Balance: Creativity vs. Control

Creativity is great. It allows us to create opportunities and to seize them. It allows us to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. Without creativity opportunities are ignored and lost. Without the flexibility accompanying creativity, unforeseen problems are ignored and might kill us.

Control is important, though it doesn't feel quite as great as creativity. Without self-control and its accompanying focus, any individual's enterprise can easily fizzle out, effort being scattered all over the place. Without central control, any complex enterprise is likely to disintegrate into individuals and small groups acting in different directions.

Generally speaking, control mechanisms tend to make creativity more difficult. But there are ways to combine control and creativity. For example, general control can be achieved by requiring adherence to plans and orders on the larger scale, while leaving room for creativity and local decisions on the smaller scale. In the field of education, this may translate to something like the charter schools in the US. These schools must adhere to certain requirements, such as a certain level of proficiency of the students in various fields. But there is much room for local control and creativity in how the pupils are taught, and what they may be taught in addition to the centrally imposed requirements.

Creativity vs. Control is quite related to Planning vs. Acting. Creativity is akin to Planning in that both keep the options open, allow changes and flexibility, and generally view the world at a rather wide angle. Control and Acting are similar in that both look at the world at a focused, narrow angle, and are guided by the idea of sticking to the original plan. Both Control and Action have limited peripheral vision, so they both are likely to miss some ideas and opportunities. It's a sacrifice necessary to allow concentration on achieving something, rather than considering something.

The relationship between control and creativity is a bit more complex than just being two ends of a continuum. In some ways constraints, such as those imposed by a controlling authority, provide opportunities for creativity, where control allows it to exist. I was working with an architect on building a house (that horror story can fill another book), and he was happy to solicit constraints from me. It seemed that limitations can serve as anchors, or as bases around which to build his ideas.

Most state education systems err on the control side. They prescribe the curriculum, pedagogic methods, budget, timing, testing, organizational structure, labor relations, legal standing, insurance and liabilities, values, etc. This is not a surprise, since control spells power, and state-systems speak the language of power. But this leaves very little room for creativity, resulting in such an inflexible structure that any opportunity seized or any unexpected problem averted are probably an indication of punishable non-compliance by someone in the system.

While working with city officials and education system principals etc., it is clear that their work is severely controlled by others. At the same time, it is clear that there is great creative potential among them: If they are allowed to dream and to find solutions to tough problems on the way to realize the dreams - they dream; they are creative. This is a failing of mine, but I wouldn't normally expect them to be that. It gives room for hope that while the education system organization is problematic - overly controlling - the people comprising the organization can easily become the lively members of a more flexible and creative organization, if the establishment only allows them to be that.