Month: January 2016

How to Strike a Balance when Generating Ideas

CreativityPublished onUpdated on2 Comments on How to Strike a Balance when Generating Ideas

When you use an activity to generate ideas it typically comes with a standard pace setting. The way I see it, the pace dial is usually set between Incubate/Slow OR Force/Fast. This is also the intensity with which we are working or generating ideas.

Force

One idea generation activity is 100 Ideas in 10 Minutes. It is really effective at generating lots of potential ideas for a problem in a short space of time. From the name you can tell the pace is high. Another activity I have written about recently is the Crazy 8s, in which you draw 1 idea every 40 seconds for 5 minutes. This sets a similarly intense creative pace for those involved.

As much as the higher pace, higher intensity tasks tangibly increase the creative energy in the room, they also force the hand of that creative thinking. There are limits and constraints and higher pace. As a result, you create pressure, for some participants (and students) they love that edge. For others, it becomes harder and actually works counter to the general mindset we need for generating ideas: divergence. Too much pressure and pace can be a block to creativity. So we have to handle this carefully and create opportunities for a balance in speed settings if we can.

Incubate

When we incubate ideas we are taking our time to mull and ponder them over. We cogitate on them and allow ideas to be twisted and turned at a more leisurely pace. No time limits, no facilitator telling you, “Next one, move on!” When we incubate ideas we actively create conditions for our brain to slowly generate new connections and new ideas.

When you look through these brainstorming routines from Melanie Pinola, for example, you will see that the majority of them require the pace-setting to be quite low. Take a walk; in the shower; take a nap. The slower pace allows our brain to continue to work the connections. I have written before about Purposeful Napping, the deliberate use of sleep inertia to unlock our creativity. Take Edison’s lead on this one.

Suffice it to say that when we are engaged and motivated around a meaningful problem, we can guarantee our subconscious brain will continue to work hard. It has evolved to make connections from stimuli and will continue to work away at developing ideas or trying to break open a problem. We just need to give it deliberate time to work and create simple methods for capturing those ideas and connections if and when they are generated. Notebook in the shower type stuff.

Strike a Balance

A way to combine the power of these different pace settings is to seek out a balance, not only in the pace but the style of activity too. Here are a few ideas for you to takeaway:

  1. Combine activities so that they complement each other, go fast and slow.
  2. Provide time after an intense activity to go for a walk or work on something else, deliberately choosing to switch off.
  3. Arrange for these Force activities to happen at the end of the day so that the pace shifts overnight.
  4. You may even ask your students or participants to not think about the task anymore. Invariably new ideas are created and developed.
  5. Plan for downtime. Don’t overfill time with your students or colleagues that is for idea generation. Plan for deliberate Incubate style sessions.
  6. Talk explicitly with your team about the pace settings of the different tasks. Build up a picture of the pace settings for each tool in your creative toolset, share that understanding.
  7. Differentiate. This comes straight out of Teaching 101. Each team member or student will respond to the pace and intensity of an idea generation task differently. Talk about how they feel after different sessions and plan for the most appropriate combination of tasks for teams in the future.
  8. Increase your awareness of the pace-setting for tasks. When you debrief about different activities consider the intensity and pace. By staying aware of how others respond to them you are better equipped to choose suitable tasks. Understand the task design and the expected pace and observe how this impacts on those involved.

I find the Force Vs Incubate spectrum to be a really effective way to design idea generation tasks for any group. Just ask any group about when they generate their best ideas and it typically is not during a set-piece task. Strike the pace balance and we are much more likely to be utilising the best creative activities from our toolset.

As ever, let me know what resonates by sharing a comment below.

—

Photo by Startup Stock Photos from Pexels

Challenge the borders of your thinking

Creativity, LearningPublished onUpdated on1 Comment on Challenge the borders of your thinking

I know that a network map of the brain is a thing. I wonder if there is a way you could map your conceptual understanding beyond a simple mind map.

Stick with me as I explore this idea of a “map of our thinking” out loud, it has been something I have long pondered and used in discussions with others. I would primarily refer to it when talking about how provocation changes our thinking.

  • Say we could create a spatial representation of what we know about a topic.
  • It might take up a certain area and have borders.
  • It might be something we can draw.
  • Perhaps there are neighbouring relevant topics.
  • Let’s say the size is relative to our understanding, the bigger the area the more we understand about that topic.
  • We might also be able to quantify the amount of knowledge there is for any given topic, leading to a point of reference of what potential understanding there still is to discover.
  • This map is not necessarily about the connections like a mind map, but more about the aggregate “space” the discovered or known concepts take up.
  • There would be an edge. A thinking border.
  • There would be unknown territory still to be discovered.

So what happens when the borders change.

I have always wondered about the power of using provocation to challenge our thinking. To challenge the borders of what we know. I imagine a provocation being something like a newly discovered perspective on an issue or a series of facts previously not seen. All manner of things can serve as a provocation. They would break that thinking border and create a new space on the map, forcing us to draw a new edge of our thinking. That newly identified space and albeit uncharted thinking would then need some exploring, some thinking and processing. But it would soon be subsumed within the wider map of what we know about that topic.

De Bono refers to how provocations can create movement in our thinking if they are used to challenge a set of ideas. Perhaps the borders of our conceptual understanding become equally fluid when we are faced with different provocations. Perhaps those borders shift and expand, contract and become redrawn as we continue to learn.

How To Generate More Ideas With The Deliberate Debate Technique

CreativityPublished onUpdated on3 Comments on How To Generate More Ideas With The Deliberate Debate Technique
Conflict, controversy and debate might improve your idea generation

According to research by Charlan Nemeth, and her team, a degree of conflict can increase the number of ideas we generate.

This research is fascinating as it runs counter to commonly held beliefs about the best conditions for generating ideas. These beliefs centre on withholding criticism and feedback.

In this post we explore why more criticism might lead to more ideas; when to explore this in your design process; the importance of your team relationships; practical strategies and protocols you can use to implement this approach.

Permission to Criticise

In my facilitation experience, I present the importance of not judging ideas too soon; I still think this is important. It is not a lack of critique, it is more about the timing of feedback.

Importantly this study explored the impact of providing permission to criticise and judge ideas. In this way, critique is explicitly playing a role in the process.

Here is a little detail about the studies taken from the abstract:

In this experimental study, traditional brainstorming instructions, including the advice of not criticizing, were compared with instructions encouraging people to debate—even criticize. A third condition served as a control. This study was conducted both in the United States and in France. Results show the value of both types of instruction, but, in general, debate instructions were superior to traditional brainstorming instructions. Further, these findings hold across both cultures.[1]

Nemeth, Charlan & Personnaz, Bernard & Personnaz, Marie & Goncalo, Jack. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology – EUR J SOC PSYCHOL. 34. 365-374. 10.1002/ejsp.210.

I have often found that when criticism is not expected, it is counterproductive to the process. I suppose setting clear expectations such as: “critique is allowed” provides clear boundaries for everyone.

My effort to “Not judge ideas too soon” could be reframed around clear expectations, or “not judging ideas unexpectedly”. With clear boundaries, feedback and filtering are welcome and not a surprise.

Why does conflict, controversy and debate generate more ideas?

Nemeth et al describe a 25% increase in ideas generated from the debate and critique approach compared to straightforward brainstorming tasks.

Also, participants developed more ideas after the activity as those taking part in the debate mulled over potential solutions.

Even though they may have generated new ideas, I still think this task falls into the idea exploration category, the second in the three steps of creativity.

The authors posit that an environment where debate is normal creates freedom.

framing criticism in terms of its potential for group creativity would both liberate individuals to be relatively free of evaluation apprehension and stimulate them to express ideas more freely.

This connects with my understanding of self-critic and how we need to filter less when we are generating ideas. If criticism and feedback are normal we can say what we want, without fear or angst.

Nemeth et al go on to explain how this freedom improves the conditions for idea generation on two different levels.

One is at the level of permitting discourse that would otherwise be monitored. A second is at the level of stimulating additional thought via the expression of competing views. If what brainstorming attempts to achieve is quantity of ideas without regard for their quality (Osborn, 1957), the freedom to express thoughts without worrying whether they constitute a criticism of another’s ideas may be well suited to idea generation.

By opening up unmonitored discourse we encourage more criticism, as well as, more sharing of ideas. We circumvent the filters and the second-guessing that limit our contributions.

How to generate more ideas through the debate and critique approach

A couple of things spring to mind about how this research and the deliberate debate and critique approach, runs counter to commonly held beliefs.

Team Trust Improves Idea Generation

The first is about the necessary team environment for this type of approach to thrive. In a friendly team, where co-construction is high, and competition is relatively low, I would imagine it would work well.

A team with lots of shared creative experiences and plenty of successful reference points can explore higher levels of conflict with more confidence.

The levels of trust are high between the team. They can enter into the deliberate debate space trusting in the relationships around the table. Relationships are crucial to team idea generation.

We can summarise these elements as follows:

  • Co-construction – we make stuff together (HIGH)
  • Shared experiences – we have been through a lot together (HIGH)
  • Trust – I have got your back (HIGH)
  • Competition – we are not trying to beat each other (LOW)
  • Successful creative reference points – we have developed ideas together before (HIGH)

When the opposite is true, criticism can often be a downward spiral of assumed personal attacks.

Mindset Matters

That leads me to my second thought about the makeup of the idea generation experience. If the critique is commonplace the disposition and mindset of participants become even more critical.

By sharing expectations, you signal that a specific type of thinking is needed. By debating ideas and testing them through dialogue, you are exploring them.

A deliberate debate and critique approach to idea generation require an emergent or exploratory thinking mindset. We explore possibilities and potential. We respond to critique and debate the options.

In the team environment, we want everyone to be on board with this approach and to tune into this disposition and expectation. Any misalignment or misinterpretation can slide into the downward spiral of assumed personal attacks.

In the next section, we look at how to set expectations for this type of work.

How to Use Protocols to Generate More Ideas With The Deliberate Debate Technique

I use protocols for thinking and critique all of the time with my clients. These are simple rules of engagement in a meeting or workshop. Protocols are the most direct way to share expectations.

Talk about the Talking

Rather than launching straight into the workshop outcomes, or the first thing on the agenda, I spend up to 10 minutes talking about how we are going to work together.

The sort of language I use to describe this phase is to talk about the talking. We establish some agreed expectations about how we will engage with the dialogue and the session’s work. The 10 minutes invariably pays off.

Hard on Content; Soft on People

For the debate and critique approach to idea generation, or Deliberate Idea Debate (DID)[2], the “Hard on content; Soft on people” protocol would be critical to any success.

A team should be debating the ideas or content, not the people who share them. The distinction needs to be facilitated watchfully.

This protocol is broken in the way we least expect. It is often because we are too soft on content, and not hard enough. You may recall times when your team didn’t quite get below the surface of the issue; identified the root cause; shied away from asking the hard questions, or were simply too nice.

The debate and critique approach to idea generation offer an invitation to change this dynamic.

“Hard on content; Soft on people” is an effective protocol to create clear expectations, which become the foundations for better debate.

Ringfenced Debate

Another useful facilitation technique is to ringfence the deliberate debate and critique time. Setup the activity to have time limits.

Time-limited activities enable the team to introduce new expectations or reinforce the protocols for collaboration.

When I am running new routines, like this debate approach, I set a limit on the time we spend in this mode. By using this approach I can make a clear distinction between workshop behaviours before and afterwards.

You might ringfence the activity like this:

  • 5 minutes to establish the protocols and expectations for the activity.
  • 30 minutes of debate and critique to generate more ideas.
  • 10 minutes capturing insights and reflections.
  • 5 minutes reflecting on the experience.

Use a timer to structure each part.

With more experience, you can extend the time for different elements of the process.

When to Generate More Ideas With The Deliberate Debate Technique?

Overall I was reflecting on:

  • When would I potentially use the D.I.D (Deliberate Idea Debate) activity in a longer design process?
  • When is it most helpful to slow down and explore a set of ideas through discussion and debate?

I think it would work well in the idea exploration phase, as mentioned earlier. Once you have generated a stack of ideas, the more, the merrier, the exploration and debate could help with both broadening and maturing those potential ideas.

You might start by producing the first filter, a shortlist from your collective top picks and then allow each team member the chance to present and defend a potential idea.

Your Talking Points and Next Steps

  • Evaluate the idea generation methods you have used.
  • Identify future opportunities to use the debate and critique approach.
  • Reflect on the trust and relationships in your team.
  • Outline the protocols to support this approach.

If you get a chance to use deliberate debate or dialogue, it would be great to hear how you get on.

  1. Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M. and Goncalo, J. A. (2004), The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 34: 365–374. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.210  ↩
  2. Maybe that could be the name of the tool or activity Deliberate Idea Debate or D.I.D!  ↩

Prune Your Ideas – a visualisation by Bryan M. Mathers

Design ThinkingPublished onUpdated on2 Comments on Prune Your Ideas – a visualisation by Bryan M. Mathers

Over the last week or so I have been sharing some ideas about the process of generating and judging ideas. I was fortunate enough to receive the Tweet below from Bryan Mathers (@BryanMMathers) who shared his visualisation of the concepts.

You can take a look at a higher resolution copy of Bryan’s image below or on his blog here. Please note the creative commons licensing on it.

pruningideas

I like the idea of pruning as a representation of the way that we would judge our ideas in the latter stages of ideation. Carefully pulling away the dead wood to reveal the shoots with the most potential. Growing ideas is of course an easy representation of generating ideas too. Seeding as many as we can to see which would germinate.

Thanks to Bryan for taking the time to visualise my thinkery.

If you enjoyed this sort of thing you may also like this visualisation of a workshop I did in the US a while ago by @braddo.

You Should Design Learning to Privilege Experience Over Analysis

LearningPublished onUpdated on3 Comments on You Should Design Learning to Privilege Experience Over Analysis

In many ways this is a pre-cursor to some future posts about empathy. Imagine it is like a supply mission ahead of the main mission.[1]

I have long been interested in shining a light on the emotional journey of learning. At the centre stands the need for greater understanding and development of empathy. This challenge is meant on many levels, including the design of learning and the overall ambition and vision a school has.

I came across this recent piece[2] about the development of policy related to climate change. The paper is an effort to put research about human psychology into action when it comes to new policy creation. The first issue it raises squarely references the need for us to pay better attention to the way we engage others:

The Human Brain Privileges Experience Over Analysis…In short, how we feel about a given situation often has a potent influence on our decisions about how to respond (Slovic & Peters, 2006)[3].

Of course the context here is slightly different, however the same psychological findings are true when we consider the design of learning. Experiential learning is one well worn path to more engaged learners. However learner design for greater empathy is typically not.

What does this actually mean for the way I design learning?

We should continue to design learning so that it can be, “translated into relatable and concrete personal experiences.” This is that well worn path I mentioned. Increasing the empathy quotient in your class is a different ask, often changing as a result of what we just discussed. Design and co-construct periods of learning that your students connect deeply with. The research tells us that we humans will filter for those personal connections and remain much more engaged once we do. We need to turn up the dial of activities that develop the skill of empathy through relatable and concrete personal experiences.

You never really know a man until you understand things from his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.[4]

  1. I have been reading The Martian.  ↩
  2. van der Linden, Sander, Edward Maibach, and Anthony Leiserowitz. “Improving Public Engagement With Climate Change Five “Best Practice” Insights From Psychological Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10.6 (2015): 758–763.  ↩
  3. The full reference from the paper: Slovic P., Peters E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 322–325  ↩
  4. Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1960  ↩