A positive work environment can be a large factor in lowering turnover rates at a company. Open offices with loose floor plans are a burgeoning trend. But, free thought without structure or critique can be just as damaging as too many restrictions.
This is the focus of Theresa Johnston’s article, “Jonathan Bendor: Why Criticism is Good for Innovation.” Johnston presents to readers that Bendor, a professor of political economics and organizations at Stanford Graduate School of Business, is clearly not afraid of clear, constructive criticism as a means to the best possible end. As a counter to the notion that criticism stifles creativity, Bendor offers, “creativity and criticism are like the Chinese principles of yin and yang: two complementary forces that interact to form a greater whole.”
Take, for instance, a department filled with creative ideas but limited structure and oversight. That kind of environment can produce unfiltered ideas–something ultimately unproductive. Businesses need criticism to filter out the unfeasible ideas and turn attention to honing the strong ones.
Overall, Johnston’s article is optimistic. It’s not about criticism as a necessary evil. Rather, it’s about gaining distance from personal investment in one’s ideas. The suggestion is not to create so much distance as to become detached but enough so one can more readily identify where tweaking or reworking are required. More often than not, distance allows the creator enough objectivity to detect where ideas just don’t make sense.
It would be have been interesting for Johnston to point to case studies within a wide array of industries, from the nonprofit world to business, and exemplify scenarios where the rubric method would, or does, hold true. But, the overall concept of embracing creativity with an objective, critical eye seems more balanced than not.
Johnston, Theresa. “Jonathan Bendor: Why Criticism is Good for Innovation.” Stanford Graduate School of Business. n.p. 23 June 2015. Web. (10 Aug. 2015)
0 Comments