A Releasing Your Unlimited Creativity discussion topic

Copyright 2008 by K. Ferlic,   All Rights Reserved

People are taught to follow directions. It is inescapable for as a child we are taught how to be in the world by our care givers. Now, we are not necessarily talking about being in the world according to the social structure of which our care givers are a part. Rather, our care givers teach us how to be in the world as a human being and opposed to being some other animal. They give us the essence of how we learn to respond to life.

There are of course social conventions that we are taught and those social conventions very from culture to culture. But, the things we understand about being in the world are similar. For example, there is food that is safe to eat and food that is not safe and we don’t eat what is not safe. Knives are sharp and can cut us so we don’t run our had over the blade of a knife. There are places where we relieve our bodily functions and there are places that we don’t. The list can go on and on and the greater the list the more social conventions intervene and prescribes the way things are done and how one response to the world.

However, independent of the culture in which we are born, we have come into the world for certain types and kind of experiences. We can argue the point as to an intention for our life if we wish. But if we accept the Releasing Your Unlimited Creativity perspective and the existence of our creative spirit, we will have to take the intention for our life as a given truth about our existence. Relative to this intention for our life, some, if not many, are provided the experiences they desire by the culture in which they were born. Others find it necessary to walk the left hand path.

In any case, there are experiences we came to have and they may not be the part of our culture and the plans our family and society have for us. In essence, at our deepest levels of our being, we look to be free to express the truth of our being and be free to flow in whatever form we can express within the environment we find ourselves that most accurately reflects the true expression of our being. At our deepest levels of our being, we look for freedom and the safe and secure space to express that freedom. Somewhere, at some time, we will have to step out of the norm to get the experiences we came to have. But, if we cannot follow our feelings, mind will overlay what it thinks we need to experience and direct us into those things that it thinks we need. But when we pursue what we think we need as opposed to what we really need, we will never be totally satisfied and we will continually look to get what we seek. But we will never find it because mind and what it thinks is pleasurable and satisfying is directing our actions rather than feelings and the fullness of being.

By following our mind, in time, each of us develop some type and kind of agenda either consciously or nonconsciously that we think we need to do to find satisfaction. If we were asked what does a successful life look like, we will have some answer to that question. If we are asked what does a successful life look like for us personally, it probably would more or less aligned with what we think a successful life looks like. Additionally we could ask, what does the success criteria look like for spiritual success, mental success, emotional success and physical success and we could provide an answer for each. Those ideas of success are part of the basis of our personal agenda in life.

The other part is the nonconscious component that usually does not readily reveal itself except in certain types and kinds of situations. The nonconscious component is comprised of the nonconscious programming we have from this life and what we may have carried into this life with our transcendental mind and the fears and issues we have about life. There are nonconscious things that we believe will give spiritual, mental, emotional and physical success in life and what we believe that will harm us in some way. They bias our actions and may or may not align with our conscious ideas of success. They may in fact conflict with each other.

A simple example is that we may have a nonconscious belief that a successful individual is kind and gentle. But yet, we are in a job that we think makes an individual successful where we must be forceful and demanding. The way most would get around this is to numb the feelings that come from the dishonesty between the two success criteria and rationalize what is done by saying something like, "Success in the world is different that success within an individual or spiritual success." So we are kind and gentle in a church or other spiritual setting and an forceful, demanding and arrogant in the office.

Another example is where we think and deeply feel being an independent entrepreneur is the real success criteria in life. But the though of it scares us deeply and we would become paralyzed with fear if we were on our own. So we simply avoid that way of being in the world and what we consider successful when in reality facing and living that life may be the only way that we could really feel successful.

In any case, what we think is success and what we may be nonconsciously programmed to think success is does not necessarily correspond to what success looks like from the intention that created our life. Relative to the intention for your life there is only one criteria for success. That criteria is whether or not we have a feeling of a fullness of being and we feel as though we are freely expanding in life in all directions and all aspects within our being. Most importantly we cannot find this success in any particular thing we get or do. It is found in a way of being in the world and in the experiences we have. Unless one has individually gone into themselves and figured out how to live in the world and align with this fullness of being such that they become a master unto themselves and what they do in the world, they will be working from a personal agenda that is based upon the current mind and what one thinks and believes including the nonconscious portions of that agenda.

This of course is a very sharp two edge sword for the organization. If the individual’s private agenda fully aligns with the organization, all the actions taken by the individual will serve the organization. However, the more and more one’s private agenda is not in alignment with the organization, the greater number of decisions will not be made in favor of the organization. As long as an individual "follows orders" and performs in the way requested, there are no real issue as a result of the personal agenda. However, when one is free to make decisions the question is, "Whose agenda has the greater influence on how decisions are made - the personal agenda or the organization’s?" Unfortunately, the personal agenda play a greater role that first expected.

As a young individual entering the workforce, the author naively and simply assumed that managers were making decisions in favor of the organization. He assumed that, having been given the job as a manager, the manager would act the role and do what the role required in alignment with the organization. He knew there was always a few "bad apples." But, he though that they were the exception to the rule. What he come to discover is that he was not really incorrect in his naive assumptions. From a conscious awareness perspective, most managers that he had experienced did make decisions most of the time in favor of what the manager thought would be the best for themselves and the organization. A reasonable percentage also routinely tried to ensure what was best for their people although there were a greater percentage that seemed to look out for themselves if not totally, then at least looking our for themselves first. But, nevertheless, there were many decisions driven by the manager’s past programming and decisions were made in favors of past issues never resolved in the manager’s early life.

Based on the experienced the author had none of this was really a significant problem in a steady state type scenario. It was in working with the Laboratory Integrated Prioritization System to address seemingly irreconcilable demands that the author discovered how many decisions were based more on the nonconscious agenda than in conscious awareness. The managers’ noconscious agenda became significant when the organization underwent significant change for one reason or another. What he discovered was that the nonconscious agenda always existed. In hindsight, he began to see how many decisions he thought managers made were reasonable he now understood were driven by the nonconscious agenda and in fact, there were better decisions that could have been made if the manager was free of their own past to look at the facts. But this is not to belittle managers. This is true for all of us. We do not see the facts for what they are because of the biases of our past. Unless we each learn to understand our biases, we will be making more decisions based on our past and the hurt and pain of the past than we realize.

In looking at the private agenda and how it influences the organization, it creates some issues that sound cynical but need to be faced for they can become serious stumbling block for organizations. Simply said, manager play games and, sadly, it is often a game they are not even consciously aware that they are playing it. Or, maybe more compassionately said, human play games and sadly, it is game we are not consciously aware that we play and when we become a manager we continue to play the game.

What this issue really boils down to is the true answer to the question "Why does the individual want to manage?" Alternatively said, "What are their real reasons and motivations for a particular manager managing?" An individual’s mind will give many different answers and reason for why they want to manage. However, it can be shown that, if one works with individuals, more often than not it is the ego and a false perception that ego creates that causes one to desire to manage. Some say, "I want to make a difference" when in fact, they only want to control and do things the way they want to do. Many want to get to be in charge to do what they want and not have to work for others and have others tell them what to do. Even if the manager too has someone to whom they report they find a certain freedom to being able to make some decisions for themselves and direct others.

What needs to be understood is that ultimately, each of us want to be free to express the truth of our being and the truth of who and what we are no matter what be believe is the truth. Some feel the urge more than others. But unless we become very mindful and aware of our thoughts and what we feel and who and what we are, our mind will take control of the natural desire to freely express the truth of our being. This desire to express our truth will then become driven by the mind and what mind thinks and believes and the ego it creates rather than the true expression of our being. When this happens many seek managerial positions to satisfy that deep desire to control one’s world to freely express themselves. But the desire to express our truth gets further manipulated by mind and ends up simply to inflate the ego and gain control for mind to achieve its purposes. That is to implement that personal agenda including all its nonconscious aspects.

If one looks carefully, many managers need to save face and few will ever "go back" to a job where they perform best and maybe ever were happier. Success for most who step into a management role is defined as up and up is ultimately the inflation of the ego. Success is seen as having little to do with satisfaction within oneself and creating the space for others to be satisfied within. Rather success is seen as how beg and important an identity one can create.

Although all generalizations are said to be false, from a creativity perspective, most don’t really know what they are ultimately responsible for managing. Most do not realize what needs to be managed is the creative spirit within the individual and the associated flow of the creative life energy for it is the greatest resource and organization has. In this regard, managers need to create the safe and secure space so that energy can come out and perform successfully for the organization. Managing is not about telling people what to do and how to do it as much as it is creating the space for the individual to be successful. Few manages have the understanding that part of their job is to create the space for their subordinates to be successful. This does not mean the manager in any way does a subordinate’s work. Rather it is to understand and remove the obstacles as to why their subordinates cannot be successful. Yet most managers do not have the minimum set of experiences to be successful in this regard. The reason for this is many seek a managerial role to find greater freedom not to become captive to fixing problems for subordinates. Yet it is only in creating the freedom for the subordinates to do what they do best does the manager find freedom.

What needs to be realized is that nothing lasts forever and every manager needs to be looking to developing their replacement. The manager needs to realize that all positions are only for a time. Life itself is about change and it is guaranteed we will age and, unless we choose differently, to gain wider and broader experiences in life. A manager should be outgrowing their position or their position will outgrow them otherwise both are stagnant and the manager will be challenging their creative life energy to go nonconscious in its creative efforts. There is an old saying that you can have thirty years of experience or one year of experience repeated thirty times. One of the challenges of a manager is to create the space that in some way does not require his subordinates to have one year of experience repeated thirty times including themselves.

An anecdote: A simple example of where a manager has an agenda separate from the needs of the organization is one of a major US railroad a just after the turn of the Twenty-first Century (about six year ago as of this writing). The railroad had several AMTRAK passenger train accidents that caught the public’s attention. A closer look indicated the railroad was plagued by years of embarrassing wrecks and criticism by federal inspectors on the condition of the railroad. What came to light was that the railroad for a number of years choose to spend much less on track maintenance, for example, track ballast on which the railroad sits, significantly below than other major railroad to the point that safety inspectors were beginning to wonder if the issue did not represent a safety issue. Ballasting efforts on the railroad was forty seven percent less than the next lowest railroad and was eighty one percent less that the highest. That is, the railroad was being run unsafely literally on an unsafe foundation by choice. In fact, significant portions of the railroad was not meeting its own internal safety standards.

The reason for the reduction in track maintenance was that the previous chief executive officer paid more attention to its finances than the condition of the track. Railroad officials admitted that for years they limited capital spending in part to make its finances look better. For years under the previous chief operating officer the railroad spent less per mile of track than any other major railroad yet the railroad paid record earning on their stock in this time period. Overall all, rather than focusing on the longer term needs of the railroad to be able to supply services and run safely, the resources were being siphoned off to look better to the outside world.

So the question that really needs to be asked what is the real intent of this particular railroad. "Was the organization intent to run a railroad at a profit or to simply to make money at the expense of the railroad." In answering that question, one can then say whether or not the chief operating officer was really doing the job he was hired to do or was playing a game at the expense of the organization. It needs to be noted that you cannot look at organizational written goals and objectives to see the intent of the organization. You need to look at its actions in the world. Actions always speak louder than words In most cases you only seen the results of managers playing games only after they leave their position and their replacement finds buried skeletons or there is a significant system breakdown such as an accident or other similar event. Then again, it is not uncommon that the previous managers may have simply been trying to perform well outside the range of their capabilities and what they understood about what they were trying to manage. Alternatively said, the manger is incompetent for what they are trying to manage. Individuals do routinely move into position beyond their abilities and refuse in one way or another to developed the abilities they needs and grow into the position.

Related topics
The issue of identifying and meeting true organizational needs

The Password Protected Area provides access to all currently posted (click for current loading) Releasing Your Unlimited Creativity related discussion files and applications.

Top

   RYUC Home   Why free?    Contact     Links     Programs     Services      Contributions