This entry was inspired by Heidi Grant Halvorson’s online article “The Bias Against Creatives as Leaders” on 99u.com (by Behance)
The full article can be accessed here: The Bias Against Creatives as Leaders
After all, it’s quite clear who should be getting the job. Studies show that leaders who are more creative are in fact better able to effect positive change in their organizations, and are better at inspiring others to follow their lead. – Heidu Grant Halvorson
That pretty much sums up half the article’s content (the other half of the article offers helpful suggestions for creatives on how to re-brand themselves as leaders).
Having worked for years as a GM (in a restaurant and a printing company), I can say that my personal experience left me with complicated thoughts on creative types in leadership positions. I realize now that there a two types of leaders, each as valuable as the other, and each needed in a specific position while frustratingly inadequate elsewhere.
The first type of leadership position/ leader is the creative, think outside the box type who experiments with new and daring ideas. This leader is useful in taking a company out of a rut. Not so much in surviving the daily grind and taking care of routine clerical duties. The second type of leader is fit to do just that. Consistent, dogged, resilient, he has a high amount of stamina for the long run. He’s the marathon runner, incapable of spectacular sprints but guaranteed to go the distance. So not me…
In short, I think matching creativity with leadership is a grossly oversimple equation. That’s a recipe for change, and that’s not always what’s needed or desired.