Why you are wrong if you say structure kills creativity

I recall a coaching conversation with a CEO at a non-profit.

The CEO is a passionate individual who is consumed by the Cause and has dedicated her life to it. She founded this organization a couple of decades ago and has led it largely with her passion and expertise on the subject. She is surrounded by a handful of people who have been with her for a long time. They understand both pluses and minuses of each other.

Over time, the organization has grown and is now at the threshold to scale its operations across several cities in India. The organization has been hiring new people to staff up the upcoming projects. New people are joining the organization in its various locations. This means interacting with new people, inspiring them, helping everyone to see the same Big Picture and making the organization’s ambitious goals a reality.

When I studied the organization carefully, I realized that, in the absence of structure, the organization had taken a laissez-faire approach. There were no predictable ways of doing things, no robust systems, no organized training and no process documentation.

Our conversation turned to processes, systems and the need for structure. I sensed resistance. Upon probing, I realized her apprehensions. Broadly, she felt:

• structure will not allow the organization to be creative.
• structure will make the organization very formal.
• there will be too many rules to follow, things will become bureaucratic.

My views were as follows:

• as organizations scale, it is important to bring consistency and standardization. It helps in replication. For instance, wherever a person is located, the policies, processes and procedures being the same, helps the organization demonstrate fairness and equity.
• some element of formality is important to bring in predictability inside the organization. For instance, creating a common reporting format will help in quick and easy compilation.
• we can revisit the rules. If we feel the rules are stifling the organization, we could change them since these are not of statutory nature.

To explain the balance between creativity and structure, I introduced a metaphor in the discussion.

Imagine that I am driving down from one city to another. Creativity allows me to take a different route each time. I may take a route though the villages or I could take the highway. I could choose to go slow or go fast. I could decide to stop for a drink along the way, whenever I chose. This is creativity.

However, while I am traveling at a high speed and I slam on the brakes, the braking system cannot choose to be creative. It has to stop the car. It has to be predictable. It has to be consistent every time. It is only because I am sure of the predictability of the braking system of the car that I have the courage to drive fast. This is structure.

In my writing too, although it is a creative endeavor, I follow a structure. Although I can write on any topic, I have a place to jot down my ideas. I have a rough calendar to publish my posts. I follow a certain consistent style and format. But none of these ‘structures’  affects my creativity. In fact, the structure supports my creativity.

In my mind, structure and creativity are complementary to each other. What do you say?

In my consulting work with non-profits, I bring a lot of my corporate learning into their context so that they could have the best of both worlds. I believe that both corporate entities and non-profits have a lot to learn from each other.

Are you a subscriber to my newsletter? Becoming a subscriber is easy and free. By becoming a subscriber, you will also receive my 66-page e-book, ’31 Ways to Reclaim Your Happiness’ absolutely free.

Become a subscriber today. Please enter your details below and sign up:

First Name

Last Name

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human: