Air University

Michael D. Rothstein, Major General, Commander and President

Air War College

Jeremy T. Sloane, Brigadier General, Commandant
AIR UNIVERSITY

AIR WAR COLLEGE

Military Personnel As Innovators

An Unrealistic Expectation?

Michelle E. Ewy

Colonel, USAF

Maxwell Paper No. 74

Air University Press

Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
Project Editor

Maranda Gilmore

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Ewy, Michelle E., 1973- author. | Air University (U.S.). Air War 

College, issuing body.

Title: Military personnel as innovators : an unrealistic expectation? /

Michelle E. Ewy.

Other titles: Maxwell paper (Air University (U.S.). Air War College) ; no. 74.

Description: Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama : Air University Press, [2018] 

| Series: Maxwell paper ; no. 74 | Includes bibliographical references. | At 

head of title: Air War College, Air University.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017053004| ISBN 9781585662777 | ISBN 1585662771

Subjects: LCSH: United States—Armed Forces—Reorganization. | Creative 

thinking. | Soldiers—Psychology. | Military planning—United States. | 

Organizational change—United States.

Classification: LCC UA23 .E985 2018 | DDC 355.6/8670973—dc23 | SUDOC D 

301.26/33:74

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017053004

Published by Air University Press in January 2018

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or 

implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air University Press, Air University, 

the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any 

other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.

This Maxwell Paper and others in the series are available electronically at the AU Press website: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil

/AUPress/Maxwell-Papers/

Copy Editor 

Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell

Cover Art and Book Design

Susan Fair

Illustrations

Daniel Armstrong

Composition and Prepress Production

Vivian D. O’Neal

Print Preparation and Distribution

Diane Clark

AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS

Director and Publisher

Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell

Air University Press 

600 Chennault Circle, Building 1405

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6010 

http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/AUPress/

Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/AirUnivPress

and 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/aupress

Air University Press
iii

Contents

Foreword v

About the Author vii

Abstract ix

Introduction 1

Creativity versus Innovation 1

Creative Thinking 3

Enabling Creativity and Driving Innovation 11

Recommendations 14

 Conclusion 16

 Notes 16

v

Foreword

It is with pleasure that I can endorse the return of the Air War College 

Maxwell Papers, a selection of the best professional studies papers from our 

graduates. These works, meant to highlight topics of importance to senior 

leaders and support discussion and further investigation, demonstrate the excellent research and analytical capabilities of our students.

In this study, Col Michelle Ewy, USAF, explores the friction between the 

military’s organizational culture and demands for innovation and creativity. 

She cites cutting-edge research in neuroscience and psychology to recommend ways in which military members can be empowered to think divergently, act boldly and incubate thoughtful solutions to wicked difficulties.

The Maxwell Papers are an outstanding example of the research work done 

at the Air War College as students hone their critical thinking skills while 

tackling real-world problems facing the Air Force in the twenty-first century. 

As part of our spirit of academic freedom and open debate, we hope you find 

them provocative stimulants for discussion and encourage you to engage on 

the issues raised.

JEREMY T. SLOANE

Brigadier General, USAF

Commandant, Air War College

vii

About the Author

Col Michelle Ewy is the military assistant to the chief scientist of the Air 

Force, Washington, DC. Colonel Ewy received her commission through the 

Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps in August 1995. After her initial assignment as an Air Force chemist at the Air Force Center for Environmental 

Excellence, she was selected to attend the Air Force Institute of Technology 

Civilian Institution program and earned her PhD in biophysical chemistry 

from the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. Her follow-on assignment at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) involved investigating 

microbial contamination of aviation fuel. Colonel Ewy was then assigned as 

an instructor at the Air Force Academy in the chemistry department, followed by an intermediate developmental education (IDE) tour at Argonne 

National Laboratory as an Air Force National Technical Laboratory Fellow. 

Concurrent with her tours at AFRL and the Air Force Academy, Colonel Ewy 

also served two 120-day rotations as the lab chief of the deployed Aerospace 

Fuels Laboratory, Al Udeid AB, Qatar, in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. After her IDE assignment, she supported the 

Air Force basic research program as an Air Force Office of Scientific Research, 

program manager and program element monitor at the Pentagon. From the 

National Capital Region, she moved to Lackland AFB, Texas, and took command of the Headquarters Air Force Drug Testing Laboratory. After command, Colonel Ewy was assigned as the director of the Department of Research and Publications at the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). Prior 

to her current assignment, she was a senior developmental education student 

assigned to the Air War College, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Alabama.

ix

Abstract

Calls for innovation from United States military leaders reverberate 

throughout the ranks. In an organizational culture that reinforces self-restraint, 

rewards groupthink, and treats white space as wasted space, these leaders 

have unrealistic expectations of their military personnel. An examination of 

the requirements for innovation along with recent neuroscience and organizational psychology research provides valuable insight into how the checklist 

mentality of the military inhibits creativity and innovation. Recommendations to counter these barriers include recruiting creative personalities, training in divergent thinking, providing time for incubation, and promoting innovative leaders. Adoption of these recommendations will embolden military 

members to be more creative and will cultivate a culture that champions innovation.

1

Introduction

You fight with momentum

There are only a few types of surprises and direct actions

Yet, you can always vary the ones you use.

There is no limit in the ways you can win.

—Sun Tzu, The Art of War

US military leaders, raised in a culture strongly influenced by the teachings 

of the sixth-century BCE military strategist, Sun Tzu, often call for innovation 

as a way to deal with the quickly dwindling number of actions (and surprises) 

available to counter an enemy. They ask military members to be innovative 

now to ensure our role as the world’s strongest military. Just what are the expectations of these senior leaders? What does being innovative mean to them, 

and more specifically, what do they see as the requirements for innovation? 

The easiest interpretation is that innovation is the result of military personnel 

finding creative new ways to use limited funds or innovative ways to use current assets that will cost less than acquiring new ones. However, before one 

can answer whether or not it is realistic to do more with less through innovation, one must first examine whether or not it is realistic to expect military 

members to come up with the innovative applications of creative ideas in the 

first place. Can military members be the innovators the leaders are asking for?

There are well-examined, historical examples of military innovations as 

proof that individual military members can be creative during a crisis. However, this paper argues that current research in neuroscience and organizational psychology indicates it is unrealistic for US military leaders to routinely 

expect their personnel to be innovators within an organizational culture that 

reinforces self-restraint, rewards groupthink, and treats white space as wasted 

time. To create an environment that fosters innovation, the military must replace these cultural practices with those that promote creativity, support diversity of thought, and liberate the time for both to happen.

Creativity versus Innovation

The terms creativity and innovation are often used interchangeably; however, those who study innovation demarcate important differences. Creativity 

is the conceptualization of ideas that are both new and valuable.1

 Creative 

ideas involve synthesizing or integrating processes to identify alternatives. Innovation is the application of creative solutions.2
2

Creativity is “the process of making something strange seem familiar and 

of making the familiar strange.”3

 A creative idea must be “realized” to be considered an innovation.4

 Innovators are seeking solutions. While happy circumstance can lead to great discoveries, from a military perspective, innovation is 

actively pursued to solve some problem or deal with unanticipated events or 

crises. We often hear military leaders properly use the term innovation to 

describe a new technology or new way to use an old technology. Interestingly, 

though, these same leaders rarely mention the need for more creativity among 

their ranks. The ease in promoting innovation, but apparent discomfort in 

doing the same for creativity, is an unfortunate disconnect. Before there can 

be innovation, a creative mind (or minds) must unveil the enabling idea.

There are three major challenges to the birth of innovation: (1) a creative 

idea must be conceptualized by an individual or group; (2) the value of the 

idea as a potential solution must be acknowledged and accepted by the culture, society, or organization; and (3) the solution must be implemented. 

Figure 1 shows the actions and organizational enablers required to meet these 

three challenges and successfully transition from a specific problem to a creative idea to an innovative solution. As detailed in figure 1, there are four key 

requirements necessary for an organization to be innovative: (1) an organization must have personnel capable of generating creative ideas, (2) it must 

support an environment that champions creativity in individuals and teams, 

(3) it must be receptive to seeing the value in new solutions, and (4) it must 

foster the successful implementation of the resulting innovations. This paper 

will look at these four areas through a research-based lens as well as how the 

military currently hinders significant aspects of each. The paper will also suggest solutions to compensate for these hindrances and help move leader expectations from being unrealistic to reachable. 

1

2

3

4

Problem

Creative

Thinking

Creative Idea

Innovation Novel

Solution

Environment

supportive of

creativity

Organization

finds value

in idea

Organization

supports/drives

realization of

innovation

Figure 1. The problem solving process of an innovative organization
3

Creative Thinking

J. P. Guilford, the psychologist considered to have started the modern field 

of creativity research, described creativity as consisting of two different types 

of thinking: convergent and divergent.5

 Convergent thinking assesses existing 

ideas and chooses the best one.6

 The military is well practiced in convergent 

thinking and routinely publishes best practices in doctrine documents. Doctrine publications are the bedrock for many professional military education 

programs and are the first “go-to” in determining how to respond in a particular situation. As defined by Joint Publication 1-02, DOD Dictionary of 

Military and Associated Terms, doctrine consists of the “fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in 

support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgement in 

application.”7

 The caveat “requires judgment” indicates there is some flexibility in doctrine, and the fundamental principles may be tailored to fit a particular situation. As discussed later in this paper, just the perception that there 

are predetermined solutions or right and left limits can hamper one’s ability to 

conceptualize novel solutions.

In contrast, divergent thinking is the conceptualization of multiple, often 

seemingly unrelated, solutions. When ideas are allowed to flow, without being 

constrained by preconceptions of correct answers, the solutions are more 

original or “statistically infrequent” and imaginative.8

 Improvisation, when no 

boundaries or predetermined requirements are placed on ideas, is far-right on 

the spectrum of divergent thinking.9

 Divergent thinking has been shown in 

numerous studies to be positively linked to creative performance. Research by 

Andrea S. Vincent, Brian P. Decker, and Michael D. Mumford indicated that 

divergent thinking is more strongly linked to both idea generation and implementation (creative performance) than either intelligence or expertise.10

Creativity in Individuals

Not surprisingly, it was Guilford who devised the first tests for creativity, 

which he centered on the concept of divergent thinking. During World War 

II, the US military commissioned him to design tests to help identify the 

Army Air Corps pilots best able to respond with original behaviors, thus allowing them to recover from unexpected and potentially catastrophic aircraft 

equipment failures.11 Guilford postulated, and current scientific evidence supports, it is not necessarily those with the highest intelligence quotients (IQ) or 

the most expertise who are most creative, yet neither does the research support 

only a chosen few can be creative. Reinforcing Guilford’s thoughts that “creative acts can therefore be expected, no matter how feeble or how infrequent, 
4

of almost all individuals,” it is currently accepted that everyone has the potential to be creative. 12 However, people rarely are and even those with creative 

ideas, seldom produce creative products.13

While military leaders’ frequent use of the term innovation seems to imply 

creativity and the fruition of creative ideas should come easily, the scientific 

evidence supports an alternative view. Current neuroscience research is revealing which parts of the brain are used during creative activities. The findings provide significant insights into why creativity and, particularly, divergent thinking are hard, especially for military members, who are indoctrinated 

into a culture that trains them to think from “within the box.”

Neuroscience Research

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies are highlighting 

the importance of several regions in the brain that are involved in the creative 

process.14 Two areas of the brain that have prominent roles are the neural 

“default network” and the “executive network” (figure 2). The default network, 

comprised of primarily the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), is considered to 

be the part of the brain that is activated during stimulus-independent thoughts 

such as daydreaming or mind-wandering and is deactivated during task accomplishment or engagement by stimuli.15 It is called the default network because it was found to be active when other parts of the brain were quiet, as 

during sleep.16 The executive network is named such because it is the area of 

the brain associated with higher-level thinking and is responsible for “a deliberate, analytic mode of information processing.”17 The dorsolateral prefrontal 

cortex (DLPFC) is a main constituent of the executive network and “further 

integrates already highly processed information, formulates plans and strategies for appropriate behavior in a given situation.”18
5

a

b

Lateral View Front View

Figure 2. Generalized locations of (a) the dorolateral prefrontal cortex (DLFPC), the primary constituent of the executive network and (b) the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), the primary constituent of the default network. (Adapted from Siyuan Liu, Ho Ming Chow, Yisheng Xu, Michael G. Erkkinen, Katherine 

E. Swett, Michael W. Eagle, Daniel A. Rizik-Baer, and Allen R. Braun, “Neural 

Correlates of Lyrical Improvisation: An fMRI Study of Freestyle Rap,” Scientific 

Reports 2 no. 834 (2012), 6, doi:10.1038/srep00834; and Lordan, A. D., S. 

Dolcos, F. Dolcos, “Neural signatures of the response to emotional distraction: 

a review of evidence from brain imaging investigations,” Frontiers in Human 

Neuroscience 7 (2013): 1-20, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00200).

In his article “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity,” Arne Dietrich 

describes creativity as occurring through two processing modes: spontaneous 

and deliberate.19 His spontaneous process aligns well with the contribution of 

the default network to the creative process as described by Melissa Ellamil 

and other clinical researchers.20 Likewise, the deliberate processing mode, 

which Dietrich attributes primarily to the prefrontal cortex (containing the 

DLPFC), encompasses the characteristics of the executive network.21 Table 1 

summarizes the characteristics of the default and executive networks, including the associations with the spontaneous and processing modes.
6

Table 1. Attributes of the default and executive neural networks

Primary Brain Regiona,b Related 

Processing 

Modeb

Associated Actionsa,b

Default Medial Prefrontal Cortex (MPFC) Spontaneous Daydreaming, mindwandering, affective response

Executive Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex 

(DLFPC) Deliberate

Higher-level cognition, 

judgement, analytical assessment, goal planning

a

Ellamil et al. (2012) bDietrich (2004)

(Adapted from Melissa Ellamil, Charles Dobson, Mark Beeman, and Kalina Christoff, “Evaluative and Generative Modes 

of Thought during the Creative Process,” NeuroImage 59, no. 2 (January 2012): 1783–94, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011

.08.008; and Arne Dietrich, “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, no. 6 (2004): 

1011-1026, https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03196731).

The spontaneous process, as described by Dietrich, is supported by evidence that creative insights are sparked during times of “defocused attention” like mind-wandering or daydreaming. He suggests “{August] Kekulé’s 

daydream of whirling snakes forming a (benzene) ring” as an example of 

such spontaneous creative insight.22 Keith Sawyer also supports this idea and 

highlights the relationship between creative insight, mind-wandering, and 

the “incubation effect,” which is the concept that a creative idea springs forth 

after “a period of unconscious incubation.”23 Research indicates people daydream or mind-wander between 15–50 percent of the time, the amount of 

time depending on multiple variables such as task difficulty, fatigue, alcohol 

use, and an individual’s working memory capacity.24 The default network is 

highly active during mind-wandering and even more so when one does not 

realize their mind is wandering. Most of us have had this experience when 

we suddenly realized we remember nothing of the last several pages we 

“read.” Sawyer suggests creative insights might spontaneously pop up after 

mind-wandering because the hiatus from consciously thinking about a particular issue has allowed for a “mini-incubation.”25 Many people have experienced such an “a-ha moment” of clarity regarding a particular issue when 

they were doing or thinking about something totally unrelated.

The deliberate processing mode, just as the name suggests, requires a systematic evaluation of ideas to determine the best answer. The term Edisonian—a way of solving problems by trying one idea, adjusting, and then trying again—is a good embodiment of the deliberate creative process as well as 

the creative contributions of the executive network. Dietrich describes the 

prefrontal cortex as playing three roles with respect to creativity. The first is to 

hold a thought in working memory since one must grab onto a creative spark 
7

before it can be evaluated.26 His description of the first role reveals synergies 

between the default and the executive networks. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for working memory, and since it cannot ceaselessly work, it may be 

that the sudden sparks of creativity arise during mind-wandering as the prefrontal cortex takes a break, “allowing unconscious thoughts that are comparatively more random, unfiltered, and bizarre to be represented in the 

working memory.”27 The next role for the prefrontal cortex and its higher cognitive functions is to evaluate which ideas are worth pursuing. Once grasped, 

one must determine if a new spark should be kindled into something bigger. 

The final role Dietrich describes for the prefrontal cortex is following through 

on implementation of the idea, including planning the goals necessary to 

bring the idea to into being.28

Of particular interest with respect to the last two roles, evaluation and implementation, is that the prefrontal cortex contains the foundational principles for an individual’s beliefs and values. As a result, during the deliberate 

evaluation process, creative ideas will be judged in context of that value system.29 If individuals have strongly embraced a particular organizational culture, the values of that organization will constrain their evaluations. Someone 

raised or trained in a culture less tolerant of novelty will have new (therefore, 

potentially risky) ideas squashed by his or her executive network “gatekeeper” much more quickly than an individual “grown” under more openminded conditions. The executive network is necessary in creative convergent 

thinking to help identify the “right” answer but can be detrimental to creative 

divergent thinking by stopping novel thoughts before they are even realized.

In a military environment, blocking divergent thinking might not just slow 

innovation, it might also be dangerous. Improvisation, the most extreme form 

of divergent thinking, provides the “unscripted behaviors”necessary to adapt 

to a new environment or to respond quickly to unforeseen and potentially 

catastrophic events, such as an aircraft instrument failure.30 Recent fMRI evidence indicates that to truly improvise, an individual may have to silence the 

judgmental gatekeeper by deactivating the executive network.

Two different studies investigating how the brain behaves during episodes 

of musical improvisation found this to be the case. Functional MRI measurements indicated that during improvisation the MPFC was activated whereas 

the DLPFC and the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (LOFC) were deactivated.31

The researchers’ findings suggest that in order to allow for creative improvisation, the default network is turned on; however, the brain turns down the 

executive network, particularly those parts believed to be associated with focused attention, self monitoring, and goal achievement.32 These deactivations 

of the oversight-and-control mechanisms allow for “a state of defocused at-
8

tention” that supports improvisation.33 This deactivation is also believed to 

play an important role in allowing “spontaneous unplanned associations, and 

sudden insights or realizations.”34 It is just such insights and unexpected realizations that support divergent thinking and lead to the creation of new, novel 

ideas from seemingly unconnected concepts.35 These studies strongly suggest 

that in order to truly improvise, one must be willing to allow ideas or solutions to come forth freely without judging their correctness as they arise.

Unlike the jazz and rap musicians studied in the research described above, 

most people have not developed the ability to “flow” and spontaneously improvise. Ellamil and her colleagues conducted a study examining a more 

commonplace creative process: drawing a picture. Using a custom-built 

drawing tablet, the researchers used fMRI to measure the brain activity of art 

students who were either generating, tracing, or evaluating illustrations for a 

(fictional) book cover. The study indicated that the neural processes used 

during the two separate phases of the creative process—generation and evaluation—are separate. During the generation phase, the medial temporal lobe 

(MTL) memory region, which has been shown to be involved in memory 

retrieval, had greater activation.36 The default and the executive networks 

(the MPFC and DLPFC regions respectively) were more highly activated 

during the creative evaluation phase.37 The implication of both the default 

and executive networks in creative evaluation is an interesting contrast to the 

musical improvisation research in which the default network was activated 

and the executive region deactivated. Ellamil and her peers postulate that the 

involvement of the default network, which in addition to being activated 

during mind-wandering, has also been shown to be activated during the 

processing of emotional information and, therefore, may play a role in providing a “gut reaction” to a particular option during creative evaluation.38

The activation of the executive network during creative evaluation indicates 

there is significant goal-oriented control required to evaluate and select the 

appropriate creative solution. This assessment aligns with the understanding 

that the prefrontal cortex judges thoughts against its rule-set (an individual’s 

beliefs and values) as described by Dietrich.39 As a whole, the evidence supports that creative evaluation, determining which creative ideas have the 

most value, is a combination of the spontaneous thought and gut feelings of 

the default network coupled and integrated with the deliberate assessment of 

the executive network.40

The neuroscience research discussed above provides exceptional insight 

into why creative thinking, in particular divergent thinking, is difficult for 

most people and why it may be even harder for military members. The biggest 

hurdle is the effect of the restraining military culture on an individual’s value 
9

systems and norms. A military leader may tell a subordinate, “I want you to 

be innovative; I want you to think out-of-the-box,” or, a doctrine document 

may state it is okay to use judgement. These words are fighting against a belief 

system that was forged through emotionally laden basic military training, 

which encourages members to dress alike, act alike, not get out of step, and 

not mess up or face personal and collective (team) punishment. The system is 

then continuously reinforced by a hierarchical organizational structure in an 

environment where superiors decree what will be done, when it will be done, 

and even how it will be done. “Good soldiers” follow orders because they do 

not want to risk people dying or the mission failing, or more cynically, they do 

not want to get in trouble and jeopardize their chances for promotion.

Just like a military organization shapes members’ physical bodies through 

training, it also shapes their mental norms, and these norms restrict the novelty of the ideas that the executive network will let through. A restricting culture may even play a role in what one daydreams about, potentially effecting 

both divergent and convergent thinking. One hypothesis regarding the default network is that when activated, as during mind-wandering or dreaming, 

it acts as a “life simulator.” It allows one to examine past experiences and relate 

them to current circumstances or use past experiences to help make predictions about future events, particularly regarding social interactions.41 A military member who makes an out-of-the-box (creative) suggestion and is reprimanded by their supervisor or mocked by their peers will internalize that 

experience. The default system may relive that experience when considering 

other novel ideas during mind-wandering and provide a negative visceral response, stopping the idea before it ever has a chance to be considered by the 

executive network.

Even with these barriers, creative ideas are still realized in the military and 

innovation happens. How so? If the ability to think divergently is typically 

blocked by indoctrination into such an organizational culture, then how does 

innovation happen? Some individuals have more malleable belief systems 

that are not cemented firmly to those of their organization. They may think 

differently all the time or just in response to a crisis. They are able to see 

around the cultural norms, be unconstrained, and think more creatively than 

the rest of us. Often they are called “rebels” or accused of insubordination 

(until hindsight shows their brilliance).42 What are the characteristics of these 

creative individuals, and is it possible to foster the same traits in those who are 

less creative?
10

Other Research on Individual Creativity

During a groundbreaking speech to the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1950, Guilford introduced the idea that creativity is the consequence of a person’s personality, and their creativity will depend upon “motivational and temperamental traits,” including such characteristics as emotional 

state, excitement toward a task (intrinsic motivation), and confidence.43 Robert Sternberg and Todd Lubart agree that being a creative person is not about 

intelligence quotient (IQ) but rather “a particular set of personality attributes” 

that include being willing to “take chances” and “to take a stand.”44 Author 

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi will only commit to saying the creative personality 

is complex, and he implies that complexity is expressed as an adaptability that 

allows an individual to be creative in different environments.45

A 2015 study by Silvia da Costa and her peers integrated the results from 

seven previously published meta-analyses that had investigated the correlations 

between individual traits and creativity. The study found higher emotional 

intelligence, divergent thinking, openness to experience, creative personality, 

intrinsic motivation, positive affect, and androgyny, are personality traits positively associated with creativity. Age, intelligence, extraversion, self-efficacy, 

a pro-risk attitude, and being female were also found to be associated with 

creativity, but to a lesser degree. Extrinsic motivation, including rewards and 

pressures (as one typically expects from the military), was found to be positively correlated to creativity, but much less so than intrinsic motivation. Both 

divergent thinking and convergent thinking were associated with creativity; 

however, divergent thinking was more strongly associated with creativity and 

was also associated with innovation in the workplace.46

These findings highlight an additional way the military inadvertently inhibits creativity and innovation: it discourages many creative personalities 

from joining in the first place, and it trains those who do join to hide their 

creative traits to minimize conflict. One need only look at any one of the services’ basic training bases to see how much greater a role extrinsic motivation 

(a noncommissioned officer yelling) and convergent thinking (there is only 

one right way to polish boots) play and how risk taking (not following the 

rules), divergent thinking, and perhaps even emotional intelligence (empathy 

in battle is dangerous) are discouraged. While da Costa’s research provides 

evidence that certain individual traits are indicative of creativity, research is 

also being done to investigate the idea of creativity being transient and dependent not just on the person but also on the context of the situation.47
11

Enabling Creativity and Driving Innovation

Creativity and Innovation in Organizations 

The purpose of the military is to fight wars, and as such, it is important for 

all members of the organization to be trained so they know precisely what, 

when, and how to do tasks (march in formation, drive a tank, fly a plane) 

precisely and predictably. Leaders need to know exactly what to expect from 

their people to ensure the complex movements of thousands of troops are 

meticulously choreographed. This means that, by agreeing to wear a military 

uniform, military members are also agreeing to become part of a team with a 

uniform understanding of the mission. This understanding requires the personnel to first learn the applicable doctrine and then rigorously follow standard operating procedures (SOP) and checklists.

The military organization routinely takes convergent thinking and “the 

right answer” to the extreme. Along with requiring individuals to conform to 

look like one another and perform tasks identically, any request for changes 

in procedures (potential innovations) must be funneled up through the chain 

of command for approval, facing scrutiny at every step: “Why? This is the way 

we’ve always done it.” Even after leadership has approved changes, they cannot be enacted until multiple levels of the organization agree and all supporting documents have been officially updated. By ensuring such absolute consistency, one may be able to reduce the risk of unforeseen consequences; 

however, it also squelches creativity and innovation.

Why even think of trying something different when one will be chastised 

for not falling in line? Rather, sticking to the checklist is easier and more likely 

to result in a promotion. Herbert Shepard describes how individuals in an 

innovation-resistant organization see attempts of introducing innovation: 

“For the dependent person who is ‘a good soldier’, responsive to the formal 

structure of authority, the risks have to do with job security and the threat of 

his chances of a raise and advancement in the structure. He avoids innovation 

and checks innovators.”48 Shepard was not specifically describing a person in 

a military organization, but the ease with which a military analogy is used and 

understood to represent an organization that has an anti-innovation culture 

is noteworthy.

Counter to the description of an innovation-resisting organization, 

Shepard defines the characteristics of an innovation-producing organization 

as “continuously learning, adapting to changes within itself and in its environment, and successfully innovating in that environment.”49 While the military 

certainly can embody all of these characteristics, at times, neither the overarching culture nor the tedious bureaucracy support rapid or radical changes.
12

Another barrier to creativity, which is not exclusive to the military, is being 

so busy that there is no time available for personnel to stop and think. This 

lack of time for reflection or mind-wandering inhibits the default network’s 

ability to incubate and make new, novel, and creative connections. Several 

commercial organizations famous for their cultures of innovation, including 

Google and 3M, give their personnel 20 percent and 15 percent, respectively, 

of their work time to pursue independent projects that are of interest to them 

but may be only tangentially related to their company’s work. 3M’s now ubiquitous Post-It notes resulted from this permissive “free-time.”50

Leaders

Creativity and innovation in organizations has been shown to not just depend on the employees’ ability to be creative but also on the organization’s 

leadership. The most prominent effect occurs when creative, innovative leaders set the example and foster a culture of creativity. Steve Jobs of Apple and 

Jeff Bezos of Amazon are prime examples of executives of successful and 

highly innovative companies, who were actively engaged in the innovation 

process themselves.51

In addition to role modeling, how the leaders interact with their personnel 

has an impact. Transformational leaders, who are able to raise the performance 

level of their followers by raising their personal values and self-concepts, are 

able to positively influence employees’ creativity and an organization’s innovation.52 A “close-monitoring” leader will have the opposite effect on creativity. 

In her article “Leading for Creativity,” Jing Zhou, a professor of management, 

describes how instead of supporting diversity of thought, a micromanaging 

leader will create fear, tension, and hesitancy within their subordinates and, as 

a result, stifle creativity in their organization.53 An empowering leader, one 

who shares power and transfers responsibility and autonomy to the subordinate, has a positive effect on employee creativity. This positive effect is thought 

to arise because the leader’s empowerment promotes the employee’s intrinsic 

motivation.54

Teams 

Along with how a leader interacts with their personnel, the individuals the 

leader chooses for particular teams affects the likelihood for creativity and 

innovation. The military, by nature a team-centered organization, has the potential to be highly innovative based upon the evidence that teams can be 

more creative and generate higher-impact innovations than individuals.55 Additionally, the military composition is fairly diverse, with men and women 
13

from all parts of the country, different socioeconomic positions, and different 

racial and ethnic backgrounds. One can easily link the neuroscience factors 

that shape an individual’s creative tendencies with the importance of diversity 

on group-level divergent thinking. If an individual’s experiences shape both 

the emotional response of their default network to new ideas and also determines the belief system used by their executive network to evaluate those 

ideas, then it follows that a team made up of members with very different 

experiences should come up with more original and more divergent ideas 

than a team comprised of individuals with similar experiences.

While differing views within a diverse team can give rise to a higher number 

of novel ideas, heterogeneous teams can be more prone to conflict and therefore take longer to innovate.56 This counterpoint highlights why like-minded 

consensus, or “groupthink,” is often institutionally reinforced—everyone easily 

and quickly agrees on a solution.57 Leaders praise the team for their efficiency, 

while individual team-members are intrinsically rewarded with feelings of 

being valued and belonging. The tug-of-war over ideas will be greater in a 

diverse group, but research indicates the positive benefits for an organization 

outweigh the inefficiencies.58 A “shared sense of purpose and a shared commitment to the group’s goals” help overcome these struggles and supports 

creativity in diverse teams.59 The military is well known for fostering a strong 

vision and sense of mission among its members and should be able to reduce 

such diversity-related challenges.

The type of diversity appears to make a difference when it comes to fostering creativity. Differences in educational background or job expertise are 

more supportive of creative thinking than differences in gender, ethnicity, or 

nationality.60 This is something to consider, since the Western idea of diversity often means a group with different racial or ethnic backgrounds, which 

may or may not include individuals from different disciplines or functional 

areas. This is particularly thought-provoking, since military members may 

originally come from different educational or professional backgrounds; although, after years of training and living within the military culture, the differences may fade. Research also demonstrates that while teams have the 

potential to be creative and innovate, if the organizational leader, procedures, 

or cultural norms are too strict, teams can slip into groupthink and innovation will be stifled.61

There are some interesting dichotomies when it comes to optimizing 

groups for creating innovation. If the problem the group is trying to solve is 

well defined, then groups that share the same amount of background knowledge on the topic find more creative solutions. If the problem is ill-defined 

and the group is tasked with determining the problem, groups from different 
14

backgrounds and expertise develop more creative answers.62 The military has 

opportunities to take advantage of both types of situations since it has such a 

numerous and diverse pool of personnel.

Mathematical computational research on “collective wisdom” also provides insight into the importance of expertise and diversity in the group convergent thinking that leads to creative idea selection. Lu Hong and Scott Page 

provide statistical models that demonstrate the accuracy of a group is dependent upon composition or expertise. The group must either have a diverse 

make-up or, if the group is homogeneous, the individuals that comprise the 

group must each have a high level of expertise. This is because “collective wisdom depends on the characteristics of the models people carry in their heads. 

For collective wisdom to emerge those models must be sophisticated, or they 

must be diverse.”63 Therefore, if it is not possible to pull together a team of 

subject matter experts to determine the best answer, which is often the case 

during the ever-changing landscape of war, the military will be best served by 

allowing heterogeneous teams determine which innovation is most likely to 

prevail.

Recommendations

To argue it is currently unrealistic for military leaders to call upon their 

personnel for innovation, this paper has reviewed research beginning with 

the networks in the brain, to individual personality traits, to a more holistic 

view, including leadership and organizational contributions (or detractions) 

to creativity and innovation. Likewise, the recommendations for how the military can reconcile its self-made obstacles to innovation are discussed from 

multiple levels. Although a particular recommendation may be primarily focused on one of these areas, it should be well understood at this point that the 

organizational culture, leadership, and individual creative contributions are 

intimately networked.

In order to have an innovative organization, the organization must have 

both creative personnel and an environment that supports their creativity 

(fig. 1). The military should actively recruit individuals with creative personalities that favor divergent thinking. Tools such as the Creative Problem Solving Profile and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking can help identify such 

personnel.64 Evaluation of potential recruits should also provide insight into 

whether creative personalities are self-selecting away from the military based 

on perceptions of an anti-innovation culture (this may be particularly important with today’s “millennials”). If innovators are actually joining the ranks, 

retesting them periodically may help identify if and how creative personalities 
15

are being repressed or supported within the military environment. Or better 

yet, early identification should be used to vector creative personnel toward 

specific jobs or teams where their abilities will be best used.

The military trains in the manner it wants to fight. Regardless of whether 

or not individuals were creative when recruited, training in divergent thinking should be added to basic training and throughout professional military 

education (PME). Any discussion of creative thinking by the PME system is 

almost always done in conjunction with “critical thinking”; this supports the 

typical military preponderance for convergent rather than divergent thinking.

Research has established it is possible to train individuals to improve their 

divergent thinking. Meditation, including integrative body-mind training 

(IBMT) and open-monitoring (OM) mediation improves creative performance through improvements in divergent thinking.65 While many Westernminded military leaders might shrug off mediation as sitting and wasting 

time, they should instead consider how Sun Tzu’s Eastern perspective might 

be used to prepare not only the battlespace but also their warriors’ minds as 

well.

In addition to allotting personnel time to improve their divergent thinking 

through training, military leaders must change their view on unscheduled 

time, or “white space,” in the schedule. To think divergently, an individual 

must have time for the default network to incubate and give rise to the “a-ha 

moments” and novel concepts that can be developed into innovations. Scheduling 20 percent of time as “Google-time” may not be feasible during hightempo operations, although these may be the times innovation is most 

needed. Yet, while in garrison, leaders need to accept white space not as 

wasted time but as an investment in potential innovations.

Leaders have control over their personnel’s time. They also have the power 

to create an environment that fosters creativity through empowering their 

people and supporting intrinsic motivation. The leaders are responsible for 

developing teams with the right diversity—teams that can identify problems 

and generate and evaluate novel solutions without succumbing to groupthink. Additionally, military leaders must provide not only top cover but also 

the muscle to push and develop valuable creative ideas into actualized innovations.

Because so much of figure 1 hinges on the leaders of a military organization, the last recommendation is to identify and promote innovative leaders. 

Innovative leaders are those who have a solid record of being creative themselves, in supporting creativity in their subordinates, and in helping drive innovation. Instead of being ostracized as rebels, these divergently thinking 

leaders should be supported, promoted, and allowed to groom the next gen-
16

eration of creative thinkers and innovators. As this cycle takes hold, the restraining checklist-driven norms will be replaced. Military culture will get 

comfortable with embracing “the strange” and be able to realistically expect 

military personnel to be creative and the organization to be innovative.

Conclusion

There are many historical examples of military members being creative 

and innovative, particularly during war and often when faced with life-ordeath decisions. Their stories are inspirational. But why? They inspire us because they highlight feats of greatness. Creativity and innovation are not the 

norm—not in society at large, and definitely not in today’s military. The military calls for acts of innovation but continues to hold tight to a culture that 

requires marching in step and ends up stamping out divergent thinking 

along the way. If innovation is the key to surprise, then the military must 

change. Military leaders must have the insight to acknowledge the cultural 

constraints to creativity and be willing to breach the innovation-blocking 

barriers they find. By doing these things, they will reveal the path with unlimited ways to victory.

Notes

1. Frans Johansson, The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, 

Concepts & Cultures (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004), 14.

2. Samuel T. Hunter, Tamara L. Friedrich, Katrina E. Bedell-Avers, and Michael D. Mumford, “Creative Cognition in the Workplace: An Applied Perspective,” in The Creative Enterprise: Managing Innovative Organizations and People, ed. Tony Davila et al. (Westport, CT: 

Praeger Perspectives, 2007), 171.

3. James E. Carter, “Overcoming Creative Blocks,” in The Creative Enterprise, ed. Tony Davila et al., 71.

4. Johansson, The Medici Effect, 15.

5. R. Keith Sawyer, Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation (New York: 

Oxford University Press, 2012), 15–17. 

6. Lorenza S. Colzato, Ayca Szapora, Dominique Lippelt, and Bernhard Hommel, “Prior 

Mediation Practice Modulates Performance and Strategy Use in Convergent- and DivergentThinking Problems,” Mindfulness 8, no. 1 (February 2017): 10–16, doi:10.1007/s12671-01

4-0352-9. 

7. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated 

Terms, 15 November 2015, 71, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf. 

8. Mark Runco and Selcuk Acar, “Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential,” 

Creativity Research Journal 24, no. 1 (2012), 66–67, doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.652929. 

9. Patricia D. Stokes, “Variations on Guilford’s Creative Abilities,” Creativity Research Journal 13, no. 3 and 4 (2000–2001), 277–281, doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_05. 
17

10. Andrea S. Vincent, Brian P. Decker, and Michael D. Mumford, “Divergent Thinking, 

Intelligence, and Expertise: A Test of Alternative Models,” Creativity Research Journal 14, no. 2 

(2002), 161–74, doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_4.

11. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2013), 93.

12. J. P. Guilford, “Creativity,” American Psychologist 5, no. 9 (September 1950): 444–46, 

doi:10.1037/h0063487.

13. Carter, Overcoming Creative Blocks, 71; and Robert J. Sternberg and Todd I. Lubart, 

Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity (New York: The Free Press, 

1995), 12.

14. “The fMRI machine uses a magnetic field to detect the ratio of oxygenated to deoxygenated blood; each affects the magnetic field differently. . . . When neuronal activation increases in 

a region of the neocortex, blood flow increases faster than the neurons can use the oxygen, 

causing the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal to increase.” The measurements of the 

differences in BOLD signal provides information regarding activation or deactivation of particular brain regions. See Keith Sawyer, “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity: A Critical 

Review,” Creativity Research Journal 23, no. 2 (2011), 140, doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.571191.

15. Melissa Ellamil, Charles Dobson, Mark Beeman, and Kalina Christoff, “Evaluative and 

Generative Modes of Thought during the Creative Process,” NeuroImage 59, no. 2 (January 

2012): 1783–94, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.008.

16. Marcus E. Raichle and Abraham Z. Synder, “A Default Mode of Brain Function: A Brief 

History of an Evolving Idea,” NeuroImage 37, no. 4 (October 2007), 1083–85, doi:10.1016/j.neu

roimage.2007.02.041; and Malia F. Mason, Michael I. Norton, John D. Van Horn, Daniel M. 

Wegner, Scott T. Grafton, and C. Neil Macrae, “Wandering Minds: The Default Network and 

Stimulus-Independent Thought,” Science 315, no. 5810 (2007), 394–95. doi:10.1126/science.11

31295.

17. Ellamil et al., “Evaluative and Generative Modes,” 1784.

18. Siyuan Liu, Ho Ming Chow, Yisheng Xu, Michael G. Erkkinen, Katherine E. Swett, 

Michael W. Eagle, Daniel A. Rizik-Baer, and Allen R. Braun, “Neural Correlates of Lyrical Improvisation: An fMRI Study of Freestyle Rap,” Scientific Reports 2 no. 834 (2012), 6, doi:10.1038

/srep00834; and Arne Dietrich, “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, no. 6 (2004), 1012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15875970.

19. Dietrich, “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity,” 1011–14.

20. Ellamil et al., “Evaluative and Generative Modes,” 1784; and Kieran C. R. Fox, R. Nathan Spreng, Melissa Ellamil, Jessica R. Andrews-Hanna, and Kalina Christoff, “The Wandering Brain: Meta-analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Mind-wandering and Related 

Spontaneous Thought Processes,” NeuroImage 111 (2015), 612–15, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage

.2015.02.039.

21. Dietrich, “Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity,” 1016. Dietrich initially describes the 

prefrontal cortex as being comprised of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and the 

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC); however, he discusses the spontaneous and deliberate 

processing modes as occurring in the prefrontal cortex generically rather than specifying the 

particular regions. This might cause some confusion to the reader if they note that the medial 

prefrontal cortex (MPFC), which is shown as a constituent of the default network in table 1, has 

the words “prefrontal cortex” within the name. fMRI research accomplished over the last nine 

years has significantly improved the understanding of the specific regions of the prefrontal 

cortex involved in the executive and default networks, which as discussed in the body of this 
18

paper are the DLPFC and the MPFC, respectively. Dietrich’s discussion, taken in light of the 

newer research, provides excellent insight into the different creative roles played by different 

regions of the brain—even if hindsight shows his use of the general term prefrontal cortex was 

too sweeping. See Arne Dietrich, “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, no. 6 (2004): 1011-1026; Charles J. Limb and Allen R. Braun, “Neural Substrates of Spontaneous Musical Performance: An fMRI Study of Jazz Improvisation,” PLOS 

ONE 3, no. 2 (2008), 3–5, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001679; Fox et al., “The Wandering 

Brain,” 612–17; and Lui et al., “Neural Correlates,” 1.

22. Dietrich, “Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity,” 1012–14. 

23. Sawyer, “Cognitive Neuroscience,” 146. 

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid. 

26. Dietrich, “Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity,” 1015.

27. Ibid., 1016. 

28. Ibid., 1015.

29. Ibid., 1016.

30. Limb, “Neural Substrates,” 1.

31. Ibid., 1-9; and Lui, “Neural Correlates,” 1–8.

32. Limb and Braun, “Neural Substrates,” 4.

33. Ibid., 5.

34. Ibid., 4.

35. Mathias Benedek, Emanuel Jauk, Andreas Fink, Karl Koschuntnig, Gernot Reishofer, 

Franz Ebner, and Aljoscha C. Neubauer, “To Create or to Recall? Neural Mechanisms underlying the Generation of Creative Ideas,” NeuroImage 88, (March 2014), 125, doi:10.1016/j.neuro

image.2013.11.021.

36. Ellamil et al., “Evaluative and Generative Modes,” 1784.

37. Ibid., 1787–88. 

38. Ibid., 1790.

39. Dietrich, “Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity,” 1016.

40. Ellamil et al., “Evaluative and Generative Modes,” 1791. 

41. Randy L. Buckner, Jessica R. Andrews-Hanna, and Daniel L. Schacter, “The Brain’s Default Network: Anatomy, Function, and Relevance to Disease,” Annals of the New York Academy 

of Sciences 1124 (March 2008), 24, doi:10.1196/annals.1440.011.

42. In his book Adapt, Tim Harford chooses very particular words to describe how Col H. 

R. McMaster was perceived when he was working to pacify Tal Afar, Iraq. Harford describes 

McMaster as having “improvised one of the few successful responses,” and by doing so McMaster “short-circuited the chain of command” and was told by senior officers to “shut his big 

mouth and stop thinking above his rank.” Harford emphasizes that McMaster “paid a price for 

his courageous independence . . . was twice passed over for promotion. . . . His superiors focused not on his performance, but on what they saw as a troublemaker’s attitude.” This is an 

excellent example of the perceived consequences for a military member who improvises and 

goes against the cultural norm. Even if he/she is successful and saves lives, the organization 

may still punish the individual for thinking divergently. See Tim Harford, Adapt: Why Success 

Always Starts with Failure (New York: Picador, 2011), 59–60.

43. Guilford, “Creativity,” 444.

44. Sternberg and Lubart, Defying the Crowd, 8.

45. Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity, 57–63.
19

46. Silvia da Costa, Dario Paez, Flor Sanchez, Maite Garaigordobil, and Sonia Gondim, 

“Personal Factors of Creativity: A Second Order Meta-analysis,” Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 31, no. 3 (December 2015): 165–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2015.06.002.

47. Xiaoqian Ding, Yi-Yuan Tang, Rongxiang Tang, and Michael I. Posner, “Improving 

Creativity Performance by Short-Term Meditation,” Behavioral and Brain Functions 10, no. 9 

(March 2014), 1, doi:10.1186/1744-9081-10-9. 

48. Herbert A. Shepard, “Innovation-Resisting and Innovation-Producing Organizations,” 

Journal of Business 40, no.4 (October 1967), 472, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2351629.

49. Ibid., 474.

50. Laszlo Block, Work Rules! Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live 

and Lead (New York: Twelve Hachette Book Group, 2015), 135; and Paul D. Kretkowski, “The 

15 Percent Solution,” Wired, 6 December 2015, 

http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1998/01/9858.

51. Jeff Dyer, Hal Gregersen, and Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator’s DNA (Boston: 

Harvard Business Review Press, 2011), 175–79. 

52. Lale Gumusluoglu and Arzu Ilsev, “Transformational Leadership, Creativity, and Organizational Innovation,” Journal of Business Research 62 (2009), 461–62, https://ssrn.com/ab

stract=1068181. 

53. Jing Zhou, “Leading for Creativity: An Employee-Manager Dyadic Approach,” in The 

Creative Enterprise, ed. Tony Davila et al., 23–24.

54. Nurdan Ozaralli, “Linking Empowering Leader to Creativity: The Moderating Role of 

Psychological (Felt) Empowerment,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 181 (May 2015), 

374, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.899. The application of the military’s operational concept of 

mission command should combat the smothering effect of close-control and support adaptability (creativity and innovation) through personnel empowerment. As described in Joint Publication (JP) 3-0, Joint Operations, 11 August 2011, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs

/jp3_0.pdf, “Mission command is the conduct of military operations through decentralized 

execution based upon mission-type orders. Successful mission command demands that subordinate leaders at all echelons exercise disciplined initiative and act aggressively and independently to accomplish the mission.” (See JP 3-0, II-3.) Commanders must relay their intent, what 

they believe needs to be accomplished, as well as any other restraints or requirements to their 

subordinate troops who then are able to figure out the best way to meet the mission. As described, mission command should be supportive of creativity and innovation. Unfortunately, 

many argue it is not actually being practiced; there are too many cultural barriers to allow for 

true decentralized execution. These anti-innovative barriers include some already described: 

cookie-cutter training and fear of disagreeing with unapproachable superiors. See Douglas 

Pryer, “Growing Leaders Who Practice Mission Command and Win the Peace,” Military Review 93, no. 6 (November–December 2013), 33–36, http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryRe

view/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20131231_art008.pdf. 

55. Sawyer, Explaining Creativity, 232. 

56. Donald C. Hambrick, Theresa Seung Cho, and Ming-Jer Chen, “The Influence of Top 

Management Team Heterogeneity on Firms’ Competitive Moves,” Administrative Science 

Quarterly 41, no. 4 (1996), 665, doi: 10.2307/2393871.

57. Sawyer, Explaining Creativity, 232.

58. Hambrick, “Influence of Top Management,” 677–78.

59. Sawyer, Explaining Creativity, 233–34. 

60. Ibid., 234. 
20

61. Ibid., 235. 

62. Ibid., 246.

63. Lu Hong and Scott E. Page, “Some Microfoundations of Collective Wisdom,” in Collective Wisdom, ed. Helene Ladnemore and Jon Ester (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

May 2014): 56–72. 

64. Kyung Hee Kim, “Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of 

Creative Thinking (TTCT),” Creativity Research Journal 18, no. 1 (2006), 3–5, doi:10.1207/s15

326934crj1801_2; and Min Basadur, “Leading Others to Think Innovatively Together: Creative 

Leadership,” Leadership Quarterly 15, no. 1 (February 2004), 114–16, doi:10.1016/j.leaqua

.2003.12.007.

65. Colzato et al., “Prior Mediation Practice,” 1; and Ding et al., “Improving Creativity Performance,” 7.