How to Stop Feeding Your Hungry Ghost

In Buddhism the Hungry Ghosts are depicted as teardrop shaped, with bloated stomachs and necks too thin to pass food – representing our futile attempts to feed ego patterns. We can never find satisfaction. It's like drinking salt water to quench our thirst.

Mark Epstein, in Thoughts Without a Thinker, describes our Hungry Ghosts as "searching for gratification of old unfulfilled needs whose time has passed." 

We all can feel confused and disappointed in ourselves when we haven't been able to make changes in our lives we desperately want to make. It helps immensely to recognize these hungry ghosts as unconscious patterns of beliefs and behaviors we developed as children.

Instead of trying to ignore or overcome old “bad” behavior, be mindful. Let the ghosts in with compassion and without judgment, see how they operate. This could be you: 

You: “I haven’t done as much writing this week as I’d like to. And I’ve been beating myself up about that.” 

Your compassionate self: “You wanted to do more. How did you beat yourself up? What did that look like?”

You: “Feeling uncomfortable, anxious, telling myself I’m lazy, disappointed in myself."

Your compassionate self: “So that’s been a pattern, not writing as much as you’d like, then beating yourself up. Anything else?”

You: “I feel lost in a way, like there’s no structure, no clear path for me to follow. I’ve always felt a little uneasy when I’ve only had myself to rely on.” 

Notice the lack of judgment in your compassionate self's responses. Exploring what your ghosts do and how they do it will encourage them to unveil more, bring the past into the present, and release attachments to outmoded, unnecessary patterns.  

Two Types of Creativity: Kirton Adaption-Innovation Indicator

In his book Adaptors and Innovators, Dr. Michael Kirton described Adaption-Innovation as a cognitive style, a "preferred mode of tackling problems at all stages." He emphasizes that scores on the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), are value-free: "Very high, very low or intermediate KAI scores are neither laudatory nor pejorative." All of us can use both styles of creative problem solving, but we have a preference for either Adaptive/Resourceful or Innovative/Original Creativity.

Adaptive/Resourceful

People who score on the KAI as Adaptive tend to accept the paradigm within which a problem is embedded (current theories, policies, points of view). They're likely to produce a few ideas that aim at continuity with the practices, norms, and current way of doing things, but bring about a better way of doing them. They often (not always) show a preference for Sensing on the MBTI. To be successful over time, most organizations (except the most innovative in their products and/or services) will necessarily be adaptive in their orientation. It's more costly and risky to continually do things in a different way. Kirton remarks that Adaptors are at their best "in the smooth, efficient operation of an existing system; creatively refining, improving, and extending the thinking that underlies it."

Innovative/Original

People who score on the KAI as Innovative tend to "detach the problem from its cocoon of accepted thought," to step out of the "box" or paradigm. They tend to redefine a problem, produce many ideas, break through what the organization perceives as givens and restraints, provide solutions aimed at doing things differently. They often (not always) show a preference for Intuition on the MBTI. While a company is growing and maintaining itself in predictable ways and in a predictable market, innovative solutions are not necessarily preferable; but organizations cannot survive if they're unable to break through with new thinking when necessary.

The Dilemma of Differences

Studies at the Center for Creative Leadership suggest that each problem mode has its advantages, and the most successful organizations (and leaders) are those able to use both problem-solving styles flexibly. In many organizations, though, Innovators experience problems in communication because it's difficult to get others to see outside the box, and they're often met with skepticism.

Perhaps as a consequence, Innovators tend to be condescending to Adaptors, who can be very resourceful and come up with excellent solutions to ongoing problems, but who tend to work within the rules, to seek consensus, and to prefer change that occurs gradually. Thus, Adaptors are often seen by Innovators as unimaginative, stuck, resistant to change, always focused on problems vs. solutions, and/or lacking a view of the big picture.

Because innovative solutions are less easily understood and have unpredictable outcomes, and because such break-through change is threatening, Innovators are often seen by Adaptors as undisciplined, impractical, irreverent, abrasive, and/or insensitive to people. Clearly, a better understanding of these different creative styles -- and the value of each under certain circumstances -- can lead to stronger, more flexible teams and more successful organizations.