Creativity Requires (We Distinguish It From) Commitment

Creativity requires commitment. But not in the way we normally think about it.

I mean we can’t really feel free until we know where the limits are. So, openness and exploration require a clear way to signal when we need to start closing things down.

This happens in all kinds of deliberative decision-making, but it shares some important overlaps with how we operationalize rules.

For example, we might say something like:

• “I’m not saying we’re committing to this, but I’d like to just do some thought-experiments…”

• “This isn’t a final decision, we are just brainstorming…”

Normally, we don’t sense the need for this kind of explicit boundary-setting. We certainly jump back and forth between them all the time in our heads, and even when we’re in groups, the divergent and convergent rhythms can organically flow.

But—and here is the important piece—what happens when things go wrong? If you don’t have a way to make the conversational dynamics legible, you make them hard to correct.

Moreover, it’s one thing to consciously decide no explicit structure is needed, and another to leave it unspecified because you don’t have language for it.

Where this often becomes confusing is when we can’t reliably distinguish the rule itself (the explicit binding commitment, agreement, etc.) from communications or interpretations about the rule.

They may be the same thing like when a store owner posts a sign saying “We are no longer accepting ANY expired coupons.” The sign represents the unilateral encoding and a notification to staff and customers.

Yet, they are clearly different like when an employee handbook describes the company’s non-discrimination policy. You could erase that section of the handbook but the rule would still exist

These two elements can become confused, though, as when the OMB rescinded its 2025 funding-freeze memo: the administration announced the rescission but insisted it ended only the memo, not the freeze itself, leaving agencies and courts to sort out whether the official rule had actually changed.

Interestingly, the court ruled, essentially, that the memo did constitute a binding obligation.

This is why encoding’s critical function is clarifying the boundary between non-binding information and binding obligation.

The clearer and well understood that process is, the easier it is to communicate non-binding information.

This is because without that clarity, communication must be hedged and nuanced. The message carries too much of the interpretive burden. This predictably contributes to confusion, but also means less information is shared.

Conclusion

The point of all of this is, first, to recognize that while information and obligation are usually mixed together, that is only a justification for having a good way to distinguish them.

Second, and this is the part that often gets missed, having a clear boundary between the rule itself and anything else isn’t prioritizing formalization to the exclusion of the relationships.

In fact, when operationalized appropriately, rules not only provide clearer expectations and firmer accountability, but as a consequence they also free us up to play more knowing the structuring-space is always available.

For a more detailed explanation of how propositions differ from pointers, see this reference article.