Five Questions For... Eli Amdur

Five Questions For... Eli Amdur
Executive Coach and Adjunct Professor, Fairleigh Dickinson University

Appearing at From Management to Leadership
June 9-12, 2008

VG: What is the biggest mistake most companies make structurally that stands in the way of the staff's creativity and innovation?

EA: There are two answers to this question. The first is design and the second is communication.

In a world that changes as fast as it does (some say the world goes through as much change each year as it has in all the years before) we cannot respond to new challenges in old ways. The old pyramid structure is a creativity and innovation killer. Progressive organizations are flatter, more decentralized, and are made up of small, autonomous teams that are expected to deliver big results. The first mistake, then, is not changing the way your organization is built.

Communication is the most important skill, more highly valued by corporate executives and recruiters than any other, yet the one that they say is most difficult to find and develop. With changing organizational structures - not to mention changes in the global nature of business, economics, population and immigration shifts, technologies, energy demands and sources, food production, wealth creation and distribution, and so on - failure to communicate effectively is the second big mistake, especially when it comes to creative, new ideas.

Both mistakes inhibit creativity and innovation - and both are almost certainly fatal.

VG: What should they be doing instead?

EA: Well, given the above, this question really answers itself. It calls for hard, objective self-examination coupled with a preparedness to deal with the results of that assessment.

I recently completed a major assignment for a client that started when the president of the company and I talked about these very issues. I mentioned an assessment process and tool that we should use and, in his enthusiasm, he immediately said he wanted to begin. I stopped him, asking whether he is ready to face the results and to do whatever would be necessary based on those results.

He said the right thing: "I don't know. Give me the weekend." On Monday he called me, asked me to begin, and our first step was to call the leadership team together for what turned out to be a real soul-searcher. This commitment was driven through the organization, the honesty and openness factors went through the roof, so to speak, and the result - although the process was uncomfortable - was dramatic.

VG: What are the first steps that a manager could take, without new resources, to improve the creative environment?

EA: Let's think creatively about this question and, while we're at it, break a paradigm. A new attitude is a new resource; it's just one that doesn't get measured in dollars and cents. So that's the first answer. A new attitude that embraces new ideas - and, equally important, the understanding that new ideas can come from anyone - goes a long way to foster creativity.

I always told everyone in every organization or department I ever headed, "You never know where the next great idea will come from. What's yours?" I encourage all leaders to do the same thing. In one company, the day I started was my first day in the industry as well (I was recruited for my leadership, not my experience). I made that statement in my introductions around the office and then I listened - very carefully and patiently. Much of what I heard I could have done without, but one idea - a very creative one from the youngest, most junior person in the team - led to a complete revamping of how we did our business - and then to a spectacular tripling of our business in seven months.

I was willing to listen. We were willing to change. And the only resource we added was an idea.

VG: Can you briefly describe "personal creative barriers" and things a supervisor can do to help someone who struggles with them?

EA: The first and, by far, biggest barrier to personal creativity is the fact that very few people consider themselves to be creative to begin with. Humans are innately creative; it's how we learn how to walk and talk - all by ourselves. Children are stunning innovators and those two feats - walking and talking - are dazzling proof. But, because we spend most of the rest of our lives complying, obeying, and fitting in with others' expectations (going to school, for example), we forget that we were once - actually at least twice - blazingly creative. The result? We don't even try to be creative anymore because we think creativity is the mysterious domain of the elite few: Einstein, Stravinsky, Picasso, and the like.

So, after realizing that we do, indeed, have the ability to innovate, we have to overcome other barriers such as routine, habit, complacency, the need for security and balance, pessimism, deference, timidity, and - the big one - fear of judgment. If we fear that our ideas will be judged before they are evaluated, we will very soon stop looking for or offering ideas.

We also need to get back to a childlike state of being interested in, curious about, fascinated by, and in awe of everything around us. G. K. Chesterton said, "We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders."

The boss needs to see this in him or herself and in those in the organization. If we fear judgment, the boss must suppress the voice of judgment. If we become routine, the boss must encourage newness. We must expand our thinking, stretch our definitions, set unreasonable expectations (James Collins and Jerry Porras call these BHAGs: "Big Hairy Audacious Goals"), be prepared to abandon expectations, reduce the risk of experimentation, and - in essence - be fearless about exploration.

That all starts with the boss.

VG: Can you speak a little to the concept of dimension v. disagreement in a creative environment?

EA: Too many people think conflict is a four-letter word. On the contrary, the right kind of conflict is highly desirable and constructive. Interpersonal conflict is harmful but conflict which is based on content and focused on outcomes is healthy and nurturing.

The ancient Greeks valued the thesis-antithesis-synthesis process. Inevitably the arguments raged, but from where do you think we got the term, "for the sake of argument?" It's all in the value you put on the concept of argument.

Once different sides form, we tend to forget that each could be of value if synthesized. We dig our heels in and get defensive, aggressive, and wind up competing internally, losing sight of where the real battle should be taking place. If we defend our turf instead of sharing it, we remain in a state of constant disagreement.

When Lou Gerstner took over as head of IBM, the company was in that state of disagreement, with their hardware sales people competing against their software sales people for the same budgets of their customers' IT departments. It was a degenerative disorder, nothing less. Gerstner put a stop to that and, over the next half decade, created a culture that refocused on an entire team effort called "Selling IBM Global Services." Out of disagreement came dimension - and great results.

So not only should we not fear disagreement, we should look for it and figure out what synthesis it can produce.