Something to think about as we talk about how the economy will need creative types to grow. On the blog Work Matters, Bob Sutton references a study showing that people don’t think creative types make good leaders unless they are also charismatic. (h/t Dan Pink). Sutton talks about a study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, “Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential?”
“The results are pretty troubling. In short, although the judges saw no significant differences in the usefulness of the ideas generated, and did construe that subjects who were instructed to generate creative ideas did, in fact, come up with more creative ideas than those instructed to come-up with ideas that were not novel, the judges also consistently construed the more creative subjects as having less leadership potential, measured with this 3-item scale: “How much leadership would this applicant exhibit?”, “How much control over the team’s activities would this member exhibit?”, “I think the applicant is an effective leader.” (α = .86).
[…]
BNET asked first author Mueller to explain these findings, and I thought she came-up with a pretty good answer:
‘Muller notes that leaders must create common goals so their groups can get things done. And the clearer goals are, the better they tend to work, which means leaders need to root out uncertainty. One way leaders can do this is to set standards and enforce conformity. But when asked to describe a creative person, words like “quirky,” “nonconformist” and “unfocused” often take their place right alongside “visionary” and “charismatic.” Says Mueller: “The fact is, people don’t just feel positively about creative individuals-they feel ambivalent around them.”’
In the arts I imagine there would be a greater flexibility to this view and a leader would be expected to exhibit a degree of creativity. However, one of the first things I started to ponder is if this perception might contribute to the perception that artists don’t have good business management skills and the idea that arts should be run like a business. Many boards are comprised of many people who are not in businesses that focus on creativity and this ambivalence cited by the study author may manifest itself in the insistence that the arts be run more like a business. Basically in a context in which the board can understand and derive a feeling of safety.
As we know, creating art is a long and complicated business. Even if you are working on something as conventional as a Shakespearean play, choices are being made, used for a while, and then discarded, requiring time, energy and perhaps physical resources be invested in creating something new. This is the process 3M goes through to create things like Post-It notes, so it isn’t specific to the arts but it is also part of 3M’s corporate culture in a way that it isn’t for the companies of many of our board members.
Certainly there are many artists who need to attend to the details of their business arrangements more closely. I could write blog posts for weeks with the names changed to protect the idiotic. But I also have to admit the phrase “run like a business” may often be a convenient generic term that people bring out in an attempt to bring comforting structure to chaos. As many arts bloggers have been pointing out recently, there are a number of business models being used by the arts these days. Those using some of the more unconventional ones are succeeding where those using conventional ones are flailing. Andrew Taylor addresses this topic and provides some examples of unconventional approaches in his Artful Manager entry today.
Sutton’s entry mentions what the research says a creative who wants to lead should do.
“This research suggests that if you are a creative type, and want to lead, do everything you can to get your boss and other evaluators thinking about charisma — “activate” the charismatic leader prototype by talking about well-known charismatics, and perhaps engaging in actions congruent with the “prototype” of a charismatic person — articulate, inspiring, setting forth an emotionally compelling vision, and touching on themes and stories that provoke energy and passion in others. “
While I agree that if you want to lead people, you have to be articulate and provide inspiration, my initial reaction was to be a little resistant to this suggestion. There is a danger of this approach becoming too contrived and in fact, overly restrictive and anti-ethical to creativity. There are many invoking the hottest management theory being espoused by charismatic people. Adopting this approach may convince people you have leadership potential–but at the risk of conforming to the same view being widely held. Which may in turn result in conforming to similar practices. I would say creative people seeking to be leaders also need to have a high level of discernment in regard to the direction they are advocating and the sentiments they are invoking.
