Why We Don't Like Creativity

**Bob's World** · 12-15-2013

I've been staying out of this one. At my own place of business we are in an odd creativity Catch-22; where creativity is both quashed and encouraged in equal parts.

I won't go so far a Bill to say that "the brain is not designed to be creative," but certainly in my experience fewer people are naturally creative than are naturally not creative. Which is probably just as well, because if everyone was a visionary and no one was perfectly happy just following the recipe for some particular task, not much would ever get done.

I also believe that many institutions are far less appreciative of creativity than others. The regular military and its heavy reliance on doctrine and objective metrics is a poster child for this. Add to this institutional inclination the Darwinian effect of selecting for promotion those who most reflect the values of the institution, and it will be a rare senior leader indeed who rises through the system as a naturally creative thinker.

I remember clearly how ironic I found it to be when during the introductory phase of my War College class we were told that "now we were going to be taught to think strategically." News flash Army War College, your personnel system had flushed 90% of the officers with a natural inclination for strategic thinking out of the back end of the system long before they had an opportunity to be enlightened on the dogmatic "ENDs-WAYs-MEANs" perspective on strategy taught there.

The one question that needs to be asked the most, but that is asked the least is "Why." After all, the commander has told the staff what to do, so asking "why" may be fundamental to design (which is why we added this dogmatic approach to creativity to begin with, and why equally it is not really taking root), and "why" is largely unnecessary to the Military Decision Making Process. "Why" opens up all manner of messy issues that are largely viewed as unnecessary, or even dangerous, to effective military operations.

The intel community tells us who the "threat" is; and a narrow band of "experts" in think tanks and academia tell us why they are the threat in terms that fit the paradigms of those who designate who the experts are and who cut the checks that pay for such insights. Telling the person who pays the bills and bestows the status of "advisor" something that he/she doesn't want to hear is simply not good business; and as we all are sadly aware, this has been a very good business for many over the past 12 years

In fact, a personal theory is that the tremendous flexibility and creativity on the battlefield that the American Military likes to boast about was due largely to the fact that our wars were fought by civilians, conscripted for the duration of the conflict, and therefore largely either unaware or unhindered by the doctrine so carefully written about how we had fought the last war by the small cadre of regulars who wrote doctrine in peace, and wore stars in war. After nearly 70 years of sustaining a war fighting military during peacetime years and waging conflicts with regulars this is simply no longer the case. There is a downside to "professionalism," and that is the monoculture of thought that comes with it. Not just what people think, but how they think about similar situations.

How do we fix our creativity problem? Recognizing the problem for how systemic it is to our institutions is a great start. Creativity initiatives are a Band-Aid, but better than no effort at all. The real cure would require a major change in how we value that trait, and then adjusting the personnel system to identify, nurture and advance those who demonstrate that attribute.

The regulars love the creativity the irregulars bring to the military in war. We celebrate it in our military histories, movies and narrative. But the first thing the regulars have always done when the conflict was over, was close ranks and either demote or run off the irregulars whose creativity was so central to the recent success. After all, creativity is rare, and rare things tend to make the majority uncomfortable.

**TheCurmudgeon** · 12-15-2013

I agree with both Bob and Bill: As an animal I believe we prefer routine and predictability to change. Change is scary and makes us apprehensive. Predictability is a large part of why we build social systems like the economy or the government. So we are inclined to prefer what we know instead of embracing what we don't know.

I also believe that the Army, as an institution, is designed to weed out creativity. American's are taught to believe that individuality is what you should strive for. A large part of that has to be indoctrinated out of Soldiers in Basic Training. Further, as with any large bureaucracy, the unintended consequence of its success is a desire to perpetuate itself. This means that change is often seen as a threat.

The juxtaposition of American's idealizing individuality and entrepreneurship and the Army's requirements to indoctrinate its members into a belief in conformity and the necessity of any large, diffuse organization to standardize creates some interesting problems.

I believe that Bob's observation that a standing army does not create the conditions for creative thinking is accurate. It would seem that we need to reduce our size dramatically if we really want to embrace creativity. Given the choice, the Army will take more armor brigades to more creativity any day of the week.

**JMA** · 12-15-2013

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

As an animal I believe we prefer routine and predictability to change. Change is scary and makes us apprehensive.

In my experience 'change' is only a challenge when it is forced on us. On the other hand if we initiate the change it has the effect of making us feel we are in control and have the initiative. (In a military sense)

Predictability is a large part of why we build social systems like the economy or the government.

Predictability, is what we look for in our enemy in a counter insurgency environment and is what the look for in us. Once any predictability is detected it can be exploited to maximum effect.

**TheCurmudgeon** · 12-15-2013

Originally Posted by JMA

In my experience 'change' is only a challenge when it is forced on us. On the other hand if we initiate the change it has the effect of making us feel we are in control and have the initiative. (In a military sense)

True in a small organization, but less so in a large one. Not because of any difference in human nature, just because of the numbers involved. Only so many people can initiate change, all the rest have to have it forced upon them.

Originally Posted by JMA

Predictability, is what we look for in our enemy in a counter insurgency environment and is what the look for in us. Once any predictability is detected it can be exploited to maximum effect.

Again, true on the battlefield but not so true in day-to-day life. You like to know that when you go out to your car and turn the key it is going to start; when you turn on the faucet water comes out; that when you turn on a light it comes on. We like predictability, but you are correct that it can be a lethal in the wrong places.

**Bill Moore** · 12-16-2013

Posted by TheCurmudgeon

Predictability is a large part of why we build social systems like the economy or the government. So we are inclined to prefer what we know instead of embracing what we don't know.

I think everyone is making good points, and ultimately it comes down to finding the right balance. The point about predictability is something Kilcullen addresses at length in his new book where he expands upon a concept called "competitive control." In short, people do desire predictability and rules, which is a key part of the Islamist Strategy articulated in "The Management of Savagery," which may be why AQ extremists and communists were able to establish control relatively quickly compared to Western forces, because they imposed rules that everyone understood, where in some cases we imposed chaos, but that is a separate topic.

To me, I need to do some further research to see if I'm right, creativity means creating some new, so much of what is discussed about military units adapting is more along the lines of being innovative.

Creative examples, include the development of the nuclear bomb, the Air Force as a separate service, unmanned aircraft, etc. Allegedly Henry Ford said if he asked people what they wanted they would have said a faster horse, on one would have a said car because it was outside their ability to perceive such a thing. Creative ideas when implemented disrupt the existing norm. Where innovation generally works within the established system using existing technologies (the combinations of processes and technologies may be new, but that fall short of being creative).

Getting to Bob's point, about civilians in uniform being more creative than regulars this may be true. The OSS did things the regular military couldn't conceive of. In the book, "An Army at Dawn," the first in the trilogy on the war in Europe the author wrote prior to going into North Africa several Army Officers were resistant to the idea of adapting armor, they felt a good horse Calvary unit could defeat Rommel's armor, so it seems apparent we haven't found the balance between being creative and predictability in the military despite claims to the contrary.

**TheCurmudgeon** · 12-16-2013

I agree that there is a valid distinction between creativity and adaptation or innovation. Creativity is rare - it requires thinking in ways that no one before has. Adaptation is simply an improvement on an existing system.

This is particularity important in COIN. It seems like we are stuck trying to improve upon a paradigm that is wrong from the onset ("Hearts and Minds"). The alternative is no better ("Total control of the population"). So we flounder looking for another answer.

How do you really look "outside the box"? How do you get others to see the world as you do?