The Willingness to Break and the Need to Build Drivers and Barriers to Innovation in Intelligence Work
By: Allon Sasson
The Institute for the Research of the Methodology of Intelligence thanks Rabbi Ariel Yeshurun from Miami who volunteered to translate this article.
A few months ago, I had the privilege of interviewing Michael Morell, former Deputy Director and Acting Director of the CIA, for the Modcast—a podcast by the Intelligence Methodology Research Institute. Among the various topics we discussed, I asked him what qualities make an intelligence professional truly exceptional. Morell rightly pointed out that the answer to this question varies significantly depending on the specific intelligence role—whether an analyst, an operative, or another position.
One of the key qualities for an analyst, according to Morell, is constant openness to learning. Analysts often draft reports, receive feedback, refine their work, and repeat this process multiple times. True learning occurs in these iterations. If an analyst perceives feedback as irrelevant or arbitrary, he will fail to grow. However, if he questions the reasoning behind the feedback and seeks to understand its purpose, he will improve. Morell, who once served as the CIA's chief analyst, provides a compelling explanation of how intelligence professionals develop expertise. But how does this relate to innovation?
Many argue that expertise and extensive professional experience can actually serve as barriers to innovation, due to factors such as ingrained habits and cognitive rigidity, which I will touch upon later.
The short answer to the connection between continuous openness in the intelligence field and innovation lies in the willingness to "break” what has already been constructed, written, and formulated—to recognize that better alternatives exist and actively seek them out. One way to create something new is by refining the existing approach—the path of expertise. Another is by exploring alternative methods and constructing something entirely different—the path of innovation.
Both approaches are valid, and each can yield outstanding results despite their fundamental differences. What they have in common is a willingness and ability to explore alternatives—a reflection of the ongoing tension in the intelligence field between two competing forces that can sometimes be hard to distinguish: expertise and innovation.
To explore the complex relationship between intelligence and innovation, this article will highlight certain characteristics of intelligence processes and products that foster innovative thinking, as well as aspects of the intelligence field that may hinder it.
This is not an argument about whether intelligence professionals are more or less innovative than those in other fields. The article does not compare different professions, nor does it focus on the personal traits of intelligence officers.
Following the events of October 7, Israeli intelligence agencies have faced significant criticism, particularly regarding their ability to think differently and their openness to alternative perspectives, diverse opinions, and ideas that challenge existing assumptions.
This article was originally written before October 2023 and does not directly address those events, although minor revisions were made in response to them. While some information has since become publicly available, there is still not enough available data to thoroughly analyze the role of innovation in this intelligence failure. In any case, that is not the purpose of this article.
Instead, the article focuses on how intelligence work methods, underlying assumptions, and core practices either encourage or constrain innovation. By understanding both the driving and limiting factors, intelligence organizations can make informed management decisions and effectively integrate innovation into their institutional frameworks.
The Institute for the Research of the Methodology of Intelligence thanks Rabbi Ariel Yeshurun from Miami who volunteered to translate this article.
A few months ago, I had the privilege of interviewing Michael Morell, former Deputy Director and Acting Director of the CIA, for the Modcast—a podcast by the Intelligence Methodology Research Institute. Among the various topics we discussed, I asked him what qualities make an intelligence professional truly exceptional. Morell rightly pointed out that the answer to this question varies significantly depending on the specific intelligence role—whether an analyst, an operative, or another position.
One of the key qualities for an analyst, according to Morell, is constant openness to learning. Analysts often draft reports, receive feedback, refine their work, and repeat this process multiple times. True learning occurs in these iterations. If an analyst perceives feedback as irrelevant or arbitrary, he will fail to grow. However, if he questions the reasoning behind the feedback and seeks to understand its purpose, he will improve. Morell, who once served as the CIA's chief analyst, provides a compelling explanation of how intelligence professionals develop expertise. But how does this relate to innovation?
Many argue that expertise and extensive professional experience can actually serve as barriers to innovation, due to factors such as ingrained habits and cognitive rigidity, which I will touch upon later.
The short answer to the connection between continuous openness in the intelligence field and innovation lies in the willingness to "break” what has already been constructed, written, and formulated—to recognize that better alternatives exist and actively seek them out. One way to create something new is by refining the existing approach—the path of expertise. Another is by exploring alternative methods and constructing something entirely different—the path of innovation.
Both approaches are valid, and each can yield outstanding results despite their fundamental differences. What they have in common is a willingness and ability to explore alternatives—a reflection of the ongoing tension in the intelligence field between two competing forces that can sometimes be hard to distinguish: expertise and innovation.
To explore the complex relationship between intelligence and innovation, this article will highlight certain characteristics of intelligence processes and products that foster innovative thinking, as well as aspects of the intelligence field that may hinder it.
This is not an argument about whether intelligence professionals are more or less innovative than those in other fields. The article does not compare different professions, nor does it focus on the personal traits of intelligence officers.
Following the events of October 7, Israeli intelligence agencies have faced significant criticism, particularly regarding their ability to think differently and their openness to alternative perspectives, diverse opinions, and ideas that challenge existing assumptions.
This article was originally written before October 2023 and does not directly address those events, although minor revisions were made in response to them. While some information has since become publicly available, there is still not enough available data to thoroughly analyze the role of innovation in this intelligence failure. In any case, that is not the purpose of this article.
Instead, the article focuses on how intelligence work methods, underlying assumptions, and core practices either encourage or constrain innovation. By understanding both the driving and limiting factors, intelligence organizations can make informed management decisions and effectively integrate innovation into their institutional frameworks.
Download this article
