Innovation by SIT

This is the second of a series of posts discussing innovation barriers. This series does not intend to encompass all that can be said on the subject. That would take a series of books. It does intend to describe, however, several types of barriers we face when we try to innovate, and some of the innovation methodologies that have been developed to address them.

What is more challenging: coming up with an innovative idea, or sharing it with a group of people that may love it or hate it? Most of us will agree that this is a simple question. We might, however, disagree on the answer… In the previous post in this series I called the group of barriers relating to the act of coming up with innovative idea “Cognitive Barriers.” The complementary group of barriers – those that have to do with sharing innovative ideas with others – were labeled “Psychological Barriers.”

Although people differ in their “susceptibility” to these different barriers, most us will agree that objectively (whatever that means..) the cognitive barriers to innovation are harder to overcome. The importance of the psychological barriers is due, to a great extent, to the fact that some of the best ideas come up during group discussions. The worn-out saying goes: “none of us is as smart as all of us.” While I have several issues with this approach (as, I suspect, you may as well) – there is some truth to it, especially when it comes to ideation sessions.

It is the bouncy nature of idea development – starting with a raw thought shared by one participant, developed further by another, taking an interesting turn in the mind of a third, and landing in the end zone by a fourth – that makes the ability to voice imperfect ideas so crucial for innovation. It is the fact that the innovative and cognitively-flexible members of the group are not necessarily the most outspoken – that makes the creation of a ‘speaker-friendly” atmosphere so important. And it is the fact that at the core of so many innovative ideas lies something that will, at first, seem strange, illogical, or even stupid – that makes the culture of respect for each other’s thoughts so vital.

There is no doubt – psychological barriers decrease the efficacy of group discussions. They skew the discussion towards certain group members and certain types of ideas. They push the discussion towards the “safe side”, the “more of the same” zone, and the “let’s not rock the boat” approach. Mark Twain said once that: “‘It’s better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” This quote beautifully exemplifies one of the key elements in this set of barriers – our fear of being wrong.

In his wonderful TED talk , Sir Ken Robinson discusses the importance of being prepared to be wrong as a prerequisite for creativity. “If you’re not prepared to be wrong,” he says, “you will never come up with anything original.” For those of you who might find this statement a tad too radical – just think about this: any idea that is truly original and innovative has elements in it that are new to the world. These elements might be “wrong”, and it is exactly the fact that they are so new that devoids us of the ability to safely asses their rightfulness. Sir Robinson also claims that our education system trains us to fear mistakes; that “we are running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make.” Whenever an ideation session is run, anywhere in the world, it takes place in a room full of people that have graduated from these education systems! That fear – that reluctance to be wrong – will hold us back if we do not address it.

It was in the late 1930s that Alex F. Osborn introduced a creativity methodology that was designed to do exactly that. This methodology was published in a book called “Applied Imagination” and is widely known as “Brainstorming.” Although there are mixed opinions about the efficacy of brainstorming, there is no doubt that it enjoys a very wide fan-base. Many of these fans are not fully aware of the principles of the methodology, and may use a distant version of the original methodology. It is, however, exactly these principles that are relevant to our discussion regarding psychological barriers.
The first principle of brainstorming is that quantity breeds quality. The basic idea is that the more ideas we generate – the higher the chances that some of them will be valuable. Regardless of the validity of this assumption, think about the atmosphere it fosters. “More ideas..,” “come on..,” “what else..” are typical phrases you may hear from a brainstorming facilitator. This atmosphere helps in convincing, motivating and even peer-pressuring participants into sharing their thoughts and ideas.

The second principle is deferred judgment. Simply put, participants are asked to withhold their criticism of ideas, and focus on expending and developing. By postponing criticism to a later stage in the process we can create a supportive atmosphere where participants feel more comfortable and more likely to voice unusual ideas.
The third principle endorses exactly that by claiming that unusual ideas are welcome. This direct invitation to steer away from the mundane and the expected helps in supporting an atmosphere that encourages (even celebrates) unorthodox thinking. This principle takes advantage of our sensitivity to our role description. We want to do well in any assignment we receive, especially when others are present. “If the facilitator and the methodology want unusual ideas – I’ll give them unusual ideas.”

The forth principle of brainstorming asks us to combine and improve ideas. We are meant to understand that there is no be-all and end-all idea that we are waiting for. That the best results will come from putting our heads together and developing interesting starting points into fuller, more robust ideas. This approach is valuable regardless of its positive impact on the discussion’s atmosphere, but it also strengthens the type of atmosphere supported by the previous principles.

In the conclusion section of Wikipedia’s article about Brainstorming you can find the following statement: “Although it does not appear to provide a measurable advantage in creative output, brainstorming is an enjoyable exercise that is typically well received by participants.” I believe that the main reason it is so well received is that it addresses the psychological barriers that affect us in “regular” discussions. Sitting is a brainstorming session is safe and nice – where else are you so safe from making a mistake? However, as we have discussed some 1,000 words ago – it is one thing to create a supportive atmosphere, and something very different to inspire the creation of innovative ideas.

To achieve that, however, we will have to address our cognitive barriers. If we can understand these barriers, and successfully address them, we may well be on the right track to an effective ideation methodology. We will further discuss these cognitive barriers and the potential ways to overcome them in the next post of this series.