Constructive Non Conformity & Rebel Talent at The Workplace
by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
Organizations don’t change; but people do
( October 19, 2016, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Harvard Business Reviewpromises to incorporate during the month of October a series of interviews, opinions and views of Francesca Gino, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, who has: “conducted ground breaking research and found that whether consciously or unconsciously, organizations pressure employees, including leaders, to save their real, authentic, nonconforming selves for outside of work”. Her research concludes that there are benefits to encouraging “constructive nonconformity.” The fundamental question is how one could deviate from the dogmatic, restrictive and undue curbing of a worker’s creativity at the workplace by the imposition of authoritarian rules that prohibit the publication of original and creative research that would in fact help the workplace. The Harvard Business Review observes: “most of us learn to conform throughout our careers-to fit into the status quo, to align with the opinions and behaviors of others, and to seek out information that supports our views. This pressure to conform can have a significant negative impact on our engagement, productivity, and ability to innovate. In turn, our organizations suffer”.
The curbing of creativity, original thinking and innovation is personified by what is calledThe Mushroom Theory where a penetrating mind in the workplace is considered in analogy to a mushroom in a mushroom farm where “they keep you in the dark, cover you with bullshit and if you grow too much, they cut your head off”. Constructive non conformity is encouraged at face value by many employers including international organizations. The personnel instructions of one such organization provides: “outside activities may, of course, be beneficial both to staff members and to the Organization. [The Organization] should allow, encourage and facilitate the participation of international civil servants in professional activities that foster contacts with private and public bodies and thus serve to maintain and enhance their professional and technical competencies”. This turns out to be mere hogwash as elsewhere in its staff rules this same organization gives the antithesis of constructive non conformity by stating peremptorily that lectures shall not be given by a staff member, nor articles and books written by staff on the subjects dealt with by that organization, except with the permission or agreement of his supervisors.
On the face of it, this requirement seems fair – that a supervisor with superior knowledge could embellish an article or even infuse it with diplomacy and impartiality. The problem is that the supervisor is often less qualified than the writer and in most cases oblivious to the subject matter. It is often the case that appointments are mere opportunities given to one through political influence or patronage, frequently with complete disregard to merit. Publications, on the other hand and lectures delivered are achievements and this distinction is deliberately blurred as a result of ineptitude or pure jealousy, as a result of which, an article submitted to a supervisor gets buried under a pile of obsolete files on the supervisor’s desk and never sees the light of day.
Creativity should be generated in the workplace. Michael Poh, in his article 6 Ways to Unleash Creativity in the Workplace says: “Some of you may think that creativity is an inborn trait rather than something that can be learned and developed. This may be so, but without a conducive environment for creativity to be expressed, how can we expect to see ideas arising from creative employees”? Poh suggests that creativity should be supported and rewarded, not punished and subverted. Barbara Dyer in her article: “Why Creativity is Absolutely Crucial in the Workplace” published in the Fortune Magazine says: “all organizations have creative people and they should be encouraged. But there is an important distinction between welcoming the occasional out-of-the-box idea and cultivating creativity as an approach to doing business. Promoting a culture of creativity requires honing the skills observation and invention”. Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Foundation in her article Why Do Organizations Absolutely Need Creative People” writes toFortune: “However, creative thinking holds little value if people don’t feel free to share their thoughts. It’s important to foster a culture of open and ongoing communication. If you have an idea, we want to hear about it and explore its potential. Likewise, if you have a question, you should not hesitate to ask it. Whether it’s a one-on-one meeting with your manager, a department-level meeting or an organization-wide conference, people should feel free to say what’s on their mind. That’s the only way to solve problems and develop solutions”.
Another factor which stultifies creativity in the workplace is that creativity is perceived as threatening the status quo. Such an approach is the antithesis of the fundamental truth that organizations are made of people and it is their minds that would ultimately contribute to the progress of that organization. Michael Sloane, in this article Does Encouraging Creativity in the Workplace Improve Innovation ? quotes Teresa Amabile who says in her 1988 book,A model of Creativity and Innovation in Organisations that there are seven factors for facilitating creativity in the workplace: Organizational motivation which is based on four items: the level of the firm’s forward facing strategy towards the future, the extent that the firm follows opportunities rather than maintaining the status quo, the extent that the firm encourages its employees toward creative attitude, and the level of flexibility in the management systems to accommodate the desired behavior: Resources which include all resources necessary for achieving innovation. Here five items are measured: availability of time to explore new ideas, expertise of employees to handle problems creatively, availability of material and information resources, and training opportunities: the need to challenge by measuring the extent to which employees are emotionally involved in their tasks. The goal is to measure how well employees’ capabilities match with task requirements so that employees feel intellectually challenged; Freedom which relates to the freedom of employees to plan their work and choose their own means to accomplish an assigned task; idea support which indicates how supportive and constructive the management is for idea generation and development. It also measures how much support the firm receives from its employees for the initiatives taken to assess the dynamism in the firm; proactiveness which refers to the attitude of the firm towards risks and opportunities in contrast to conservatism; how experimental and tolerant towards ambiguity the firm is, and how fast decisions are made to avoid missing opportunities; and finally, idea time which refers to the extent to which employees use time provided as a resource to work on new ideas, test spontaneous new opportunities, and deal with a heavy and complex workload. The variable captures the actual usage of time rather than the availability (availability is measured in the resources variable).
If staff rules prohibiting creativity do not work, some organizations take other measures of discouragement, such as demolishing the library which has served the workplace for decades; refusing to promote a person with constructive non conformity to a higher grade even if the person who is so endowed is entitled to a promotion by merit and his superior credentials; humiliating the staff member by locating him away from the branch office he works in; and, if none of the above affects him, by generally ignoring him.
In the above context the Harvard Business Review initiative for October 2016 should open the eyes of those who promote a myopic status quo to appease external influences that could be determinative factors in their own interests.
The author is former Senior Legal Officer at the International Civil Aviation
Organization. He currently heads is own aviation consultancy company in Montreal and teaches aviation law and policy at McGill University. He is the author of 32 books and over 400 journal articles on international law which have been published in law journals worldwide.
Organization. He currently heads is own aviation consultancy company in Montreal and teaches aviation law and policy at McGill University. He is the author of 32 books and over 400 journal articles on international law which have been published in law journals worldwide.
