Harvard Business Review's "7 Rules for Managing Creative People" - A Rebuttal
The problem with generalizations is, even if they're true at all (which they're often not), they're only true in the broadest sense. Writers may not like pressure, but maybe your copywriter does. Maybe he thrives off it. Graphic designers may not like routine, but maybe the one that works for you does. When possible, I would strongly advise making your management decisions with "creatives" based off your personal knowledge of them, and not whatever generalities you think should be applied.
Example: I'm a writer who likes pressure. I write well when constrained by deadlines and sometimes struggle to write if I have too much time to work. I also like structure. I come to work the same time every day, taking the same route and sitting in the same train seat if I can. I drink the same coffee every morning, eat the same breakfast, and read the same news sites. I like routine, I like order, I like pressure, and I would absolutely be defined as a "creative" professional. If someone were attempt to manage me with the rules set out in the Harvard blog, could I adapt and deal with them? Sure. But would the manager be wasting both our time with guidelines and concessions that I don't need or want? Could my potential be hamstrung with rules that, instead of encouraging my strengths, emphasizes my weaknesses instead?
Definitely questions worth considering, and also ones you will not be able to answer unless you take the time to know your employees well, creative or otherwise.
3. Creative people like money just fine
Point #5 on the Harvard blog, "Pay [creatives] poorly/Don't overpay them," is terrible and insulting and wrong on so many levels, but unfortunately (present employer aside), it's an attitude I've found to be incredibly common toward the "traditionally creative" professions. My answer to this stance is a simple one, and it goes like this: