News

Featured Articles:

David Burkus
cSchool Faculty

One of the foundational principles in organizations is the notion of the hierarchy. Efficient organizations need an efficient chain of command. Well-managed organizations require the supervision of trained managers running their departments and reporting upward to more senior decision makers. While there is raging debate about how deep or wide the structure of an organization should be, few would argue that the hierarchy should be scrapped all together. For all their efficiencies, hierarchies turn out to be remarkably inefficient when organizations are trying to leverage creative ideas and increase their innovation.

The problem is that the chain of command works well for issuing orders and making decisions. It works so well that creative ideas stand little chance of being utilized unless they’re being shared from the top downward. Creative ideas that come from the middle or lower levels of a hierarchy have to work their way up through a series of managers, each with the power to veto but each lacking the power to implement. Supervisors often reject innovative ideas because the individuals who developed theses ideas understand the novelty and applicability of them better than supervisors. As an idea moves through the different levels, the likelihood of rejection increases, since those managers are further from the domain the idea applies to and less likely to understand its true value in that domain. This turns a chain of command into what Vanderbilt professor Dave Owens calls a “hierarchy of no.” Owens, who worked as a designer for IDEO before joining the academy, asserts that the standard organizational structure contains natural constraints that kill innovative ideas.

While the tendency for hierarchies to kill creativity is serious, it’s difficult to make a case for abandoning a chain of command entirely. While companies like W.L. Gore stand out for having abolished the hierarchical structure, Gore did so from inception. It’s difficult for current hierarchies to self-destruct in the service of creativity alone. One company has developed a system to leave the traditional chain of command in place, while still building a culture where creative ideas are given room to grow. The company, Rite-Solutions, did it by giving everyone in the organization $10,000. The money isn’t for spending; it’s not even real. The money is for investing on the company’s internal idea stock market. Rite-Solutions developed a system where anyone in the company can propose their idea by listing it as a stock and soliciting investment. No one needs to get approval from management before listing an idea. For every idea listed, the idea’s champion creates an “ExpectUs” (a pun on “prospectus”) which describes the idea and its potential. Each stock also has a “Budge-It” (a more obvious pun) which outlines the steps the ideas champion believes must be taken to move (or budge) forward. The new stock is given a starting price of $10 and even assigned a ticker symbol. As mentioned, each employee is also given $10,000 in virtual currency to invest in whatever ideas intrigue them. In addition to receiving investment money, each stock listing also has a comments thread for discussion on the merits of the idea and any next steps that need to be considered.

Just like in a real market, investment money flows unevenly to the ideas that investors favor and feel has the best chance of becoming a viable project. But employees don’t just invest money, they also volunteer their time and expertise to help the potential project. Once a week, a “market maker” logs into the system and revalues each stock based on the money invested and the time committed. Ideas that fail to attract enough interest are eventually removed. Ideas that gain momentum are given actual funding to help develop them into real projects. When a stock moves from an idea to a money making project, those who have invested their time get to share in the proceeds through bonuses or actual stock options. Anyone who lists an idea, even if it generates no investment, is given credit for doing so on their annual performance evaluation. In its relatively short lifespan, the system has already been a huge success. In its first year alone, the idea stock market accounted for 50 percent of the company’s new business growth.

What Rite-Solutions has created is a system for managing the flow of creative ideas without needing those ideas to make a death march through the hierarchy of no. The decision to green light a project doesn’t rest on any one manager or senior leader. Instead that power is distributed throughout the organization to people who are more likely to understand the ideas utility in its domain. If enough people, regardless of their level in the hierarchy, feel the idea has merit, than it is acted upon. This keeps the hierarchy in place, but democratizes the process of innovation. While the chain of command stays efficient, the creative process becomes efficient too.

[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][Note: This article originally appeared on Creativity Post.]

                 “Creativity and Maslow”

Kathy Goff, EdD
cSchool Program Director

Existing research on adults’ everyday cognition, in general, has not yet shown that traditional measures of intelligence are good predictors of real world outcomes (e.g. self-confidence, persistence, physical and emotional well-being, life- satisfaction, courage). The intelligence testing movement originated in attempts to predict academic competence, and so concerned itself with the prediction of school performance. Using familiar situations with prior knowledge and reasoning may be sufficient to solve some problems or dilemmas. However, there are many instances in everyday life in which new and different problems and dilemmas emerge and require some cognitive bridging or creativity.

Since creativity has been a term ordinarily reserved for exceptional individuals and extraordinary accomplishments, recognizing it in the practical, problem solving activities of ordinary people introduces another perspective for investigation.  Research on the adult development of creativity and related mental abilities has not been nearly as extensive as research conducted on intellectual abilities.
American psychology has busily occupied itself with only half of the picture of life and has neglected the other and perhaps, the more important half.  Maslow (1971) declared that science must account for all reality, not just the tidy, sequential portions of it. Maslow mischievously said that science could be defined as a technique whereby noncreative people can create.

Maslow distinguished between “special talent creativeness” and “self-actualizing creativeness.” Most creativity research has been conducted on “special talent creativeness.” Very little research has been conducted on “self-actualizing creativeness.”

Creativity and Self-Actualization
Abraham Maslow was a pioneer, philosopher and foremost spokesman for humanistic psychologies. He questioned and explored human psychology. He created a positive and whole view of human nature. He discovered that human functioning was different for people who operate in a state of positive health rather than a state of deficiency. Maslow was one of the most influential psychologists and important contributors to our modern view of human nature.

Maslow developed the concept of self-actualization and defined it as an ongoing process of making growth choices. Self-actualization means experiencing life fully, vividly, selflessly with full concentration and total absorption.  Maslow theorized that the concept of creativeness and the concept of a healthy, self-actualizing, fully developed human may be one and the same.

Self-actualization may be described as the full use and exploitation of talents, capacities, potentialities and the like. Such people seem to be fulfilling themselves and doing the best that they are capable of doing. They are people who have developed or are developing to the full stature of which they are capable.
Maslow studied the creativity of people who were positively healthy, highly evolved and mature, i.e. self-actualizing. He identified the following characteristics of self-actualizing creativeness (1987):
• Perception – fresh appreciation and wonder of the basic good of life; live more in the real world of nature than the verbalized world of concepts, expectations and beliefs
• Expression – ability to express ideas and impulses spontaneously and without fear of ridicule from others
• Childlike – innocence of perception and expressiveness, natural, spontaneous, simple, true, pure, uncritical
• Affinity for the unknown – open to experience; positively attracted by the unknown, the mysterious, the puzzling
• Resolution of dichotomies – ability to synthesize, unify, integrate; able to engage even opposites together
into unity
• Peak experiences – fearless, wonderful, ecstatic experiences which change the person and her/his perception of life

Maslow found that creativity is a universal characteristic of self-actualizing people. They are more spontaneous, more natural, more human than average. The creativeness of self- actualizing people seems to be kin to the naive and universal creativeness of unspoiled children.  Maslow believed that all self-actualizing people are always creative. Self-actualizing creativeness stresses these qualities :
• boldness
• courage
• freedom
• spontaneity
• integration
• self-acceptance

Self-actualizing people are very strong people with strong ethical and moral standards. Self-actualizing people infrequently allow convention to hamper them or inhibit them from doing anything they consider very important or basic. Their codes of ethics tend to be relatively autonomous and individual rather than conventional. Their ethics are not necessarily the same as those of people around them.
Self-actualizing people look out upon the world with wide, uncritical, undemanding, innocent eyes, simply noting and observing what is the case, without either arguing the matter or demanding that it be otherwise. Self-actualizing creativeness is “emitted” like a vibration, and it hits all of life, regardless of the problems. It is emitted like sunshine; it spreads all over the place; it makes some things grow and is wasted on rocks and other ungrowable things.