29_ftp

8/7/2019 29_ftp

1/13

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 10: 249261 (2005)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.29

Creativity, celebration and play at theBauhaus, Berlin, 1920: lessons fromhistory for contemporary marketersand arts organizationsStella Minahan* and Charmine HartelDeakin University, Australia

* Organizations can be seen as rigid, rewarding conformity not creativity. Managing the

creative team or individual can be challenging. This paper contributes to this special issue

of the International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing by addressing

ways to manage creativity in an organization, as well as to creatively market the

organization. It presents a case study of an organization based in Germany in the 1920s,

the Bauhaus. This art and craft organization achieved extraordinary creative output in

just over a decade of operation, during the devastation of post World War I. This paper

demonstrates how its leader managed the creativity of the staff and students and

creatively marketed the organization despite a lack of funds and the desperate shortage of

resources. The Bauhaus provides a key lesson for contemporary marketers and managers

in developing the characteristics of organizations that nurture creativity and the creative

individual.

Copyright# 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

The Bauhaus is the most celebrated artistic

institution of our time. Little in our lives

has not been influenced by it, from what we

read and wear to how we live (Hochman,1997, p. 1).

Arts and crafts organizations face a dynamicand turbulent environment that requires them

to be constantly alert to threats and opportu-nities in their environments. These organi-zations actively seek ways to be morecompetitive and to sustain competitive advan-tage to attract sufficient resources and credi-

bility in society (Meyer and Rowan, 1991). Toattain these goals, managers need to establishorganizations that are flexible, hard workingand with a capacity to be creative andresponsive to change. One characteristic ofsuch organizations is the ability to care andnurture ideas and to identify and develop staff

with creative abilities (Amabile, 1997). Yethighly creative individuals do not alwayssurvive organizational life as the characteristicsof conformance to the structure may be at

*Correspondence to: Stella Minahan, Faculty of Businessand Law, Deakin University, Burwood Highway, Bur-wood, Victoria, Australia 3125.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., November 2005

8/7/2019 29_ftp

2/13

odds with the characteristics of the creativeindividual.

To date, little research addresses this issue

and thus, little is known about the role ofleadership in the management of creativeindividuals. Therefore, we propose it is valu-able to study an organization known to havesucceeded by employing and managing highlycreative people. We chose an extreme case. Anorganization that was successful in managingthe creative and nurturing abilities and gainingfunds to become a successful art and craftorganization despite the desperate shortage ofresources and funds in post World War I. TheBauhaus was established in Weimar in 1919.

During the 1920s it gained significant fundingto move to Dessau and established a custombuilt school. However, the Bauhuas was neverable to gain sufficient recurrent funding tosurvive. The Nazis finally closed it early in the1930s. This paper looks back into history todemonstrate the characteristics of organiza-tions that nurture the creative and the creativeindividual. It presents a case study of anorganization based in Germany in the 1920s,the Bauhaus. This art and craft organization

had extraordinary creative output in a veryshort period of time. While there wereproblems as encountered by any organization,this paper demonstrates how its leader mana-ged the creativity of the staff and students as

well as innovatively marketing the organizationto establish a remarkable legacy that is stillflourishing today (Hochman, 1997).

In the sections that follow we explore therelationship between creativity and organiza-tions before presenting the case study of the

Bauhaus including the work of the founder

(Walter Gropius), its philosophy, pedagogyand its relationship to creativity. We present

vignettes of staff and students and how theycontributed to the creative atmosphere and

were involved in marketing the organization.The last section of the paper looks at theimportance of celebration and play in the life ofthe Bauhaus. The implications are presentedfor contemporary marketers and managers ofart and craft and nonprofit organizations. Thisis a single case study based on secondary

sources. We focus on the management of thecreative during the operational life of theBauhaus and how the organization presented

itself to the community. There is much that hasbeen and is yet to be studied about theorganization that was the Bauhaus.

Creativity

Creativity is a complex construct that is defineddifferently, according to the level of analysisand the field under study. Creativity refers tothe useful ideas, processes, or procedures byan individual or by a group of individuals

working together (Shalley et al., 2000).Similarly, Drazin et al. (1999), define creativityas a process rather than a state. The creativeprocess can vary in its intensity from day to day,moment to moment (Drazin et al., 1999).Creativity in organizations can be studied atthe individual, group and organizational levels(Drazin et al., 1999). Some study of creativity ofgroup processes is available, but these studiesof group creativity are often the aggregation ofthe inputs of the individuals (Drazin et al.,1999). There is little understanding of the

processes required to promote creativity at thelevel of the individual and at the organizationlevel (Amabile, 1997). Next we turn ourattention to some institutional characteristicsthat may inhibit creativity.

Creative people

Creative people are motivated, highlycommitted and hard working employees(McFadzean, 2000, pp. 5156). They can be

characterised as curious, persistent, with aneed for variety, autonomy and recognition(Hicks, 1991).

However, organizations can find creativepeople difficult to manage. Individual creativityis positively associated with mood disorders,manic-depression, schizophrenia (Preti, 2004).Some managers find creative people to beorganizational pests as they pepper theirmanagers with intriguingbut short memorandathat lack details about what is at stake or how


250 Stella Minahan and Charmine Hartel

8/7/2019 29_ftp

3/13

the new ideas should be implemented (Levitt,2002). Subsequently, some organizations may

weed out the creative personality due to

perceived difficulties.

The organization and creativity

Organizations are not typically designed toallow for the development and fruition ofcreativity. Institutions are characterised bystability that tends to inertia. Inertia consistsof the forces that together create resistance tochange (Hannan and Freeman, 1989; Scott,1998). Institutions are held stable by inertia,

and rules internally and externally imposed.These rules can actively and subversivelysuppress original thought as not the way wedo things around here, thus hindering changeand creativity. Further, the internal organiza-tion tends to focus on the past, to look forprevious successes to drive current problemsolving. This interest in the past may wellcontribute to inertia and conflict within theinstitution as it seeks to respond to changes inthe environment (Berger and Luckmann,1967). Institutional inertia can not only be an

asset in providing stability and reliability ofperformance, but also a major liability whenthe same forces inhibit required change (Scott,1998). Change, according to Levine, destroysthe taken-for-grantedness that is so importantin institutions (Levine, 1999).

Creativity and creative people may behindered within an organization due to con-straints in the organizational context. Time,relaxation and incubation are important ele-ments to creativity (McFadzean, 2000, pp. 51

56, p. 53). Creative people often need tobecome completely engrossed in their tasksand move into a state where time has nomeaning. This characteristic of creative peopleis illustrated by Mainemelis in the quote below:

The state of engrossment facilitates creativ-

ity because it is a context of highly focused,

imaginative, and quality work. As soon as

one forgets the fears and other demands of

the self, one also suspends two factors that

have detrimental effects on the generation

of novel and useful ideas: fear of failure

and negative judgement (Mainemelis,2001).

Yet, having the time available to enter astate of engrossment and the accompanyingsense of timelessness could be seen asimpossible within the environment of extremetime poverty that is so evident in modernsociety.

The organizational boundaries that contain,the networks that constrain, the institutionsthat atrophy, and the political, social andeconomic consequences of getting it wrongcombined with organizational survival may

cause an organization not to take risks nor totolerate an independent creative spirit within.Subsequently, highly creative people may notsurvive in institutionalised environments.Maintaining creativity and creative people havebecome complicated issues for organizationaltheorists and practitioners. Yet, these issuescontinue to be overlooked in associatedliterature. We address part of this gap throughthe in-depth examination of an organizationthat managed to address these issues andbecome symbol of creativity and modern

design.It is useful to look at history for lessons that

can be obtained from organizations that wereclearly blessed with exceptionally creativepeople, as well as organizations that managedto promote themselves creatively and success-fully. The German Bauhaus is an example ofsuch an organization exhibiting both of thesecharacteristics.

The Bauhaus, an icon of creativity

Established in 1919 by Walter Gropius at Weimar in Germany, the Bauhaus schoolbecame one of the leading inspirations inshaping todays modern tastes and art educa-tion. The Bauhaus was responsible for:

the most radical and sustained effort yet

made to realize the dream cherished since

the industrial revolution not merely to

bring visual art back into closer tie with

everyday life, but to make it the very


Creativity, celebration and play at the Bauhaus, Berlin 1920 251

8/7/2019 29_ftp

4/13

instrument of social and cultural change

(Franciscono, 1971, p. 3).

The vision

The founder was Walter Gropius, an architect who had the zeal and vision to bring theBauhaus to life in post war Germany. Gropiusbelieved that a new form of education was the

way to bring a new unity between art and theartisan. His philosophy was outlined in hisManifesto:

there is no essential difference between the

artist and the craftsman. The artist is an

exalted craftsman. In rare moments of

inspiration, moments beyond the control

of his will, the grace of his craft is essential

to every artist. Therein lies a source of

creative imagination (Gropius, 1919 inWhitford, 1984)

Gropius Manifesto was crucial to thesuccess of the early Bauhaus. The documentset out the values of the organization. Gropiustook great pains to ensure that all his stake-

holders were aware of the Manifesto. It wasdistributed and published widely.

Embracing change

Gropius was committed to creativity. The first years of the Bauhaus were a time of greatcreative output despite a lack of funds and thedesperate shortage of resources in post WW1Europe. As time went by theBauhaus becamemore focused and its goals began to crystallize

and to a certain extent become simplified(Franciscono, 1971, p. 5). Whilst the goals of1919 remained important to Gropius; he waspragmatic enough to realize that the Bauhausmust adapt to changingtimes if it was to surviveand in 1922 he changed the direction of the

Bauhaus arguing to the Workshop Mastersthat the school must:

fit into the rhythm of the competitive

world. . . and come to terms with . . . the

machine . . . . Locomotives, airplanes, fac-

tories, American silos and. . . mechanical

gadgets for daily use (Gropius, 1922 as citedin Hochman, 1997, p. 135).

This flexibility allowed the Bauhaus tocontinue to grow in very difficult circum-stances, in spite of local opposition. Includedin the Public Relations programme for theschool were tours for visitors. The Bauhaus

was a publicly funded organization and heldtours and visitors days in an effort to developand enhance community support but in thisinstance the efforts were not successful. Onestaff member recalls the antagonistic response

when a group of printers toured theBauhaus:

The tours of the visitors through the studios

didnt make me very happy. For two years it

went on every Sunday morninglots of

questions, several annoyances, even

though there were some compensations. I

was especially impressed by a special tour

of two hundred book printers. They were

furious when I talked of writing without

using capital letters and the saving this

would mean in time and labor. A minia-

ture rebellion! They even threatened with

canes! (Brandt cited in Neumann, 1970).

Gropius constantly marketed and promotedthe school and in 1923 he arranged a publicexhibition designed to showcase the talent oftheBauhaus. The focus of the exhibition was asimple steel framed house (Haus am Horn)fitted out for a family, designed to providemaximum comfort and amenity for minimumcost. The house was built by the Bauhaus

workshops. Lighting, carpets, cabinetry, cera-mic containers were all made in the Bauhaus

workshops. The romantic idealism of the artsand crafts movement was gone, the historicalassociations left behind in a clear demonstra-tion of modernism in design and architecture(Franciscono, 1971; Whitford, 1964; Hoch-man, 1997). Many thousands saw the exhibi-tion and word of its success spreadinternationally. Gropius promotion of the

Bauhaus was so successful that he gainedsignificant funding to build a new schoolin Dessau, Germany. Figure 1 shows the



8/7/2019 29_ftp

5/13

achievement that this nonprofit organizationhad in being able to build such a new andmodern facility at a time of economic tension inGermany.

Leadership at the Bauhaus

Gropius, as the first and longest serving leaderof the Bauhaus, was most concerned withestablishing and maintaining the externallegitimacy of the Bauhaus. Gropius wasdetermined to promote the activities of theschool and actively established the Bauhausbrand. He undertook advertising andapproached editors, critics and other specialist

writers for reviews, articles and stories about

the Bauhaus (Whitford, 1984, p. 138).By 1922 the Bauhaus was established as an

educational organization in Weimar. Some verytalented staff had been appointed. Workshopsin weaving, glass painting, cabinet making,painting, metal and wood were running.Gropius had originally focused on the skills ofthe handmade but he began to see that theorganization must change to adapt to moderntechnology. He revised his original ideas for aunity between art, craft and industry. He began

to see the workshops as:essentially laboratories in which proto-

types suitable for mass production and

typical of their time are developed with

care and constantly improved. In these

laboratories the Bauhaus intend to train

an entirely new kind of collaborator for

industry and the crafts who has an equal

command of technology and design (Gro-pius, 1926 as cited in Whitford, 1984, p.206).

This new view of the school was a highlycreative solution to survival in difficult andtumultuous times. Gropius willingness to be

flexible and to adapt to changing knowledgeand times was crucial to the survival of theBauhaus. Without the change of direction itis unlikely that the organization would havebeen able to grow. Gropius believed that thefine arts and the crafts were not to beseparated, as they were different processesof the same activity. Gropius was looking todevelop a programme that fulfilled both thesocial and economic needs of its students andbuild a better world. Many of the Bauhausstaff joined with Gropius in giving life to this

mission and the new theme of theBauhaus inthis second phase, was Art and Technology:The New Unity. Anni Albers, a student, thenstaff member at the Bauhaus, presented herpersonal philosophy on the need for new

ways of design for modern living. Herphilosophy was an important contributionto the organizational legitimacy of the Bau-haus. Anni Albers statement incorporated the

views of the Bauhaus together with afeminist perspective.

Economy of living must be economy of

labour. Every door-handle must require a

minimum of energy to operate it. The

traditional style of living is an exhausted

machine, which enslaves the woman to the

house. The bad arrangement of rooms and

their furnishing (padded chairs, curtains)

rob her of freedom, restrict her develop-

ment and make her uneasy. Today the

woman is the victim of a false style of living.

It is obvious that a complete change is

urgently required. New objects, (the car, aeroplane,

telephone) are designed above all for

ease of use andmaximum efficiency. Today

they perform their function well. Other

objects in use for centuries (the house,

table, chair) were once good, but now

no longer fully do their job. In order to

make them meet our needs we must design

them unencumbered by the weight of

history.

Figure 1. The Bauhaus building in Dessau, Germany.



8/7/2019 29_ftp

6/13

It is not enough to improve old forms (such

as water pipes, central heating, electric

light). That is merely an old dress, a new

hem.Compare our dress; it meets the demands of

modern travel, hygiene and economics

(you cant travel by rail in a crinoline) . . .

The Bauhaus attempts to find the func-

tional form for the house, as well as for the

simplest utensil. It wants things clearly

constructed, it wants functional materials,

it wants this new beauty (Albers, 1924, inWhitford, 1984, p. 209).

The Bauhaus clearly defined the way ittaught and the need to develop the creativityand talent of its students. Its pedagogy wasradically different and so successful that it isstill in use in art schools today. The next sectiondiscusses this pedagogy and describes some ofthe highly creative staff that Gropius employedand the students enrolled.

The staff and pedagogy and the

students

The Bauhaus remains the justly most

famous experiment in art education of

the modern era (Franciscono, 1971, p. 3)

Gropius believed that creativity could betaught. He used problem-solving techniquesto teach creativity, believing that creativity

was an outcome of problem solving. He soughtto transfer this thinking to his staff andstudents. Prior to the Bauhaus, Germaneducation was based around the idea that

students studied at their chosen pace. TheBauhaus introduced the fixed year 4-year termof study as part of a radical reform of arteducation. Additionally, Gropius introducedthe idea that each student should be taught by acraftsman (Workshop Master) and by a fineartist (a Master of Form).

The structure was based around workshopsled by masters. The students were appren-tices and journeymen (Whitford, 1984, p.30). The master of form would help students

find their own language of creativity; the workshop master would teach the studenttechniques and methods of craft. Gropius

believed rules and measures would stiflecreativity in the individual and did not supporta standardization of approach (Whitford, 1984,p. 33). Demand for places at the Bauhaus washigh. No more than 100 students attended atany one time and a total of less than 1300students went through the school. Students

were often rejected at the end of the proba-tionary period (Whitford, 1984, p. 69).

A key feature of theBauhaus structure was acommon first year, the Vorkurs, a Foundation

year in English. This was a probationary period,

for all students. Gropius was committed to thisconcept to broaden the skill base of studentsand to give them a greater appreciation of theelements of design and production of craft andto gain an understanding of where theirparticular skills and interests lay. The colla-boration was to be inspired by the example of

medieval guilds (Whitford, 1984, p. 29).Gropius encouraged diversity in his staff

and encouraged them to make their ownindividual and often eccentric contributions

to the school. Johannes Itten was a staffmember who made a contribution to thispedagogy. Itten took a holistic approach tohis teaching. His classes began with breathingand relaxation and he converted many ofthese students to Mazdaznan, a Persianreligion. Every element of the life of thestudents right down to a strict vegetarian diet

was established. Fellow artist Paul Kleedescribed Ittens teaching style,

Itten walks up to an easel on which there

was some paper. He grasps a piece ofcharcoal, his body gathers itself, as though

he was charged with energy . . . He draws

two energetic strokes upright and parallel

to one another. . . the students were

instructed to do this as well. The teacher

checks their posture. Then he instructs them

on the stroke, then he tells them to do the

same assignment for homework. It seems

to be a kind of bodily massage . . . . (Klee,1921, in Hochman, 1971, p. 117)



8/7/2019 29_ftp

7/13

Ittens influence in the first years of opera-tion of the Bauhaus was significant. It was hisidea to introduce the first common year, the

Vorkurs, to bring all students to a similarstandard and to expose them to a range ofmedia where their true talents may emerge.This was a major contribution to art education.The common first year is followed in artschools all over the world.

Gunta Stolzl joined theBauhaus in 1919 andstudied under Itten and Klee until 1925, whilealso undertaking external courses in weavinganddyeing technology. She worked in and laterdirected the Weaving Workshop. She wasundoubtedly an extraordinarily talented wea-

ver and set new standards in technical andcolour design passing this knowledge to herstudents. Her success in her career comes inpart from her participation and contribution todeveloping the female domain at theBauhaus.

The womans class offered the only area of

work where a woman could legitimately

aspire to a senior position. Without this

gender divide it would have been almost

impossible for Gunta Stolzl to advance

her claim for a high-ranking position

(Baumhoff, 1999, pp. 347353, p. 351).

Gunta Stolzl left the Bauhaus in 1931 andmoved to Switzerland where she continued herpractice until 1967. Her work has becomebetter known since the rise of feminist arthistory.

Her carpets evoke an atmosphere of jazz

and expressive dancing and provide us

with just a slight taste of how lively life may

once have been at the Bauhaus (Baumhoff,1999, pp. 347353, p. 347).

The appointment of Wassily Kandinsky(18661944) showed that creativity is facili-tated when an organization is willing to takerisks and challenge the thinking and creativityof its constituents. Kandinsky published theSpiritual in Art and leading the drawing and

wall painting workshops at the Bauhaus untilits closure 1933. Kandinsky was a spiritualist, atheoretician and a great painter. He passio-

nately passed on his knowledge to his students.He was known as one of the earliest abstractpainters and over the years his work took on

more geometry. However, the appointment of Wassily Kandinsky was a cause for greatcriticism externally. The announcement of hisappointment led to press articles condemningthe move.

One asks oneself in vain what Kandinsky,

whose orgiastic. . . . Color mysticism might

be at home in the Russian cultural chaos, is

doing in an academic appointment in

[Weimar], a place ennobled through Ger-

manys classical art. . . Kandinsky is a

Bolshevist, [and] that means an anarchistin both politics and art. . . . it is a pitiful

spectacle [that he has been welcomed

by]. . . . Downtrodden Germany (R.W.Z.E,1922, in Hochman, 1997, p. 147)

The students

Entrance to the Bauhaus was highly competi-tive. Waiting lists for enrolment were commonand the selection process involved formalinterviews by staff. Despite this competitive

selection, or perhaps because of it;the studentsat theBauhaus, like art students today, were acolourful, slightly eccentric group:

A strange lot, these so-called Bauhaus

people of the Weimar School. They are so

well known to the locals that no one bothers

to look at these curious creatures any more.

They will make strangers curious, however,

and would make the crowds gather if a

gang of them were to go along the busy

streets of a large town. In multi colour little

skirts, bright as a goldfinch, the boys withhair often cut short, wearing fantastic,

loosely hanging costumes which are sty-

lised, timeless, capriciously bizarre, more

or less happily selected, invented, made up.

Clasps in their hair, ribbons, bare feet,

sandals, low necked, short sleeved, bared

headed. Through the thin linen suits of

several of these disciples of art peeks some-

thing like bashful poverty (Banceis, 1922, inWhitford and Engelhardt, 1992, p. 118).



8/7/2019 29_ftp

8/13

The students sacrificed a lot to attend theschool and worked hard at a number of creativeactivities to raise funds:

. . .

to alleviate the poverty of the Bauhaus-

lers, someone had the idea of opening a

dada-stall on the traditional Weimar

Christmas market. Everyone began to

make things. Decoration, toys, cloth ani-

mals, dolls, paper games, wooden games,

especially pretty were the animals of briar-

wood, slightly whittled and gaily painted.

The pottery of Dornburg contributed a lot

of ceramics, also dolls kitchenware, this

was our first humorous appearance before

the public. We were very successful espe-cially with the children, to whom we gave

our berets in the end, having nothing left

for sale, in spite of all obstacles, there were

friends in Weimar(Arndt, 1922, in Whitfordand Engelhardt, 1992, p. 118).

The students were often devoted to the aimsand programs of theBauhaus. Several of themremained with the school for many years andprogressed from student to staff members andcontributed to the culture of tolerance and

creativity (Whitford, 1984).

Celebration and play at the

Bauhaus

Celebration was a very important part of theevery day life of the Bauhaus. Itten activelyused the motto play becomes partypartybecomes workwork becomes play in hisclasses (Droste, 19191933). One wouldexpect an active social life for an organization

consisting of so many young people and thiswas the case with the Bauhaus. Yet, what isunique about the Bauhaus is the institutiona-lization of celebrations. Gropius Manifestoincluded the creation of festive activities tointerrupt everyday life (Droste, 19191933). Amajor celebration was held four times a year,

with the change of season and a masked ballwas held every month (Ackermann, 2000). Allaccomplishments in the workshops werecelebrated together:

We had wonderful parties both large and

small at the Bauhaus. Whenever a particu-

larly fine piece of work was completed it

was celebratedby the Workshop concerned.When [the student] Ida Kerkovius finished

her first large rug we had a party in my

smallflat under the roof of the old house on

the edge of the park . . . . The carpet was

extremely handsome and, foursquare

metres large, almost filled the entire room.

We surrounded it with burning candles

and squatted around it on the floor

chatting happily . . . (Schreyer, 1966, ascited in Whitford and Engelhardt, 1992,p. 120)

Costume andother trappings of theatre werecritical to celebrations and provided yetanother outlet for the expression and develop-ment of creativity. Ackerman (2000) reports onone evening in Weimar:

. . . something marvelous happens; sun,

moon and stars, Chinese lanterns, large

and small, splendid moon faces, littleghosts

and many lights come on that are quite

simply magical, and quietly a gleaming

procession forms. Where is it going? What aquestion! It is May 18 and Gropius birth-

day. It is to call on him that the men and

women of the Bauhaus have set off with

their bobbing lights, down the Ilm and up

to the Horn, to Master Klee and Helene

Borner, the weaver, and then to Gropius.

Finally the procession is joined by the

writer, Johannes Schlaf. The members of

the Bauhaus walk the whole long way

through the park with their lanterns to the

Ilmschlobchen, the little castel on the Ilm,

where there is to be a party. The Bauhaus Band is playing, the Bauhaus dance is

being danced and perhaps Felix Klees

glove puppet will give away another

Bauhaus secret. The Theatre Group work-

shop will probably contribute a splendid

masquerade. Oskar Schlemmers students

are said to have been seen in mysterious

masks and strange costumes. The Bauhaus

year has reached its first high-water mark:

the Lantern Party. Four times a year



8/7/2019 29_ftp

9/13

Weimar becomes the backdrop to a pon-

derous transformation, for the Bauhaus

has its own high days and holidays, each ofwhich ushers in a new season of the year

(Ackermann, 2000, p. 126).

The quote illustrates that all the members ofthe Bauhaus participated in the celebrations,including staff birthdays.

Martin Faass writes about the role of play inartistry and genius. He discusses the play of oneof the Bauhaus staff members, the artist PaulKlee. Faass remarks,

One of the discoveries of the avant-gardewas the genius in the child. To a greater

degree than any other artist who held this

view, Klee took this world beyond adult

rationality seriously as the place wherecreativity originated(Faass, 2000, p. 252).

For example Figures 2 and 3 demonstratethe holistic approach taken at the Bauhaus

with staff and students playing together in a variety of creative, humorous and physicallyactive settings.

Organizing for creativity and

managing the creativeContemporary marketers and managers of non-profit organizations can learn from the Bau-haus. The organization was in its own timeacknowledged locally and internationally as animportant institution and it managed to growand develop despite the extraordinary difficul-ties of Post World War I. And like mostorganizations it had its difficulties, the lessonsfrom the Bauhaus on creativity and managingthecreativeare many. Thetopics tobe addressed

include the understanding of time, leadership,the expression of vision in marketing and thetolerance of diversity and change. It is alsoimportant to acknowledge the celebration ofachievements and play within the organization.

Leadership and expression of

vision

TheBauhaus leader, Walter Gropius knew theimportance of stating a clear vision to the

Figure 2. Party in Bauhaus, Weimar, about 1922 (Fiedlerand Feierabend, 2000, p. 126).

Figure 3. Bauhausler At Play (Fiedler and Feierabend,2000, p. 587).



8/7/2019 29_ftp

10/13

various stakeholders involved in the school.Gropius articulated his philosophy for the

Bauhaus in a document known as the Mani-

festo. It was based on the desire to reunify the worlds of art and craft that had been splitduring the industrial revolution and to reinsti-tutionalise those valuesin a contemporary way.Gropius believed that a new form of education

was the way to achieve this goal. He wished to:

create a guild of craftsmen without the

class distinctions, which raise an arrogant

barrier between craftsman and artist(Gropius, 1919 as cited in Lucie-Smith,1981).

His Manifesto clearly set out his philosophiesand goals for the school. It was a very importantdocument that allowed him to gain supportfrom staff, students, funders and the commu-nities. His clarity of vision was integral to theestablishment of the school. Despite the clearlyannounced vision Gropius confronted manybarriers to success. The local community wereat times very hostile towards the Bauhuas asdemonstrated earlier with the aggression

shown by the local printers. Some of thecommunity saw it as having taken resourcesand status from the older institution, the GrandDucal School of Arts. The community in

Weimar became alienated from the schoolwith its eccentrics, radical staff and students.Mothers would warn unruly children that iftheir behaviour failed to improve they wouldbe packed off to the Bauhuas (Whitford, 1984,p. 151). So despite the express communicationof the vision and the publication of theManifesto, the Bauhaus became an organiza-

tion used for derision and to frighten children.Gropius made the Bauhaus a success despitethe hostility of the locals. He held his vision and

when the Weimar community cut funding tothe school he sought and gained significantfunding from the Dessau community; hedesigned and built specialist facilities for theschool in the new location.

At Dessau, Gropius changed the direction ofthe school to take account an interest in newtechnology. He set an agenda that called for a

New Unity of Art And Technology. He saw thischange as being required to ensure that theschool remained relevant and could provide a

connection between art and industry thatwould provide work for its students. Gropiussaid:

We are all clear that the old idea of lart

pour lart is out of date and that all those

things which concern us today do not exist

in isolation (Gropius, 1922, in Whitford,1984, p. 154).

This flexibility of leadership and vision is ofmajor importance to leaders of nonprofitorganizations who may be reluctant to changedirection for fear of upsetting the status quo.

Creative time

Non-profit organizations can consider how theBauhaus viewed study and learning. Time isimportant in German education. The pedagogy

was based around the idea that studentsstudied at their chosen pace and presentedfor examinations when they were fully pre-pared rather than when the timetable

demanded. Further creativity is rarely sponta-neous and time is required for people toimmerse themselves in the task at hand. Thisprocess is not necessarily all consuming butcan take time out away from routine tasks.Organizations need to invest in staff by allow-ing them time to be creative, time to think andto problem solve in ways as demonstrated byGropius and the staff at the Bauhaus.

Tolerance and diversity

There is a need to encourage creative peopleand give them the skills to enhance theircreativity: to broaden the skill base of stu-dents . . . andto gain an understanding of wheretheir particular skills and interests lay. Gropius

was inclusive and encouraged diversity andkept rules to a minimum. Rules lead to inertiaand thus care was needed in their constructionand use: rules and measures stifled creativity inthe individual and did not support a standardi-zation of approach (Whitford, 1984, p. 33).



8/7/2019 29_ftp

11/13

This was demonstrated in his recruitmentpractices with the employment of talentedand highly eccentric staff such as the mystic

Itten. Yet this tolerance brought challenges forGropius as the local community made com-plaints about the students:

We have received, via the Interior Ministry,

the following complaint from the Director

of the Second Administrative Area:

Bauhaus students living in Dornburg are

bathing in the River Saalemales and

females togetherwithout any bathing cos-

tumes whatsoever and in places accessible

to everyone. People walking past have taken

objection and this infringement of decencyhas ceased public annoyance and represents

a danger to morals, especially for young

people. The director of the school might be

advised to attempt to have the male and

female student take heed of the duty to

observe general standards of decency.

(Rudolph [civil servant] 1920, in Whitfordand Engelhardt, 1992, p. 115).

Gropius had a difficult task to manage the

standards of the community and the enthu-siasm and free spirit of the young students. Hestood firm and would not expel students who

were different and held differing views to himor to the community at large. This toleranceoften caused difficulties but held the ideals oftheschool true, both through his support of thestudents and his recruitment of controversialstaff such as the mystic Itten and the Bolshevist

Wassily Kandinsky. Individual eccentricity wasaccepted and allowed within the organization.

Celebration

One of the key characteristics of the Bauhauswas its dedication to celebrating achievements.The completion of major works was cele-brated, the changing of the seasons and birth-days were celebrated. Gropius built anorganizational culture that brought everyonetogether to feel like a family: from cooking andexercising together to making dolls and hats atthe dada-stall. Accomplishments were cele-

brated however small or large. All members ofthe Bauhaus participated in the celebrationstogether. The development of an inclusive and

rewarding culture that acknowledges achieve-ments is a lesson for all nonprofit organizations.Gropius understood the need to promote the

work of the Bauhaus to the public andmounted major exhibitions that displayed andcelebrated the creative achievements of theschool and demonstrated its relevance tomodern society. The Haus und Horn exhibi-tion of 1923 was very successful with thou-sands of visitors attending.

Play Another lesson from the Bauhaus is theimportance of play. The students and staff oftheBauhauswould play as part of their normalroutines. Whether exercising, creating playsand theatrical entertainments, cooking, dan-cing, kite flying and holding parades, the

Bauhaus was a playful environment. Modernorganizations participate in structured play in a

variety of ways from social gatherings andactivities such as celebrating birthdays with

morning tea and football tipping to cake clubsand fancy dress. All activities designed to bringpeople together in a way that allows forfreedom of expression and fun.

The Bauhaus is an example of an organiza-tion that managed to both be creative andmanage the creative well. The organizationgrew and thrived in the extraordinarily difficulttimes. While the Bauhaus faced its share ofissues and controversy, Gropius leadership,passion, commitment and drive contributed toits overall success. Yet Gropius was pragmatic

enough to change direction rapidly whenrequired. His flexibility was crucial to thedevelopment of the organization. He changedfrom wanting a unity between arts and crafts toa marriage between design and machineproduction. Gropius was also very tolerant ofdiversity as evidenced of his acceptance of themystic Itten as a valued teacher and his supportof his students political protests and youthfulexuberance. The Bauhaus at Dessau was verydifferent to the Weimar school, yet still led to



8/7/2019 29_ftp

12/13

the creation of extraordinary designs andprototypes. Based on Gropius leadershipstrength, the Bauhaus organizational culture

provided an environment that encourageddiversity, applauded success and broke downtraditional barriers between staff and students.Life at the Bauhaus was rarely stable as itconstantly addressed the many challenges itfaced during its short life. Yet it did face thosechallenges whilst simultaneously setting theagenda for art, craft and design in the twentiethcentury. The leadership, pedagogy, staff andstudents all contributed to the creative atmo-sphere of theBauhaus. Celebration and play asa community was a major part of life at the

Bauhaus and its contribution to the creativespirit and the management of the creative canbe of interest and further reflection for bothorganization theorists and managers of arts andnonprofit organizations.

The lessons for contemporary nonprofitorganizations include the need for flexibleand supportive management that tolerates,indeed encourages, diversity amongst its mem-bers. As discussed, Gropius believed rules andmeasures would stifle creativity in the indivi-

dual and sought a more dynamic and flexiblearrangement in the school workshops. He was willing to rapidly change the goals of theorganization to suit different circumstances.Contemporary organizations would do well totake the time to celebrate and to encouragecreativity with and through play. TheBauhausprovides key lessons in developing the char-acteristics of organizations that nurtures crea-tivity and the creative individual.

Biographical notes Dr. Stella Minahan is the Faculty ResearchFellow in the Faculty of Business and Law atDeakin University in Melbourne, Australia. Herresearch interests include nonprofit organiza-tions, art and craft organizations and insti-tutional theory. She has recently completed abook of consumer research and has publishedin Organization, Journal of OrganizationalChange Managementand Culture and Orga-nization.

Charmine Hartel is the Professor and theDirector of the Centre for Business Research atDeakin University. Her current research and

consulting activities focus on emotions andpatterns of relating at work; development ofemotional intelligence, diversity and cross-cultural management; leadership, and teameffectiveness. She is author of three books andover 40 refereed journal articles, which haveappeared in journals such as the Academy of

Management Review, theJournal of Manage-ment, and the Journal of Applied Psychology.

References

Ackermann U. 2000. Bauhaus parties histrionics

between eccentric dancing and animal drama.

In Bauhaus, Fiedler J, Feierabend P (eds).

Konemann: Cologne.

Amabile TM. 1997. Motivating Creativity in Organi-

zations: on doing what you love and loving what

you do. California Management Review 40(1):

3958.

Baumhoff A. 1999. Gunta Stolzl. In Bauhaus,

Fiedler J, Feierabend P (eds). Konemann:

Cologne; 347353, p. 347.

Berger PL, Luckmann T. 1967. The Social Construc-tion of Reality. Doubleday Anchor: New York.

Drazin R, Glynn MA, Kazanjian RK. 1999. Multilevel

theorising about creativity in organizations: a

sense making perspective. Academy of Manage-

ment Review 24(2): 286307.

Droste M. 2002. Bauhaus 19191933. Taschen:

Berlin, p. 37.

Faass M. 2000. Playfully to the Essentials.

In Bauhaus, Fiedler J, Feierabend P (eds).

Konemann: Cologne; 252255, p. 252.

Fiedler J, Feierabend P. 2000. Bauhaus.

Konemann: Cologne, p. 128.Fiedler J, Feierabend P. 2000. Bauhaus.

Konemann: Cologne, p. 587.

Franciscono M. 1971. Walter Gropius and the

Creation of the Bauhaus in Weimar: The Ideals

and Artistic Theories of its Founding Years.

University of Illinois Press: Urbana, London, p. 3.

Hannan MT, Freeman J. 1989. Organizational

Ecology. Harvard University Press: London.

Hicks MJ. 1999. Problem Solving in Business and

Management: Hard, Soft and Creative

Approaches. Chapman and Hall: London.



8/7/2019 29_ftp

13/13

Hochman ES. 1997. Bauhaus: Crucible of Modern-

ism. Fromm International: New York, p. 1.

Levine DP. 1999. Creativity and Change: on the

Psychodynamics of Modernity. American Beha-

vioural Scientist43(2): 225244.

Levitt T. 2002. Creativity is not enough. Harvard

Business Review 80(8): 137144.

Lucie-Smith E. 1981. The Story of Craft: The

Craftsmans Role in Society. Phaidon: Oxford.

Mainemelis C. 2001. When the Muse takes it all: a

model for the experience of timelessness in

organizations.Academy of Management Review

26(4): 548565.

McFadzean E. 2000. What can we learn from

creative people? The story of Brian Eno.Manage-

ment Decision 38(1/2): 5156.Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1991. Institutionalised organi-

zations: formal structure as myth and ceremony.

In The New Institutionalism in Organizational

Analysis, Powell W, DiMaggio P (eds). The

University of Chicago Press: Chicago, p. 50.

Neumann E. 1970. Bauhaus and Bauhaus: People

Personal Opinions and Recollections of Former

Bauhaus Members and their Contemporaries.

Reinhold: New York, p. 100.

Preti A. The Gift of Saturn: Creativity and Psycho-

pathology. In Serendip Vol 2003. http://cogprint-

s.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00002010/, 24 August

2004.

Scott WR. 1998. Organizations Rational, Natural

and Open Systems (4th edn). Prentice Hall:

Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Shalley CE, Gilson LL, Blum TC. 2000. Matching

creativity requirements and the work environ-

ment: effects on satisfaction and intentions to

leave. Academy of Management Journal43(2):

215224.Whitford F. 1984. Bauhaus. Thames and Hudson

Ltd: London, p. 202.

Whitford F, Engelhardt J. 1992. The Bauhaus:

Masters and Students by Themselves. Conran

Octopus: London, p. 118.



29_ftp

Documents