a reaction that damages creativity.**
 * They look for reasons to not use a new idea instead**
 * of searching for reasons to explore it further.**
 * An interesting psychological dynamic underlies**
 * this phenomenon. Our research shows that people**
 * believe that they will appear smarter to their bosses**
 * if they are more critical-and it often works. In**
 * many organizations, it is professionally rewarding**
 * to react critically to new ideas.**
 * Unfortunately, this sort of negativity bias can**
 * have severe consequences for the creativity of those**
 * heing evaluated. How? First, a culture of evaluation**
 * leads people to focus on the external rewards and**
 * punishments associated with their output, thus increasing**
 * the presence of extrinsic motivation and**
 * its potentially negative effects on intrinsic motivation.**
 * Second, such a culture creates a climate of**
 * fear, which again undermines intrinsic motivation.**
 * Finally, negativity also shows up in how managers**
 * treat people whose ideas don't pan out: often,**
 * they are terminated or otherwise warehoused within**
 * the organization. Of course, ultimately, ideas do**
 * need to work; remember that creative ideas in business**
 * must be new and useful. The dilemma is that**
 * In many companies, new ideas are**
 * met not with open minds but with**
 * you can't possibly know beforehand which ideas**
 * will pan out. Furthermore, dead ends can sometimes**
 * he very enlightening. In many husiness situations,**
 * knowing what doesn't work can he as useful**
 * as knowing what does. But if people do not perceive**
 * any "failure value" for projects that ultimately do**
 * not achieve commercial success, they'll become**
 * less and less likely to experiment, explore, and connect**
 * with their work on a personal level. Their intrinsic**
 * motivation will evaporate.**
 * Supervisory encouragement comes in other forms**
 * besides rewards and punishment. Another way**
 * HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998 83**
 * HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY**
 * managers can support creativity is to serve as role**
 * models, persevering through tough prohlems as**
 * well as encouraging collaboration and communication**
 * within the team. Such hehavior enhances all**
 * three components of the creative process, and it has**
 * the added virtue of heing a high-impact practice**
 * that a single manager can take on his or her own. It**
 * is better still when all managers in an organization**
 * serve as role models for the attitudes and behaviors**
 * that encourage and nurture creativity.**
 * Organizational Support. Encouragement from**
 * supervisors certainly fosters creativity, hut creativity**
 * is truly enhanced when the entire organization**
 * supports it. Such support is the job of an organization's**
 * leaders, who must put in place appropriate**
 * systems or procedures and emphasize values that**
 * make it clear that creative efforts are a top priority.**
 * For example, creativity-supporting organizations**
 * consistently reward creativity, but they avoid using**
 * money to "bribe" people to come up with innovative**
 * ideas. Because monetary rewards make people**
 * feel as if they are heing controlled, such a tactic**
 * probably won't work. At the same time, not providing**
 * sufficient recognition and rewards for creativity**
 * can spawn negative feelings within an organization.**
 * People can feel used, or at the least underappreciated,**
 * for their creative efforts. And it is rare**
 * to find the energy and passion of intrinsic motivation**
 * coupled with resentment.**
 * Most important, an organization's leaders can**
 * support creativity by mandating information sharing**
 * and collaboration and by ensuring that political**
 * problems do not fester. Information sharing and**
 * collaboration support all three components of creativity.**
 * Take expertise. The more often people exchange**
 * ideas and data by working together, the**
 * more knowledge they will have. The same dynamic**
 * can be said for creative tbinking. In fact, one way**
 * to enhance the creative thinking of employees is to**
 * expose them to various approaches to problem solving.**
 * With the exception of hardened misanthropes,**
 * information sharing and collaboration heighten**
 * peoples' enjoyment of work and thus their intrinsic**
 * motivation.**
 * Whether or not you are seeking to enhance creativity,**
 * it is prohably never a good idea to let political**
 * problems fester in an organizational setting.**
 * Infighting, politicking, and gossip are particularly**
 * damaging to creativity because they take peoples'**
 * attention away from work. That sense of mutual**
 * purpose and excitement so central to intrinsic motivation**
 * invariahly lessens when people are cliquish**
 * or at war with one another. Indeed, our research**
 * suggests that intrinsic motivation increases when**
 * people are aware that those around them are excited**
 * by their jobs. When political problems abound, people**
 * feel that their work is threatened by others'**
 * agendas.**
 * Finally, politicking also undermines expertise.**
 * The reason? Politics get in the way of open communication,**
 * obstructing the flow of information from**
 * point A to point B. Knowledge stays put and expertise**
 * suffers.**
 * From the Individual to the**
 * Organization**
 * Can executives build entire organizations that support**
 * creativity? The answer is yes. Consider the results**
 * of an intensive research project we recently**
 * completed called the Team Events Study. Over the**
 * course of two years, we studied more than two**
 * dozen teams in seven companies across three industries:**
 * high tech, consumer products, and chemicals.**
 * By following each team every day through the**
 * entire course of a creative project, we had a window**
 * into the details of what happened as the project**
 * progressed-or failed to progress, as the case may**
 * be. We did this through daily confidential e-mail**
 * reports from every person on each of the teams.**
 * At the end of each project, and at several points**
 * along the way, we used confidential reports from**
 * company experts and from team members to assess**
 * the level of creativity used in problem solving as**
 * well as the overall success of the project.**
 * As might be expected, the teams and the companies**
 * varied widely in how successful they were at**
 * producing creative work. One organization, which**
 * I will call Chemical Central Research, seemed to be**
 * a veritable hotbed of creativity. Chemical Central**
 * supplied its parent organization with new formulations**
 * for a wide variety of industrial and consumer**
 * products. In many respects, however, memhers of**
 * Chemical Central's development teams were unremarkable.**
 * They were well educated, but no more so**
 * than people in many other companies we had studied.**
 * The company was doing well financially, but**
 * not enormously better than most other companies.**
 * What seemed to distinguish this organization was**
 * the quality of leadership at both the top-management**
 * level and the team level. The way managers**
 * formed teams, communicated with them, and supported**
 * their work enabled tbem to establish an organization**
 * in which creativity was continually**
 * stimulated.**
 * We saw managers making excellent matches between**
 * people and assignments again and again at**
 * Chemical Central. On occasion, team members**
 * were initially unsure of whether they were up to**
 * the challenge they were given. Almost invariahly.**
 * 84 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998**
 * HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY**
 * though, they found their passion and interest growing**
 * through a deep involvement in the work. Their**
 * managers knew to match them with jobs that had**
 * them working at the top of their competency levels,**
 * pushing the frontiers of their skills, and developing**
 * new competencies. But managers were careful not**
 * to allow too big a gap between employees' assignments**
 * and their abilities.**
 * Moreover, managers at Chemical Central collaborated**
 * with the teams from the outset of a project**
 * to clarify goals. The final goals, however, were set**
 * by the managers. Then, at the dayto-**
 * day operational level, the teams**
 * were given a great deal of autonomy**
 * to make their own decisions about**
 * product development. Throughout**
 * the project, the teams' leaders and**
 * top-level managers periodically**
 * checked to see that work was directed**
 * toward the overall goals. But people**
 * were given real freedom around the**
 * implementation of the goals.**
 * As for work-group design, every**
 * Chemical Central team, though relatively**
 * small [between four and nine**
 * members), included members of diverse**
 * professional and ethnic backgrounds.**
 * Occasionally, that diversity**
 * led to communication difficulties.**
 * But more often, it sparked new insights**
 * and allowed the teams to come**
 * up with a wider variety of ways to**
 * accomplish their goals.**
 * One team, for example, was responsible**
 * for devising a new way to**
 * make a major ingredient for one of**
 * the company's most important products.**
 * Because managers at Chemical**
 * Central had worked consciously to**
 * create a diverse team, it happened**
 * that one member had both a legal**
 * and a technical background. This**
 * person realized that the team might**
 * well be able to patent its core idea,**
 * giving the company a clear advantage**
 * in a new market. Because team**
 * members were mutually supportive,**
 * that member was willing and eager**
 * to work closely with the inventor. Together, these**
 * individuals helped the team navigate its way**
 * through the patent application process. The team**
 * was successful and had fun along the way.**
 * Supervisory encouragement and organizational**
 * support were also widespread at Chemical Central.**
 * For instance, a member of one team received a com.-**
 * pany award as an outstanding scientist even though,**
 * along the way, he had experienced many failures as**
 * well as successes. At one point, after spending a**
 * great deal of time on one experiment, he told us,**
 * "All I came up with was a pot of junk." Still, the**
 * company did not punish or warehouse him because**
 * of a creative effort that had failed. Instead, he was**
 * publicly lauded for his consistently creative work.**
 * Finally, Chemical Central's leaders did much to**
 * encourage teams to seek support from all units**
 * within their divisions and to encourage coUabora-**
 * 1 V**
 * Some creative ideas soar; others sink.To enhance creativity, there should**
 * always be a safety net below the people who make suggestions.**
 * tion across all quarters. The general manager of the**
 * research unit himself set an example, offering both**
 * strategic and technical ideas whenever teams approached**
 * him for help. Indeed, he explicitly made**
 * cross-team support a priority among top scientists**
 * in the organization. As a result, such support was**
 * expected and recognized.**
 * HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998**
 * HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY**
 * For example, one team was about to test a new**
 * formulation for one of the company's major products.**
 * Because the team was small, it had to rely on a**
 * materials-analysis group within the organization to**
 * help conduct the tests. The analysis group not only**
 * helped out but also set aside generous blocks of**
 * time during the week before testing to help the**
 * team understand the nature and limits of the information**
 * the group would provide, when they would**
 * have it, and what they would need from the team to**
 * support them effectively. Members of the team**
 * Managers at one company**
 * undermined employees' creativity**
 * by continually changing:**
 * interfering with processes.**
 * were confident that they could rely on tbe materials-**
 * analysis group throughout the process, and the**
 * trials went well-despite the usual technical difficulties**
 * encountered in such testing.**
 * By contrast, consider what we observed at anotber**
 * company in our study, a consumer products company**
 * we'll call National Houseware Products. Eor**
 * years. National had been well known for its innovation.**
 * But recently, the company had been restructured**
 * to accommodate a major growth spurt, and**
 * many senior managers bad been fired or transferred.**
 * National's work environment had undergone drastic**
 * changes. At the same time, new product successes**
 * and new husiness ideas seemed to be slowing**
 * to a trickle. Interestingly, the daily reports of the**
 * Team Events Study revealed that virtually all creativity**
 * killers were present.**
 * Managers undermined autonomy by continually**
 * changing goals and interfering with processes. At**
 * one quarterly review meeting, for example, four priorities**
 * tbat had been defined by management at the**
 * previous quarterly review meeting were not even**
 * mentioned. In another instance, a product that had**
 * been identified as the team's number one project**
 * was suddenly dropped without explanation.**
 * Resources were similarly mismanaged. Eor instance,**
 * management perennially put teams under**
 * severe and seemingly arbitrary time and resource**
 * constraints. At first, many team members were energized**
 * by the fire-fighting atmosphere. They threw**
 * themselves into their work and rallied. But after a**
 * few months, their verve had diminished, especially**
 * because the pressures had proved meaningless.**
 * But perhaps National's managers damaged creativity**
 * most with their approach to evaluation.**
 * They were routinely critical of new suggestions.**
 * One employee told us that he was afraid to tell his**
 * managers about some radical ideas that he had developed**
 * to grow his area of the business. The employee**
 * was wildly enthusiastic about the potential**
 * for his ideas but ultimately didn't mention them to**
 * any of his bosses. He wondered why he should**
 * bother talking about new ideas when each one was**
 * studied for all its flaws instead of its potential.**
 * Through its actions, management had**
 * too often sent the message that any big**
 * ideas about how to change the status**
 * quo would be carefully scrutinized.**
 * Those individuals brave enough to**
 * suggest new ideas had to endure longoften**
 * nasty-meetings, replete with**
 * suspicious questions.**
 * In another example, when a team**
 * took a new competitive pricing program**
 * to the boss, it was told that a discussion**
 * of the idea would have to wait another**
 * month. One exasperated team member noted, "We**
 * analyze so long, we've lost the business before**
 * we've taken any action at all!"**
 * Yet another National team had put in particularly**
 * long hours over a period of several weeks to create**
 * a radically improved version of a major product.**
 * The team succeeded in bringing out the produet on**
 * time and in budget, and it garnered promising market**
 * response. But management acted as if everything**
 * were business as usual, providing no recognition**
 * or reward to the team. A couple of months**
 * later, when we visited tbe team to report the results**
 * of our study, we learned that the team leader had**
 * just accepted a job from a smaller competitor. He**
 * confided that although he felt that the opportunities**
 * for advancement and ultimate visibility may**
 * have heen greater at National, he believed his work**
 * and his ideas would be valued more highly somewhere**
 * else.**
 * And finally, the managers at National allowed**
 * political problems to fester. Consider the time a**
 * National team came up with a great idea to save**
 * money in manufacturing a new product-which**
 * was especially urgent because a competitor had just**
 * come out with a similar product at a lower price.**
 * The plan was nixed. As a matter of "policy" •- a code**
 * word for long-held allegiances and rivalries within**
 * tbe company - the manufacturing division wouldn't**
 * allow it. One team member commented, "If facts**
 * and figures instead of politics reigned supreme, this**
 * would be a no-brainer. There are no definable cost**
 * savings from running the products where they do.**
 * 86 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998**
 * HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY**
 * and there is no counterproposal on how to save the**
 * money another way. It's just 'No!' because this is**
 * the way they want it."**
 * Great Rewards and Risks**
 * The important lesson of the National and Chemical**
 * Central stories is that fostering creativity is in**
 * the hands of managers as they think about, design,**
 * and establish the work environment. Creativity**
 * often requires that managers radically change the**
 * ways in which they build and interact with work**
 * groups. In many respects, it calls for a conscious**
 * culture change. But it can be done, and the rewards**
 * can be great.**
 * The risks of not doing so may be even greater.**
 * When creativity is killed, an organization loses a**
 * potent competitive weapon: new ideas. It can also**
 * lose the energy and commitment of its people. Indeed,**
 * in all my years of research into creativity, perhaps**
 * the most difficult part has been hearing people**
 * complain that they feel stified, frustrated, and shut**
 * down by their organizations. As one team member**
 * at National told us, "By the time I get home every**
 * day, I feel physically, emotionally, and intellectually**
 * drained. Help!"**
 * Even if organizations seemed trapped in organizational**
 * ecosystems that kill creativity-as in the**
 * case of National Houseware Products-it is still**
 * possible to effect widespread change. Consider a recent**
 * transformation at Procter & Gamble. Once a**
 * Fostering creativity often**
 * requires that managers radically**
 * change how they build and**
 * interact with work groups.**
 * hotbed of creativity, P&G had in recent years seen**
 * tbe number of its product innovations decline significantly.**
 * In response, the company established**
 * Corporate New Ventures (CNV), a small crossfunctional**
 * team that embodies many of the creativity-**
 * enhancing practices described in this article.**
 * In terms of challenge, for instance, members of**
 * the CNV team were allowed to elect themselves.**
 * How better to make sure someone is intrinsically**
 * motivated for an assignment than to ask for volunteers?**
 * Building a team from volunteers, it should be**
 * noted, was a major departure from standard PikG**
 * procedures. Members of the CNV team also were**
 * SUGGESTED READINGS**
 * Teresa M. Amabile, Creativity in Context:**
 * Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity**
 * [Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996).**
 * Teresa M. Amabile, Robert Burnside, and**
 * Stanley S. Gryskiewicz, User's Manual for KEYS:**
 * Assessing the Climate for Creativity (Greensboro,**
 * N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 1998).**
 * Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Frontiers of**
 * Management [Boston, Mass.: Harvard**
 * Business School Press, 1997I.**
 * given a clear, challenging strategic goal: to invent**
 * radical new products that would build the company's**
 * future. Again departing from typical P&G practices,**
 * the team was given enormons latitude around how,**
 * when, and where they approached their work.**
 * The list of how CNV broke witb P&G's creativitykilling**
 * practices is a long one. On nearly every creativity-**
 * support dimension in the KEYS work-environment**
 * survey, CNV scored higher than national**
 * norms and higher than the pre-CNV environment**
 * at P&G. But more important than the particulars is**
 * the question; Has the changed environment resulted**
 * in more creative work? Undeniably so, and the evidence**
 * is convincing. In tbe three years**
 * since its inception, CNV has handed**
 * off II projects to tbe business sectors**
 * for execution. And as of early 1998,**
 * those products were beginning to fiow**
 * out of the pipeline. The first product,**
 * designed to provide portable heat for**
 * several hours' relief of minor pain,**
 * was already in test marketing. And six**
 * other products were slated to go to**
 * test market within a year. Not surprisingly,**
 * given CNV's success, P&.G is beginning**
 * to expand both the size and the scope of its CNV**
 * venture.**
 * Even if you believe that your organization fosters**
 * creativity, take a hard look for creativity killers.**
 * Some of them may be fiourishing in a dark corneror**
 * even in tbe light. But rooting out creativitykilling**
 * behaviors isn't enough. You have to make a**
 * conscious effort to support creativity. The result**
 * can be a truly irmovative company where creativity**
 * doesn't just survive but actually thrives. ^**
 * Reprint 98501 To order reprints, see the last page of this issue.**
 * HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998 87**