Insecurity => creativity?? LO10603

Michael McMaster (Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk)
Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:08:42 +0000

Replying to LO10584 --

Bill, I think that we are mostly in agreement. I was suprised to read of
"dischord" and then to read what follows. I see little dischord in what
followed.

You ask: Isn't creativity a response to the
> gap between the perceived condition and perceived what should be?

I'd say "could be" rather than "should be" - and not consider that the
whole case. (ie. sometimes it might be curiosity, accident, play, etc.)
But I said "insecurity and instability" - which have nothing necessarily
to do with the state of perception you raise.

Then, after some stuff I agree with, you say,
> I think that leaders should create environments in which their people feel
> confident that their 'selves' are safe.

Again, this is what I was pointing to. At least in the area of personal
(and community) experience people feel safe - the opposite of the
condition that I was suggesting was NOT helpful.

You then say,
> Simultaneously leaders should
> make visible the gap between what is and what should be.

I'd agree with the caveat that what leaders "should" do is make visible
the gap between what they see if is and they see could be and wants to be.
(It's the personalising that I'm pointing to here rather than a seeming
"objective" view.)

You then say,
> Then challenge
> their people to leap the gap. Not crawl across it - leap it.

This is a matter of much concern. If the leader is also challenging
him/her-self equally, I have not problem. I'm not saying I think a leader
"should" do this, only that if it is authentic and self-consistent, that's
being a leader. (Most challenge others to this gap - and the leap -
without leaping themselves. And that offends me.)

I've seen too many take the approach that it must be a leap. There was a
lot of mischief generated under the words like "breakthrough", "leap" and
"non-linear results".

The mischief wasn't so much in the idea or the word as in the missing
ingredients of understanding what that meant and what it would take and,
most importantly, of the pursuit of breakthrough being a state of
learning, of experimentation, of development - not a word to be used to
manipulate greater performance or unaided results from others. This
latter was too frequently the case.

I speak from the experience of being one of the leaders in popularising
the word "breakthrough" - it was the name of my company - and having
worked with many consultants around the world using the term. Almost
always it was put to a use that produced manipulation and a later
increased skepticism. This from people with great intentions - and
limited awareness and understanding. I include myself in this group.

It was a time of great learning for some of us but I caution against being
too sure that "a leap" is the necessary or even effective way forward of
leadership. The gap may be sufficient. Particularly if it is seen as
appealing - an "attractor" - rather than as necessary (fear) and a
motivator.

--
Michael McMaster :   Michael@kbdworld.com
book cafe site   :   http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
"I don't give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity 
but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity." 
            attributed to Chief Justice Brandeis
 

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>