1963.creativity.is.not.enough

8/12/2019 1963.Creativity.is.Not.enough

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1963creativityisnotenough 1/15

BEST OF HBR1 9 6 3

Creativity Is Not Enough

by Theodore Levitt

Are great ideas \

destroying your

company?

THE INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISE AUGUST 20021



BEST OF HB RBEST OF HB RTed Levitt, a former

editor of HBR and one

of the most incisivecommentators on

innovation to have

appeared in ourpages, takes deadaim at the assumption

that creativity issuperior to conformity

He argues thatcreativity as it!s com"

mon#y defined"theabi#ity to come up $ith

bri##iant#y nove# ideas"can actua##y be

destructive tobusinesses By fai#ing

to take into accountpractica# matters of

imp#ementation, bigthinkers can inspire

organi%ationa#cu#tures dedicated to

abstract chatter rather

than purposefu#action In such

cu#tures, innovation

never happens"because peop#e are a#$ays ta#king about it

but never doing it &ften, the $orst thing a company can do,

in Levitt!s vie$, is put innovation into the hands of 'creativetypes'"those compu#sive idea

generators

$hose distaste for themundane rea#ities oforgani%ationa# #ife renders them

incapab#e of e(ecuting any rea#pro)ect &rgani%ations, by their

very nature, are designed topromote order and routine* they

are inhospitab#e environmentsfor innovation Those $ho don!t

understand organi%ationa#rea#ities are doomed to see

their ideas go unrea#i%ed &n#ythe organi%ationa# insider"the apparent conformist"has the

practica# inte##igence to overcome bureaucratic impedimentsand bring a good idea to a fruitfu# conc#usionCREATIVITY" is not the miraculous road to business growthand affluence that is so abundantly claimed these days. And forthe line manager, particularly, it may be more of a millstone than amilestone. Those who extol the liberating irtues of corporatecreatiity oer the somnambulistic ices of corporate conformitymay actually be giing adice that in the end will reduce thecreatie animation of business. This is because they tend toconfuse the getting of ideas with their implementation ! that is,

confuse creatiity in the abstract with practical

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEWHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW+

innoation not understand theoperating executie#s day!to!dayproblems and underestimate theintricate complexity of businessorgani$ations.

The trouble with much of theadice business is getting todayabout the need to be moreigorously creatie is, essen!tially, that its adocates haegenerally failed to distinguishbetween the relatiely easyprocess of being creatie in theabstract and the infinitely more



"creatiity" means hainggreat, original ideas. Theiremphasis is almost all on thethoughts themseles.

%oreoer, the ideas are often &udged more by their noeltythan by their potential useful!ness, either to consumers or tothe company. 'n this article, 1shall show that in most cases,haing a new idea can be"creatie" in the abstract butdestructie in actual operation,and that often instead ofhelping a company, it will eenhinder it

(uppose you )now two

artists. *ne tells you an ideafor a great painting, but he doesnot paint it. The other has thesame idea and paints it +oucould easily say the secondman is a great creatie artist.ut could you say the samething of the first man-*biously not. e is a tal)er,not a painter.

That is precisely the problemwith so much of today#s pithypraise of creatiity in business!

with the unending flow ofspeeches, boo)s, articles, and"creatiity wor)shops" whosepurpose is to produce moreimaginatie and creatiemanagers and companies. %yobserations of these actiitiesoer a number of years lead mefirmly to this conclusion. Theymista)e an idea for a greatpainting with the great paintingitself. They mista)e brillianttal) for constructie action.

ut, as anybody who )nowsanything about anyorgani$ation )nows only toowell, it is hard enough to getthings done at all, let alone tointroduce a new way of doingthings, no matter how good itmay seem. A powerful newidea can )ic) around unused ina company for years, not

because its merits are notrecogni$ed but because nobodyhas assumed the responsibilityfor conerting it from words

into action. /hat is oftenlac)ing is not creatiity in the

Theodore Levitt, a longtime professor of marketing at Harvard Business School, isnow professor emeritus. He isthe author of numerous HBRarticles. His most recent booksare Thin)ing About %anage!ment (!!"# and The%ar)eting 'magination (!$%#,both from &ree 'ress.

idea!creating sense butinnoation in the action!producing sense, i.e., puttingideas to wor).

Ideas re Not Enough/hy don#t we get moreinnoation-

*ne of the most repetitiousand, ' am coninced, mosterroneous answers we get tothis 0uestion is thatbusinessmen are not ade0uately

creatie and that they areenslaed by the incubus of con!formity, ft is alleged thateerything in Americanbusiness would be &ust dandy ifindustry were simply morecreatie and if it would hiremore creatie people and giethem the chance to show theirfructifying stuff.

ut anybody who carefullyloo)s around in any modernbusiness organi$ation and

spea)s freely and candidly withthe people in it will, ' beliee,discoer something eryinteresting namely, there isreally ery little shortage ofcreatiity and of creatiepeople in American business.The ma&or problem is that so!called creatie people often2though certainly not always

pass off on others theresponsibility for getting downto brass tac)s. They hae plentyof ideas but little businessli)e

follow!through. They do notma)e the right )ind of effort tohelp their ideas get a hearingand a try.

All in all, ideation isrelatiely abundant. 't is itsimplementation that is morescarce.

%any people who are full ofideas simply do not understandhow an organi$ation mustoperate in order to get thingsdone, especially dramatically

new things. All too often, thereis the peculiar underlyingassumption that creatiityautomatically leads to actualinnoation. 'n the crippledlogic of this line of thin)ing,ideation 2or creatiity, if youemphasi$e the idea!producingaspect of that term andinnoation are treated assynonyms. This )ind of thin)!ing is a particular disease ofadocates of "brainstorming,"

who often treat their approachas some sort of ultimatebusiness liberator.1 'deation andinnoation are not synonyms.The former deals with thegeneration of ideas the latter,with their implementation. 't isthe absence of a constantawareness of this distinctionthat is responsible for some ofthe corporate standpattism wesee today. 24est there be anyconfusion, it is not essential

that innoation be successfullyimplemented to 0ualify as in!noation. The ob&ect of theinnoation is success, but tore0uire in adance that there beno doubt of its success woulddisable its chance of eergetting tried.

The fact that you can put ado$en inexperienced people



into a room and conduct abrainstorming session thatproduces exciting new ideasshows how little relatie

importance ideas themselesactually hae. Almost anybody

with the intelligence of theaerage businessman canproduce them, gien a halfwaydecent enironment and stim!ulus. The scarce people arethose who hae the )now!how,energy, daring, and stayingpower to implement ideas.

/hateer the goals of abusiness may be, it must ma)emoney. To do that, it must getthings done. ut haing ideasis seldom e0uialent to getting

things done in the business ororgani$ational sense. 'deas donot implement themseles !neither in business nor in art,science, philosophy, politics,loe, war. 5eople implementideas.

-orm of Irresponsibi#ity(ince business is a uni0uely"get things done" institution,creatiity without action!oriented follow!through is a

uni0uely barren form ofindiidual behaior. Actually,in a sense, it is eenirresponsible. This is because21 The creatie man whotosses out ideas and




does nothing to help them getimplemented is shir)ing anyresponsibility for one of theprime re0uisites of the

business, namely, action and2 by aoiding follow!through, he is behaing in anorgani$ationally intolerable !or, at best, sloppy!fashion.

The trouble with much creatiitytoday, in my obseration, is that

many of the people with the ideashae the peculiar notion that their

&obs are finished once the ideashae been suggested. They beliee

that it is up to somebody else towor) out the dirty details and then

implement the proposals. Typically,the more creatie the man, the less

responsibility he ta)es for Haction. The reason is that thegenera!2 tion of ideas and

concepts is often his I sole talent,his stoc)!in!trade. e seldom 7

has the energy or staying power, orin' deed the interest, to wor)

with the t grubby details thatre0uire attention bed fore his

ideas can be implemented.Anybody can erify this for

himself. +ou need only to loo)around in your own companyand pic) out the two or threemost original idea men in theicinity. ow many of theirideas can you say they haeeer igorously andsystematically followedthrough with detailed plans andproposals for theirimplementation ! een withonly some modest, ballpar)suggestions of the ris)s, thecosts, the manpower re0uisites,the time budgets, and the

possible payout-The usual situation is thatidea men constantly peppereerybody in the organi$ationwith proposals and memorandathat are &ust brief enough to getattention, to intrigue, and tosustain interest!but too short toinclude any responsiblesuggestions regarding how thewhole thing is to beimplemented and what#s atsta)e. 'n some instances it must

actually be inferred that theyuse noel ideas for theirdisruptie or their self!promotional alue. To be morespecific

*ne student of managementsuccession 0uestions whetherideas are always put forthseriously. e suggests thatoften they may simply be atactical deice to attractattention in order to come firstto mind when promotions are

made. ence, ideas are a formof "public relations" within theorgani$ation.'t should bepointed out, howeer, thatsomething faorable can besaid about the relationship ofirresponsibility to ideation. Thegenerally effectie executieoften exhibits what might becalled controlled momentary

irresponsibility. e recogni$esthat this attitude is irtuallynecessary for the free play ofimagination. ut whatdistinguishes him is his abilityto alternate appropriatelybetween attitudes ofirresponsibility andresponsibility. e doesn#t holdto the former for long ! onlylong enough to ma)e himselfmore productie.

.sycho#ogy of the 'CreativeType'

The fact that a consistentlyhighly creatie person is

generally irresponsible in theway ' hae used the term is in

part predictable from what is)nown about the freewheelingfantasies of ery young

children They are extremelycreatie, as any )indergarten

teacher will testify. They hae anaie curiosity which stumps

parents with 0uestions li)e"/hy can you see through

glass-" "/hy is there a hole ina doughnut-" "/hy is the grass

green-" 't is this )ind of 0ues!tioning attitude that produces in

them so much creatiefreshness. +et the uni0ueposture of their lies is theiralmost total irresponsibilityfrom blame, wor), and theother routine necessities of

organi$ed society. 8en the lawabsoles them from

responsibility for their actions.ut all sources testify to

childrens

1 creatiity, een iblicalmythology with its assertionabout wisdom issuing from "themouths of babes." %ore




BEST OF HBRBEST OF HBR

respectable scientific sourceshae paralleled the integratie

mechanism of adult creatiitywith the childhood thoughtprocess that "manifests itselfduring the preschool period !

possibly as early as theappearance of three!word

sentences..." , linicalpsychologists hae also illus!

trated what ' call theirresponsibility of creatie

indiiduals in :orschach andstroboscopic tests. ;or

example

*ne analyst says, "Thosewho too) to the :orschach li)educ)s to water, who fantasiedand pro&ected freely, een toofreely in some cases, or whocould permit themseles totamper with the form of theblot as gien, gae us ourbroadest ranges of moement."<

'n short, they were the least

"form!bound," the leastinhibited by the facts of theirexperience, and hence let theirminds explore new, untried, andnoel alternaties to existingways of doing things.

The significance of thisfinding for the analysis oforgani$ations is pointed up bythe obseration of anotherpsychologist that "thetheoreticians on the other handdo not mind liing danger!ously."= The reason is obious.A theoretician is notimmediately responsible foraction. e is perfectly content

to lie dangerously because hedoes so only on the conceptualleel, where he cannot get hurt.To assume any responsibilityfor implementation is to ris)dangerous actions, and that canbe painfully uncomfortable. Thesafe solution is to steer clear ofimplementation and all the dirtywor) it implies.

The dvice Business't is to be expected, therefore,

that today#s most ardentadocates of creatiity inbusiness tend to be professionalwriters, consultants, professors,and often adertising agencyexecuties. >ot surprisingly,few of these people hae anycontinuing day!to!day respon!sibility for the difficult tas) ofimplementing powerful newbusiness ideas of a complexnature in the ordinary type ofbusiness organi$ation. ;ew of

them hae eer had anyresponsibility for doing wor) inthe conentional )ind ofcomplex operating organi$ation.They are not really practicingbusinessmen in the usual sense.They are literary businessmen.They are the doctors whosay,"?o as ' say, not as ' do,"reminiscent of the classic

in&unction of the boxer#smanager, "@et in there andfight. They can#t hurt us."

The fact that these people arealso so

often outspo)en about thealleged iru!

lence of conformity in modernbusiness

is not surprising. They can tal)this way

because they hae seldomhad the nere to expose

themseles for anysubstan!

tial length of time tothe

T( rigorous discipline ofan pA organi$ation whoseprin!flt* cipal tas) is not tal)but ac!

tion, not ideas butwor),Bha 'mpressie sermonsare

deliered graelyproclaiming theirtues of creatiity

and the ices ofconformity. ut sooften the authors ofthese sermons, too,are "outsiders" to thecentral sector of thebusiness community.Thus, the best!)nownasserters thatAmerican industry issome sort of ast0uagmire of0uiering conformity

! the men who haeturned the claim intoa tiresome clichC !are people li)e/illiam . /hyte,Dr., author of The)rgani*ation +an,b who is a professionalwriter (loan /ilson,author of The +an in

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEWHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW



Creativity Is Not EnoughCreativity Is Not Enough

are full of suggestions aboutwhat to do about it ! are alsogenerally )nown as corporatemalcontents. They tend to becomplaining constantly aboutthe standpat senility of themanagement, about its refusalto see the obious facts of itsown massie inertia. Theycomplain about managementrefusing to do the things thathae been suggested to it foryears. They often complain thatmanagement does not eenwant creatie ideas, that ideasroc) the boat 2which they do,and that management is

interested more in haing asmoothly running 2or is itsmoothly ruining-organi$ation than in a rapidlyforward!aulting business.

'n short, they tal) about thecompany being a festering soreof deadly conformity, full ofdecaying egetables whosystematically oppose newideas with the old ideologies.And then, of course, theyfre0uently 0uote their patron

saint, /illiam . /hyte, Dr.,with all his misinformedmorali$ing and his con&ecturaleidence about what goes oninside an operatingorgani$ation. 2/hyte#s fancifulnotions of such operations haerecently been demolished bythe careful studies of theeteran student of socialorgani$ation /. 4loyd /arnerin his The /orporation in the 0mergent 1merican Societ-2#

/hy 0oors re C#osedThe reason the creatiemalcontent spea)s this way isthat so often the people towhom he addresses his flow ofideas do, indeed, after a while,ignore him and tell him to goaway. They shut their doors tohis endless entreaties they

refuse to hear his ideas anylonger. /hy- There is aplausible explanation.

The reason the executie sooften re&ects new ideas is thathe is a busy man whose chiefday!in, day!out tas) is tohandle an ongoing stream ofproblems. e receies anunending flow of 0uestions onwhich decisions must be made.onstantly he is forced to dealwith problems to whichsolutions are more or lessurgent and the answers towhich are far from clear!cut. 'tmay seem splendid to a

subordinate to supply his bosswith a lot of brilliant new ideasto help him in his &ob. utadocates of creatiity mustonce and for all understand thepressing facts of the executie#slife 8ery time an idea issubmitted to him, it createsmore problems for him!and healready has enough.

%y colleague, 5rofessor:aymond A. auer, has pointedout an instructie example from

another field of actiity. enotes that many congressmenand senators hae theopportunity to hae a politicalscience intern assigned to"help" them. oweer, somecongressmen and senatorsrefuse this "help" on thegrounds that these internsgenerate so many ideas thatthey disrupt the legislator#sregular business.

1aking Ideas 2sefu#+et innoation is necessary inbusinessand innoation beginswith somebody#s proposal./hat is the answer for the manwith a new idea- ' hae twothoughts to offer

. He must work with thesituation as it is. (ince the executie is

already con!stantly bombarded withproblems, thereis little wonder that after awhile hedoes not want any more newideas. The"idea man" must learn to acceptthis asa fact of life and actaccordingly.

. 3hen he suggests an idea,the re4sponsible procedure is toinclude at least some minima5 indication ofwhat it in4

volves in terms of costs, risks,manpower,time, and perhaps even specific peoplewho ought to carr- it through.That is re!sponsible behaior, because itma)esit easier for the executie toealuatethe idea and because it raisesfewerproblems. That is the way

creatie thin)!ing will more li)ely beconerted intoinnoation.

't will be argued, of course,that to saddle the creatieindiidual with theresponsibility of spelling outthe details of implementationwould curb or een throttle hisuni0ue talent. This is probablytrue. ut this could be salutary,both for him and for the

company. 'deas are uselessunless used. The proof of theiralue is their implementation.Entil then they are in limbo. 'fthe executie#s &ob pressuresmean that an idea seldom gets agood hearing unless it isresponsibly presented, then theunthrottled and irresponsiblecreatie man is useless to the

THE INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISE AUGUST 2002THE INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISE AUGUST 20023




company. 'f an insistence onsome responsibility forimplementation throttles him,he may produce fewer ideas,but their chances of a &udicioushearing and therefore of beingfollowed through are greatlyimproed. The company willbenefit by trying the ideas, andthe creatie man will benefit bygetting the satisfaction of)nowing he is being listened to.e will not hae to be amalcontent any more.

0eciding -actorsThis is not to suggest that eeryidea needs a thoroughlydocumented study before it ismentioned to anyone. ;ar fromit. /hat is needed will aryfrom case to case depending onfour factors

The 'osition or Rank of the 6dea )riginator in the)rgani*ation. ow "re!sponsible" a man needs to actfor an idea to get a hearingclearly depends on his ran).

The powerful chief executie

officer can simply instructsubordinates to ta)e anddeelop one of his ideas. Thatis enough to gie it a hearingand perhaps eenimplementation. To that extent,tal) (5 irtually action.(imilarly, the head of adepartment can do the samething in his domain. ut whenthe ideas flow in the oppositedirection!upward instead ofdownward!they are unli)ely to

flow unless they are supportedby the )ind of follow!through 'hae been urging.

The /omple7it- of the 6dea.The more complex andinoled the implications of anidea, and the more change andrearrangement it may re0uirewithin the organi$ation or in itspresent way of doing things,

then obiously the greater is theneed to coer the re0uiredground in some responsiblefashion when the proposal ispresented.

ut ' do not suggest that the"how to" 0uestions need to becoered as




Creativity Is Not EnoughBEST OF HBR

Many people who are full of

ideas simply do not

understand how an

organization must operate to

get things done.thoroughly and carefully aswould be re0uired by, say, alarge corporation#s executiecommittee when it finally de!cides whether to implement ordrop the suggestion. (uch are0uirement would be so rigidthat it might dry up all ideasbecause their originators

simply would not hae thetime, competence, or staff helpto go to that much effort.

The 8ature of the 6ndustr-.ow much supporting detail asubordinate should submitalong with his idea often de!pends on the industry inoledand the intent of the idea.

*ne reason there is such ahigh premium put on"creatiity" in adertising isbecause the first re0uisite of an

ad is to get attention. ence"creatiity" fre0uently reolesaround the matter of trying toachiee isual or auditory im!pact such that the ad stands outaboe the constantly expandingstream of adertising noise towhich the badgered consumeris sub&ected. To this extent, inthe adertising industry, being"creatie" is 0uite a differentthing, by and large, from whatit is, say, in the steel industry.

5utting an eye patch on theman in the athaway shirt is"no sooner said than done."The idea is irtually syn!onymous with itsimplementation. ut

in the steel industry, an idea,say, to change the discount

structure to encourage users ofcold, rolled sheet steel to placebigger but fewer orders is sofull of possible complicationsand problems that tal) is farfrom being action or een aprogram for action. To get eena sympathetic first hearing,such an idea needs to beaccompanied by a good deal offactual and logical support.

The 1ttitude and 9ob of the 'erson to 3hom the 6dea 6sSubmitted. 8erybody )nowsthat some bosses are more re!ceptie to new ideas thanothers. (ome are morereceptie to extreme noeltythan others. The extent of their)nown receptieness will inpart determine theelaborateness of support asuggested new idea re0uires atits original stage.

ut, e0ually important, it isessential to recogni$e that thegreater the pressures of day!to!day operating responsibilitieson the executie, the moreresistance he is li)ely to hae to

new ideas. 'f the operatingburden happens to fall on him,his &ob is to ma)e the presentsetup wor) smoothly and well.A new idea re0uires change,and change upsets the smooth2or perhaps faltering regularityof the present operation onwhose effectieness he is being &udged and on which his careerfuture depends. e has erygood reason to be extremelycareful about a new proposal.

e needs lots of good ris)!reducing reasons before he willloo) at one ery carefully./hat his actual re0uirementsare will also depend on theattitudes of his superiors to ris)ta)ing and mista)es. 'n onecompany ' am familiar with,the two most senior officershae a uni0ue 0uality of

enormous receptiity to noelty! sometimes the wilder the pro!posal, the better. The result isthat new ideas, no matter howaguely stated or extreme, getsympathetic and 0uic) hearingsthroughout all leels of thecompany. ut this is a rareorgani$ation for two reasons.;irst, the chairman is nowabout <F years old. e becamepresident when he was G,haing been selected by hispredecessor as the heir apparentwhen he was about <. eaulted 0uic)ly from one top &ob to another, neer reallyhaing to spend ery muchtime "ma)ing good" in theconentional sense in a difficultday!today operating &ob at alow leel. Hirtually his entirecareer was one of high!leelresponsibility where his ideascould be passed down to acorps of subordinates fordetailed examination andealuation. These experiencestaught him the alue of wildideation without his haing to

ris) his rise to the top byseeming to suggestirresponsible pro&ects.

(econd, the present presidentof this same company came inas a ice president, also at G,and directly from an adertisingagency. is career experienceswere similar to the chairman#s.

't is easy for both of thesemen to be permissie, in partbecause they hae neer reallyhad to ris) their climb up the

hierarchical ladder by seemingto shoot wild. They always hadteams of subordinates to chec)their ideas and willing superiorsto listen to them. Anybody whohas not had this history orconditioning will find itextremely hard to change oncehe gets ery far up thecorporate pec)ing order.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEWTHE INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISE AUGUST 200245




'n short, a permissie, open,ris)!ta)ing enironment cannotbe created simply by the goodintentions of the top man!agement. The reason is eitherthat high!leel executies whohae got to their top posts by alifetime of &udicious executiebehaior are incapable ofchanging their habits or that, iftheir habits are changed, theirsubordinates will not belieethey really mean it. And in lotsof small ways, they see the &ustification of their disbeliefs.

Need for 0iscip#ine/riters on the sub&ect ofcreatiity and innoationinariably emphasi$e the es!sential primacy of the creatieimpulse itself. Almost as anafterthought they tal) about thenecessity of teaching people tosell their ideas and of stim!ulating executies to listen tothe ideas of subordinates andpeers. Then they often go oncasually to ma)e some "do!gooder" statement about theimportance of creating apermissie organi$ationalclimate for creatie people.They rarely try to loo) at theexecutie#s &ob and suggesthow the creatie genius mightalter his behaior to suit theboss#s re0uirements. 't isalways the boss who is beingtold to mend his ways. Thereason for their one!sidedsiding with the creatie man isthat they are often





Advocates of creativity must

understand the pressing

facts of the executive's life:

Every time an idea is

sumitted to him! it creates

more prolems for him " and

he already has enough.hostile, &ust as he is, to the ideaof "the organi$ation" itself.They actiely disli)eorgani$ations, but they seldom)now exactly why.

' thin) ' )now the reason. 'tis that organi$ation andcreatiity do not seem to gotogether, while organi$ationand conformity do. Adocacyof a "permissie enironment"for creatiity in an organi$ationis often a eiled attac) on theidea of the organi$ation itself.This 0uic)ly becomes clearwhen one recogni$es thisinescapable fact *ne of thecollateral purposes of an

organi$ation is to beinhospitable to a great andconstant flow of ideas andcreatiity.

/hether we are tal)ing aboutthe E.(. (teel orporation orthe Enited (teelwor)ers ofAmerica, the E.(. Army or the(alation Army, the Enited(tates or the E.(.(.:., thepurpose of organi$ation is toachiee the )ind and degree oforder and conformity necessary

to do a particular &ob. Theorgani$ation exists to restrictand channel the range ofindiidual actions and behaiorinto a predictable and)nowable routine. /ithoutorgani$ation there would bechaos and decay. *rgani$ationexists in order to create thatamount and )ind of

inflexibility that are necessaryto get the most pressinglyintended &ob done efficientlyand on time.

reatiity and innoationdisturb that order. ence,organi$ation tends to beinhospitable to creatiity andinnoation, though withoutcreatiity and innoation itwould eentually perish. Thatis why small, one!man shopsare so often more animated and"innoa!tionary" than largeones. They hae irtually noorgani$ation 2precisely becausethey are one!man shops andoften are run by self!willedautocrats who act on impulse.

*rgani$ations are created toachiee order. They haepolicies, procedures, andformal or powerfully informal2unspo)en rules. The &ob forwhich the organi$ation existscould not possibly get donewithout these rules, procedures,and policies. And these producethe so!called conformity that isso blithely deprecated by the

critics of the organi$ation andlife inside it.

.arkinson!s -#a$'t is not surprising that >orthcote 5ar)inson and his 'arkinson:s Law en&oy such anadmiring following amongteachers, writers, consultants,and professional social critics.%ost of these people haecarefully chosen as their ownprofessions wor) that )eeps

themas far as modern society letsanyone get from the rigoroustas)master of the organi$ation.%ost of them more or less leada sort of one!man, self!employed existence in whichthere are few ma)e!or!brea)postmortems of their actiities.They lie pretty much in

autonomous isolation. %any ofthem, ' suspect, hae aoidedlife in the organi$ation becausethey are incapable ofsubmitting to its rigiddiscipline. 5ar)inson hasproided them a way in whichthey can laugh at the ma&ority,who do submit to the or!gani$ation, and feel superiorrather than oppressed, asminorities usually do.

't is also not surprising2indeed it is 0uite expectedthat 5ar)inson himself shouldbe anything but an organi$ationman!that he is a teacher ofhistory, a painter, and, of allthings, a historian on warfare inthe 8astern (eas. This is aboutas far as you can get from themodern landboundorgani$ation. 5ar)inson#swritings hae in recent yearsbrought him into suchcontinuing contact withbusiness that he has now de!cided to go into businesshimself. 'n doing so, he hasproed the truth of all that '

hae been saying The businesshe has decided to enter is, ofcourse, the consulting businessI

5ar)inson is eryentertaining. The executiewho cannot laugh along withhim probably is too paranoid tobe trusted with a responsible &ob. ut most of today#s blithecartoonists of the organi$ationwould be impoerished formaterial were they not blessedwith an enormous ignorance of

the facts of organi$ational life.4et me put it as emphatically as' can. A company cannot func!tion as an anarchy. 't must beorgani$ed, it must beroutini$ed, it must be plannedin some way in the ariousstages of its operation. That iswhy we hae so manyorgani$ations of so many





different )inds. And to theextent that operations planningis needed, we get rigidity,order, and therefore someamount of conformity. >oorgani$ation can haeeerybody running offuncoordinated in seeraldifferent directions at once.There must be rules andstandards.

/here there are enoughrules, there will be damn foolrules. These can be mercilesslycartooned. ut some ruleswhich to an expert on ancientnaal history loo) foolish arefar from foolish if he bothers tolearn about the problems of thebusiness, or the goernment, orwhateer group the particularorgani$ation is designed to dealwith.

-rom Creativity to

InnovationAll this raises a seeminglyfrightening 0uestion. 'fconformity and rigidity arenecessary re0uisites of

organi$ation, and if these inturn help stifle creatiity, andfurthermore if the creatie manmight indeed be stifled if he isre0uired to spell out the detailsneeded to conert his ideas intoeffectie innoations, does allthis mean that modern organi!$ations hae eoled into suchinoluted monsters that theymust suffer the fearful fate ofthe dinosaur!too big andunwieldy to surie-





#deas are useless unless

used. $he proof of their

value is their

implementation. %ntil then

they are in limo.The answer to this is no.

;irst, it is 0uestionable whetherthe creatie impulse wouldautomatically dry up if the ideaman is re0uired to ta)e someresponsibility for follow!through. The people who soresolutely proclaim their owncreatie energy will scarcely

assert that they need a hothousefor its flowering. (econdly, thelarge organi$ation

has some important attributesthat actually facilitateinnoation. 'ts capacity todistribute ris) oer its broadeconomic base and among themany indiiduals inoled inimplementing newness aresignificant. They ma)e it both

economically and, for theindiiduals inoled,personally easier to brea) un!tried ground.

/hat often misleads peopleis that ma)ing big operating orpolicy changes re0uires alsoma)ing big organi$ationalchanges. +et it is precisely oneof the great irtues of a bigorgani$ation that, in the shortrun at least, its momentum isirreersible and its

organi$ational structure is, forall practical purposes, nearlyimpenetrable. A ast machineryexists to get a certain &ob done.That &ob must continue to getthe toughest )ind of seriousattention, no matter howexotically reolutionary a bigoperating or policy change maybe. The boat can and may hae

to be roc)ed, but one irtue of abig boat is that it ta)es an awfullot to roc) it. ertain people ordepartments in the boat mayfeel the roc)ing more thanothers and to that extent strieto aoid the incidents thatproduce it. ut the built!instabili$ers of bigness and ofgroup decision ma)ing can beused as powerful influences inencouraging people to ris)these incidents.

;inally, the large organi$ationhas an organi$ationalalternatie to the alleged"conserati$ing" conse0uences

of bigness. There is someeidence that the relatielyrigid organi$ation can buildinto its own structure certainflexibilities which wouldproide an organi$ational homefor the creatie butirresponsible indiidual. /hatmay be re0uired, especially inthe large organi$ation, is not somuch a suggestion!box systemas a speciali$ed group whosefunction is to receie ideas,

wor) them out, and followthem through in the necessarymanner. This would be doneafter the group has ealuatedeach idea and, preferably,spo)en at length with itsoriginator. Then when the ideaand the necessary follow!through are passed on to theappropriate executie, he willbe more willing to listen. ToillustrateJ An organi$ational setup

that approximates thisstructure has been establishedin the head0uarters %ar)eting?epartment of the %obil *ilompany.9

J A similar approachexists at the (cheringorporation under the name%anagement :K?. 'tspurpose is to nurture and

deelop new ideas and newmethods of decision ma)ing.1F

J Another suggestionwhich ta)es less solidlytangible organi$ational form inpractice has been made by%urray ?. 4incoln, presidentof >ationwide 'nsuranceompany. e ma)es a plea forthe notion of a companyhaing a ;ice 'resident in/harge of Revolution.<eyond these, the problems

and needs of companies differ.To this extent, they may hae tofind their own special ways ofdealing with the issues

discussed in this article. Theimportant point is to beconscious of the possible needor alue of some system ofma)ing creatiity yield moreinnoation.

(ome companies hae greaterneed for such measures thanothers hae. And, as pointedout earlier, the need hinges inpart on the nature of the in!dustry. ertainly it is easier toconert creatiity into

innoation in the adertisingbusiness than it is in anoperating company withelaborate production processes,long channels of distribution,and a complex administratiesetup.

;or those critics of andadisers to E.(. industry whorepeatedly call for morecreatiity in business, it is wellto try first to understand theprofound distinction between

creatiity and innoation andthen perhaps to spend a littlemore time calling on creatieindiiduals to ta)e addedresponsibility for im!plementation. The fructifyingpotentials of creatiity aryenormously with the particularindustry, with the climate in theorgani$ation, with the organi$a!





tional leel of the idea man,and with the )inds of day!in,day!out problems, pressures,and responsibilities of the manto whom he addresses hisideas. /ithout clearlyappreciating these facts, thosewho declare that a companywill somehow grow andprosper merely by haing morecreatie people ma)e a fetish oftheir own illusions. L

1. See, for instance, Alex! "s#orn, Applied Imagi-nation: Principles andProcedures of Creative Think-ing $Ne% &or', ()arlesScri#ners Sons, +-./!2.

See Bernar1eenson,3B4rea4craticS4ccession,3 in ComplexOrganizations: A Sociological eader! eite #5 A6itaiEt7ioni $Ne% &or', Rine)art8 (o69an5, +:+/!3. See Stanle5Star',3;ills, ;ann)ei6, ant)e <s5c)olo=5 of>no%le=e,3 6i6eo=ra9)e$Ur#ana, Uniersit5 ofIllinois, +:0/!4. G!S! >lein, 3T)e<ersonal Worl T)ro4=)<erce9tion,3 in Perception: An Approach to Personalit"!eite #5 R!R! Bla'e anG!V! Ra6se5 $Ne% &or', T)eRonal <ress, +-+/! or6ore on 3t)e creatie9ersonalit5,3 see ;orris I!Stein an S)irle5 /! Hein7e,Creativit" and the Individual$Glencoe, Illinois, T)e ree<ress, +:0/!5. Her#ert ei=l,3<)iloso9)icalE6#arrass6ents of<s5c)olo=5,3 AmericanPs"chologist! ;arc) +S?6. Ne% &or', Si6on 8Sc)4ster, +-:!7. Ne% &or', Si6on 8Sc)4ster, +--!

8. Ne% &or', Har9er 8Brot)ers, +:2!9. or a etaileisc4ssion of )o% s4c) aset49 6i=)t o9erate an #eor=ani7e, see 65 Innovationin #arketing $Ne% &or',;cGra%?Hill, +:2/!

10. See Victor ;!1on=street, 3;ana=e6ent R8 D,3 HBR @4l5?A4=4st+:+!

11. Ne% &or', ;cGra%?Hill, +:0!

:eprint :FFGM

To orer re9rints, seet)e last 9a=e ofExec4tie S466aries!

To further explore the topic ofthis article, go tohttpNNexplore.hbr.org.


http://explore.hbr.org/

http://explore.hbr.org/

1963.creativity.is.not.enough

Documents