我想看一级黄色片_欧美性爱无遮挡电影_色丁香视频网站中文字幕_视频一区 视频二区 国产,日本三级理论日本电影,午夜不卡免费大片,国产午夜视频在线观看,18禁无遮拦无码国产在线播放,在线视频不卡国产在线视频不卡 ,,欧美一及黄片,日韩国产另类

首頁(yè) 500強(qiáng) 活動(dòng) 榜單 商業(yè) 科技 商潮 專題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者哪些作法會(huì)嚴(yán)重妨礙創(chuàng)新?

JANE THIER
2022-01-04

許多業(yè)務(wù)突破都是取決于靈光一現(xiàn)的時(shí)刻,,源自人們?cè)诰\(chéng)合作中誕生的創(chuàng)新想法,。但管理者通常并沒有意識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)。

文本設(shè)置
小號(hào)
默認(rèn)
大號(hào)
Plus(0條)

把你所知道的那些能夠在工作中激發(fā)創(chuàng)造力的方法全部忘掉。

許多業(yè)務(wù)突破都是取決于靈光一現(xiàn)的時(shí)刻,,源自人們?cè)诰\(chéng)合作中誕生的創(chuàng)新想法。但管理者通常并沒有意識(shí)到這一點(diǎn),,他們對(duì)于團(tuán)隊(duì)協(xié)作和問題解決的錯(cuò)誤觀念,,扼殺了這些靈感。

員工的創(chuàng)造力難以用金錢來(lái)衡量,,但公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者很清楚它的價(jià)值所在,。世界經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇(World Economic Forum)的《2020年未來(lái)就業(yè)報(bào)告》提出,雇主認(rèn)為創(chuàng)造力和解決問題的能力是其最迫切需要的技能,。在2020年LinkedIn的一項(xiàng)分析中,,雇主將創(chuàng)造力列為最迫切需要的軟技能。德勤(Deloitte)近期的研究稱,,重視團(tuán)隊(duì)創(chuàng)造力的公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者,,能夠“靈活應(yīng)對(duì)意料之外的問題和機(jī)會(huì),使公司經(jīng)營(yíng)模式更靈活,,更有創(chuàng)新力,。”在新生代勞動(dòng)力“正在顛覆許多傳統(tǒng)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)來(lái)源”的時(shí)代,,公司重視團(tuán)隊(duì)創(chuàng)造力能夠讓其保持業(yè)內(nèi)領(lǐng)先地位,。

在《哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論》最近發(fā)表的一篇文章中,學(xué)習(xí)平臺(tái)MindAntix創(chuàng)始人普羅尼塔·梅赫羅特拉博士,、Infinite Potential Leadership項(xiàng)目創(chuàng)始人阿努·阿羅拉博士以及華盛頓大學(xué)博塞爾分校(University of Washington Bothell)商學(xué)院院長(zhǎng)桑迪普·克里希納穆爾蒂分析了管理者可能影響團(tuán)隊(duì)誕生新創(chuàng)意的三個(gè)嚴(yán)重錯(cuò)誤,。

錯(cuò)誤1:急于求成

許多領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者錯(cuò)誤地以為,緩慢,、謹(jǐn)慎地決策過程會(huì)阻礙創(chuàng)新,,最快找到的答案才是最好的。但這可能讓人產(chǎn)生一種錯(cuò)覺,認(rèn)為工作富有成效就是要快速完成工作,。

但梅赫羅特拉,、阿羅拉和克里希納穆爾蒂卻認(rèn)為,事實(shí)恰恰相反,。面對(duì)問題尤其是較為棘手的問題急于求成,,實(shí)際上會(huì)破壞創(chuàng)新,因?yàn)檫@會(huì)導(dǎo)致“過早閉合”,。避免過早閉合,,意味著即使可能已經(jīng)有解決方案的時(shí)候依舊要保持開放思維。在時(shí)間更長(zhǎng)的漸進(jìn)式思考中更有可能誕生創(chuàng)意,,而不是短時(shí)間的一次性會(huì)議,。

文章作者以Facebook一句臭名昭著的早期口號(hào)“快速行動(dòng),打破常規(guī)”為例,,介紹了這種可能不恰當(dāng)?shù)挠^念,。如果員工面臨分為多個(gè)層次的困境,需要花費(fèi)時(shí)間才能解決,,那么這種口號(hào)可能事與愿違,。他們認(rèn)為,抵制住急于求成的誘惑,,鼓勵(lì)團(tuán)隊(duì)繼續(xù)思考新的創(chuàng)意或觀點(diǎn),,必定能夠帶來(lái)創(chuàng)新。

管理者還可以鼓勵(lì)團(tuán)隊(duì)做出“接近最終的”決策,,并增加專門用于分享更多創(chuàng)意的孵化期,,也可以幫助團(tuán)隊(duì)避免過早閉合。如果在此期間沒有出現(xiàn)好的創(chuàng)意,,他們還可以繼續(xù)執(zhí)行“接近最終的”決策,,因?yàn)樗麄冎雷约翰槐丶庇谡业浇鉀Q方案。

錯(cuò)誤2:過多的批評(píng)卻拿不出解決方案

大部分專家都認(rèn)同:創(chuàng)造性思維比邏輯思維難度更大,。創(chuàng)造性思維需要同時(shí)調(diào)動(dòng)左右腦,,對(duì)工作記憶的要求更高。工作記憶這種認(rèn)知功能負(fù)責(zé)短時(shí)間儲(chǔ)存信息,。因此,,文章作者認(rèn)為,創(chuàng)造性思維是一種更高階的技能,。

每當(dāng)有人提出新想法時(shí),,人們更容易分析和思考這種想法存在哪些不足,而不是思考如何為它提供支持,。只關(guān)注缺點(diǎn)意味著只是讓工作記憶對(duì)事情進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)單加工,。從另一方面來(lái)說(shuō),綜合處理多個(gè)想法并考慮不同的結(jié)果或觀點(diǎn)要求更高。作者在文中寫到:“調(diào)動(dòng)執(zhí)行和想象網(wǎng)絡(luò),,不斷嘗試多個(gè)組合找到可行的解決方案”,,才能真正發(fā)揮工作記憶的作用。

無(wú)論在工作中還是生活中,,人們往往會(huì)認(rèn)為“批評(píng)者”比“統(tǒng)合者”更聰明,、更有思想。在《哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論》1999年發(fā)表的一篇文章中,,杰弗瑞·普費(fèi)弗和羅伯特·薩頓兩位教授將批評(píng)他人創(chuàng)意的人被認(rèn)為更聰明或更有能力這種現(xiàn)象稱為“花言巧語(yǔ)陷阱”,。

這兩位教授提到了1983年哈佛商學(xué)院教授特里薩·阿馬比爾的一項(xiàng)研究。這項(xiàng)名為“聰明但殘忍”的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),,相比于給出正面評(píng)價(jià)的人,,寫負(fù)面書評(píng)的人給人留下的印象是不討人喜歡,但卻更聰明,、更有能力和更專業(yè),。阿馬比爾寫道:“悲觀主義者的觀點(diǎn)聽起來(lái)更深刻,而樂觀主義者的觀點(diǎn)聽起來(lái)更膚淺,?!?/p>

在鼓勵(lì)批判精神的文化中,員工可能不愿意表達(dá)新的想法,。但普費(fèi)弗和薩頓認(rèn)為,,公司對(duì)于如何征集和處理新的想法應(yīng)該制定一些不成文的規(guī)則,,以避免形成這種環(huán)境,。

他們寫道:“公司可以允許人們對(duì)計(jì)劃和概念提出反對(duì)意見,但他們不能簡(jiǎn)單地問:‘我們?yōu)槭裁匆鲞@種事,?’他們必須提出如何克服所面臨的障礙,。換言之,對(duì)話的重點(diǎn)不應(yīng)該是挑錯(cuò),,而是為了解決存在的問題,。”

錯(cuò)誤3:高估集體頭腦風(fēng)暴的效果

表面上看,,集體頭腦風(fēng)暴似乎更有成效,。一群人聚在一起天馬行空地交流彼此的想法,這種做法在社交層面給人的感覺似乎是能夠提高生產(chǎn)率,。但梅赫羅特拉,、阿羅拉和克里希納穆爾蒂表示,各團(tuán)隊(duì)成員首先單獨(dú)思考自己的想法,,然后拿到會(huì)上交流,,這種名義頭腦風(fēng)暴比集體頭腦風(fēng)暴更勝一籌,而且能夠收獲更多想法。

事實(shí)上,,雖然集體頭腦風(fēng)暴的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是好的,,但它的社交屬性實(shí)際上會(huì)限制人們的創(chuàng)造力。人們可能擔(dān)心自己的想法被否定,、錯(cuò)過講話的機(jī)會(huì)甚至產(chǎn)生社交懈怠,,即人們傾向于隱藏在集體當(dāng)中卻不為集體做出貢獻(xiàn)。

為了解決這個(gè)問題,,領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者應(yīng)該支持團(tuán)隊(duì)成員首先形成自己的想法,,然后再與團(tuán)隊(duì)分享。在進(jìn)行集體討論時(shí),,領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者應(yīng)該強(qiáng)調(diào)參與討論的團(tuán)隊(duì)成員要保持基本的信任和支持,。

這些小小的舉措需要循序漸進(jìn),但對(duì)于公司的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者而言卻具有至關(guān)重要的意義,。員工的創(chuàng)造力和創(chuàng)新能力無(wú)疑將為公司帶來(lái)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì),,而且文章的作者認(rèn)為,專注于創(chuàng)新的文化能夠?qū)⒐镜挠芰μ嵘齼杀丁?

要想避免這些錯(cuò)誤的觀點(diǎn),,首先需要領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者有思想并具有包容性,,而且能夠不斷改正自身的弱點(diǎn)。一家公司如果沒有支持創(chuàng)新的內(nèi)部結(jié)構(gòu)和預(yù)算,,不可能產(chǎn)出新的創(chuàng)意,。為了使這種靈光一現(xiàn)的時(shí)刻能夠出現(xiàn),公司進(jìn)行投資是值得的,,尤其是員工的工作積極性可能遠(yuǎn)不如前的時(shí)候,。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍

審校:汪皓

把你所知道的那些能夠在工作中激發(fā)創(chuàng)造力的方法全部忘掉。

許多業(yè)務(wù)突破都是取決于靈光一現(xiàn)的時(shí)刻,,源自人們?cè)诰\(chéng)合作中誕生的創(chuàng)新想法,。但管理者通常并沒有意識(shí)到這一點(diǎn),他們對(duì)于團(tuán)隊(duì)協(xié)作和問題解決的錯(cuò)誤觀念,,扼殺了這些靈感,。

員工的創(chuàng)造力難以用金錢來(lái)衡量,但公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者很清楚它的價(jià)值所在,。世界經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇(World Economic Forum)的《2020年未來(lái)就業(yè)報(bào)告》提出,,雇主認(rèn)為創(chuàng)造力和解決問題的能力是其最迫切需要的技能。在2020年LinkedIn的一項(xiàng)分析中,,雇主將創(chuàng)造力列為最迫切需要的軟技能,。德勤(Deloitte)近期的研究稱,重視團(tuán)隊(duì)創(chuàng)造力的公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者,,能夠“靈活應(yīng)對(duì)意料之外的問題和機(jī)會(huì),,使公司經(jīng)營(yíng)模式更靈活,,更有創(chuàng)新力?!痹谛律鷦趧?dòng)力“正在顛覆許多傳統(tǒng)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)來(lái)源”的時(shí)代,,公司重視團(tuán)隊(duì)創(chuàng)造力能夠讓其保持業(yè)內(nèi)領(lǐng)先地位。

在《哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論》最近發(fā)表的一篇文章中,,學(xué)習(xí)平臺(tái)MindAntix創(chuàng)始人普羅尼塔·梅赫羅特拉博士,、Infinite Potential Leadership項(xiàng)目創(chuàng)始人阿努·阿羅拉博士以及華盛頓大學(xué)博塞爾分校(University of Washington Bothell)商學(xué)院院長(zhǎng)桑迪普·克里希納穆爾蒂分析了管理者可能影響團(tuán)隊(duì)誕生新創(chuàng)意的三個(gè)嚴(yán)重錯(cuò)誤。

錯(cuò)誤1:急于求成

許多領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者錯(cuò)誤地以為,,緩慢,、謹(jǐn)慎地決策過程會(huì)阻礙創(chuàng)新,最快找到的答案才是最好的,。但這可能讓人產(chǎn)生一種錯(cuò)覺,,認(rèn)為工作富有成效就是要快速完成工作。

但梅赫羅特拉,、阿羅拉和克里希納穆爾蒂卻認(rèn)為,,事實(shí)恰恰相反。面對(duì)問題尤其是較為棘手的問題急于求成,,實(shí)際上會(huì)破壞創(chuàng)新,,因?yàn)檫@會(huì)導(dǎo)致“過早閉合”。避免過早閉合,,意味著即使可能已經(jīng)有解決方案的時(shí)候依舊要保持開放思維,。在時(shí)間更長(zhǎng)的漸進(jìn)式思考中更有可能誕生創(chuàng)意,而不是短時(shí)間的一次性會(huì)議,。

文章作者以Facebook一句臭名昭著的早期口號(hào)“快速行動(dòng),,打破常規(guī)”為例,介紹了這種可能不恰當(dāng)?shù)挠^念,。如果員工面臨分為多個(gè)層次的困境,,需要花費(fèi)時(shí)間才能解決,,那么這種口號(hào)可能事與愿違,。他們認(rèn)為,抵制住急于求成的誘惑,,鼓勵(lì)團(tuán)隊(duì)繼續(xù)思考新的創(chuàng)意或觀點(diǎn),,必定能夠帶來(lái)創(chuàng)新。

管理者還可以鼓勵(lì)團(tuán)隊(duì)做出“接近最終的”決策,,并增加專門用于分享更多創(chuàng)意的孵化期,,也可以幫助團(tuán)隊(duì)避免過早閉合。如果在此期間沒有出現(xiàn)好的創(chuàng)意,,他們還可以繼續(xù)執(zhí)行“接近最終的”決策,,因?yàn)樗麄冎雷约翰槐丶庇谡业浇鉀Q方案,。

錯(cuò)誤2:過多的批評(píng)卻拿不出解決方案

大部分專家都認(rèn)同:創(chuàng)造性思維比邏輯思維難度更大。創(chuàng)造性思維需要同時(shí)調(diào)動(dòng)左右腦,,對(duì)工作記憶的要求更高,。工作記憶這種認(rèn)知功能負(fù)責(zé)短時(shí)間儲(chǔ)存信息。因此,,文章作者認(rèn)為,,創(chuàng)造性思維是一種更高階的技能。

每當(dāng)有人提出新想法時(shí),,人們更容易分析和思考這種想法存在哪些不足,,而不是思考如何為它提供支持。只關(guān)注缺點(diǎn)意味著只是讓工作記憶對(duì)事情進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)單加工,。從另一方面來(lái)說(shuō),,綜合處理多個(gè)想法并考慮不同的結(jié)果或觀點(diǎn)要求更高。作者在文中寫到:“調(diào)動(dòng)執(zhí)行和想象網(wǎng)絡(luò),,不斷嘗試多個(gè)組合找到可行的解決方案”,,才能真正發(fā)揮工作記憶的作用。

無(wú)論在工作中還是生活中,,人們往往會(huì)認(rèn)為“批評(píng)者”比“統(tǒng)合者”更聰明,、更有思想。在《哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論》1999年發(fā)表的一篇文章中,,杰弗瑞·普費(fèi)弗和羅伯特·薩頓兩位教授將批評(píng)他人創(chuàng)意的人被認(rèn)為更聰明或更有能力這種現(xiàn)象稱為“花言巧語(yǔ)陷阱”,。

這兩位教授提到了1983年哈佛商學(xué)院教授特里薩·阿馬比爾的一項(xiàng)研究。這項(xiàng)名為“聰明但殘忍”的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),,相比于給出正面評(píng)價(jià)的人,,寫負(fù)面書評(píng)的人給人留下的印象是不討人喜歡,但卻更聰明,、更有能力和更專業(yè),。阿馬比爾寫道:“悲觀主義者的觀點(diǎn)聽起來(lái)更深刻,而樂觀主義者的觀點(diǎn)聽起來(lái)更膚淺,?!?/p>

在鼓勵(lì)批判精神的文化中,員工可能不愿意表達(dá)新的想法,。但普費(fèi)弗和薩頓認(rèn)為,,公司對(duì)于如何征集和處理新的想法應(yīng)該制定一些不成文的規(guī)則,以避免形成這種環(huán)境,。

他們寫道:“公司可以允許人們對(duì)計(jì)劃和概念提出反對(duì)意見,,但他們不能簡(jiǎn)單地問:‘我們?yōu)槭裁匆鲞@種事?’他們必須提出如何克服所面臨的障礙,。換言之,,對(duì)話的重點(diǎn)不應(yīng)該是挑錯(cuò),,而是為了解決存在的問題?!?

錯(cuò)誤3:高估集體頭腦風(fēng)暴的效果

表面上看,,集體頭腦風(fēng)暴似乎更有成效。一群人聚在一起天馬行空地交流彼此的想法,,這種做法在社交層面給人的感覺似乎是能夠提高生產(chǎn)率,。但梅赫羅特拉、阿羅拉和克里希納穆爾蒂表示,,各團(tuán)隊(duì)成員首先單獨(dú)思考自己的想法,,然后拿到會(huì)上交流,這種名義頭腦風(fēng)暴比集體頭腦風(fēng)暴更勝一籌,,而且能夠收獲更多想法,。

事實(shí)上,雖然集體頭腦風(fēng)暴的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是好的,,但它的社交屬性實(shí)際上會(huì)限制人們的創(chuàng)造力,。人們可能擔(dān)心自己的想法被否定、錯(cuò)過講話的機(jī)會(huì)甚至產(chǎn)生社交懈怠,,即人們傾向于隱藏在集體當(dāng)中卻不為集體做出貢獻(xiàn),。

為了解決這個(gè)問題,領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者應(yīng)該支持團(tuán)隊(duì)成員首先形成自己的想法,,然后再與團(tuán)隊(duì)分享,。在進(jìn)行集體討論時(shí),領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者應(yīng)該強(qiáng)調(diào)參與討論的團(tuán)隊(duì)成員要保持基本的信任和支持,。

這些小小的舉措需要循序漸進(jìn),,但對(duì)于公司的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者而言卻具有至關(guān)重要的意義。員工的創(chuàng)造力和創(chuàng)新能力無(wú)疑將為公司帶來(lái)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì),,而且文章的作者認(rèn)為,,專注于創(chuàng)新的文化能夠?qū)⒐镜挠芰μ嵘齼杀丁?

要想避免這些錯(cuò)誤的觀點(diǎn),首先需要領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者有思想并具有包容性,,而且能夠不斷改正自身的弱點(diǎn),。一家公司如果沒有支持創(chuàng)新的內(nèi)部結(jié)構(gòu)和預(yù)算,不可能產(chǎn)出新的創(chuàng)意,。為了使這種靈光一現(xiàn)的時(shí)刻能夠出現(xiàn),,公司進(jìn)行投資是值得的,,尤其是員工的工作積極性可能遠(yuǎn)不如前的時(shí)候,。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍

審校:汪皓

Forget everything you know about sparking creativity at work.

Many business breakthroughs hinge on the aha moments: innovative ideas borne of thoughtful collaboration. But often without realizing it, managers' misconceptions about teamwork and problem solving prevent these moments from catching fire.

It’s difficult to put a price on employee creativity, but business leaders know it's valuable. In the World Economic Forum’s The Future of Jobs Report 2020, employers cited creativity and problem solving as the most in-demand skills. In a 2020 LinkedIn analysis, employers ranked creativity as their most in-demand soft skill. And recent research from Deloitte says company leaders who prioritize creativity among their teams let them “flexibly respond to unforeseen problems and opportunities, making operating models more flexible and firms more innovative.” This lets a company stay at the head of its industry at a time when the evolving workforce is “upending many traditional sources of competitive advantage.”

In a recent joint article in the Harvard Business Review, Dr. Pronita Mehrotra, founder of learning platform MindAntix; Anu Arora, founder of the Infinite Potential Leadership program; and Sandeep Krishnamurthy, dean of the School of Business at the University of Washington Bothell, identified three key mistakes managers might be making that are limiting their people's opportunities to hatch new ideas.

Mistake No. 1: Rushing to solutions

Many leaders falsely believe slow, measured decision-making stifles innovation, and that the best answers are the ones that come the fastest. This can lend credence to the illusion that being productive means working quickly.

But this could be the opposite of the truth, Mehrotra, Arora, and Krishnamurthy write. Rushing to solve problems, especially the trickier ones, actually hurts innovation because it invites “premature closure.” Resisting premature closure means keeping an open mind despite already potentially having a solution. Creativity is much more likely to flourish in longer, gradual thinking than quick, one-time meetings.

The authors reference Facebook’s infamous early mantra, “Move fast and break things,” as an example of potentially incorrect thinking. It’s a call to action that can backfire if employees are faced with a layered dilemma that's time-consuming to fix. Resisting the temptation to find a speedy solution, and instead pushing your team to continue ruminating on new ideas or perspectives, they say, is bound to result in innovation.

Managers can also lead teams away from premature closure by encouraging them to arrive at “almost final” decisions, and then adding in additional incubation time specifically dedicated to just to sharing more ideas. If a good idea doesn’t emerge during this period, they can go ahead with their “almost final” decision, knowing they took their time.

Mistake No. 2: Being overly critical without offering solutions

Most experts agree: Creative thinking is harder than logical thinking. It demands more of both brain hemispheres and is more taxing on working memory, the cognitive function that holds information for a short amount of time. As such, the authors write, creative thinking should be a higher-order skill.

When presented with a new idea, it’s easier for their people to dissect and mull over the various ways the idea falls short, rather than to ideate on how it can be bolstered. Just focusing on a shortcoming means keeping things simple for the working memory. On the other hand, synthesizing multiple ideas, and accounting for various outcomes or perspectives, demands more. "Engaging both the executive and imagination networks, trying multiple combinations in quick succession to find a solution that might work,” the authors write, puts working memory to the task.

In business and in pleasure, humans tend to view “critics” as more intelligent and thoughtful than “synthesizers.” In a 1999 Harvard Business Review article, two professors, Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton, called the phenomenon in which people criticize ideas to come across as smarter or more competent as “the smart-talk trap.”

Pfeffer and Sutton pointed to a 1983 study by Harvard Business School professor Teresa Amabile. Amabile’s study, called “Brilliant but Cruel,” found people who wrote negative book reviews were perceived as less likable but more intelligent, competent, and having more expertise than those who positively reviewed the same books. “Only pessimism sounds profound. Optimism sounds superficial,” Amabile wrote.

In a criticism-heavy culture, employees can be hesitant to voice new ideas. But companies, Pfeffer and Sutton wrote, can prevent this kind of environment by setting informal rules about how ideas are received and unpacked.

“People are permitted to raise objections to plans and concepts, but they can’t just ask, ‘Why would we do such a thing?’” they wrote. “Instead, they must suggest how it would be possible to surmount the obstacles they foresee. In other words, the conversation focuses not on faults but on overcoming them.”

Mistake No. 3: Overvaluing group brainstorming

On the surface, brainstorming as a group appears more productive. The social aspect of gathering and bouncing ideas off one another can feel akin to productivity. But Mehrotra, Arora, and Krishnamurthy say that nominal brainstorming, which is when individual team members think independently before gathering to compare notes, consistently trumps group brainstorming and produces double the number of ideas.

In fact, despite good intentions, the social dynamics of group brainstorming can actually limit creativity. People may fear their ideas being shot down, miss a chance to speak, or even end up social loafing, a term for the tendency to hide in the group and avoid making a contribution.

To work around this, leaders should support formation of individual ideas before they’re posed to a group. And once those group huddles happen, they should ensure a baseline level of trust and support is emphasized among the participants.

These are small and gradual but crucial steps for company leaders to take. Creativity and innovation among workers inarguably give businesses a competitive advantage and, per the authors, an innovation-focused culture can triple a company’s profitability.

Avoiding each of these misconceptions requires a baseline of thoughtful, inclusive leadership combined with consistent efforts to improve at weak points. An organization can’t foster new, innovative ideas without the requisite internal structure and a budget that supports it. But investing in uncovering those aha moments are well worth it, especially in a time when workers may be less engaged at work than ever.

財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)所刊載內(nèi)容之知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)為財(cái)富媒體知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)有限公司及/或相關(guān)權(quán)利人專屬所有或持有。未經(jīng)許可,,禁止進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)載,、摘編,、復(fù)制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
0條Plus
精彩評(píng)論
評(píng)論

撰寫或查看更多評(píng)論

請(qǐng)打開財(cái)富Plus APP

前往打開
熱讀文章