Todos decimos que la creatividad mola. Que el fruto de la creatividad es lo que hará diferente el futuro. Somos muy conscientes de que dependemos de lo que mentes creativas encuentren para nosotros, si queremos vivir mejor mañana. En el peor de los casos esos hallazgos nos harán falta para sobrevivir. La gente inquieta, inconformista, aquella que advierte la importancia de los detalles mínimos, la que tiene más dudas que certezas, la que quiere saber todos los porqués, cambiará el mundo para nosotros. Esto lo sabemos. Lo hemos visto ya.

Pero ese tipo de gente, precisamente por ser creativa, es molesta. Son los que cambian las cosas, casi siempre sin un plan. Los que no aceptan que las todo se haga como siempre porque si. Los que prueban y se equivocan y la cagan. Los que alteran el orden normal de las cosas. Los que retan constantemente a los que les rodean con ideas nuevas, con recetas nuevas.

Esa gente es molesta. En el ejército es letal. No hay margen para romper el orden. En una empresa, por mucho que lo oigas decir, nadie aprecia la creatividad. Ni en las más innovadoras. En Apple, con certeza, un porcentaje mínimo de empleados son llamados para ser creativos. Sin un orden férreo la creatividad de unos pocos jamas llegaría a materializarse en producto. Por muchas mejoras que los empleados de los niveles inferiores pudieran aportar a la producción, realmente una empresa no está para hacer las cosas mejor, sino para ganar dinero. Apple y cualquier otra empresa “creativa” la aprecia de forma limitada y controlada. Lo justo y necesario. Poco.

¿Y en los colegios e institutos? Debería ser diferente. No hay objetivos comunes. No hay una participación en una empresa común. El aprendizaje es individual, aunque se haga en grupo. El que un alumno se disperse buscando no debería alterar el curso del aprendizaje del compañero. El grupo no sufre como sufriría si un resultado común dependiese del trabajo coordinado. En definitiva hay margen para ser creativo sin que sea necesario sancionar esas conductas, erradicarlas, en aras de un objetivo superior.

 «Creativity: Asset or Burden in the Classroom?».  Erik L. Westby, V. L. Dawson, Creativity Research Journal,  1995, Vol 8, No 1.1–10.

One of the most consistent findings in educational studies of creativity has been that teachers dislike personality traits associated with creativity. Research has indicated that teachers prefer traits that seem to run counter to creativity, such as conformity and unquestioning acceptance of authority (e.g., Bachtold, 1974; Cropley, 1992; Dettmer, 1981; Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Torrance, 1963). The reason for teachers’ preferences is quite clear —creative people tend to have traits that some have referred to as obnoxious (Torrance, 1963). Torrance (1963) described creative people as not having the time to be courteous, as refusing to take no for an answer, and as being negativistic and critical of others. 

 […]

Impulsivity, risk taking, independence, and determination may not be the most positively viewed characteristics of children given the teacher’ s goals of maintaining order and attending to multiple children. 

[…]

Despite the long history of research indicating that teachers do not value creative traits in students, teachers report that they value creativity in the classroom. For example, Feldhusen and Treffinger (1975) reported that 96% of teachers surveyed felt that daily classroom time should be devoted to the promotion of creative thinking. How are we to interpret this apparent conflict between teachers’ self-reports and previous findings? One interpretation is that teachers, knowing that creativity is generally held to be an important goal of education (e.g., Torrance, 1965), are giving the “right” answer, but not the real answer, when asked about their liking for creative students. 

[…]

Given that research and theory (e.g., Harrington, Block, & Block, 1987) suggest that a supportive environment is important to the fostering of creativity, it is quite possible that teachers are (perhaps unwittingly) extinguishing creative behaviors.

[…]

As in previous research, the teachers in the present investigation appeared to have a negative view of characteristics associated with creativity. This in turn suggests that schools may provide an inhospitable environment for creative students.

[…]

First, teachers’ unwelcoming attitudes may alienate children from formal education. It has also been clearly demonstrated that children’ s performance is affected by teachers’ attitudes toward them (Brophy & Good, 1970; Kenealy et al., 1991; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). A second possible outcome is that teachers’ dislike of behaviors associated with creativity leads to the extinction of those behaviors. Thus, potentially creative students might learn to conform so as to improve the teacher-student relationship. This attempt to appease the teacher and do better in the classroom could cause children to suppress the very characteristics that make them creative.