Facilitators of creative environments

For a long time, the time at which the speed of the change was relatively low, organizations have based their growth and success in structure and processes.

Clear hierarchy and discipline along with efficiency and scales were, and still are, some of the most beloved terms of leaders of organizations, especially those that display some dimension.

Even under these conditions the term Human Resources has never failed to be present, sometimes with a typically feature or with brushstrokes of humanism or reconciliation of interests between the personal or family life and work.

Today and for the future, businesses should consider focusing more on people, be they employees, networks or customers if they want to leverage the creativity as a starting point for innovation.

“Managing people and caring about people is where the value is, because that is where the creativity is, where the innovation is”
Steve Vamos

Creativity and innovation cannot be understood without knowledge, fundamental element to be able to differentiate the new from the old or the utile from the futile.

Without knowledge there is not a starting point to give the first steps in the paths of innovation.

To begin this way we have to be aware that we are at an impasse, we need to have a time to reflect and find out where we want to go, we have to have a moment of self-assessment and the moment when we went to action.

It is our capacity for reflection that calls for a special status for having a tranquil space and without fears that give rise to a time to be focused.


Organizations need to lose the fear of creativity and create spaces and time to facilitate inspiration and combination of the fringes of knowledge.

Social networks and are of course facilitators of creative processes, but that does not mean that we are exempt of the right environment and of a direct contact with others.

We need to not be under a bombardment of other stimuli that are frequently distractions.

After all people still accept as natural the over-stimulation caused by new digital revolution, as with e-mail, phones or social networks, where the flags are a constant.

For that reason, leaders of organizations must encourage its employees to establish connections with a direction, to find the deeper meaning of the ideas as well as its purpose.

“Leaders today have to be obsessed and spending all their time really making sure that the atmosphere in their organization encourages people to do their best work.” – Steve Vamos

Today’s leaders must be concerned in constructing an environment of inspiration and creativity in their organizational structures, and to facilitate experimentation, because we know that to have a clear vision that our idea will come out to the street and will celebrate the success, we need to create a prototype and test it.

Today’s leaders must build the bridges between the kingdoms of reality and imagination, and this is done by combining the ability to think holistically, the ability to make connections and relationships and the ability to lead by influence.

So it seems true that organizations that combine this leadership with an environment conducive to creativity and innovation do not need to recruit the top talent in the market to win.

“The focus is not: find a person who is a genius? Instead, focus: how to build a company of geniuses?” – Scott Cook

This construction starts with the analysis of terrain and for a proper treatment to the drawing of the organization. It is often necessary to remove, as Mikael Ohlsson of Ikea says, a “corrupt culture” of some areas of R&D, difficult to observe when we are inside and that may take years to be corrected.

This culture does not allow nether favorable environments to the development of human potential, nor lead with intuitive intelligence or hope extended to all employees.

However once worked the foundations we can “create talents and develop geniuses”.

Do you want to comment?


Tagged with:

One Response to Is it possible to create talents and develop geniuses?

  1. M. says:

    Much of what Steve Vamos and Steve Cook described has been practiced in the past albeit as the exception rather than the rule, but the question is how it is sustainable across successive leadership generations?

    The irony in William Hewlett and David Packard once achieving this was the problem of an organization scaling, the irony being that had Hewlett and Packard have had the social connection tools we have today, they would probably figured out how to retain personal touch, without loss in bureaucratic scale.

    Further irony of course is that the same company that benefited from this great social thinking (which is DNA of genius – singular or plural)- don’t apparently have the leadership nous to understand the “reservoir of genius” their founders tapped into and profited from, which they referred to as “contribution”.

    I am firm believer that this was not a corporate enlightenment or renaissance, it was great leadership founded on focusing on the greatness of its people – and irony of ironies – companies that once used to “get it” also seem to suffer from the “third generation curse” that inflicts other forms of social inheritance.

    I think the key to your question therefore is in the inheritance, not just the catalyst.


Leave a Reply

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