FEW companies are as creative as Google, which serves up innovations almost as fast as its popular search-engine serves up results. This week the firm unveiled a new version of its Chrome web browser and launched Fast Flip, which lets users scroll through the contents of an online newspaper in much the same way that they leaf through its pages in print. On September 30th the company will roll out another fledgling product, Google Wave, for a test involving some 100,000 people. Billed as a revolutionary way to collaborate online, Wave is also the product of a new, more structured approach to innovation within the company.
For years Google has had a fairly informal product- development system. Ideas percolated upwards from Googlers without any formal process for top managers to review them. Teams working on innovative stuff were generally kept small. Such a system worked fairly well while Google was in its infancy. But now that it is a giant with 20,000 employees, the firm risks stifling potential money-spinners with a burgeoning bureaucracy.
To stop that happening, Google has begun to hold regular meetings at which employees are encouraged to present new ideas to Eric Schmidt, the firm’s chief executive, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin, its co-founders. It has also given some projects more resources and independence than in the past. Both moves are designed to ward off the conservatism that can set in as companies mature. ‘We are actively trying to prevent middle-agedom,’ explains Mr Schmidt.
Google Wave has benefited from this anti-ageing treatment.
The new software allows people to create shared content that is hosted on Google’s servers online, or ‘in the cloud’.
When they open Google Wave, users see three columns on their screens. The left-hand one contains folders and address books, while the middle column is a list of ‘waves’–
online conversations users have initiated or signed up to.
Clicking on a wave displays its contents in the right-hand column. People can post text, photos, web feeds and other things into a wave and exchange comments with one another instantly.
The software excites tech folk, some of whom reckon it poses a threat to Microsoft’s SharePoint collaboration package. Inside Google the project has generated much enthusiasm too, plus some controversy. The Wave team deliberately distanced itself from Google’s headquarters, choosing to be based in the company’s Sydney office. And it insisted that its work be kept secret for a long time so its nascent idea was not subject to nit-picking criticism. Some Googlers felt this was a betrayal of the firm’s open culture.
‘Not everyone inside the company thought that this was super cool,’ admits Lars Rasmussen, one of the two brothers leading the project, which was allowed to recruit dozens of software engineers to its ranks.
That has not dented Google’s enthusiasm for creating more such teams. Mr Schmidt wants the number to grow from a dozen or so today to perhaps 50. The challenge, he says, is to find leaders with the calibre of Mr Rasmussen, who previously worked on an initiative that evolved into the successful Google Maps.
Some Google-watchers see a much bigger challenge.
‘Google has been masterful at coming up with a lot of ideas, but none of them has matured to become something that moves the revenue needle,’ says Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray, an investment bank. In fairness to the company, that is partly because many of its popular innovations, such as Gmail, have been given away to boost search-related advertising, which accounts for almost all of Google’s revenues. But search has been suffering in the downturn:
in the second quarter of 2009 Google’s revenues were $5.5 billion, barely 3% higher than the same period in 2008.
Time, then, for the company to find new ideas that can make a big splash.
Source: The Economist, September 19, 2009, vol. 392, Iss, 8649
© Noordhoff Uitgevers bv
It is not only the interests and goals of the decision makers’ department or organization of the decision maker that are of importance in the decision-making process but also those of other decision makers in other departments and/or organizations. The most appropriate approach will depend on the relative importance attached to personal preferences or goals. These approaches will be covered in Chapter 8 when we discuss negotiations and the resolution of conflict.
3.5 The creative and learning organization
An organization which is not capable of tapping creative resources will slowly be eliminated from the market by competitors who either manufacture better products at lower costs or who employ managers with more imaginative power and more of an eye for alternative solutions.
When creativity results in new inventions, an organization needs to devote time and resources to processing and coordinating their introduction. While products may have been improved or changed in some way, it is rare for new goals to be formulated. However, an organization that wants to stay healthy and productive and continuously adapt itself to the changing needs of society will have to use all its creative powers and be prepared to learn from experience, in particular from its past mistakes. This involves the creativity and learning abilities of employees, managers and the organization as a whole. It is important for managers to set a good example by being creative themselves while they are encouraging creativity, learning behavior and learning abilities in all areas of the organization. Only in this way can the organization make the most of its employees.
Training in techniques which stimulate creativity is very important (see Section 3.4.1).
However, very few organizations have permanent programs that aim to expand the creative abilities and the learning behavior of all employees. Employees often think up valuable ideas, but these are rarely acted upon. Many employees who have good ideas lack the authority needed to implement them. In many cases such ideas are not even made known.
It is important to set up systems so that valuable ideas can be picked up and put into practice – not an easy task. Creative thinking is relatively unstructured, undisciplined and often does not seem logical. However, it is the basis for the generation of the new ideas the organization needs. It is often the case, however, that creative ideas upset the status quo, creating resistance from those who do not endorse or appreciate the importance of such ideas. The ultimate goal of creative thinking and of learning is to discover and put into practice something which the organization does not currently possess and which will enable the organization to function better.
3.5.1 The creative organization: some characteristics
What is the difference between a creative organization and an organization which works under creative management? An organization can be an effective instrument for the implementation of ideas and yet not be creative itself – for example, an orchestra which is conducted by a creative conductor, or a firm managed by a creative director.
At this point, it is important to identify the specific characteristics which contribute to the creativity of an organization. We can start by considering the overall image of an organization.
When the organization has an outstanding name in the field of growth, product development, renewal and problem solution, it can create the image of a very creative institution. Whether this overall image is the product of the influence of a few individuals or, alternatively, is the result of the creative contribution of all or most of the members of the organization, does not seem to be relevant: the organization is generally seen to be creative. The characteristics of creativity, as they apply both to individuals and to the organization are described below.
processing coordinating
creativity learning abilities
stimulate creativity
creative thinking status quo
creative organization
© Noordhoff Uitgevers bv
Characteristics of creativity
The creative individual:
• Can quickly produce a large number of ideas
• Is original
• Has unusual ideas
• Looks at ideas based on their merits, not on their origin
• Is motivated by the problem itself (follows it, wherever it may lead)
• Postpones personal judgment, avoids premature acceptance of a solution
• Spends a lot of time on analysis and explanation
• Is not high-handed/authoritarian
• Is flexible
• Accepts his or her own impulses
• Is often undisciplined in his or her investigations
• Makes independent personal judgments
• Is a non-conformist
• Often deviates from established ideas
• Sees him- or herself as being different
• Has a rich and fanciful fantasy and a clear insight into reality
The creative organization:
• Has ideas that are relevant to society
• Has open communication channels
• Encourages contacts with resources outside the environment
• Employs various types of persons
• Lets non-specialists help in the solving of problems
• Allows eccentricity
• Has an objective, factually based approach
• Evaluates ideas on their merits, not on the status of their creator
• Selects ideas on their merits
• Does not show short-term satisfaction with the financial and material aspects of the present products and policy
• Invests in basic research
• Has flexible long-term planning
• Experiments with new ideas and does not dismiss them before they have been thoroughly tried out
• Gives everything a chance
• Is relatively decentralized
• Allows time and resources for mistakes
• Tolerates and expects the taking of risks
• Has employees who have high job satisfaction and the freedom to discuss ideas and tackle problems
• Is autonomous and independent
• Has original goals
• Does not encourage the belief that the leader should always be followed, no matter what
• Finds enough certainty in fixed rules
• Provides groups with the opportunity to generate and evaluate ideas Exhibit 3.1
© Noordhoff Uitgevers bv
From this comparison, we can conclude that creativity within the organization is not
necessarily dependent on having very creative employees. In principle, creativity is spread out among all company personnel. That is why it is not important to recruit a large number of very creative people. It is important, however, for the organization to be structured in such a way that everybody’s input is shown to full advantage. This can only be done when there is a climate which does not suppress or smother originality. Creative management is essential.
Even the most creative individuals become helpless in an environment which is indifferent or hostile to new ideas.
There are a number of features which can negatively affect creative thinking in an organization:
• Extreme structuring and formal planning result in barriers being raised between the functional units of an organization.
• Individual responsibilities in the work situation are seldom based on the particular talents of the personnel working there. The tasks will have been structured already; the employee has to adjust to them. Work units will have been formalized into fixed positions.
• The work is controlled by a hierarchical authority structure. Even with appropriate coordination such an authority structure can result in a number of negative consequences.
• The communication pattern is determined according to the characteristics of the formal organization and not according to the demands of the task. A good communication process plays a key role in stimulating initiative.
If these situations apply, a clearer separation of fields of authority is required. However, the disadvantage of this is that the barriers between the functions will become even more difficult to overcome, especially with regard to initiative taking and coordination.
Promotion of creativity in organizations
All members of the organization should be encouraged to use their creative abilities,
regardless of function or status. Not everyone will determine the goals of the organization, but they do have to think about how these are reached. Managers should be called upon to participate creatively in any decisions regarding the organization’s function, especially with regard to instigating innovations.
The creation of an ‘open atmosphere’ is dependent on conditions such as the following:
• The centralization of activities directed at innovation. For example, this could involve the formation of a core group whose function is to actively encourage creativity.
• Appointment of sufficient staff with non-specialized knowledge. Specialists will be hindered by their tendency to relate their own abilities and experiences to problems in other fields.
• Access to support services. The availability of all necessary information is crucial.
• The breaking down of barriers. The effects of authority, status and specialties and other forms of behavior which erect barriers should be minimized.
• Minimization of interlinks. Interlinks in terms of interlinking positions/functions often function as buffers between groups.
• The encouragement of innovation. Organizations which are not innovation-oriented are often resistant to change.
creative employees
instigating innovations
© Noordhoff Uitgevers bv