Your post reminded me of Richard Farson's book, "Management of the Absurd." Farson's big ideas are: the opposite is likely true; hold your judgment and listen; act on what you see not what conventional wisdom tells you is there.
When I read your post, I recalled a section of the book where Farson describes how managers say they want "divergent" thinkers but what they really want is: "more of what they already have." I synthesized the ideas as: "managers don't want net new creativity, they want manageable creativity."
Knowing that you're a reader and a leader, you might find that book full of useful insights.
Excellent read. I can’t find the quote from a German General in WWII while discussing how they fought and what to expect from the different Allied Countries they faced. The Germans studied all the opposing countries manuals, but commented that the Americans don’t follow their own manuals and fight like hell so they’re the hardest to fight. Of course we are a very different army now, hell we’ve gone through a few giant changes since then, but I can’t help but feel like we lost something when we got so regimented and compliant. Francis Merion or Pappy Boyington wouldn’t make O-3 in today’s military, hell neither would Patton.
Very interesting discussion and great article Austin. I did 2 years in Afghan and 2 in Iraq. I think I’m lots of ways those wars are tougher on the guys because we take casualties and can’t get into a decent gunfight unless you break some rules. That’s frustrating for the young guys.
Scrolling down through my stack feed I saw your comment on your old piece Standards and it triggered a thought. A longtime friend and colleague, Merle Robinson, is fond of sharing his cogent observation that the US Government is designed to guarantee delivery of a mediocre level of service to the American public. Obviously, to deliberately deliver less than mediocre would not be fair to taxpayers while delivering outstanding service to every member of the American public would demand unacceptably high tax rates to fund such levels of service. I was delighted several years ago to capture the words of a U.S. Army Major that “we have plans so that we know what we are deviating from” which captured an approach to military operations that I personally date back to the Prussians (as we do with so many things military). Unable to field an army commander of a level equal to Napoleon, the Prussians looked to support their field commanders with staff who had graduated from their new Kriegsakademie to help commanders think and decide things - in the hope that their army commanders might suck less. So most of the time this is what modern armies do, they try to suck less than their opponents and hopefully achieve those momentary levels of genius that deliver victories worthy of memorializing endlessly by historians. But this requires that an army be placed in a war and on a battlefield where military victory is both possible and decisive. Such battlefields were not to be found in Iraq or Afghanistan and possibly not, at least for an American Army, in Vietnam.
Great insights. So much of what you wrote rings so truly clear. As a, now retired, former leader in a less lethal profession (wildland fire), I wish I had been more self aware of my divergent thinker instincts, conscious of how to utilize them, and in a more covert manner. It would have a) circumvented many internal conflicts and b) allowed for more successful accomplishment of the needed outcomes.
Lot of parallels in the civilian world! I used to chuckle when my clients told me they wanted to recruit an executive who was "a highly motivated, entrepreneurial rock star who can think outside the box to bring creative solutions to life and leap frog the competition!" Sometimes giving them a few questions to consider helped them really see if they wanted a maverick for the role, or just a "steady Eddy" to do the job. I'd ask - how would you support this person - do you have a budget to invest in the approach? Are you willing to jettison some of your old-way employees and hire new ones who have the skills to operate in the new reality this person will create? Can you see yourself (the CEO) going to the board to fight for these changes? Can you see yourself communicating this new strategy to the marketplace and Wall Street? And have you thought about how you would reward this person...because people who drive big changes don't respond well to a 3% salary bump, especially if they have doubled your stock price or tripled your market share. For Army leaders, I'd coach them to consider what they would (or wouldn't do) to support a maverick.
Sometimes. I'm not the most creative person, but i am always looking for the "best answer" to a problem, even if that means following the SOP. I see value in established protocols, but if it's not working or i see a problem, i want to make corrections. But leadership doesn't like people who ask questions, which is something i do naturally. By nature and by nurture i have developed a strong rebellious streak. That said, my experience in the Army taught me the value of teamwork and following orders. But when those orders don't bear out good results, or my experience can see such orders playing out badly, i speak up. It's not been good for my career either in the military or civilian life.
What is your experience working with divergent thinkers?
Personally i admire creative people who think "outside the box." And often, i am jealous of their abilities.
What do you think is the conventional view of divergent thinkers?
It's just like you say. It's all lip service. Leadership always says they want people to think creatively, but in truth, it's threatening to them.
Do you think the conventional rhetoric about divergent thinkers matches the conventional treatment of divergent thinkers?
Nope, you have described EXACTLY my personal experiences or what i have witnessed in the military and civilian domains. Across both, only loyal followers are valued.
I do consider myself a divergent thinker, but as you recommend, most divergent thinkers do in fact try to fly under the radar. I don't want people recognizing my "momentary level of genius" because it becomes a "shoving toothpaste back into the tube" situation.
I'm gathering from your post that the military views divergence like the rest of normative society, as a hindrance, to be called upon when needed but 'lets not be too loud' about it. Many leaders claim they want real outside-the-box thinking, but when that box is opened, there is more than just the ideas that go along with it. These divergent thoughts and epiphanies are part of a personality. Convergent thinkers want the divergent thinking presented IN A NEAT LITTLE BOX. Hence, putting the toothpaste back in the tube. If you have trouble handling the mess, then don't squeeze the tube.
I can relate to this. I see myself as a divergent thinker and have frequently found myself frustrated by needing to 'hide my light under a bushel', so to speak. I try to keep an eye out for Kairos - when that window of opportunity for divergent thinking opens - in organisations it's all about holding back and waiting for the right time to unleash.
The Army and the military exist to fight wars, not win them.
Notice how the Americans knew everything about the enemy and weren’t allowed to touch them.
Meanwhile at CENTCOM “We can’t find them.”
Said the LTC I knew when I bought up our record, there’s the convergence.
Sad and hilarious, we saw the enemy every day, usually on a routine. We caught and released to the point where I thought we should give the enemy swipe cards.
"Being divergent is only really necessary when the organization has converged in the wrong direction." I agree. I would also add that it is also necessary in an area that is new enough that there is no clear convergence. Divergence is necessary to test out options to allow convergence on a good solution. Which is pretty messy, because there are more wrong ways to do something than right ways.
Talking around about divergent thinkers won't make most people diverge. Divergence is born. Talking serves as a form of glorifying this trait. To want it and not allow it might be good for business. It is a tease.
To the divergent mind: do you not recognize authority?
When fighting wars, physical or spiritual, the soldier is under authority. It is the authority of the Commander, be it man or the Most High, that motivates the whole fight.
Under the limitations of the bureaucratic systems, the talents of man are shaped and boxed as you state above. Talking about them serves to manage your inner man, a psych 101.
Under the blueprints that direct fighting spiritual wars, man's talents are incouraged. All talents are welcome and yield is expected.
All under authority, each one different pursuing the same goal. Imagine this army. Laying eyes on this battleplan.
To be of one mindedness, by consent, without monetary gain, to exercise your will and your strength in various degrees adapting to the field. Wars from within carry the same principles and tactics as those merely certified by blood and fiat currency.
I agree with the principle of "give me a lever long enough." History has proved it. Ancient blueprints too.
To be able to look by your side and see Themistocles fight at sea next to you is what encourages the soul. Cause pertinent over time.
The sadness of your numbers is the very success of your cause.
Your post reminded me of Richard Farson's book, "Management of the Absurd." Farson's big ideas are: the opposite is likely true; hold your judgment and listen; act on what you see not what conventional wisdom tells you is there.
When I read your post, I recalled a section of the book where Farson describes how managers say they want "divergent" thinkers but what they really want is: "more of what they already have." I synthesized the ideas as: "managers don't want net new creativity, they want manageable creativity."
Knowing that you're a reader and a leader, you might find that book full of useful insights.
Excellent read. I can’t find the quote from a German General in WWII while discussing how they fought and what to expect from the different Allied Countries they faced. The Germans studied all the opposing countries manuals, but commented that the Americans don’t follow their own manuals and fight like hell so they’re the hardest to fight. Of course we are a very different army now, hell we’ve gone through a few giant changes since then, but I can’t help but feel like we lost something when we got so regimented and compliant. Francis Merion or Pappy Boyington wouldn’t make O-3 in today’s military, hell neither would Patton.
Very interesting discussion and great article Austin. I did 2 years in Afghan and 2 in Iraq. I think I’m lots of ways those wars are tougher on the guys because we take casualties and can’t get into a decent gunfight unless you break some rules. That’s frustrating for the young guys.
CW3, USA, Ret.
Scrolling down through my stack feed I saw your comment on your old piece Standards and it triggered a thought. A longtime friend and colleague, Merle Robinson, is fond of sharing his cogent observation that the US Government is designed to guarantee delivery of a mediocre level of service to the American public. Obviously, to deliberately deliver less than mediocre would not be fair to taxpayers while delivering outstanding service to every member of the American public would demand unacceptably high tax rates to fund such levels of service. I was delighted several years ago to capture the words of a U.S. Army Major that “we have plans so that we know what we are deviating from” which captured an approach to military operations that I personally date back to the Prussians (as we do with so many things military). Unable to field an army commander of a level equal to Napoleon, the Prussians looked to support their field commanders with staff who had graduated from their new Kriegsakademie to help commanders think and decide things - in the hope that their army commanders might suck less. So most of the time this is what modern armies do, they try to suck less than their opponents and hopefully achieve those momentary levels of genius that deliver victories worthy of memorializing endlessly by historians. But this requires that an army be placed in a war and on a battlefield where military victory is both possible and decisive. Such battlefields were not to be found in Iraq or Afghanistan and possibly not, at least for an American Army, in Vietnam.
Great insights. So much of what you wrote rings so truly clear. As a, now retired, former leader in a less lethal profession (wildland fire), I wish I had been more self aware of my divergent thinker instincts, conscious of how to utilize them, and in a more covert manner. It would have a) circumvented many internal conflicts and b) allowed for more successful accomplishment of the needed outcomes.
Lot of parallels in the civilian world! I used to chuckle when my clients told me they wanted to recruit an executive who was "a highly motivated, entrepreneurial rock star who can think outside the box to bring creative solutions to life and leap frog the competition!" Sometimes giving them a few questions to consider helped them really see if they wanted a maverick for the role, or just a "steady Eddy" to do the job. I'd ask - how would you support this person - do you have a budget to invest in the approach? Are you willing to jettison some of your old-way employees and hire new ones who have the skills to operate in the new reality this person will create? Can you see yourself (the CEO) going to the board to fight for these changes? Can you see yourself communicating this new strategy to the marketplace and Wall Street? And have you thought about how you would reward this person...because people who drive big changes don't respond well to a 3% salary bump, especially if they have doubled your stock price or tripled your market share. For Army leaders, I'd coach them to consider what they would (or wouldn't do) to support a maverick.
Do you consider yourself a “divergent thinker?”
Sometimes. I'm not the most creative person, but i am always looking for the "best answer" to a problem, even if that means following the SOP. I see value in established protocols, but if it's not working or i see a problem, i want to make corrections. But leadership doesn't like people who ask questions, which is something i do naturally. By nature and by nurture i have developed a strong rebellious streak. That said, my experience in the Army taught me the value of teamwork and following orders. But when those orders don't bear out good results, or my experience can see such orders playing out badly, i speak up. It's not been good for my career either in the military or civilian life.
What is your experience working with divergent thinkers?
Personally i admire creative people who think "outside the box." And often, i am jealous of their abilities.
What do you think is the conventional view of divergent thinkers?
It's just like you say. It's all lip service. Leadership always says they want people to think creatively, but in truth, it's threatening to them.
Do you think the conventional rhetoric about divergent thinkers matches the conventional treatment of divergent thinkers?
Nope, you have described EXACTLY my personal experiences or what i have witnessed in the military and civilian domains. Across both, only loyal followers are valued.
Regarding divergent thinkers:
“You better get me Johnny Dean, Liz Butsky, and the Fad King.”
I do consider myself a divergent thinker, but as you recommend, most divergent thinkers do in fact try to fly under the radar. I don't want people recognizing my "momentary level of genius" because it becomes a "shoving toothpaste back into the tube" situation.
I'm gathering from your post that the military views divergence like the rest of normative society, as a hindrance, to be called upon when needed but 'lets not be too loud' about it. Many leaders claim they want real outside-the-box thinking, but when that box is opened, there is more than just the ideas that go along with it. These divergent thoughts and epiphanies are part of a personality. Convergent thinkers want the divergent thinking presented IN A NEAT LITTLE BOX. Hence, putting the toothpaste back in the tube. If you have trouble handling the mess, then don't squeeze the tube.
I can relate to this. I see myself as a divergent thinker and have frequently found myself frustrated by needing to 'hide my light under a bushel', so to speak. I try to keep an eye out for Kairos - when that window of opportunity for divergent thinking opens - in organisations it's all about holding back and waiting for the right time to unleash.
He’s more forgiving than me.
Which doesn’t make him right, sadly.
The Army and the military exist to fight wars, not win them.
Notice how the Americans knew everything about the enemy and weren’t allowed to touch them.
Meanwhile at CENTCOM “We can’t find them.”
Said the LTC I knew when I bought up our record, there’s the convergence.
Sad and hilarious, we saw the enemy every day, usually on a routine. We caught and released to the point where I thought we should give the enemy swipe cards.
Agree.
Disagree-
But DL
"Being divergent is only really necessary when the organization has converged in the wrong direction." I agree. I would also add that it is also necessary in an area that is new enough that there is no clear convergence. Divergence is necessary to test out options to allow convergence on a good solution. Which is pretty messy, because there are more wrong ways to do something than right ways.
Talking around about divergent thinkers won't make most people diverge. Divergence is born. Talking serves as a form of glorifying this trait. To want it and not allow it might be good for business. It is a tease.
To the divergent mind: do you not recognize authority?
When fighting wars, physical or spiritual, the soldier is under authority. It is the authority of the Commander, be it man or the Most High, that motivates the whole fight.
Under the limitations of the bureaucratic systems, the talents of man are shaped and boxed as you state above. Talking about them serves to manage your inner man, a psych 101.
Under the blueprints that direct fighting spiritual wars, man's talents are incouraged. All talents are welcome and yield is expected.
All under authority, each one different pursuing the same goal. Imagine this army. Laying eyes on this battleplan.
To be of one mindedness, by consent, without monetary gain, to exercise your will and your strength in various degrees adapting to the field. Wars from within carry the same principles and tactics as those merely certified by blood and fiat currency.
I agree with the principle of "give me a lever long enough." History has proved it. Ancient blueprints too.
To be able to look by your side and see Themistocles fight at sea next to you is what encourages the soul. Cause pertinent over time.
The sadness of your numbers is the very success of your cause.