Being Creative: A Disadvantage?

Why do we do this work with the breakout creatives?  At first glance it might seem that our most creative people are singled out for promotion and honors and increased esteem.
We mentor on the basis of our four figures:  mystic, artist, prophet and leader. While it is easily acknowledged that the first three figures are often viewed with suspicion, certainly leaders who are creative and "think out of the box" are valued.  This is what all the popular literature about leaders tells us;  this is what the great journals on management tell us.

And yet, we also mentor and support creative leaders.  What do these people need from us? Why would someone have to pay special attention to these people and offer mentoring?

Here's why:  In a study published recently by the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology the authors found that "expression of creative ideas may diminish judgments of leadership potential unless the charismatic leadership prototype is activated in the mind of social perceivers."  The authors of the study concluded, "organizations may face a bias against selecting the most creative individuals in favor of selecting leaders who would preserve the status quo by sticking with feasible but relatively unoriginal solutions."

Cry the beloved company, I say. Think of all the innovation, creativity and more expansive and more encompassing possibilities that are going to waste.

But, you might protest, most business cannot afford innovation or new ideas, they might fail, and there goes capital down the drain.  What will the shareholders think?

Why do we mentor these people?  Because they are in danger of having their spirits crushed by the managerial mindset that seeks compliance and proficiency.  We aren't in the business, even in our leader mentoring, of satisfying the hunger of shareholders for dividends.  We are there to help people find their voice and help them step into their aspirations with the firmness and resolve that any and all change requires.

This study confirms a suspicion I have been harboring for a while now:  no one wants leaders (or other creative figures for that matter).  Or, to be fair, only a few really do want creative energies unleashed in their lives or their companies.  As for leaders, people want others to do their dirty work for them, want others to fight the fights and move the people to do what they do not have the will to do themselves.  Managers in companies want compliance and they want a jazzy, spiffy and upbeat style (charisma?) to put a happy face on it and thereby "get the most" out of people so the hard stuff, that they want done gets done.

When I hear people say that leaders "get things done," I know they don't get it, and that they would be the first to fire or pass over "creative" people who offer a different vision.

Why do we mentor these people?  To keep their spirits alive and keep something alive, vital, vibrant and generative going in this life of ours.  Nothing less is at stake.Creative Leaders Rejected?