HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY - KNUgwmoon.knu.ac.kr/Lecture_Library_Upload/HOW_TO_KILL_CREATIVI… · HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY Keep doing what you're doing. Or, if you want to spark innovation,

HOWTO KILL

CREATIVITYKeep doing what you're doing.

Or, if you want to spark innovation,rethink how you motivate, reward,

and assign work to people.

BY TERESA M. AMABILE

W H E N I CONSIDER all the or-

ganizations I have studied and worked with over the past22 years, there can be no doubt: creativity gets killedmuch more often than it gets supported. For the mostpart, this isn't because managers bave a vendetta againstcreativity. On tbe contrary, most believe in the value ofnew and useful ideas. However, creativity is underminedunintentionally every day in work environments thatwere established-for entirely good reasons-to maximizebusiness imperatives such as coordination, productivity,and control.

Managers cannot be expected to ignore business impera-tives, of course. But in working toward these imperatives,tbey may be inadvertently designing organizations tbat sys-tematically crusb creativity. My research shows that it ispossible to develop the best of both worlds: organizations in

Teresa M. Amabile is the M.B.A. Class of 1954 Professor of BusinessAdministration and senior associate dean for research at the HarvardBusiness School in Boston, Massachusetts.

ARTWORK BY BRYAN LEISTER • 7 7

HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY

which business imperatives are attended to andcreativity flourishes. Building such organizations,however, requires us to understand precisely whatkinds of managerial practices foster creativity-andwhich kill it.

What Is Business Creativity?We tend to associate creativity with the arts and tothink of it as the expression of highly original ideas.Think of how Pablo Picasso reinvented the conven-tions of painting or how William Faulkner rede-fined fiction. In business, originality isn't enough.To he creative, an idea must also he appropriate-useful and actionable. It must somehow influencethe way business gets done-hy improving a prod-uct, for instance, or hy opening up a new way to ap-proach a process.

The associations made between creativity andartistic originality often lead to confusion about theappropriate place of creativity in business organi-zations. In seminars, I've asked managers if thereis any place they don't want creativity in their com-

panies. About 80% of the time, they answer, "Ac-counting." Creativity, they seem to believe, be-longs just in marketing and R&JD. But creativitycan benefit every function of an organization.Think of activity-based accounting. It was an in-vention-an accounting invention-and its impacton business has been positive and profound.

Along with fearing creativity in the accountingdepartment-or really, in any unit that involvessystematic processes or legal regulations - manymanagers also hold a rather narrow view of the cre-ative process. To them, creativity refers to the waypeople think-how inventively they approach prob-lems, for instance. Indeed, thinking imaginativelyis one part of creativity, but two others are also es-sential: expertise and motivation.

Expertise encompasses everything that a personknows and can do in the broad domain of his or herwork. Take, for example, a scientist at a pharma-ceutical company who is charged with developing ablood-clotting drug for hemophiliacs. Her expertiseincludes her basic talent for thinking scientificallyas well as all the knowledge and technical abilities

THE THREE COMPONENTS OF CREATIVITY

Within every individual, creativity is a function of three components: expertise, creative-thinking skills,and motivation. Can managers influence these coniponents? The answer is an emphatic yes-for betteror for worse - through workplace practices and conditions.

Expertise is, in a word,knowledge-technical,procedural, and intellectual.

Creative- \thinking

skills

Creativity

Creative-thinking skiiisdetermine how flexiblyand imaginatively peopleapproach problems. Dotheir solutions upend thestatus quo? Do they perse-vere through dry spells?

Motivation

Not all motivation is created equal. An inner passion to solvethe problem at hand leads to solutions far more creative thando external rewards,such as money.This component-calledintrinsic motivation-is the one that can be most immediatelyinfluenced by the work environment.

78 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998


that she has in the fields of medicine, chemistry, bi-ology, and biochemistry. It doesn't matter how sheacquired this expertise, whether through formal ed-ucation, practical experience, or interaction withother professionals. Regardless, her expertise con-stitutes what the Nobel laureate, economist, andpsychologist Herb Simon calls her "network of pos-sible wanderings," the intellectual space that sheuses to explore and solve problems. The larger thisspace, the better.

Creative thinking, as noted above, refers to howpeople approach problems and solutions-their ca-pacity to put existing ideas together innew combinations. The skill itself de-pends quite a bit on personality aswell as on how a person thinks andworks. The pharmaceutical scientist,for example, will be more creative ifher personality is such that she feelscomfortable disagreeing with others-that is, if she naturally tries out solu-tions that depart from the status quo. Her creativitywill be enhanced further if she habitually turnsproblems upside down and combines knowledgefrom seemingly disparate fields. For example, shemight look to botany to help find solutions to thehemophilia problem, using lessons from the vascu-lar systems of plants to spark insights about bleed-ing in humans.

As for work style, the scientist will be more likelyto achieve creative success if she perseveres througha difficult problem. Indeed, plodding through longdry spells of tedious experimentation increases theprobability of truly creative breakthroughs. So, too,does a work style that uses "incubation," the ahil-ity to set aside difficult problems temporarily, workon something else, and then retixrn later with a freshperspective.

Expertise and creative thinking are an individ-ual's raw materials-his or her natural resources,if you will. But a third factor-motivation-deter-mines what people will actually do. The scientistcan bave outstanding educational credentials anda great facility in generating new perspectives to oldproblems. But if she lacks the motivation to do aparticular job, she simply won't do it; her expertiseand creative thinking will cither go untapped or beapplied to something else.

My research has repeatedly demonstrated, how-ever, that all forms of motivation do not have thesame impact on creativity. In fact, it shows tbatthere are two types of motivation - extrinsic and in-trinsic, the latter being far more essential for cre-ativity. But let's explore extrinsic first, because it isoften at the root of creativity problems in business.

Extrinsic motivation comes from outside a per-son - whether the motivation is a carrot or a stick. Ifthe scientist's boss promises to reward her finan-cially should the blood-clotting project succeed, orif he threatens to fire her should it fail, she will cer-tainly be motivated to find a solution. But this sortof motivation "makes" the scientist do her job inorder to get something desirable or avoid some-thing painful.

Obviously, the most common extrinsic motiva-tor managers use is money, which doesn't necessar-ily stop people from being creative. But in many sit-

Money doesn't necessarily stoppeople from being creative, but in

many situations, it doesn't help.

uations, it doesn't help either, especially when itleads people to feel that they are being bribed orcontrolled. More important, money by itself doesn'tmake employees passionate about their jobs. Acash reward can't magically prompt people to findtheir work interesting if in their hearts they feel itis dull.

But passion and interest-a person's internal de-sire to do something-are what intrinsic motiva-tion is all about. For instance, the scientist in ourexample would be intrinsically motivated if herwork on the blood-clotting drug was sparked by anintense interest in hemophilia, a personal sense ofchallenge, or a drive to crack a problem that no oneelse has been able to solve. When people are intrin-sically motivated, they engage in their work for thechallenge and enjoyment of it. The work itself ismotivating. In fact, in our creativity research, mystudents, colleagues, and I have found so much evi-dence in favor of intrinsic motivation that we havearticulated what we call the Intrinsic MotivationPrinciple of Creativity: people will be most creativewhen they feel motivated primarily by the interest,satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself-andnot by external pressures. (For more on the differ-ences between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,see the insert "The Creativity Maze.")

Managing CreativityManagers can influence all three components ofcreativity: expertise, creative-thinking skills, andmotivation. But the fact is that the first two aremore difficult and time consuming to influence

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998 n


THE CREATIVITY MAZE

To understand tbe differences between extrin-sic and intrinsic motivation, imagine a businessproblem as a maze.

One person migbt be motivated to make ittbrougb the maze as quickly and safely as possi-ble in order to get a tangible reward, such asmoney- tbe same way a mouse would rushthrough for a piece of cheese. This person wouldlook for the simplest, most straightforwardpatb and then take it. In fact, if he is in a realrush to get tbat reward, he might just take themost beaten path and solve the problem exactlyas it has been solved before.

That approach, based on extrinsic motivation,will indeed get bim out of the maze. But the so-lution that arises from tbe process is likely to beunimaginative. It won't provide new insightsabout the nature of the problem or reveal newways of looking at it. The rote solution probablywon't move the business forward.

Another person migbt have a different ap-proach to the maze. She might actually find theprocess of wandering around tbe differentpaths - the challenge and exploration itself - funand intriguing. No doubt, this journey will takelonger and include mistakes, because anymaze-any truly complex problem-has manymore dead ends tban exits. But when tbe intrin-sically motivated person finally does find a wayout of the maze-a solution-it very likely willbe more interesting tban the rote algorithm. Itwill be more creative.

There is abundant evidence of strong intrin-sic motivation in tbe stories of widely recog-nized creative people. When asked what makesthe difference between creative scientists andtbose wbo are less creative, tbe Nobel-prize-winning physicist Arthur Scbawlow said, "Thelabor-of-love aspect is important. The mostsuccessful scientists often are not tbe most tal-ented, but tbe ones who are just impelled by cu-riosity. They've got to know what the answeris." Albert Einstein talked about intrinsic moti-vation as "the enjoyment of seeing and search-ing." The novelist John Irving, in discussing tbevery long bours be put into bis writing, said,"Tbe unspoken factor is love. The reason I canwork so bard at my writing is that it's not workfor me." And Michael lordan, perhaps the mostcreative basketball player ever, bad a "love oftbe game" clause inserted into his contract; beinsisted that be be free to play pick-up basket-ball games any time he wished.

Creative people are rarely superstars likeMichael lordan. Indeed, most of the creativework done in the business world today getsdone by people wbose names will never berecorded in history books. They are people withexpertise, good creative-thinking skills, andhigh levels of intrinsic motivation. And just asimportant, they work in organizations wheremanagers consciously build environments thatsupport tbese characteristics instead of destroy-ing them.

than motivation. Yes, regular scientific seminarsand professional conferences will undoubtedly addto the scientist's expertise in hemophilia and relatedfields. And training in brainstorming, problemsolving, and so-called lateral thinking might giveher some new tools to use in tackling the job. Butthe time and money involved in broadening herknowledge and expanding her creative-thinkingskills would be great. By contrast, our research hasshown that intrinsic motivation ean be increasedconsiderably by even subtle changes in an organiza-tion's environment. That is not to say that man-agers should give up on improving expertise andcreative-thinking skills. But when it conies topulling levers, they should know that those that

affect intrinsic motivation will yield more imme-diate results.

More specifically, then, what managerial prac-tices affect creativity? They fall into six general cat-egories: challenge, freedom, resources, work-groupfeatures, supervisory encouragement, and organiza-tional support. These categories have emerged frommore than two decades of research focused primar-ily on one question: What are the links hetweenwork environment and creativity? We bave usedthree methodologies: experiments, interviews, andsurveys. While controlled experiments allowed usto identify causal links, the interviews and surveysgave us insight into the richness and complexity ofcreativity within business organizations. We have

80 HARVARD BUSiNESS REVIEW September-October 1998

HOW TO KILL CHEATIVITY

Studied dozens of companies and, within those,hundreds of individuals and teams. In each researchinitiative, our goal has been to identify which man-agerial practices are definitively linked to positivecreative outcomes and which are not.

For instance, in one project, we intervieweddozens of employees from a wide variety of compa-nies and industries and asked them to describe indetail the most and least creative events in their ca-reers. We then closely studied thetranscripts of those interviews, not-ing the managerial practices - or otherpatterns-that appeared repeatedlyin the successful creativity storiesand, conversely, in those that wereunsuccessful. Our research has alsoheen bolstered by a quantitative sur-vey instrument called KEYS. Takenby employees at any level of an orga-nization, KEYS consists of 78 ques-tions used to assess various work-place conditions, such as the level ofsupport for creativity from top-levelmanagers or the organization's ap-proach to evaluation.

Taking the six categories that haveemerged from our research in turn,let's explore what managers can doto enhance creativity-and what of-ten happens instead. Again, it is im-portant to note that creativity-killingpractices are seldom the work of lonemanagers. Such practices usually aresystemic-so widespread that theyare rarely questioned.

Challenge. Of all the things man-agers can do to stimulate creativity,perhaps the most efficacious is thedeceptively simple task of matchingpeople with the right assignments.Managers can match people withjobs that play to their expertise andtheir skills in creative thinking, andignite intrinsic motivation. Perfectmatches stretch employees' abili-ties. The amount of stretch, how-ever, is crucial: not so little that they feel bored hutnot so much that they feel overwhelmed and threat-ened by a loss of control. ••

Making a good match requires that managerspossess rich and detailed information about theiremployees and the available assignments. Such in-formation is often difficult and time consuming togather. Perhaps that's why good matches are sorarely made. In fact, one of the most common ways

managers kill creativity is by not trying to obtainthe information necessary to make good connec-tions between people and jobs. Instead, somethingof a shotgun wedding occurs. The most eligible em-ployee is wed to the most eligible - that is, the mosturgent and open- assignment. Often, the results arepredictably unsatisfactory for all involved.

Freedom. When it comes to granting freedom, thekey to creativity is giving people autonomy con-

Creativity thrives when managers let people decide how to climb amountain; they needn't, however, let employees choose wbich one.

cerning the means-that is, concerning process-but not necessarily the ends. People will be morecreative, in other words, if you give them freedomto decide how to climb a particular mountain. Youneedn't let them choose which mountain to climb.In fact, clearly specified strategic goals often en-hance people's creativity.

I'm not making the case that managers shouldleave their subordinates entirely out of goal- or

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998 81


agenda-setting discussions. But they should under-stand that inclusion in those discussions will notnecessarily enhance creative output and certainlywill not be sufficient to do so. It is far more impor-tant that whoever sets the goals also makes themclear to the organization and that these goals re-main stable for a meaningful period of time. It is dif-ficult, if not impossible, to work creatively towarda target if it keeps moving.

Autonomy around process fosters creativity be-cause giving people freedom in how they approachtheir work heightens their intrinsic motivation and

Deciding how much time andmoney to give to a team or projectis a judgment call that can eithersupport or kill creativity.

sense of ownership. Freedom ahout process also al-lows people to approach problems in ways thatmake the most of their expertise and their creative-thinking skills. The task may end up being a stretchfor them, hut they can use their strengths to meetthe challenge.

How do executives mismanage freedom? Thereare two common ways. First, managers tend tochange goals frequently or fail to define them clearly.Employees may have freedom around process, butif they don't know where they are headed, suchfreedom is pointless. And second, some managersfall short on this dimension hy granting autonomyin name only. They claim that employees are "em-powered" to explore the maze as they search for so-lutions hut, in fact, the process is proscribed. Em-ployees diverge at their own risk.

Resources. The two main resources that affectcreativity are time and money. Managers need toallot these resources carefully. Like matching peoplewith the right assignments, deciding how muchtime and money to give to a team or project is a so-phisticated judgment call that can either support orkill creativity.

Consider time. Under some circumstances, timepressure can heighten creativity. Say, for instance,that a competitor is ahout to launch a great productat a lower price than your offering or that societyfaces a serious problem and desperately needs a so-lution-such as an AIDS vaccine. In such situa-tions, both the time crunch and the importance ofthe work legitimately make people feel that they

must rush. Indeed, cases like these would he apt toincrease intrinsic motivation by increasing thesense of challenge.

Organizations routinely kill creativity with fakedeadlines or impossibly tight ones. The former cre-ate distrust and the latter cause burnout. In eithercase, people feel overcontroUed and unfulfilled-which invariably damages motivation. Moreover,creativity often takes time. It can be slow going toexplore new concepts, put together unique solu-tions, and wander through the maze. Managers whodo not allow time for exploration or do not sched-

ule in incubation periods are unwit-tingly standing in the way of the cre-ative process.

When it comes to project resources,again managers must make a fit. Theymust determine the funding, people,and other resources that a team legiti-mately needs to complete an assign-ment - and they must know how muchthe organization can legitimately af-ford to allocate to the assignment.

Then they must strike a compromise. Interestingly,adding more resources above a "threshold of suffi-ciency" does not boost creativity. Below that thresh-old, however, a restriction of resources can dampencreativity. Unfortunately, many managers don'trealize this and therefore often make another mis-take. They keep resources tight, which pushes peo-ple to channel their creativity into finding additionalresources, not in actually developing new productsor services.

Another resource that is misunderstood when itcomes to creativity is physical space. It is almostconventional wisdom that creative teams needopen, comfortable offices. Such an atmospherewon't hurt creativity, and it may even help, but it isnot nearly as important as other managerial initia-tives that influence creativity. Indeed, a problemwe have seen time and time again is managers pay-ing attention to creating the "right" physical spaceat the expense of more high-impact actions, suchas matching people to the right assignments andgranting freedom around work processes.

Work-Group Features. If you want to build teamsthat come up with creative ideas, you must paycareful attention to the design of such teams. Thatis, you must create mutually supportive groupswitb a diversity of perspectives and backgrounds.Why? Because when teams comprise people withvarious intellectual foundations and approaches towork - that is, different expertise and creative think-ing styles-ideas often combine and combust in ex-citing and usefxil ways.



Diversity, however, is only a starting point. Man-agers must also make sure that the teams they puttogether have three other features. First, the mem-bers must share excitement over the team's goal.Second, members must display a willingness tohelp their teammates through difficult periods andsetbacks. And third, every member must recognizethe unique knowledge and perspective that othermembers bring to the table. These factors enhancenot only intrinsic motivation but also expertise andcreative-thinking skills.

Again, creating such teams requires managers tohave a deep understanding of their people. Theymust be able to assess them not just for theirknowledge but for their attitudes about potentialfellow team members and the collaborative pro-cess, for their problem-solving styles, and for theirmotivational hot buttons. Putting together a teamwith just the right chemistry-just the right level ofdiversity and supportiveness-can be difficult, butour research shows how powerful it can be.

It follows, then, that one common way managerskill creativity is hy assembling homogeneous teams.The lure to do so is great. Homogeneous teams of-ten reach "solutions" more quickly and with lessfriction along the way. These teams often reporthigh morale, too. But homogeneous teams do littleto enhance expertise and creative thinking. Every-one comes to the table with a similar mind-set.They leave with the same.

Supervisory Encouragement. Most managers areextremely busy. They are under pressure for results.It is therefore easy for them to let praise for creativeefforts-not just creative successes but unsuccess-ful efforts, too-fall by the way-side. One very simple step man-agers can take to foster creativityis to not let that happen.

The connection to intrinsicmotivation here is clear. Certain- , . , r i •

ly, people can find their work time^consummg kyers or evaluation.interesting or exciting without ^ "^a cheering section - for some pe-riod of time. But to sustain such passion, most peo-ple need to feel as if their work matters to the orga-nization or to some important group of people.Otherwise, they might as well do their work athome and for their own personal gain.

Managers in successful, creative organizationsrarely offer specific extrinsic rewards for particularoutcomes. However, they freely and generouslyrecognize creative work by individuals and teams -often before the ultimate commercial impact ofthose efforts is known. By contrast, managers whokill creativity do so either by failing to acknowl-

edge innovative efforts or by greeting them withskepticism. In many companies, for instance, newideas are met not with open minds but with time-consuming layers of evaluation - or even withharsh criticism. When someone suggests a newproduct or process, senior managers take weeks torespond. Or they put that person through an excru-ciating critique.

Not every new idea is worthy of consideration, ofcourse, but in many organizations, managers hahit-ually demonstrate a reaction that damages creativ-ity. They look for reasons to not use a new idea in-stead of searching for reasons to explore it further.An interesting psychological dynamic underliesthis phenomenon. Our research shows that peoplebelieve that they will appear smarter to their bossesif they are more critical-and it often works. Inmany organizations, it is professionally rewardingto react critically to new ideas.

Unfortunately, this sort of negativity bias canhave severe consequences for the creativity of thoseheing evaluated. How? First, a culture of evaluationleads people to focus on the external rewards andpunishments associated with their output, thus in-creasing the presence of extrinsic motivation andits potentially negative effects on intrinsic motiva-tion. Second, such a culture creates a climate offear, which again undermines intrinsic motivation.

Finally, negativity also shows up in how man-agers treat people whose ideas don't pan out: often,they are terminated or otherwise warehoused with-in the organization. Of course, ultimately, ideas doneed to work; remember that creative ideas in busi-ness must be new and useful. The dilemma is that

In many companies, new ideas aremet not with open minds but with

you can't possibly know beforehand which ideaswill pan out. Furthermore, dead ends can some-times he very enlightening. In many husiness situa-tions, knowing what doesn't work can he as usefulas knowing what does. But if people do not perceiveany "failure value" for projects that ultimately donot achieve commercial success, they'll becomeless and less likely to experiment, explore, and con-nect with their work on a personal level. Their in-trinsic motivation will evaporate.

Supervisory encouragement comes in other formsbesides rewards and punishment. Another way



managers can support creativity is to serve as rolemodels, persevering through tough prohlems aswell as encouraging collaboration and communica-tion within the team. Such hehavior enhances allthree components of the creative process, and it hasthe added virtue of heing a high-impact practicethat a single manager can take on his or her own. Itis better still when all managers in an organizationserve as role models for the attitudes and behaviorsthat encourage and nurture creativity.

Organizational Support. Encouragement fromsupervisors certainly fosters creativity, hut creativ-ity is truly enhanced when the entire organizationsupports it. Such support is the job of an organiza-tion's leaders, who must put in place appropriatesystems or procedures and emphasize values thatmake it clear that creative efforts are a top priority.For example, creativity-supporting organizationsconsistently reward creativity, but they avoid usingmoney to "bribe" people to come up with innova-tive ideas. Because monetary rewards make peoplefeel as if they are heing controlled, such a tacticprobably won't work. At the same time, not provid-ing sufficient recognition and rewards for creativitycan spawn negative feelings within an organiza-tion. People can feel used, or at the least under-appreciated, for their creative efforts. And it is rareto find the energy and passion of intrinsic motiva-tion coupled with resentment.

Most important, an organization's leaders cansupport creativity by mandating information shar-ing and collaboration and by ensuring that politicalproblems do not fester. Information sharing andcollaboration support all three components of cre-ativity. Take expertise. The more often people ex-change ideas and data by working together, themore knowledge they will have. The same dynamiccan be said for creative tbinking. In fact, one wayto enhance the creative thinking of employees is toexpose them to various approaches to problem solv-ing. With the exception of hardened misanthropes,information sharing and collaboration heightenpeoples' enjoyment of work and thus their intrinsicmotivation.

Whether or not you are seeking to enhance cre-ativity, it is prohably never a good idea to let politi-cal problems fester in an organizational setting.Infighting, politicking, and gossip are particularlydamaging to creativity because they take peoples'attention away from work. That sense of mutualpurpose and excitement so central to intrinsic mo-tivation invariahly lessens when people are cliquishor at war with one another. Indeed, our researchsuggests that intrinsic motivation increases whenpeople are aware that those around them are excited

by their jobs. When political problems abound, peo-ple feel that their work is threatened by others'agendas.

Finally, politicking also undermines expertise.The reason? Politics get in the way of open commu-nication, obstructing the flow of information frompoint A to point B. Knowledge stays put and exper-tise suffers.

From the Individual to theOrganizationCan executives build entire organizations that sup-port creativity? The answer is yes. Consider the re-sults of an intensive research project we recentlycompleted called the Team Events Study. Over thecourse of two years, we studied more than twodozen teams in seven companies across three in-dustries: high tech, consumer products, and chemi-cals. By following each team every day through theentire course of a creative project, we had a win-dow into the details of what happened as the projectprogressed-or failed to progress, as the case maybe. We did this through daily confidential e-mailreports from every person on each of the teams.At the end of each project, and at several pointsalong the way, we used confidential reports fromcompany experts and from team members to assessthe level of creativity used in problem solving aswell as the overall success of the project.

As might be expected, the teams and the compa-nies varied widely in how successful they were atproducing creative work. One organization, whichI will call Chemical Central Research, seemed to bea veritable hotbed of creativity. Chemical Centralsupplied its parent organization with new formula-tions for a wide variety of industrial and consumerproducts. In many respects, however, memhers ofChemical Central's development teams were unre-markable. They were well educated, but no more sothan people in many other companies we had stud-ied. The company was doing well financially, butnot enormously better than most other companies.What seemed to distinguish this organization wasthe quality of leadership at both the top-manage-ment level and the team level. The way managersformed teams, communicated with them, and sup-ported their work enabled tbem to establish an or-ganization in which creativity was continuallystimulated.

We saw managers making excellent matches be-tween people and assignments again and again atChemical Central. On occasion, team memberswere initially unsure of whether they were up tothe challenge they were given. Almost invariahly.



though, they found their passion and interest grow-ing through a deep involvement in the work. Theirmanagers knew to match them with jobs that hadthem working at the top of their competency levels,pushing the frontiers of their skills, and developingnew competencies. But managers were careful notto allow too big a gap between employees' assign-ments and their abilities.

Moreover, managers at Chemical Central collab-orated with the teams from the outset of a projectto clarify goals. The final goals, however, were setby the managers. Then, at the day-to-day operational level, the teamswere given a great deal of autonomyto make their own decisions aboutproduct development. Throughoutthe project, the teams' leaders andtop-level managers periodicallychecked to see that work was directedtoward the overall goals. But peoplewere given real freedom around theimplementation of the goals.

As for work-group design, everyChemical Central team, though rel-atively small [between four and ninemembers), included members of di-verse professional and ethnic back-grounds. Occasionally, that diversityled to communication difficulties.But more often, it sparked new in-sights and allowed the teams to comeup with a wider variety of ways toaccomplish their goals.

One team, for example, was re-sponsible for devising a new way tomake a major ingredient for one ofthe company's most important prod-ucts. Because managers at ChemicalCentral had worked consciously tocreate a diverse team, it happenedthat one member had both a legaland a technical background. Thisperson realized that the team mightwell be able to patent its core idea,giving the company a clear advan-tage in a new market. Because teammembers were mutually supportive,that member was willing and eagerto work closely with the inventor. Together, theseindividuals helped the team navigate its waythrough the patent application process. The teamwas successful and had fun along the way.

Supervisory encouragement and organizationalsupport were also widespread at Chemical Central.For instance, a member of one team received a com.-

pany award as an outstanding scientist even though,along the way, he had experienced many failures aswell as successes. At one point, after spending agreat deal of time on one experiment, he told us,"All I came up with was a pot of junk." Still, thecompany did not punish or warehouse him becauseof a creative effort that had failed. Instead, he waspublicly lauded for his consistently creative work.

Finally, Chemical Central's leaders did much toencourage teams to seek support from all unitswithin their divisions and to encourage coUabora-

1

V

Some creative ideas soar; others sink.To enhance creativity, there shouldalways be a safety net below the people who make suggestions.

tion across all quarters. The general manager of theresearch unit himself set an example, offering bothstrategic and technical ideas whenever teams ap-proached him for help. Indeed, he explicitly madecross-team support a priority among top scientistsin the organization. As a result, such support wasexpected and recognized.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1998


For example, one team was about to test a newformulation for one of the company's major prod-ucts. Because the team was small, it had to rely on amaterials-analysis group within the organization tohelp conduct the tests. The analysis group not onlyhelped out but also set aside generous blocks oftime during the week before testing to help theteam understand the nature and limits of the infor-mation the group would provide, when they wouldhave it, and what they would need from the team tosupport them effectively. Members of the team

Managers at one companyundermined employees' creativityby continually changing:interfering with processes.

were confident that they could rely on tbe materi-als-analysis group throughout the process, and thetrials went well-despite the usual technical diffi-culties encountered in such testing.

By contrast, consider what we observed at anotbercompany in our study, a consumer products com-pany we'll call National Houseware Products. Eoryears. National had been well known for its innova-tion. But recently, the company had been restruc-tured to accommodate a major growth spurt, andmany senior managers bad been fired or transferred.National's work environment had undergone dras-tic changes. At the same time, new product suc-cesses and new husiness ideas seemed to be slowingto a trickle. Interestingly, the daily reports of theTeam Events Study revealed that virtually all cre-ativity killers were present.

Managers undermined autonomy by continuallychanging goals and interfering with processes. Atone quarterly review meeting, for example, four pri-orities tbat had been defined by management at theprevious quarterly review meeting were not evenmentioned. In another instance, a product that hadbeen identified as the team's number one projectwas suddenly dropped without explanation.

Resources were similarly mismanaged. Eor in-stance, management perennially put teams undersevere and seemingly arbitrary time and resourceconstraints. At first, many team members were en-ergized by the fire-fighting atmosphere. They threwthemselves into their work and rallied. But after afew months, their verve had diminished, especiallybecause the pressures had proved meaningless.

But perhaps National's managers damaged cre-ativity most with their approach to evaluation.They were routinely critical of new suggestions.One employee told us that he was afraid to tell hismanagers about some radical ideas that he had de-veloped to grow his area of the business. The em-ployee was wildly enthusiastic about the potentialfor his ideas but ultimately didn't mention them toany of his bosses. He wondered why he shouldbother talking about new ideas when each one wasstudied for all its flaws instead of its potential.

Through its actions, management hadtoo often sent the message that any bigideas about how to change the statusquo would be carefully scrutinized.Those individuals brave enough tosuggest new ideas had to endure long-often nasty-meetings, replete withsuspicious questions.

In another example, when a teamtook a new competitive pricing pro-gram to the boss, it was told that a dis-

cussion of the idea would have to wait anothermonth. One exasperated team member noted, "Weanalyze so long, we've lost the business beforewe've taken any action at all!"

Yet another National team had put in particularlylong hours over a period of several weeks to createa radically improved version of a major product.The team succeeded in bringing out the produet ontime and in budget, and it garnered promising mar-ket response. But management acted as if every-thing were business as usual, providing no recog-nition or reward to the team. A couple of monthslater, when we visited tbe team to report the resultsof our study, we learned that the team leader hadjust accepted a job from a smaller competitor. Heconfided that although he felt that the opportuni-ties for advancement and ultimate visibility mayhave heen greater at National, he believed his workand his ideas would be valued more highly some-where else.

And finally, the managers at National allowedpolitical problems to fester. Consider the time aNational team came up with a great idea to savemoney in manufacturing a new product-whichwas especially urgent because a competitor had justcome out with a similar product at a lower price.The plan was nixed. As a matter of "policy" •- a codeword for long-held allegiances and rivalries withintbe company - the manufacturing division wouldn'tallow it. One team member commented, "If factsand figures instead of politics reigned supreme, thiswould be a no-brainer. There are no definable costsavings from running the products where they do.



and there is no counterproposal on how to save themoney another way. It's just 'No!' because this isthe way they want it."

Great Rewards and RisksThe important lesson of the National and Chemi-cal Central stories is that fostering creativity is inthe hands of managers as they think about, design,and establish the work environment. Creativityoften requires that managers radically change theways in which they build and interact with workgroups. In many respects, it calls for a consciousculture change. But it can be done, and the rewardscan be great.

The risks of not doing so may be even greater.When creativity is killed, an organization loses apotent competitive weapon: new ideas. It can alsolose the energy and commitment of its people. In-deed, in all my years of research into creativity, per-haps the most difficult part has been hearing peoplecomplain that they feel stified, frustrated, and shutdown by their organizations. As one team memberat National told us, "By the time I get home everyday, I feel physically, emotionally, and intellectu-ally drained. Help!"

Even if organizations seemed trapped in organiza-tional ecosystems that kill creativity-as in thecase of National Houseware Products-it is stillpossible to effect widespread change. Consider a re-cent transformation at Procter & Gamble. Once a

Fostering creativity oftenrequires that managers radicallychange how they build andinteract with work groups.

hotbed of creativity, P&G had in recent years seentbe number of its product innovations decline sig-nificantly. In response, the company establishedCorporate New Ventures (CNV), a small cross-functional team that embodies many of the creativ-ity-enhancing practices described in this article.

In terms of challenge, for instance, members ofthe CNV team were allowed to elect themselves.How better to make sure someone is intrinsicallymotivated for an assignment than to ask for volun-teers? Building a team from volunteers, it should benoted, was a major departure from standard PikGprocedures. Members of the CNV team also were

SUGGESTED READINGS

Teresa M. Amabile, Creativity in Context:Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity[Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996).

Teresa M. Amabile, Robert Burnside, andStanley S. Gryskiewicz, User's Manual for KEYS:Assessing the Climate for Creativity (Greensboro,N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 1998).

Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Frontiers ofManagement [Boston, Mass.: HarvardBusiness School Press, 1997I.

given a clear, challenging strategic goal: to inventradical new products that would build the company'sfuture. Again departing from typical P&G practices,the team was given enormons latitude around how,when, and where they approached their work.

The list of how CNV broke witb P&G's creativity-killing practices is a long one. On nearly every cre-ativity-support dimension in the KEYS work-envi-ronment survey, CNV scored higher than nationalnorms and higher than the pre-CNV environmentat P&G. But more important than the particulars isthe question; Has the changed environment resultedin more creative work? Undeniably so, and the evi-

dence is convincing. In tbe three yearssince its inception, CNV has handedoff II projects to tbe business sectorsfor execution. And as of early 1998,those products were beginning to fiowout of the pipeline. The first product,designed to provide portable heat forseveral hours' relief of minor pain,was already in test marketing. And sixother products were slated to go totest market within a year. Not sur-

prisingly, given CNV's success, P&.G is beginningto expand both the size and the scope of its CNVventure.

Even if you believe that your organization fosterscreativity, take a hard look for creativity killers.Some of them may be fiourishing in a dark corner-or even in tbe light. But rooting out creativity-killing behaviors isn't enough. You have to make aconscious effort to support creativity. The resultcan be a truly irmovative company where creativitydoesn't just survive but actually thrives. ^

Reprint 98501 To order reprints, see the last page of this issue.


Documents

HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY - KNUgwmoon.knu.ac.kr/Lecture_Library_Upload/HOW_TO_KILL_CREATIVI… · HOW TO KILL CREATIVITY Keep doing what you're doing. Or, if you want to spark innovation,