How do I see organizations facing creativity and innovation?

In an organization to keep the system in equilibrium and ensure that the company can repeatedly and predictably deliver customer value propositions and still meet their much desired profit formula it is necessary that there are business rules, standards of behavior and evaluation of success.

However, perhaps paradoxically, innovation is only possible when we defy the rules and when questioning a statement that has been given becomes essential in work to try to find the best possible answer to a problem.

That is, when to find an opportunity becomes more important than the resolution of problems leads to answers that were not apparent or existing before.

Over the past few years, it seems that some organizations have managed to keep the environments favorable to creativity and innovation (creating value), while others languish slowly until they reach their departure time of the business world and with them very creative potential of their employees.


What is the distinction?

Lynda Gratton says there are four main qualities: co-operative mindset; boundary spanning; igniting purpose and productive capacity.

It seems to be clear by firms the existence of a predisposition to embrace open innovation and co-creation thus expanding the limits of its action.

On the other hand businesses looking for an economic life more healthy and sustainable seek to ignite their purposes rather than simply dealing with a metric environment and objectives.

But without a productively work we cannot presume sustainability. Here the motivation and the working environment including its structuring are critical.

The mentality of cooperation of members of a team and the entire organization is a factor that distinguishes the healthy undertakings of dying. This ability to cooperate causes members of an organization identify themselves as a unit and engage beyond the merely productive aspects and reward.

They see work through a social, emotional, and intellectual prism. It’s never just a job that pays the bills.“-Stephen Langton

We can define the cooperative work as something that is done by the division of work between the participants, as an activity where each person is responsible for resolving a part of the problem.

But I think that this notion of cooperation is not perhaps the most advised to maintain unity within a group or organization.

A concept more appropriate to define the efficiency of productive work together is collaboration. That is, a mutual commitment between the members of a team or organization, in a coordinated effort to solve the problems together.

Collaborative processes truly embrace different points of view, even those that are conflicting, allowing their merger and creating something new and never before imagined.


To sustain the mentality of collaboration is need of a common purpose. People should collaborate for a reason and this means having a common vision.

But another issue that arises when discussing the mentality of collaboration is the constitution of the teams at work or at an organization.

The work normally involves the participation of different disciplines and how they interact through their representatives can have an important significance in the results we want with the job.

When referring to the involvement of various disciplines working on a project we can be talking about multidisciplinary teams, interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary (holistic).

The first, multidisciplinary, characterized by the addition of disciplines and will be closer to cooperation than collaboration. There is in fact a summation of opinions and tasks that tend towards a common goal.

The second interdisciplinary is characterized by the interactivity between the disciplines and that represent an advantage resulting from the formation of generalist skills on the part of the team members, when they have the possibility to discuss third-party interventions in its areas of expertise.


The consequences are predictable because the “threats” are known.

Cooperation and collaboration are the result of the existing culture in companies.

If we look around we identify with ease that many enterprises that adopt cooperative systems, albeit fallacious, because such cooperation is anchored by directives. The elements of the multidisciplinary teams are plots of a summation.

The smallest viewing collaboration in enterprises may have to do with the difficulty of many companies in gaining (or allow) this climate.


Collaborate is a voluntary act that emerges in interdisciplinary teams.


Do you want to comment?




One Response to Interdisciplinary teams – Cooperation is not collaboration!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *