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.
