To solve problems, groups need good ideas. Since complex problems usually require many good ideas, we generate them any way we can — brainstorming, conversations over lunch, or even dreaming. The ideas we generate include the good, the bad, and the ugly, and it isn't always obvious which is which. We have to comb through them all, evaluating, assessing, doing thought experiments, and making judgments. When we think we've found something worthwhile, we might do some actual experiments to help with the judging.
Generate, judge, experiment. Generate, judge, experiment. It isn't a simple cycle, of course, because sometimes we generate new ideas in the course of judging, or while running experiments. Nevertheless, it's useful to consider three roles for group members: generators, judges, and experimenters. Some people hop easily from role to role, and some adopt two roles — or all three — simultaneously.
Although ideas have a life cycle, we don't always respect that life cycle, and that's where trouble can begin. Over the next three issues, I offer some insights that help us to accommodate our generating, judging, and experimenting efforts to the life cycle of ideas. Let's begin with generating.
- Newborn ideas are fragile
- Newborn ideas — ideas just hatched and new to the group — are easily crushed. They usually have weaknesses that haven't yet been addressed. They're incomplete and vulnerable.
- Their vulnerability arises from at least three sources. First, if the problem space is complex, the generator of the idea might have grasped only a part of the problem. Second, generators tend to focus on singular aspects of the problem, even if they have grasped the entire problem. Third, to aid generation, generators often intentionally produce wacky or mostly-wacky ideas, because they can trigger creative thinking.
- To prevent premature rejection of newborn ideas, suspend judging until generation has completed an iteration. This suspension is an important part of formal brainstorming.
- Addressing weaknesses requires resources
- Newborn ideas are Newborn ideas are incomplete,
in part, because of the
their constituenciesincomplete, in part, because of the narrowness of their constituencies. Because it's new, a newborn idea hasn't yet acquired advocates beyond the small circle of its generators. This is rarely enough to protect a newborn idea from rejection, as its list of weaknesses accumulates.
- When we apply our judging and evaluation processes to newborn ideas, they sometimes die because their constituencies are so narrow that they suffer from insufficient exposure to cognitive diversity. For example, their generators might not have considered a weakness identified by a judge, or even if they have, they might not have developed a resolution.
- To prevent premature rejection of newborn ideas during judging, consider designating teams of advocates to address the weaknesses judges identify. The advocates might need more members than the judging team, because addressing weaknesses can be more difficult than identifying them.
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Problem Solving and Creativity:
- Critical Thinking and Midnight Pizza
- When we notice patterns or coincidences, we draw conclusions about things we can't or didn't directly
observe. Sometimes the conclusions are right, and sometimes not. When they're not, organizations, careers,
and people can suffer. To be right more often, we must master critical thinking.
- Figuring Out What to Do First
- Whether we belong to a small project team or to an executive team, we have limited resources and seemingly
unlimited problems to deal with. How do we decide which problems are important? How do we decide where
to focus our attention first?
- We Are All People
- When a team works to solve a problem, it is the people of that team who do the work. Remembering that
we're all people — and all different people — is an important key to success.
- Project Improvisation as Group Process
- When project plans contact reality, things tend to get, um, a bit confused. We can sometimes see the
trouble coming in time to replan thoughtfully — if we're nearly clairvoyant. Usually, we have
to improvise. How a group improvises tells us much about the group.
- Newtonian Blind Alleys: II
- Some of our decisions don't turn out well. The nature of our errors does vary, but a common class of
errors is due to applying concepts from physics originated by Isaac Newton. One of these is the concept
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.