I was listening to Star Talk Radio last night, a podcast hosted by astrophysicist, Neil Tyson, whose guests included: cognitive scientist/pianist Dr. Monica Lopez-Gonzalez, composer/programmer Prof. David Cope, Bill Nye, scientist and comedian, and David Byrne, the frontman singer from Talking Heads discussing the science of creativity. They were confirming that creativity needs boundaries to eliminate the infinity of factors in order to solve a problem. They all confirmed that the process of ‘science’ and ‘art’ is the same starting with a question or an idea except that the tools that are used are different. I quite agree. I also agree that there has to be boundaries and deadlines to achieve. The discussion continued to be intriguing, enlightening, and affirming of many of my ideas and research as well.
There are so many people within organizations that are crossover creatives - people who are artists in one medium or another, who must make a living, of course, but have so much to contribute artistically to the organization if only it would be appreciated and nurtured. I have known so many people who are very talented in their area who could offer organizations a different perspective, a different process for achieving goals, or enhanced thinking toward innovation through their creative approach, but business is often mired in "this is the way we've always done things." Managers are often scared to vary from a way of thinking or doing. Leadership is often stuck, perhaps even naively, by their power and authority. I'm not here to blame anyone or any process, but I do get frustrated by organizations who propound to be innovative and forward thinking that continue to pay women less money for the same work, motivate their workers by fear, and only manage using mid-20th century (or earlier) models of work and structure ignoring the advances made through applied research and practice.
That's my rant this morning. It popped up from asking a friend about the status of an arts and business department in a well respected university. As always, I wish them the best and hope that business will one day allow for the full engagement of their employees in the best way that they can contribute.
There are so many people within organizations that are crossover creatives - people who are artists in one medium or another, who must make a living, of course, but have so much to contribute artistically to the organization if only it would be appreciated and nurtured. I have known so many people who are very talented in their area who could offer organizations a different perspective, a different process for achieving goals, or enhanced thinking toward innovation through their creative approach, but business is often mired in "this is the way we've always done things." Managers are often scared to vary from a way of thinking or doing. Leadership is often stuck, perhaps even naively, by their power and authority. I'm not here to blame anyone or any process, but I do get frustrated by organizations who propound to be innovative and forward thinking that continue to pay women less money for the same work, motivate their workers by fear, and only manage using mid-20th century (or earlier) models of work and structure ignoring the advances made through applied research and practice.
That's my rant this morning. It popped up from asking a friend about the status of an arts and business department in a well respected university. As always, I wish them the best and hope that business will one day allow for the full engagement of their employees in the best way that they can contribute.
RSS Feed