Tag: ideas

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.

6 Emotional Barriers to Generating Ideas and How to Overcome Them

LearningPublished on13 Comments on 6 Emotional Barriers to Generating Ideas and How to Overcome Them

So it would seem that I have stumbled on to a little running theme in the last few blog posts about coming up with ideas. No reason to kick that habit just yet as it is one of the most intriguing of subjects. In this post I want to share some of the emotional barriers to idea generation.

In one of my favourite books: Conceptual Blockbusting, James Adams[1] outlines a range of these emotional blocks to the creative process. Behaviours and habits that can stultify our efforts.

  1. A fear to make mistakes, to fail, to risk.
  2. Preference for judging ideas rather than generating them.
  3. No tolerance for ambiguity or chaos.
  4. A lack of challenge – not engaging enough.
  5. Excessive zeal – too much speed, pace and haste.[2]
  6. An inability to relax and to incubate ideas.

Which ones do you recognise in your colleagues or students, or even sometimes in your own behaviour?

emoblocks

Most of these are of course directly linked. For example when you have a low tolerance for any sort of uncertainty you are risk averse and have a heightened fear of making mistakes. If there is too much pace, either by design or by accident, then you are less likely to relax and incubate ideas. None of these descriptions are ideal for the idea generation process. None of these are ideal for creative learning.

Let’s flip them around so that they become positive descriptions of a learning environment and see how they sound.

  1. “Make excellent mistakes.”[3]
  2. Nurture nascent ideas.
  3. Encourage uncertainty and ambiguity.
  4. Develop the mindset needed for idea generation.
  5. Provide a real, challenging and engaging purpose or context.
  6. Provide the time and space for learners to incubate their ideas.[4]:

reverseblocks

They sound like some useful guidelines to stick to. Again they have the same causal links as before. The mindset of idea generation is divergent = increasing ambiguity = the chance to make a better type of mistake. Slow the pace down = increased opportunity to ponder and cogitate a little. You get the idea.

A big take away here is that much of this is bound by the explicit development of the mindset that is needed at this part of the process. This shouldn’t be something that is secret or assumed. Learning about and enacting the most appropriate mindset is crucial for successful idea generation. Divergent thinking all the way.[5]

Another interesting element is the importance of challenge. Adams refers to a lack of engagement that is caused by this, but it does not simply mean it is not hard enough. Challenge comes in different guises and a lack of engagement can also be caused by pseudo problems or fake scenarios that are meaningless to students. If it is not engaging enough idea generation will stall. Seek out real contexts to engage your students so that ideation is purposeful.

Let me know what you make of some of these barriers and our look at the positive side of the concepts too. It would be great to hear from you, learn about what resonates with you and what you recognise in your own practice or experience.

  1. Adams, James L., Conceptual Blockbusting, W.W.Norton & Company.13, (1976)  ↩

  2. “No! Unfortunate that you rushed to face him… that incomplete was your training.”  ↩

  3. Thanks to Daniel Pink for this useful imperative.  ↩

  4. I will spend some time in the future writing about the pace of the ideation process, in fact all of the creative process.  ↩

  5. You can read more about divergent thinking and the different thinking states, in my blog post: The Ebb and Flow between Divergent and Convergent Thinking.  ↩

3 Activities to Help Your Team: Generate, Develop and Judge Ideas

Design ThinkingPublished onUpdated on33 Comments on 3 Activities to Help Your Team: Generate, Develop and Judge Ideas

There are hundreds of different activities you can use for generating and developing ideas. I thought I would share a trio that works well together. They each require a specific type of thinking or mindset to be successful. The three activities are good representative examples of Divergent, Emergent and Convergent thinking.[1]

I have picked these three because they flow well together, and although they work well on their own, they complement each other well.

1. Crazy 8s

Time: 5mins / Skills: Idea generation / Mindset: Divergent or Open thinking / Resources: 8 Post-it notes per person, felt tip pens / Group: Ideal for small-medium sized groups, you will need a timekeeper. Independent work.

Generate eight different ideas in 5 minutes.[2]

Sounds easy enough, but this is a challenging little task. For each round, participants have 40 seconds to draw an idea on a post-it note. When the first round is done, the timer is immediately reset, and the second round begins for eight rounds in total, 5 minutes.

The most challenging part for most participants is that you can only draw the idea – stick to the no words rule. It means they have to generate an idea and then communicate that. It is worth spending some time being clear about the mindset of divergence and openness. All too often, we are our own worst filters, and people find this hard to shake.

2. Idea Pairs

Time: 15–20mins / Skills: Idea development / Mindset: Emergent or Exploratory thinking / Resources: Post-it notes, felt tip pens / Group: Ideal for small-medium sized groups that are comfortable working in pairs.

Combine ideas and discuss in a pair how they could work together.

I like the simplicity of this next step, and it flows seamlessly from the intensity of Crazy 8s[3]. Once you have finished the first step task (Crazy 8s), each participant will have many ideas; hopefully, they will have eight post-it notes in front of them, so long as they didn’t bail halfway through.

Ask the group to get themselves into pairs to discuss some idea combinations. Each person in the team picks one of their ideas at random and combines it with the arbitrary choice of their partner. Placing the two post-it notes side by side. Through discussion, the combination is explored, and new ideas are noted; this should increase the pool of ideas around the table.

I find this simple step is a great way to collide ideas that might have remained in isolation. It also helps participants talk through their thoughts, developing them further. An Exploratory or Emergent mindset is needed here, which emphasises the need for developing, pushing and prodding ideas in new directions.

3. Impact Vs Effort Matrix

Time: 20–30mins / Skills: Idea filtering / Mindset: Convergent or Closed thinking / Resources: Post-it notes, felt tip pens, whiteboard or large flip chart paper (tabletop also works fine) / Group: Small to medium group size for discussion.

Judge each idea created against a High/Low measure for Effort to implement and the impact it could have.

I always enjoy using this little matrix[4] to judge a smaller handful of ideas. You might have anything from 30–50 ideas from the group, depending on the group size. You might ask the whole team to pick 2–4 of their ideas to bring into this round; perhaps the pairs from the previous activity will discuss what to keep and what to cut. Once you have done that first filter, you can decide what High/Low for Effort and Impact is.

Draw up a four-quadrant matrix on a whiteboard or use some masking tape to do the same on those furry display boards! Label the axes accordingly:

  • HIGH EFFORT
  • LOW EFFORT
  • HIGH IMPACT
  • LOW IMPACT

Now, all you have to do as a team is discuss each idea and place it, measuring/judging the effort needed and its potential impact. This process is always a great way to converge into a small pocket of ideas that fit your requirements. You should pin up the post notes and shuffle them around as you chat about their potential.

From doing this many times, I would say that it is useful, as more ideas are added to the matrix, to compare ideas directly: “Will this be harder to implement than this one?” etc. Another tip would be to consider the trajectory of the ideas over time. Efforts to implement and impact may reduce or increase – mark up the future course and discuss what this means.

This is an effective task to help the group understand what is practical under the constraints you have as a team. It pushes you to make comparisons between ideas and prioritise and rank them in interesting ways. When you are in this state, you narrow your options and are thinking in a more Convergent manner.

Well, I hope those three little tasks prove helpful to you and your teams/students in the future. They flow well together and require barely any unique resources. They also fit within an hour if someone is cracking the whip and facilitating well – typical of the ideation phase. The critical thing for each step is to explicitly flag the mindset or thinking state needed to be successful. They are great examples of the three different thinking states: Divergent, Emergent and Convergent.

Give them a try, and let me know how you get on. Remember that these three tools are three of many, and you should do everything you can to expand the choices you have in your toolset. When you have more options, you can make better combinations of activities such as this trifecta.

  1. It is through these different thinking states that we typically experience a creative process. They often fall in the order written above but just as frequently break that rhythm. You can read a little more about the ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking in my previous blog post.  ↩
  2. I first came across the Crazy 8s ideation strategy from Google Ventures and a Jake Knapp blog post which is worth a read – lots of other ideas there too.  ↩
  3. I’d recommend building in some time to debrief after Crazy 8s. It is quite an intense task requiring focus and individual effort. Spend some time asking how people felt and how they found the task – giving the participants some time to chat will help the overall flow.  ↩
  4. The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.  ↩

The ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking

Design Thinking, Featured, ThinkingPublished onUpdated on63 Comments on The ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking

I thought I would take the opportunity to return to an article I wrote a few days ago. My blog post outlined a few of the key issues for developing creative teams. The article that inspired it from HBR[1] gave a broad definition of innovation and creativity which resonated strongly with my own experience in schools.

According to the author, Roger Schwarz[2], researchers commonly make a distinction between the definition of creativity and innovation.

Innovation involves two stages—the generation of new ideas and the implementation of the ideas. Creativity is considered to be the first stage of innovation.

I would call implementing ideas Prototyping and this typically comes after a range of ideas have been sorted, filtered and judged in different ways during Ideation. I always see a change in the energy levels during Ideation as people begin to flex their creative muscles more intensely.

Later in the article Schwarz outlines a conflict in factors that affect innovation, explaining that a different type of thinking is needed.

Creativity and the second stage of innovation require different individual skills and team structures and processes. The idea generation stage is often referred to as divergent thinking or exploration. The implementation stage is often referred to as convergent thinking or exploitation. Unless you plan to have your team hand off its creative ideas, you will need to create a team that can operate in both modes, switching among them as appropriate.

This whole area is invariably complex and more research is needed. However even from my own experience the requirements on an individual are much more intricate. I agree that we need to be in a divergent thinking state when we generate ideas, but this changes when we have to decide on which ideas are worth investing further in. It changes to a convergent thinking state. In order to identify our choices we have to narrow our field, we have to purge the ideas that don’t make the cut. For us to successfully judge a set of ideas we have to be able to converge and begin to make choices. Thinking big (divergently) and generating ideas at this stage would certainly be counterintuitive.

The ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking at the ideation stage is quite important and much more frequent than is suggested in the article. Idea generation is but one part of Ideation. Of course we may identify Emergent thinking as well at this stage which is exploratory and helps when we want to develop our ideas further. I see Ideation being made up of the sequence below:

  1. Generate Ideas (Divergent or Open Thinking)
  2. Explore and develop ideas (Emergent or Exploratory Thinking)
  3. Judge and shortlist (Convergent or Closed Thinking)

It is extremely useful to have a language for the thinking state or mindset needed. I would highly recommend sharing the definitions and helping others understand them. Talking explicitly about the thinking that is needed to be most successful helps signpost people to such expectations, and has helped countless teams of adults and students I have worked with. Don’t let this be a wishy washy stage, identify a process, like the sequence above and stick to it. Trust in the process.[3]

Once ideas have been explored and narrowed down then a team would move on to implementation. Taking a concept into a working or minimal viable prototype phase. Again the type of thinking here is not simply convergent as Schwarz outlines, in my opinion it is equally fluid and perhaps also made up of the combination of divergent, emergent and convergent thinking states.

  1. Harvard Business Review  ↩
  2. Roger Schwarz is an organisational psychologist, find him on Twitter @LeadSmarter  ↩
  3. And the force.  ↩