Although it is rarely expressed directly, there is a background belief that 'evolution' applies to matters outside the biological world. There is a belief that ideas themselves are formed by Darwinian evolution. Products, services, methods and processes are all also supposed to be shaped by evolution. This belief in the universal effects of evolution has several unfortunate effects. In many cases the effects are more than unfortunate, they are dangerous.
The first unfortunate effect is that a belief in 'evolution' means that the pressures of the environment will take care of all improvement. So there is no need to do anything consciously. Things will gradually change to provide the change that is necessary. It is never said how the 'random mutations' of Darwinian evolution actually happen in nature. With non-nature matters it is supposed that tiny incremental changes gradually shape the product or service to fit the needs and pressures of the environment.
Since evolution is going to take care of everything, why try to be creative? Why take a risk when evolution takes no risks at all? This is not strictly true, since evolution in nature does sometimes take blind alleys. A line of evolution can develop and then peter out. This is a 'risk'. There is a belief that you are very unlikely to guess the future right, so why bother? Let the future arrive in its own time through evolution. Because creativity is seen as a 'big step' process, and evolution is seen as a series of small steps, there is the feeling that evolution is more likely to get it right than creativity.
Small-step creativity may be seen as the 'random mutation' factor in evolution, but the steps do have to be very small. Small steps are seen as low risk. If they do not work, it is not a disaster. So sit back and let evolution do the shaping of products and services. You do need to be alert and to see what is happening. You need to be able to spot an emerging market trend and then to capitalise on this. If 'others' develop successful products then you jump in with a 'me-too'.
It is not surprising that this philosophy, sitting back and leaving it to evolution, is very appealing to those who do not like the uncertainty of creativity and to those who do not feel themselves to be creative. There are several weaknesses to this 'sit back and wait' approach. Note that this approach is not quite the same as 'do nothing and then copy success', although the two do overlap considerably.
The second part of this belief is that the shaping effects of time and circumstance must have resulted in something that is ideally adapted to the real world. Note that 'creativity' does not have this 'adaptation' credential. The danger here is that the product or service may be way below the potential of the field - or the use of available assets.
If the field is a very tough one, then a 'method' which has survived obviously has value, because it has been 'tried' by time. But if the field is not tough at all, then almost any initial method would have succeeded. If we then stay 'locked in' to that method we are acting way below potential. The real danger of the 'must be best' philosophy is that we make no effort at all to challenge products and services that seem to be 'adequate'. There is no problem, so we do not direct any thinking at the matter.
As a result, the biggest creative changes never happen. Creativity can look at the way something is done and come up with a much better idea. Creativity applied to perfectly adequate and satisfactory matters will offer far more potential than creativity applied to 'problem-solving'. Yet it is only in 'problem-solving' that we see a need for thinking about things. If you really believe that evolution has given you the best possible way of doing things, then what is the point of higher risk creativity?
EVOLUTION OF ACCEPTANCE
Given our present state of technology and experience, the current form of a motor car is probably way below potential, both from the user's point of view and also from the manufacturer's. If, however, someone came up with a radically different design for a motor car (which is not so difficult), the market would not be eager to embrace the change. It is not enough that the product evolves. Taste and acceptance also have to evolve.
How would people who are accustomed to the present shape of a car react to a radically different shape? Individual purchasers might indeed like the new design - but then they consider the re-sale value. 'I might like this but when I come to sell it, how do I know others will like it?' This same phenomenon applies even more to special architect-designed houses that are innovative.
Painting today is very different from what it was two hundred years ago. Whenever there was a radical change (Impressionism, Cubism, Conceptual art, etc.), there was an initial huge resistance. In time this was overcome, and huge prices were paid for styles that were initially derided. In the art world there were avant garde critics who wanted to distinguish themselves by disagreeing with most of their colleagues. There were also far-seeing dealers who saw that the new idiom would mean far more business. There were also a few buyers who were genuinely bored with the older styles.
In other words there were 'fashion leaders' who, over time, would ensure the success of the radical change. In the world of products and services, such fashion leaders do not exist because such a leader would be seen to be so out of touch with the market that he or she would lose his or her job. The idiom is that of 'leading from behind'. That means sensing the way everyone is going anyway and then pretending to lead in that direction. Politicians do it all the time.
CREATIVE BELIEF
No one can prove to you that there is a better way of doing something until that better way has been found, demonstrated and proved. There has to be a 'belief' that change for the better is possible. It is possible to show mathematically that creativity is essential in any self-organising system; otherwise we get locked into stable states that are far from optimal. At this point creativity is no longer a 'belief', but becomes essential.
I would suggest that in any business, profitability could be increased by a minimum of 25%, over a five-year period, through a single new idea (which might take minutes to generate). That is a very conservative estimate. When you invest in advertising, you do not know exactly how or where it is going to work. Possibly, a lot of your money is wasted. But you do know that if you do not advertise at all, then your business is going to decline.
It is the same with creativity. You do not know exactly when or how the powerful idea is going to emerge (or even how you would recognise it). But you should know that if you do not invest in creativity, you are going to be operating way below opportunity level.
EITHER OR
It is not a matter of evolution or creativity. It is not a choice between the two. It should not be a polarised situation. Both are needed. It could be that 'creativity' provides the mutation that evolution demands. The real danger is when we 'sit back' and hope that evolution will do for us what we find difficult to do for ourselves!
read all 70 gurus with one feed read all Read all media
