trained to think

If whisky tastes good and so does gin, then surely a mixture of whisky and gin will be better than either alone?

If Chardonnay tastes good and so does Cabernet Sauvignon, then surely mixing them together will produce a superb rose wine?

If Armani suits are elegant and Galliano clothes are outrageous, then an Armani top and a Galliano bottom might be sensational?

If Picasso is a superb painter and so is Turner, then would painting in a mixed style derived from Picasso and Turner be better than either of them?

These are such obvious absurdities that it is hard to conceive that anyone would contemplate doing any of the things mentioned above. Yet dozens of educators and human resource managers are doing something very similar every day. They say: 'If this is good and that is good, then let us have a bit of this and a bit of that, and it will be even better'. The result is ineffective confusion.

BRAINSTORMING

Different approaches to a subject have different styles and different underpinnings. The general (and very weak) messing around of brainstorming is very different from the precise tools of lateral thinking. The idea of 'suspending judgment' is very different from the active mental operation of 'movement', which can be developed as a skill.

Because different things do have some value, and because training managers do not want to leave anything out, there is this temptation to put in a little bit of everything, as in a stew. The result is weak and confusing.

It is true that the objective of many programmes may be the same: for example, to develop creative thinking. There may be many roads up a mountain, but you cannot attempt to follow different roads at the same time.

When you are playing the card game of bridge, you play bridge. When you are playing poker, you play poker, and when you are playing gin rummy, you play gin rummy. Each game has its own rules and procedures. You cannot blend them.

With creativity, there still lingers the unfortunate and dangerous notion that creativity is just about being liberated and freed up - and then creative thoughts will flow. This old-fashioned notion has done more damage to creativity than anything else. If this notion is in place, then it must seem that 'any' method of freeing people up must work; and, indeed, that different methods will have a cumulative effect. It does not work that way.

If you set out to design a racing car, then your design would not be suitable for a shopping car. If you set out to design a racing car which would also be useful for shopping, you would end up with a vehicle which was sub-optimal for both shopping and racing.

The use of 'movement' in lateral thinking is a formal operation which at times is very logical ('extract as a concept', etc). This is very different from a general 'anything goes' in brainstorming. To mix them together means that there is confusion, and neither can be done effectively.A classic example of the disastrous effects of seeking to mix oil and water is given by the totally incorrect way in which some people use the Six Hats process. Trainers who believe in role playing, and who follow the categorisation of individuals into different ability 'boxes', naturally assume that each hat corresponds to a type of thinking behaviour.

I have heard of supposed 'Six Hats sessions' where one person is permanently allocated the Black Hat (caution) and another person is permanently allocated the Yellow Hat (logical positive) and another person is permanently allocated the Green Hat (creativity). Each person is then expected to contribute only in that role. This is the exact opposite of the Six Hats method. It could not be more directly opposed.

PARALLEL THINKING

The whole purpose of the Six Hats methods is 'parallel thinking'. This means that at any moment all thinkers are looking in the same direction. The colour of the hats is to indicate that direction in which every person at the meeting is thinking. So when the Black Hat is in use, everyone is being cautious and critical and assessing the risks, etc. When the Green Hat is in use, everyone is making an effort to be creative, producing alternatives, new ideas, variations on an idea, possibilities, etc.

This parallel thinking means that all the intelligence and experience of everyone are being used in the same direction. At a meeting I attended recently, British Telecom, Siemens (Germany) and ABB all demonstrated case studies of how very powerful the method is in reducing meeting times and increasing meeting productivity.

The notion of parallel thinking also means that everyone is expected to make an effort at all six types of thinking. It is not enough for all the creativity to be left to the 'creative' person.

It is easy to see how this attempt to mix parallel thinking and people categories is a total disaster. That is why I set up formal training methods whereby certified trainers could be asked to teach the method properly.

There are independent trainers and also corporate trainers who are trained to go back into their own organisations and train. Without such preparation, a powerful training may be wasted. For example, Siemens has 37 international trainers, NASA has 20, etc.

THE SAME AS...

As I have often mentioned in my books the phrase 'the same as...' can be very dangerous because it effectively kills new ideas. If a new idea comes up and someone criticises that idea, the person proposing the idea can seek to overcome the criticisms. But if an idea comes up and the listener says: 'that is a great idea but it is the same as we are currently doing (or have done)', then the idea is immediately killed.

There is no point in giving further attention to the idea because it is (or is supposed to be) already known. At a superficial glance many things may seem similar when they are in fact rather different. A credit card, a debit card and a charged-up card may seem similar, but are very different in operation, in security and in profitability.

Those who have only a superficial understanding of different approaches are inclined to see them as similar, because they can only focus on general similarities. It is only when you know the different approaches very thoroughly that you can distinguish between the different approaches to creativity. There is a huge difference between approaches that are based on attitude and motivation and those that are based on deliberately structured tools.

Furthermore, in order to understand the value of the tools you also need to understand how they are based on a consideration of the brain as a self-organising information system. And then you need to know something about self-organising systems. Since all that is rather a heavy demand, it may be enough to note that the tools are powerful and simple and to see how effective they have been for existing users.

There is a huge difference between teaching knowledge and teaching a skill. Most educators have, unfortunately, not appreciated this difference. With knowledge there may be a certain amount of knowledge which has to be learned (and taught). In fact, you may have to go widely to cover this knowledge.

CONFUSION

In teaching skill, the most important thing is to avoid 'confusion'. Confusion is the biggest enemy of skill development. To teach a skill you must teach from the 'centre' with clear examples and models. Those learning the skill must have a clear sense of what they are doing and what they are expected to do.

Having a 'little bit of this and a little bit of that' is the recipe for confusion. If you are confused, there is no way in which you can develop a usable skill - because you cannot have a clear idea of what you are trying to do.

In general, educators trying to teach thinking are confused by the variuous approaches and seek to solve the problem by mixing them together. The result is a disaster.

DIFFERENT ASPECTS

If you do feel that there are different aspects covered by different approaches - and you need to be very convinced about this - then the best thing to do is to teach one approach on its own very thoroughly. When this skill has been acquired, then you can set out to teach another skill.

It is like learning to play cards. You do not seek to learn to play bridge, poker and rummy all at the same time. You master one 'game' first and then you move on to the next game. You also need use and practice time before moving on to the next game.

The comments made here are based on a lot of experience of people who mean well, but only succeed in messing things up. To some extent this has happened in Singapore, where the Ministry of Education set out to teach the CoRT programme in schools, but has been advised to dilute it with other materials, with a result which may be rather weak.

For further information on training, etc., refer to the Edward de Bono website: http://www.edwdebono.com/ or fax +44 171 602 1779.