I/EC
The Professional Side
The Destructive Side of Creativity O n e of the goals of management is to control the consequences of creativity through an intelligent authority structure
Two WORDS that can be counted on to produce emotion and argument among research people are "creativity" and "basic research." When I began preparation of this article, I had in mind only those structures of thought or action which must be removed to make room for the creative insight, or the new construction. O n the surface, we have been so enthusiastic about creativity in recent years that one might wonder whether its costs have been overlooked or why men in the past in other societies were less enamoured of novelty than we in the United States are today. Therefore, I want to present these themes linking creativity with destruction : that the creative act must often be preceded by destructive acts; that the creative act often destroys something; and that the emphasis on creativity is often destructive. Old Structures Must Give Way Look at the first of these—that old structures must give way before new ones can appear. By a structure, 1 mean any pattern, any system, any plan, any theory, any organization, any agreement, any habit, tradition, belief, any piece of equipment, or any building. T h e significances of a structure are that it can be put to only a limited number of uses, that, when used, it has predictable consequences, and that it shuts out more than it contains. Some structures are not highly valued by people, but people identify themselves with other structures, and a few become sacred. W e can recognize the importance of certain structures to self-esteem and career in our own work. It is
said that old theories never die; their proponents pass away. Indeed, to destroy one's own theory is a very trying experience, but continually testing it is a discipline forced on us by membership in the scientific community—an institutional requirement that creative channels be kept open by community willingness to destroy structures that stand in the way. Examples of structures that stand in the way of creative movement can be chosen from many fields. Psychology likes experiments which show how the initial perception of a problem may have to be destroyed before the problem can be solved. When a chicken is placed on one side of a short piece of fencing and corn on the other side, it does not occur to the chicken to re-examine its initial perception of the structure of the situation. It tries to get through the fence, rather than around it. There is some evidence that when engineering students are presented with problems that can be solved only by common sense, but whose structure superficially appears to be that of familiar problems for which formulas are available in the handbook, freshmen do somewhat better than seniors. T h e y have fewer structures to destroy before proceeding. W e want creativity within an authority structure. I n fact, we find the managements of laboratories demanding creativity. Authority structures have their advantages and their disadvantages. They are excellent for getting done what the boss wants done, but doing what the boss says is not very creative on the subordinate's part. T h e creative challenge to the subordinate is to do something other than what the boss
Herbert A. Shepard, research associate on organization at Esso Standard OU Co., has been a consultant to a number of firms on laboratory management problems a n d executive development, both independently and as an associate of Arthur D . Little, Inc. H e studied biology and sociology at McMaster a n d Toronto Universities in Canada, later taking his P h . D . in industrial economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Formerly assistant professor of sociology at M I T , Shepard has shown a continued interest in research and has several publications to his credit in the fields of human relations training methods and organization of research and development laboratories. As a result of his activities, he has gained considerable insight with regard to the creative process, and has set forth some of his views in this paper, which was also presented at the Akron meeting of the American Institute of Chemists.
wants done. Of course, that is not an operating principle of research laboratories, but some of the most creative projects have been smuggled ones—ones which were denials of, though not overt and explicit destruction of the constituted authority. T h e authority structure of laboratories is a boundary-setting device; it does not seek to control every act. T h e boss determines what and when, the subordinate how and who. VOL. 49, NO. 9
·
SEPTEMBER 1957
109
A
IS IT CORROSIVE · ABRASIVE · VISCOUS THICK · HEAVY OR JUST PLAIN CUSSED?
THE PROFESSIONAL SIDE
*7^e* "Put *)ttA*ùu$6,a,
T h a t brings me to my second theme: that the creative act often destroys someting. O n e way of stating the goals of management is to say that its efforts are to control the consequences of creativity, to keep destruction to a minimum. Scientific tradition makes the scientist responsible for three phases of creativity activity : problem definition or selection, problem solving, and communication of his solution. I n the unsophisticated world of scientific tradition, communicating one's results was regarded as sufficient to get them into use by other scientists—no resistance was anticipated. I n the more complex world of applied industrial science, the communication of results becomes the process of innovation—and getting something new into production requires additional creativity. Division of labor in most modern organizations results in the scientist's role being considerably narrowed. H e often has little voice in problem selection or definition; he often has little responsibility for innovation. Curiously, although the former restriction is likely to be the more resented by scientists, the latter is the more important. For it is in innovation, in the consequences of creativity, that the danger of destruction of highly valued things is greatest. Left uncontrolled, creativity creates chaos; it almost is chaos. Within an organization, we cannot afford much chaos. It destroys morale, efficiency, and singleness of purpose, which are necessary for institutional success. Severe limitations must be put on the rate and kind of innovation. Some organizations can accomplish internal readjustments more easily than others, but for all organizations, internal change, for example, the use of computers, is a first-class problem.
pl/MP F o r those " t o u g h - t o - h a n d l e " fluids t h a t clog, build u p on or quickly destroy a p u m p ' s working p a r t s a n d increase operating costs — the obvious solution is a Shriver D i a p h r a g m P u m p . L e t a Shriver prove it can really " t a k e i t " — a n d save in overall m a i n t e n a n c e cost a n d prolonged p u m p service life. W r i t e for Bulletin 137.
T. S H R I V E R Fitter Presses
·
• N O CONTACT OF FLUID WITH W O R K I N G PARTS • NO PACKINGS • N O LEAKAGE • N O WEAR
& COMPANY,
Filter
Media
·
Sol
