Agreed. Most of my thinking has been directed towards different topologies of society. People aren't either creative or not, brilliant artists don't necessarily make brilliant civil engineers (as demonstrated by architects on a regular basis). Brilliant programmers aren't necessarily brilliant writers (as demonstrated by documentation). So the problem becomes one of encouraging creativity where it is real and encouraging standardization where, like Nero with his poetry and music, attempted creativity is the worst of all possible worlds.
Ok, how to deal with the inevitable flaws that creep in? Scientific method. Ideas should be tested, scrutinized, bugfixed, using known methods that work with creative ideas. If the idea survives, it is good. If the idea breaks irreparably, time for a new idea.
Schools? Dealt with that elsewhere. Recap, though: Stream, both above and below average, per subject. If you are not convinced ability in a subject is adequate differentiation, stream in two dimensions, with creativity being the second. Yes, this costs more money. Raid the bloody spy agency's orc division or something. They have far too much money and time on their hands, pump it into schools. All of it, if possible. But even a 9x increase in budget for education will allow enough flexibility to give you 5x the number of truly brilliant people in the workplace, and double the number of creative supergeniuses.