Leadership Forum: The Creative Leader

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

Prize Winner

Vincent Astor Memorial Leadership Essay Contest

The Creative Leader

By Lieutenant Anthony Kendall, U. S. Navy

,ful

in his new role.² The fast-paced nature of nuclear warfare and terrorism may not be so “forgiving” as to allow unprepare officers the time Admiral Michaelis too to change.                        .

The problem facing junior and seni°^r

Too often the answer is a one-'

the

end. Promulgating standard opera¹ procedures (SOPs), instructions,

[tin?

anb

Successful leaders must be imbued with two types of creative leadership: the first is intuitive creativity, or short-term, tactical creativity, which may be a key element in combat leadership; the second is reflective creativity, or long-term, stra­tegic creativity.

Many times, the officer corps of all ser­vices has been stunned when wars or major crises have broken out. In a crisis, marginal performers become a liability, especially if they hold responsible posi­tions. A general fell victim to the “rou­tine” at the Battle of St. Vith when his command was decimated by a fierce Ger­man counterattack.

“A middle aged man, he had spent his whole life—a quarter of a century of it—preparing for war. Year in, year out, when the Army had been thought of as a refuge for fools or work-shys,

he had plodded through morning P³' rades in the harsh sun of Texas, hike³ through the dusk of midwestem m^a" neuvers, faced the sullen resentfm eyes of the two generations of young soldiers whom he had gigged for curs­ing-out a sergeant or failing to salute- listened to the same old chatter a hun­dred times at officer clubs—to f>^nl out in one short week that he was a failure.”¹

After Pearl Harbor, there was a gr^e3t exodus of career officers who retired when they were needed the most; the war found them unprepared intellectually ¹⁰ cope with the unexpected. The onslaugW of war is like the first snowstorm of ³ bitter winter—the weakest tree branches fall, but the strong ones survive.

An example of a strong officer wh° adapted, survived, and showed reflecti^ve creativity was Admiral F. H. Michael's, When he was a lieutenant, he reevaluate his career and goals after the unexpec^te attack on Pearl Harbor and overcame h'^s fixation with battleship warfare. He he

the

emergence of terrorism, but the proble of dealing with the element of surpr'^se_ More than 100 years ago, Karl ^v°. Clausewitz identified surprise as one the key elements of warfare, and ye¹ still fall prey to it as we did at Pearl H^3f bor and during the bombing of the rines in Beirut. Terrorism is an irrati°³ and therefore unexpected act. Vice ^ ^ miral William P. Lawrence, Chief Naval Personnel, stated that one of challenges facing the Navy is learn'³-, how to deal with international terrorism-

e-W e^eK course with a practical exercise a* ,

erecting barricades at military facil't' throughout the world is only a stip^e^_e cial, somewhat hysterical solution to ^ real problem. Nor is the solution to n>°

94

Proceedings / Ju'k

t|on

tive

Pro,

and verification. During prepara-

the most important stage in the crea- act, raw data are gathered. The

tiv.

e Person has the ability to separate the

^lfy the rules of engagement or create ^m°re computer programs—which are °nly automated man-made algorithms— >o do the thinking for the naval officer. No amount of training, reprimands, or 4e “slaying of scapegoats” will lead to the solution for dealing with the unex- Pocted. More than 40 years ago, Admiral Ernest King provided a clue to the solu- t’°n to this problem in his well-known order prior to World War II:

“There will be neither time nor op­portunity to do more than prescribe the several tasks of the several subor­dinates .... If they are reluctant to act because they are accustomed to detailed orders and instruction—if they are not habituated to think, to judge, to decide and to act for them­selves in their . . . echelons of com­mand—we shall be in sorry case when the time of “active operations” arrives.”^[1]

There are many characteristics which ^Separate a successful leader from an un­^SUccessful one. Moral outlook, intelli- P^er>ce, and determination play important [*^arts; however, the distinction is one’s ^avel of creativity. For example, Union General George McClellan was intelli- Sent and highly respected by his men; yet ^e failed to fully take advantage of tech- ⁿ°*°gy such as the use of railroads for '^creased mobility of forces.

Creative leaders take what less creative perceive as “threats” and use them ^as opportunities and challenges. In deal- jⁿ8 with change and the unexpected, in­digence alone is often not enough; one |"^ust have ‘ ‘creative intelligence.” Crea- ₍^Vlty will not ensure success in adapting new or modified “rules of warfare,” ^ut a noncreative, inflexible officer will 'bust certainly fail.

I order to discuss creativity and how :^s encouragement can pragmatically ^Prove the quality of the naval officer ^0rP$, it must first be defined. Psycholo- i^8ts have described creativity in many j ^terent ways but basically agree that it ' ^a°y process by which something new— ⁿ idea or an object—is produced, in- _ei o'ng a new form or arrangement of old ^ements. The new creation must contrib- ^e to the solution of the problem.^[2] *he process is divided into four basic _tj_o§^es: preparation, incubation, illumina-

^Cess is also referred to as immersion, r)at^aUSC thiuhcr is literally deluged in _ei)c^a- The noncreative person may experi- ^e the same phenomenon, but the crea- significant from the worthless. General Douglas MacArthur spent his earlier years in the Philippines and the Far East gaining experience that served him well during the “crisis years.” For the young naval officer today, the Naval Academy, Officer Candidate School, or the Reserve Officer Training Corps is the foundation for gathering data. His experiences dur­ing midshipman cruises should serve him well in the 21st century if he is able to discern the useful from the worthless.

Incubation is the least understood and most controversial stage of creativity. The term means to hatch, to develop, or to take form. The meaning suggests a time of unconscious work or a period spent away from the problem, dropping preconceptions concerning the method of solution.

Incubation seems to be present intui­tively, although there is no solid evidence to support this. There have been several attempts to prove the existence of incuba­tion, but most studies have been unsuc­cessful. One study tested for the exis­tence of several possible factors for incubation: free incubation, a pause from trying to solve the problem; demanding cognitive work, shifting a person’s direc­tion to other concerns; active review, a belief that absence from a problem forces a person to remember forgotten but im­portant ideas; set breaking, breaking an unproductive set or overcoming a fixa­tion; stress reduction, failing to solve a problem because of too much pressure or motivation; and visual analogies, a claim that incubation occurs because an event is analogous to the solution of the prob­lem.^[3] The introspective naval officer may not be unproductive after all; he may be developing principles that will someday contribute to the well-being of the coun­try and the Navy.

Illumination is a sudden insight into the problem. Elements that precipitate insight include intense but unsuccessful work on the problem, a time interval be­tween working on the problem and final illumination, and, finally, a chance moment of reflection which brings the person back to the previous problem. This hiatus can sometimes bring about dramatic results. Scottish inventor James Watt worked unsuccessfully for two years on the development of a condenser for the Newcomen steam engine. Then, one day, while taking a Sunday walk, he came up with the solution in a matter of minutes.^[4] Before the Battle of Midway, Com­mander Joseph J. Rochefort from the Combat Intelligence Unit at Pearl Harbor came up with the idea of sending a clear­text bogus message to be intercepted by the Japanese saying that Midway’s fresh­water machinery had broken down. From intercepted and decoded messages, it was discovered that the Japanese were plan­ning an attack on the nebulous “AF.” The Navy confirmed “AF” meant Mid­way when a subsequent Japanese mes­sage, in reaction to the fake message, reported that “AF” was low on fresh­water.^[5] This small creative act contrib­uted to the final victory at Midway.

Verification is essential, because it brings an idea from the theory of the mind to the rigors of reality. Verification tests the solution’s value. Unfortunately, verification may come too late. Pearl Harbor verified in a tragic manner what some officers had been saying for years— that Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to air attack.

Behaviorists believe the most promis­ing way to increase creativity is by con­structing an environment that nurtures and encourages the creative individual. Creativity can be fostered by “reinforce­ment of selected behaviors and shaping to progressively higher levels.”^[6] Superiors can provide leadership not only by exam­ple but also by teaching. Some officers confuse enigmatism with leadership. Yet, a true leader should foster creative behav­ior by explaining his own decision-mak­ing processes. He should aggressively seek out and critique his subordinates’ creative processes and encourage them to develop the same in their own junior offi­cers. SOPs, instructions, and regulations are not providing junior officers the needed “reinforcement of selected be­haviors.” “Teachers,” not cult leaders, are needed to prepare today’s junior offi­cers to be tomorrow’s leaders.

A major hindrance to creativity is con­formity, which is defined as involving loss of self-reliance and undermining the creative powers by emphasizing the out­side environment over the individual’s own thought process and imagination. We must not have a corps of officers who “. . . know how to conform but not create, interpret but not innovate.”^[7]

Conformity could be one reason why officers generally score low on creativity tests. Research tends to substantiate this hypothesis; officers also usually score high in conformity.^[8]

Officers who are nonconformists often do not advance in their careers, because nonconformity in an officer is often con­fused with counter-conformity. Creative, nonconformist officers do not strive for the superficial goal of difference for its own sake or for its notoriety. Generally, they are not martyrs but pragmatists who seek change to improve the organization. Researchers report that creative people tend to have a higher tolerance for ambi-

95

°^Cecd'nRs / July 1984

off"¹'

they depend upon for guidance. An

‘C. Whiting, Decision at St. Vith (New York: Ball³¹¹

idfo"

213­

198⁴-

rsity

1965)

(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

pro'

guity, unusual problem-solving tech­niques, and unique approaches to solving a problem.¹²

Organizational structure can be a nega­tive environmental influence that can “institutionalize” conformity. Detrimen­tal effects may be found in the following aspects of the naval environment: spe­cialization, because in striving for effi­ciency and stability, the Navy tends to go to the extreme and isolates officers from the “big picture”; departmentalization, which is good to a certain extent, but it can also limit channels of information; structuralization, because even though a military structure is needed, it can exert great pressure on individuals to perform, thereby reducing creativity.

Even if the environment is not truly conformist, it can still be detrimental to the officer if he feels that his surround­ings warrant his conformance. Thus, he spends much of his time trying to con­form. Conformity can alienate the crea­tive individual from the group and in so doing limit his information channels.

The assumption has been that creativ­ity is a desirable quality in the officer corps. Is creative talent really needed in the military and is it easily recognized? Historically, people fail to recognize cre­ative individuals. As an outside example, research found that a group of future teachers rejected as undesirable a list of traits presented to them; yet, the list was developed by consulting people identified as creative. Naval leaders are teachers and can also fail to recognize or appreci­ate creative potential. A former superin­tendent of a military academy, responsi­ble for the creative development of future leaders, stated, “Success or failure in battle with the Fleet is in no way depend­ent upon a knowledge of biology, geol­ogy, ethics, social science, the literature of foreign languages, or the fine arts.”¹³ Years ago, a superior officer of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan’s stated in refer­ence to Mahan, “It is not the business of a Naval officer to write books.”¹⁴ If Admiral Mahan had been encouraged more by his superiors, how many more junior officers might he have inspired to greatness?

When creativity is either scorned or not recognized, there are disastrous results;

►  Admiral Mahan was ignored by many Americans but not by the Japanese, who used many of his principles to the grief of the United States; his writings also influ­enced Kaiser Wilhelm II’s decision to build a powerful German Navy.

►  Rocket pioneer Robert Goddard was ridiculed as a “moon man” in the United States; yet the development of the Ger­man V-2 was aided by his early plans.

The following include policies which the Navy should continue supporting and additional recommendations needed to nurture and increase creative output:

Sponsor Creativity: Creative people may not communicate their results be­cause they are not necessarily skillful in verbal communication. A superior officer can use his power as a sponsor and advo­cate by acting aggressively and decisively as a “teacher” to aid in the development of a junior officer’s communications skills.

Decrease Specialization in War Col­leges and Graduate Schools: Creativity flourishes in a theoretical environment. Emphasis should be on the idea behind the “hardware,” not on the hardware it­self. The specialized training should be taught in such courses before the officer enters a war college or graduate school.

Constant Reevaluation of the Organi­zational Structure: Without violating the chain of command, a more informal com­munication should be encouraged be­tween the departments at the squadron or ship level. Frequently, a junior officer may only have one or two jobs in his first tour; however, a good skipper will ensure that the junior officer learns about the tasks and responsibilities of other depart­ments. The commanding officer should avoid “rewarding” the outstanding ju­nior officer by keeping him in one billet during his entire tour.

Study the Effects of Officer Training: Training includes the Naval Academy, Officer Candidate School, and the Re­serve Officer Training Corps. Identify when conformity is essential and elimi­nate it when it is not.

Invest in Creative Production: Short periods of time should be allowed for special projects; idle time is an essential element in creativity. If all of an officer’s time is devoted to working on the mun­dane and the routine, the mundane and routine will probably be all he produces. A commanding officer should encourage creative production by assigning a prom­ising junior officer two weeks to do any­thing that he believes will aid squadron or ship operations. This unstructured and vague task will challenge the junior offi­cer to think. The ship’s operations could well be improved by the infusion of new ideas. To encourage the junior officer to solve problems and make critical judg­ments, the commanding or executive of­ficer could also develop non-routine sce­narios that require command decisions to challenge the junior officers to come up with solutions. The commanding officer may also learn from this exercise.

Expand Information Channels: The “need to know” principle should be ree­valuated. Also, there should be less con­cern with money restrictions on important conferences. The junior officer should be sent to important meetings—if only ¹⁰ listen. More bibliographical data should be developed, both intra-community and inter-community. The Navy should con­tinue sponsoring and encouraging the use of tactical journals among the warfare communities.

Recognize Creative Officers: The United States should never lose one of >^ts major military advantages over the Soviet Union—U. S. officers are more imagin³' tive and creative than their Soviet count­erparts, who are often inflexible.

Ultimately, a civilian government ap' proves defense policy, but it is extremely dependent upon wise counsel from the services. The results of conformity an lack of insight were demonstrated by th^e poor performance of the military leader^­ship in providing the civilian government with an accurate picture of the situation during the Vietnam War, the Iranian hos^­tage situation, and the Beirut bombing- Conformists work nicely in the milim^ system, but they fall apart in a crisis, be^­cause a crisis is usually unexpected an causes an upheaval in the very system cer, no matter what his rank, who has ³ myopic view of the world, is neither an asset nor a leader. ^{[9] [10] [11] 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 * [12]}