Cropley (2005) and Cropley, Kaufman, and Cropley (2008) explored the notion that creativity might be employed with the deliberate intention of causing harm or damage to others (e.g., McLaren, 1993; James, Clark, & Cropanzano, 1999) by focusing on acts of terrorism. One of the starkest examples of such malevolent creativity was seen in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11). Judged against the criteria of a functionally creative product developed by Cropley and Cropley (2005) – namely, novelty, relevance and effectiveness, elegance and generalizability – Cropley et al. (2008) argued that terrorists, such as those involved in the 9/11 attacks, exploit creativity to help them achieve their goals. Whether used consciously or unconsciously, creativity is as much a weapon for terrorists as it is for business executives.

Cropley et al. (2008) also, however, explored the notion of “decay” in relation to creativity. In essence, every creative product, process, or service, once implemented, sows the seeds of its own destruction. In the case of the 9/11 terrorists, the very novelty that was so spectacularly successful in the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks had, by the time of the United Airlines (UA93) hijacking, decayed to the point that UA93's passengers responded quite differently, possibly quite creatively, and with some success. The effectiveness of the terrorist attack on UA93 was significantly diminished in comparison with the other attacks on 9/11 (if we assume that, as is generally thought to be the case, the terrorists intended to crash the plane into either the White House or the U.S. Capitol).