There's some caveats to all this. The most obvious is that you're right and Kara's wrong. The problem in creative orgs is that it's often hard to tell you apart

There's some caveats to all this. The most obvious is that you're right and Kara's wrong. The problem in creative orgs is that it's often hard to tell you apart from Kara. Learning and unlearning are important abilities in a creative setting. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a creative setting. How many of us (in ops) have had to argue with coworkers about the usefulness of configuration management (back when that was becoming the best way to do things), and who now have to talk with coworkers about the need to containerize our build and deployment? So, what might've been wrong (or right) at some point in history, may not be wrong (or right) now. And yes, as others have pointed out, there is usually a lot of technical debt at stake. In UI/UX settings, agreeing with your coworkers (as someone who's done design, talking about engineers), it usually means that you end up with a real stinking pile of a UX, where the designer gets overruled every time unless product intervenes. There's just more engineers than there are designers, and all of the engineers are living in the same bubble. That leads into the other caveat. This strategy works okay when you are in an org with enough clearheaded people (who have the power). With a critical mass of clearheaded people, you can carry forth and the cumulative effect of things going wrong doesn't overwhelm the org's ability to repair them. Are there meta-abilities involved with creativity? I know for my own individual flow, it was important to recognize when I was stuck, and to take a walk. Creative people are often very stubborn, and, maybe this works well in a traditional, management context, but, I'm pretty sure this works against us in our creative bread-and-butter. And, I'm not sure there really is a general way to teach creative ability (whatever that is) that works for everyone, including this fictitious Kara.