Was gonna say - this is not an article about creativity, it's an article about risk. And whereas most people see their own ideas as "creative", we all see other people's ideas as "risky."

"Creative" employees are allowed to be creative if there's an acceptable way to manage their risk. A creative idea that comes at the expense of a superior's reputation is generally to be avoided because if it fails, the superior will share in the blame. However, if the superior attempts to share in the success they will be resented by the employee.

This sort of thing is clearly represented in Hollywood. "Creative" ideas are only allowed to happen when the stakes are low or when the risk has been managed. Leonardo DiCaprio had to defer his salary on Inception to get it made. Chris Nolan first pitched it after Insomnia but nobody would give him the rope to make it until he'd turned in two Batman movies. I have no less than five friends who tried to get their bosses to buy The Walking Dead to turn into a series… but none of them were Frank Darabont.

Frank Darabont is allowed to be creative. If he fucks up, he's Frank Darabont fucking up.

There's this notion that corporations stifle creativity because they have no soul. It's more accurate to say that the stakes are too high. This is why entrepreneurs and inventors really only thrive when they're out without a net - they're gambling on their own ideas, taking their own risks.

At the same time, keep in mind that we only ever hear of the successes. Every manager on the planet has taken that little tidbit to heart.