Title: The Bias Against Creatives as Leaders
Context: “The creative can’t lead and those who lead can’t be creative.” Hogwash, balderdash, and flimflammery are but 3 creative words that can be used to disagree with such stupidity.
Synopsis: The creative person is generally viewed as a renegade. A nonconformist. An eccentric. Hardly the stuff of leadership. On the other hand, creatives are heralded for their ability to see things differently. Solve problems with originality. Think — dare I say it? Yes, I shall — outside the box. Why are these skills — leadership and creativity — viewed by most people as diametrically opposed? The easy answer is that leadership, and indeed leaders, are valued for their steadiness while creatives rock the boat whenever the opportunity arises. But this is of course a false characterization to justify the exclusion of the creative class from the echelons of power. I think the real answer is darker, more insidious: fear. The fear that creatives might in fact be exceptionally effective leaders, at least proportionally so when compared to workers from other, less ephemeral disciplines. The fear that if this secret ever got out, there would be no stopping creatives from taking over the world! The fear that a world lead by creatives would be perfect in its form and function to the exclusion of all other modes of governance! Well, a creative guy can dream can’t he?
Best Bit: “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.”

via 99u.com