This article is the seventh and the last part of a seven article series on neglecting versus using goal oriented creativity management principles.
These articles have a common thread that is related to CreativityModel Method usage. From a teenager to an employee, to president of a company or a country - CreativityModel Method usage principles are the same. So, your learning to use them is worth the effort, because you can use these creativity management skills throughout your life.
Both Version 1 and 2 are examples of projects that require goal oriented handling. Each Version 1 is an example of a scenario where goal oriented creativity principles should be used, but are not being used. This creates consequences. That's just the way life is, whether we like it or not.
Each Version 2 is the same scenario, except that this time goal oriented creativity is being used. The consequences are different, too.
The participants and the circumstances that this article describes are the same as in The President, Version 1 - Some of It Did Happen article. The difference is, that this article focuses on goal oriented task handling.
Lack of personal experience or expertise in the relevant subject matters was not the reason that led to the problems described in The President, Version 1 - Some of It Did Happen article. A leader or manager in charge, who has any relevant resources, can use other people's expertise as needed. Nowadays, an average person with access to the Internet can find relevant information in most areas. The President of the United States has a wealth of sophisticated relevant expertise and resources available to him. These resources, when used correctly, can produce high quality expertise and solutions.
Lack of relevant reasonably accurate information was not the problem either. It is known that the relevant reasonably accurate information did exist and was made available to the President.
Further, especially in politics, the person in charge always has to deal with people who peddle their own interests and misguided beliefs. That's just the nature of that line of work.
The way the person in charge - the President - made the decisions is the source of the problems. I am not blaming the person here. I am blaming the structure of the decision making methods that he used.
Anybody can fall into the same trap - but we can also learn to avoid this and the problems that ensue. So, that's the point that this article and other articles in this series make.
The pre-Iraq war analysis that is presented below is realistic - nothing, including information that was available, would have presented the participants from approaching the relevant topics in a similar manner.
However, it is unlikely, that the President of the United States would actually give a speech similar to the one described below to his cabinet members and advisors. So, unlike The President, Version 1, this part, The President, Version 2, is fictional. Nevertheless, the underlying theme that ties together these two articles and the rest of the articles in this series, is very real: in most situations usage of goal oriented creative thinking skills leads to different outcome than usage of choice supported creative thinking skills does.
More specifically, it is very likely, that usage of goal oriented creative thinking skills, in situations that require goal oriented handling, leads to different conclusions than usage of choice supported creative thinking skills does. These conclusions are the underpinnings that influence behavior and actions as well.
The circumstances described here are very challenging and difficult to handle. Goal oriented creativity usage can make task handling substantially more manageable.
Because of the relevance, I will repeat here the introductory statements that accompany Version 1 part of this article.
I try to write all the articles on this website without offending anybody. The same applies to this article, and to The President, Version 1 - Some of It Did Happen article as well. So, I have to emphasize that the objective of having the three sets of Version 1 and Version 2 articles is not to compare the President of the United States to a teenager or a business manager. The President's job is immensely more complex and difficult than any business manager's job is.
The objective of these articles is to show how creativity management problems can occur in every area of life. This means, that in every area of life people can learn to handle their creative thinking skills so, that they reduce the probability of having creativity management problems and increase the probability of producing results that benefit them and other people.
If choice supported creativity is used when and where goal oriented creativity should be used, problems will occur regardless of the involved individuals age, gender, wealth, profession, nationality, or any other socio-economic variables.
The bigger is the decision maker's sphere of influence, the bigger can the problems become as well.
Creative thinking skills management can be learned and trained. Neither goal oriented creativity, nor choice supported creativity is difficult to learn.
At the time of writing this article the problem is that the relevant, convenient-to-use learning and training materials are needed, but do not exist yet. So, this issue needs attention. I am hoping to find people who want to do some work in this area, and to relate their professional development to development of creativity management as an industry.
Just like in The President, Version 1 - Some of It Did Happen, please try to imagine that you - yes, you - are the President of the Unites States of America. No matter how strange this may seem, please do try to think with me. If you do, it will become clearer why all of this matters to you personally.
The country that you love and currently govern has been through extremely tragic times. Different types of emotional wounds are fresh. Threats, problems and challenges have to be handled on an ongoing bases.
You have learned to use goal oriented creativity principles, thought things through and decided, how you want to handle the current difficult circumstances.
You ask both senior cabinet members and also your extended team of advisors to join you in a meeting for discussing the way you want to handle project management. It's a relatively formal meeting.
"I asked you to join me here so that I can explain my views and preferences for handling the challenges that we are facing.
In the lack of clearly stated policy, we are starting to pull in different directions and that is a troubling sign. For example, the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon seem to be moving in different directions regarding their handling of terrorist threats and problems with Iraq. We cannot afford that. We have to join our forces and focus fighting the terrorists, who are our actual enemies.
Equally importantly, we cannot afford to move forward so, that we handle goal oriented tasks self-expressively. Conflicts between the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon are good examples here, because these issues are motivated by distrust, fear of getting misguided information and advice, anger over past experiences and personal competitiveness. All of these emotions can be very motivating. However, if we base our actions and entire institutions actions that we lead on such motivating forces, we end up wasting resources and creating problems in the process. If, instead, we are motivated by asking what exactly we need to achieve and what are the best ways to achieve these objectives, we will end up with different and much better outcome.
Further, conflict resolution in general should not be handled self-expressively. Conflict resolution should be handled in a goal oriented manner, through asking what it is that we truly want to achieve and through seeking answers to this question.
So, above all, we will handle in the goal oriented manner every instance where we have to set and achieve goals or objectives. This will be the key to pulling together and managing our forces. I will explain briefly what I mean by this and why we need to use this approach."
"Whenever you want my approval for something that needs to be done, please present the information to me in the following format.
Present me a summary, up to one page long, starting with the descriptive theme of the project, followed by the project's goals or objectives.
Next should be an outline of the project's structure, that is, the main structural parts or milestones of the project. Preferably this structure is presented in preceding order from the goals to the starting point, so that I can follow and check out your logic of drawing conclusions and putting together action plans.
Together with the summary please present me a more detailed description of the project's structure, and the relevant supporting material about the resource needs and timeframe involved."
"First of all, I will look if your project's goals and the way you intend to achieve these goals make sense to me.
In our current circumstances, our national security is the top area of concern. Recently, Iraq and the potential threats that Saddam Hussein poses to our national security have been addressed with increasing frequency. So, different sources suggest that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power.
I asked for war plans with Iraq. In response, after the preparatory work was done, I was told that the plan is that the combined forces of our army will defeat the Iraqi army, will remove Saddam Hussein from power, will hand over the country's governance to an interim Iraqi government and to the United Nations peacekeepers and will leave the country.
My question is: How do these steps fit together in your opinion? What comes after what?
Let's say that our objective is that our forces leave the country after we have handed over the country to an interim Iraqi government and to the United Nations peacekeepers.
This means, that we must be absolutely certain that we can hand over military operations to the United Nations peacekeepers, and that the Iraqis will accept the interim Iraqi government and want to be governed that way at least temporarily.
How can we make such assumptions? Based on what?
We know already, how leery the United Nations is about getting involved in Iraqi regime change. If our plans rely on them taking over in Iraq, it means that our plan is absolutely dependent on that and we cannot do anything before we are absolutely certain that this will indeed happen. However, when we deal with the United Nations, we cannot ever be certain of anything. Even if different strategically important countries would support us initially, we cannot rely on them actually acting when we need them to act and to send in their peacekeeping forces.
Similarly, we may like the interim Iraqi government idea, but how can we be certain that the Iraqis will like that? If we will try to put in place a governing institution forcefully, we will be simply creating a mess and at the best another dictatorship, instead of liberating Iraq from dictatorship as we want to do.
The problem with the previous plan is that it tries to end the project in the middle of it. Any time when you try to do that, you end up with a project that does not work for intended objectives and goals.
It is better to find out such project development problems already during the project planning phase, instead of implementing the project and finding out that the planned steps do not lead to the expected outcome.
So, here's an example of Iraqi invasion plan that could work and is presented in a goal oriented manner.
I am providing this example as part of my explaining to you how I want you to think through the necessary tasks and steps of the plan before you submit the action plan to me.
Please note, that before we will implement any plan, we also must have evidence that Saddam Hussein is posing the kind of threat that requires military intervention. Such evidence must be evaluated above all by the CIA and the State Department. I will seek guidance from other independent sources as well.
Because Saddam Hussein is actively threatening our national security we have to remove his regime from power. Simultaneously, we will put in place conditions that allow Iraqis to elect their government in a manner that they prefer. After elections, and when the socio-economic conditions in Iraq are sufficiently stable, our forces will leave Iraq. We will define, what we mean by "sufficiently stable" in this context.
Removal of Saddam Hussein regime and implementation of conditions that result in Iraq that is stable, independent and does not pose threats to any other country.
I will present the milestones to you from goals to the starting point, that is, from the last to the first.
"The above is just an example of the information that the milestones, or the main structural parts of the project should contain. I have provided here long and elaborated explanations for each part. Normally, in the one page summary I would expect you to provide me much shorter structural parts in sequence, and then detailed information in the accompanying materials."
"When I review your implementation progress, I will look whether or not the planned milestone objectives are achieved. Changes to the milestone objectives should be coordinated with the project managers.
For example, if we were to invade Iraq, as Commander-in-Chief, I will be the project manager. We will put in place a much more detailed plan. People on the ground can decide how to best achieve each milestone's objectives. However, if the project leaders who are in charge want to make changes to the previously agreed on milestone goals, they have to run such changes by me prior to making them. Other than that, we will combine having milestone goals with the project implementation flexibility. Each involved person should be aware of these operational principles and aspects of project implementation.
We will discuss and specify all of this in detail as needed."
"The method that I just described to you is simply a decision making and management tool that I will use. So, nobody should take this personally.
People are more fallible than the management methods are. We are all subject to all sorts of prejudices and influences that we have to try to manage. None of us is perfect and we can all make mistakes. Using applicable decision making methods and management tools helps to stay more objective and prepare better for the needed actions."
"Plans will change in the battle. Plans are needed for forming a comprehensive and realistic understandings of what to expect and for communicating project and milestone goals and objectives. People who implement the plans should have sufficient decision making room for flexible implementation of each milestone's objectives.
The more important a project is and the more complicated the project-related circumstances are, the more important it is to handle the project in a goal oriented manner. If during the project planning stages you think through the milestones and steps from the goals towards the starting point, and consult with people who possess the relevant expertise and experience, it is much more likely that you will form comprehensive and realistic understandings of what you will be dealing with during the project implementation stages.
If you think through the milestones and steps in the opposite order, from the starting point towards the goals, the probability will be higher that you end up with a plan that is based on wishful thinking rather than on comprehensive and realistic understanding of what to expect and prepare for."
"I am addressing here project management from creative thinking management perspective, but this is not an exercise in project management or in creative thinking management. The scope of the topics that we are addressing is much broader. Further, I would not waste your time or mine on asking you to this meeting, so that I can explain to you some trivial or abstract topics. The topics that I am addressing here with you today will produce different results compared to what we have been doing so far, because the people who are in the key positions will start working differently - or they will have to be replaced. Again, please don't take this personally.
So, people who use the right methods produce different results.
Whenever you manage or govern, you can use two approaches - choice supported and goal oriented ones.
That is, you can make individual decisions independently of each other, based on whatever seems right at the moment, or you can make the decisions in a goal oriented manner. Further, you can let each involved part of the administration or an organization to make their own choices in every relevant area without any common theme and goals, or you can focus on goals and objectives that have to be achieved. Most of the time we use combinations of the two approaches. The important part of this is to know, which approach to use when and where.
In many instances the entire government can, at least temporarily, operate with minimum amounts of presidential coordination, so that each branch and part of the government chooses what it focuses on, and carries out its own agendas.
When we have a crisis, we need focus and concentration in order to solve the crisis most effectively. In crisis, we cannot afford that these parts of the government that should work together, towards common goals and objectives, instead pull in different directions. Internal fighting and lack of collaboration reduces our effectiveness and also results in an inefficient usage of resources."
"Even during the normal and peaceful times, having different parts of the government working together can help us to reduce our expenditures, and the size of the government. On the other hand, lack of collaboration, internal fighting, redundancies and intentional duplication of the functions that are performed increase expenditures.
However, in crisis effective collaboration becomes a necessity.
If you have a crisis, focus on solving it. The bigger the crisis, the more functionality areas and institutions have to collaborate for the common goals.
For example, during the normal and peaceful times we would limit how closely we will work with the media.
However, during the war times we may want to work with different institutions in the society, including the media, so that we can provide more information in different forms to the general public.
"Loose lips sink ships" during the Second World War and patriotic movies, music and songs, articles, poetry and so on are examples of this. However, we are far from the Second World War conditions and, of course, we hope that as a society we never have to experience them again.
Of course, we must reserve the free media and the freedom of speech in crisis as well.
All the constitutional rights have to remain in place, of course.
So, focus does not mean elimination of the dissenting voices. Focus does not mean that any form of dictatorship is acceptable.
Focus, means clarifying the objectives and the ways we can achieve the objectives, agreeing on the steps that will be taken and contributing in the agreed on manner towards achieving the goals."
"I do not expect anyone here to know everything. That is not your role or responsibility, but your role and responsibilities involve knowing and finding out what expertise is needed, and using the necessary expertise.
Crisis is not the time for political or personal favoritism. We have to put aside prejudices and use most qualified expertise and sources available.
This also is not the right time for starting new and experimental divisions or projects that are not related to your core expertise and experience.
I am referring here to Pentagon's collecting intelligence and pushing it up the channels in order to prove that Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction.
It is the CIA's job to collect and analyze such material.
When I say that somebody is entrepreneurial, then that's a compliment.
However, entrepreneurial people tend to be self-reliant, are less likely to ask for advice, and often prefer action and selling to market research. Under favorable conditions this can yield results, but under adverse conditions this approach increases the probability of failure.
We have similar tendencies here and we have to learn to manage them.
At the same time, theoreticians prefer continuous analyzing of information to taking action.
We don't want to go to that extreme either - but we do want to incorporate input from different sources into our decision making processes.
Further, narrowly relying on internally generated data and refusing to be open minded about other institutions views may mislead the decision makers. That can have rather drastic consequences as well.
So, in summary, we all have to acknowledge our roles and limitations and use expertise and experience for filling in the blanks."
"In the printed material that was handed out to you today are listed sources of additional information on the concepts that I presented here. Of course, feedback is very welcome.
I believe that we need to implement the goal oriented project development principles, and the need to do so is urgent. In crisis, our country needs us to be united in our efforts. Therefore, we cannot afford to prolong the problems between the Defense Department and the CIA, the State Department and the National Security Advisor, and also between our government and our allays.
So, if you have any reservations on the goal oriented project development principles, please present them within 2 weeks.
Thereafter, I expect you all, and people who work for the institutions that you are heading, to abide by the principles that we agree on, and to implement the steps that will be agreed on.
Not supporting the agreed on directions in crisis and using government's resources for running any kind of personal agenda will be completely unacceptable.
Once we have agreed on using goal oriented project development principles, we will review and reconsider our goals and objectives and will proceed accordingly.
For example, if we do have actual sufficient evidence that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to our national security, we will act accordingly. If we do not have such actual sufficient evidence, we will all focus our resources on dealing with the terrorist organizations and other threats to our national security - and we have ample of work to do there.
This concludes my presentation today. I will now answer your questions and will respond to your comments."