Leaving people to their own devices in the hope that such freedom will foster creativity is all very well but there are a couple of things to consider – a) whether without incentive, or direction dormant creatives will actually get round to exercising their potential b) for creativity (particularly within organizations) to be implemented or made use of often discipline and structure is necessary. How and to what degree discipline needs to be exercised is a contextual question.
When you get down to it, structure really is about one of two contradictory things... control - making people behave in a certain, ostensibly predictable, way; and liberty - marking off things that people no longer have to worry about so they can spend energy elsewhere.
I think both are necessary and important, but too much of either is a disaster.
When I look at a "structure" initiative - whether it is an org chart or a form or a formal process or policy, I start by deciding (usually unconsciously) which kind of thing it is - control or liberty - then ask whether or not that seems like the right approach.
In my experience it is a mismatch there that is the root cause of problems resulting from "structure" - when employees need control, they get liberty, and vice versa; individuals and small groups usually don't need to be told what they need, but they do need to be given what they can't give themselves.
So, if you need to impose structure, what you need to know is why? Then you can see what is the best way to set boundaries once you know what you are bounding - creativity or fear. After that, I find that it becomes a lot simpler to get buy in from those who are most likely to bear the burdens involved in implementing change.
I think you have to be careful, but if you tell someone WHAT you want/require and leave them to work on the HOW, that allows them some input and some creativity. Think carefully if you need the structure and why - because it helps if you can explain that too, when you say that this is a given.
structure and creativity are not mutually exclusive - in many cases, structure provides the platform for creativity. a successful strategy I've employed is to provide "guidelines," instead of "rules."
there are many good ideas for structure, methodology, management, but the best are those that suit your people, environment and business.
As stated in the HBR Dec 07 issues, managing creativity and innovation is not so much about demanding that others think outside the box, but providing new boxes for others to think within. Asking the right questions is key, because when certain restrictions and criteria are set in place creativity can be truly harnessed and productive.
In my experience, imposing a structure is usually felt by the employee during evaluation and feedback. Criticism of one's work and output is a very sensitive process which very much often dictates how an employee perceives a structure which you are trying to implement.
Guide the employees on how to work with the structure you wish to implement. Give them an idea of what is acceptable and what is exemplary, as opposed to giving them an "acceptable and not acceptable" scenario.
People are typically motivated by some combination of pay, prestige and process. Ensuring that we value process and product together is the best way to engage employees. It's when they're trying to get into the "black box" that is the decision making process that they become unmotivated. By making sure that expectations are clear and that systems line up with the "why" we're 90% there.
I wouldn't recommend trying to "impose" structure. You have to somehow let it emerge spontaneously: there are some variables you'll be able to tweak, but if you really want creativity, there's just some randomness to the process that cannot be avoided (if there wasn't there just wouldn't be anywhere for originality to come from).
I've found a great solution to be working in teams. You put together highly creative people with highly efficient people. Then hope for the best, meaning hope they don't kill each other. But what will most likely happen is you get someone throwing out a whole list of great ideas to someone who keeps figuring out how to make them happen. It's worked very well for me on several ocassions, and it's gratifying to everyone involved: creative types can get frustrated if they don't get to see any of their ideas become anything, and efficient types get a thrill of making things happen. Win-win situation.
You can set boundaries like objetives, some deliverables, but mostly you have to be willing to go easy on the leash. Creativity just vanishes when it's forced out, so if you want magic results, you have to allow for the magic to build up.
Structure allows more creativity. If there's a framework in place that gives direction within which to work in alignment with organizational goals, then time is freed up for creativity rather than wading through a sea of ambiguity.
This can be a chicken or egg discussion. Structure can help you drive creativity and achieve an agreed goal. So why not involve employees in an exploration of your organisation's purpose, products, systems and structures? Get some "buy in".
- Jim P
Donna is right, structure can promote creativity especially if employees are given a voice in creating structure. Gallup has found that it is engagement that drives productivity, safety, ROI, etc. Employees are engaged when: they get to do what they do best everyday, know what is expected of them, and have the tools, etc. they need to do their job.
We can use structures to define the context within which creativity are being exercised and leave it as that.
For example, if a team is to brainstorm ideas to create a unique product, the team can confine it within a certain product category that they want to create, such as a refrigerator. They can also use structures to further refine their products, such as defining the conditions and situations where the refrigerator will be used. When the product is properly defined by structures, allow brainstorming to take place within the team with no constraints.
As can be seen, structures are great tools to use when it comes to specifying and defining terms and conditions for a task. However, it is extremely ineffective when it comes to producing a creative team.
Therefore, it can be observed that when "creativity" comes in, "structure" leaves.
The two terms make a bad couple but perfect, solitary working companions.
Professional roles are a combination of scripted and discretionary actions. Scripted actions are the sequenced, process-oriented activities involved in delivering today's outcomes. Discretionary actions, the analytical, judgment-based interactions of individuals as they seek valuable outcomes in the future, resist structure. Discretionary actions are more like a piazza than a process.
From your question you want to improve the performance output of these discretionary actions - a critical question today. "Imposing" a structure suits scripted actions well, but for discretionary actions we've found it better to align key elements within this discretionary 'practice'. We do that by constructing examples of strategic interactions - which guide professionals to better navigate within the discretionary part of their work roles. So rather than 'impose', build in accountability for professionals to conduct their discretionary work in a similar way to the examples you provide. After 10 years of research, we found this to be the most effective way to improve performance.
15 Total
January 31, 2008 at 3:18pm by Saabira Chaudhuri
Leaving people to their own devices in the hope that such freedom will foster creativity is all very well but there are a couple of things to consider – a) whether without incentive, or direction dormant creatives will actually get round to exercising their potential b) for creativity (particularly within organizations) to be implemented or made use of often discipline and structure is necessary. How and to what degree discipline needs to be exercised is a contextual question.
January 31, 2008 at 6:19pm by Ian Smith
When you get down to it, structure really is about one of two contradictory things... control - making people behave in a certain, ostensibly predictable, way; and liberty - marking off things that people no longer have to worry about so they can spend energy elsewhere.
I think both are necessary and important, but too much of either is a disaster.
When I look at a "structure" initiative - whether it is an org chart or a form or a formal process or policy, I start by deciding (usually unconsciously) which kind of thing it is - control or liberty - then ask whether or not that seems like the right approach.
In my experience it is a mismatch there that is the root cause of problems resulting from "structure" - when employees need control, they get liberty, and vice versa; individuals and small groups usually don't need to be told what they need, but they do need to be given what they can't give themselves.
So, if you need to impose structure, what you need to know is why? Then you can see what is the best way to set boundaries once you know what you are bounding - creativity or fear. After that, I find that it becomes a lot simpler to get buy in from those who are most likely to bear the burdens involved in implementing change.
February 1, 2008 at 6:55am by Tricia Lustig
I think you have to be careful, but if you tell someone WHAT you want/require and leave them to work on the HOW, that allows them some input and some creativity. Think carefully if you need the structure and why - because it helps if you can explain that too, when you say that this is a given.
February 3, 2008 at 10:38am by Gail Taylor
We developed a model called the 7-Domains (http://www.mgtaylor.com/mgtaylor/jotm/spring97/mobius1.htm) and when these domains are managed, people have the freedom to do real, self-directed/inspired work. From Fast Company (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/11/genius.html)
Simple rules can lead to wonderful creativity and contributions.
February 9, 2008 at 4:32pm by Steve McNally
structure and creativity are not mutually exclusive - in many cases, structure provides the platform for creativity. a successful strategy I've employed is to provide "guidelines," instead of "rules."
there are many good ideas for structure, methodology, management, but the best are those that suit your people, environment and business.
February 11, 2008 at 12:53am by Nico Navarro
> Be transparent in intent and context
> Get Agreement
> Review "Agreement" regularly and/ or on a schedule that is open to all
February 11, 2008 at 12:13pm by Kevin Morris
As stated in the HBR Dec 07 issues, managing creativity and innovation is not so much about demanding that others think outside the box, but providing new boxes for others to think within. Asking the right questions is key, because when certain restrictions and criteria are set in place creativity can be truly harnessed and productive.
February 11, 2008 at 1:34pm by Dominic Anthony Tan
In my experience, imposing a structure is usually felt by the employee during evaluation and feedback. Criticism of one's work and output is a very sensitive process which very much often dictates how an employee perceives a structure which you are trying to implement.
Guide the employees on how to work with the structure you wish to implement. Give them an idea of what is acceptable and what is exemplary, as opposed to giving them an "acceptable and not acceptable" scenario.
February 11, 2008 at 2:08pm by Todd Henry
People are typically motivated by some combination of pay, prestige and process. Ensuring that we value process and product together is the best way to engage employees. It's when they're trying to get into the "black box" that is the decision making process that they become unmotivated. By making sure that expectations are clear and that systems line up with the "why" we're 90% there.
February 11, 2008 at 10:10pm by Eduardo Marisca
I wouldn't recommend trying to "impose" structure. You have to somehow let it emerge spontaneously: there are some variables you'll be able to tweak, but if you really want creativity, there's just some randomness to the process that cannot be avoided (if there wasn't there just wouldn't be anywhere for originality to come from).
I've found a great solution to be working in teams. You put together highly creative people with highly efficient people. Then hope for the best, meaning hope they don't kill each other. But what will most likely happen is you get someone throwing out a whole list of great ideas to someone who keeps figuring out how to make them happen. It's worked very well for me on several ocassions, and it's gratifying to everyone involved: creative types can get frustrated if they don't get to see any of their ideas become anything, and efficient types get a thrill of making things happen. Win-win situation.
You can set boundaries like objetives, some deliverables, but mostly you have to be willing to go easy on the leash. Creativity just vanishes when it's forced out, so if you want magic results, you have to allow for the magic to build up.
February 15, 2008 at 7:17am by Donna Karlin
Structure allows more creativity. If there's a framework in place that gives direction within which to work in alignment with organizational goals, then time is freed up for creativity rather than wading through a sea of ambiguity.
- Donna Karlin
February 17, 2008 at 3:53am by Jim Porteous
This can be a chicken or egg discussion. Structure can help you drive creativity and achieve an agreed goal. So why not involve employees in an exploration of your organisation's purpose, products, systems and structures? Get some "buy in".
- Jim P
February 26, 2008 at 2:00pm by Frederick Ellrich
Donna is right, structure can promote creativity especially if employees are given a voice in creating structure. Gallup has found that it is engagement that drives productivity, safety, ROI, etc. Employees are engaged when: they get to do what they do best everyday, know what is expected of them, and have the tools, etc. they need to do their job.
February 29, 2008 at 3:53am by Patrick Tay
We can use structures to define the context within which creativity are being exercised and leave it as that.
For example, if a team is to brainstorm ideas to create a unique product, the team can confine it within a certain product category that they want to create, such as a refrigerator. They can also use structures to further refine their products, such as defining the conditions and situations where the refrigerator will be used. When the product is properly defined by structures, allow brainstorming to take place within the team with no constraints.
As can be seen, structures are great tools to use when it comes to specifying and defining terms and conditions for a task. However, it is extremely ineffective when it comes to producing a creative team.
Therefore, it can be observed that when "creativity" comes in, "structure" leaves.
The two terms make a bad couple but perfect, solitary working companions.
March 26, 2008 at 12:36pm by Keith Miles
Professional roles are a combination of scripted and discretionary actions. Scripted actions are the sequenced, process-oriented activities involved in delivering today's outcomes. Discretionary actions, the analytical, judgment-based interactions of individuals as they seek valuable outcomes in the future, resist structure. Discretionary actions are more like a piazza than a process.
From your question you want to improve the performance output of these discretionary actions - a critical question today. "Imposing" a structure suits scripted actions well, but for discretionary actions we've found it better to align key elements within this discretionary 'practice'. We do that by constructing examples of strategic interactions - which guide professionals to better navigate within the discretionary part of their work roles. So rather than 'impose', build in accountability for professionals to conduct their discretionary work in a similar way to the examples you provide. After 10 years of research, we found this to be the most effective way to improve performance.