Michael you wrote
>Creativity is a response to change. It does not occur at equilibrium. It
>does not occur much, either, in conditions of insecurity and instability.
>That is, human beings do not get noticeably postively creative in those
>conditions.
and struck a chord, a dissonant one. Isn't creativity a response to the
gap between the perceived condition and perceived what should be?
If not then why have some of our greatest art been created in times of
stability and stagnation? Moreover, some of this has been created under
conditions of depravity.
Aren't inventions an attempt to leap the gap between what is and what can
be? Whether the conditions of employment or the market place are stable
or unstable these acts of creativity arise.
I think that leaders should create environments in which their people feel
confident that their 'selves' are safe. Simultaneously leaders should
make visible the gap between what is and what should be. Then challenge
their people to leap the gap. Not crawl across it - leap it.
This is the art of leadership. The artist has the role of making
accessible to ordinary people realization of the gap between life as it
exists and as it should be, the "Scream" or Kafka are examples. In
business and government this role is the leader's.
To your remark
>Saying creativity is a response to change doesn't necessarily have ANY
>implications for what management should do.
I almost agree. Where change is creating uncertainty about our selves we
will either hide or run. Where there is an environment of sanctuary of
self then energy can be channeled to creative work.
--bhobler@worldnet.att.net Bill Hobler
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>