Paper on Creativity and Lateral Thinking
The following is the first course work I completed towards my Ph.D. in Human Behavior:
Creativity and Lateral Thinking
Von Oech suggests that a good “whack” upside the head is what is needed to get the average person off her chair and looking at the world through new eyes, with an open mind and guided by a sense of humor and a willingness or the courage to get it wrong sometimes.
Having come from the world of right and wrong, I know well the risk I take with von Oech’s approach. He would have me throw caution to the wind and make changes. He would have me play and be foolish. The purpose, of course, is to find that part of me that has been taught out by school and maturity. Namely, he would ask me to use my imagination.
As we grow, we are encouraged to play as a way to learn. As we grow further, we are expected to give up childish ways and focus on reason and practicality. And still further growth requires a mental lapse in remembering play and replacing it with thoughts of logic and objectivity.
Logic and reason are tough task masters. They leave little room for error. “When you play, you give yourself a license to try different approaches without fear of penalty.” The penalty of making an error is a strong deterrent to not taking things seriously. Making an error is tantamount to looking foolish. Von Oech dismisses such thinking by describing the notion that there is more than one right answer. He doesn’t stop there. Foolishly, we should not so readily decide that the right answer, if left unquestioned, is the best answer. Having an open mind and letting all sorts of thoughts in can lead us to a different, better place.
This sort of behavior demands a sense of humor. Humor breaths in freshness to our thinking “…humor forces you to combine ideas that are usually not associated with one another.”[1] We cannot take ourselves so seriously if we allow ourselves to laugh. Our ego, our identity, our values are easily tied to our ideas. Loosening those ties allows the flow of ideas and ultimately leads to awareness of more possibilities.
All of von Oech’s words, exercises, quotas, etc. are designed for and aimed at one thing. Specifically, he wants his readers to think creatively. Creative thinking is a tool to manage such things as paradox, contradiction, ambiguity, and just being around humans. Embracing these elements and turning them into a new way of seeing the world can lead us to news ways of thinking. By exercising our imagination and allowing the free flow of ideas, we open up the world around us; learned behavior can be shrugged off. What might be perceived as failure can be seen as taking a step closer to discovery.
Creativity has somehow, in our minds, become a commodity only owned by the few. That would mean that our natural creativity is dormant What if we twist that around, as Edward de Bono does in his book, Six Thinking Hats? How successful we are in our world depends on how well we think. When our thinking gets bogged down by the demands of the world around us, we can become confused. “Emotion, information, logic, hope and creativity all crowd in on us. It is like juggling with too many balls.”[2] De Bono sorts out our thinking to help eliminate confusion.
The six hat method of thinking brings order by bringing focus. Each hat has a definition attached to its color. More specifically, the white hat is neutral, objective by nature. The red hat, not surprisingly, takes the emotional view. The black hat is cautious and careful. The yellow hat is optimistic and positive. The green hat grows new ideas, indicating creativity, and the blue hat is all about organization.
Not only does the wearing of the hats simplify and clarify confused thinking, it can also help us to move from one place to another. The hat as a metaphor can be changed by asking an individual to take one hat off and put a different hat on. If we are stuck in the cautious world of playing it safe, we can take the black hat off and put on the red hat, giving ourselves permission to acknowledge our emotions and how we feel about something. In other words, we can look at things from different perspectives without losing sight of our goal.
The reason De Bono’s methodology works is because he doesn’t eliminate all that it means to be human and to think like a human. Rather his methodology brings order to what can be a very busy mind. We cannot be expected to give up our feelings, just as we cannot deny our logic. So it is true that we cannot give up our creativity, no matter how old we grow to be.
De Bono uses the color green for the hat we wear when we are given permission to be creative. In other words, when we wear the green hat, it is time to think in new and “provocative” ways. Anyone can wear this green hat. The green reflects growth, newness of thought, and creativity. Not only is creativity not a commodity, it is alive in anyone who dares to wear the green hat.
Just as von Oech subscribes to play and fun and foolishness, de Bono gives us permission to let go and use “the creative pause to consider, at any point, whether there might be alternative ideas. There need be no reason for this pause.” It is more a matter of the desire to find answers that go beyond being satisfactory, more than what has been done over and over again. It is a matter of stepping outside the ordinary. The risk is the same here as before…looking foolish, rubbing against the grain and challenging the old school.
In order to take the concepts of creativity off the page and into practice, I conducted a practical experiment. I invited eight people together to present the concept of lateral thinking to them and test whether it inspires creative thought.
To begin with, I wanted to prepare the members of the group to take a step in the direction of thinking differently than they were accustomed to. I wanted to create an environment that gave the individuals some time to come together through an activity in which t they could work together for a common, attainable goal. The hope was that once they worked together they would be able to take on another challenge and feel a certain level of comfort with each other. Once the participants were involved in problem solving using lateral thinking, they would have an opportunity to view problem solving through a larger window of possibilities. The participants would be asked to think differently, at least for the moment.
I invited eight participants to come to my home for activities related to my class on creativity and imagination. Seven people attended, although one of the seven arrived late. Around 6:00 pm we all gathered. After a few minutes of introduction (most of the participants knew one another), I talked about why I had asked them to attend and what they could expect.
I introduced the survey for all to complete. The survey included some demographic information along with conceptual ideas and perspective descriptions of their own creativity. We would return to these perspectives later in the evening.
As a way for the participants to get better acquainted and to get the creative juices flowing, I introduced the group activity. Because there were six participants, I had them break into two groups of three. Following is a description of the activity:
Helicopter Escape: Each group was given a packet of parts that could be put together to build a helicopter. This helicopter had to be built exactly as a replica. If anything was out of place or missing, the helicopter would be deemed by the facilitator to be unfit for flight. Each packet contained exactly what each group needed. Verbal instructions were provided by the facilitator so all could hear and they were repeated as needed and requested. The instructions were that each team must complete its helicopter so they could fly out of the jungle. They must use all the parts provided. There was a replica available for the teams to view to help them with the construction. However, only one member from each team was allowed to view the replica at a time. There was a time limit of 30 minutes to complete the activity.
Each team set about sorting out the helicopter parts. Both teams discussed how to proceed. Without assigning who would do what, each team had one person view the replica, one person following whatever directions were given, and one person who fed the parts of the helicopter to the other team members and built smaller parts of the entire helicopter. Occasionally, a team member would ask a question and information would be given when appropriate. If the facilitator could not give the information requested, the team would have to proceed on its own.
After 15 minutes I announced that there were 15 minutes left for the activity. This seemed to create a surge of energy and increased activity. More viewing of the replica was needed, and occasionally the teams had to be reminded that only one member from each team was allowed to view the replica at a time. The teams were informed when there were only five minutes left for the activity. Within those five minutes, each group brought its helicopter to the facilitator to be inspected. Both groups were told their helicopter was not fit for flight and they could not escape the jungle. Each team returned to construction and both teams built their helicopter properly to fly out safely before the 30 minutes expired.
As the facilitator, I made notes about my observations during the activity. Before we discussed how the groups performed in the activity, they asked that I give them my observations. Following are my observations:
1. Each group worked in cooperation
2. As time became a factor, each group forgot that only one member of a team could view the replica. They had to be reminded several times.
3. Each team became more competitive with the other, even though they were never told this was a competition, or that only one helicopter could escape the jungle
4. Small, friendly grumbles where heard when the facilitator informed the team that its helicopter was not fit for flight.
5. Frustration levels increased as the teams had to figure out what was wrong when their helicopter didn’t match the replica.
6. A great sense of relief was observed when each team completed the activity in time.
7. Each team had an individual who gave instructions to the others. However, one team had individuals do some role reversal when new information was introduced from viewing the replica.
I asked the teams to give their individual accounts of the activity. To begin with I asked why there was competition. The response was that they were trying to get out of the jungle before the other team. However, I never said that only one team could escape. Several members took it upon themselves to decide that this was a win/lose situation. Once I pointed out that it was not possible to win or lose, there were looks of confusion and wonder. The activity was not an exercise in who could build a better helicopter, but how all participants worked together to build their helicopter.
I commended each team on the team members’ ability to work together towards their end goal. There was obvious cooperation. Even when the rules were broken due to the stress of time, each team easily went back to working within the assigned framework. Each team was successful.
We collectively took a 30 minutes break to relax and eat pizza.
We came together again as a large group to participate in the next activity. Before beginning, I gave a small presentation on how lateral thinking is defined. Following is the definition given:
Lateral thinking is taking two seemingly unrelated concepts and finding a connection. This differs from Vertical thinking, in that it is not top to bottom thinking or orderly. Quite the opposite, Lateral thinking is more random and much more risky. With that risk, individuals can find a more creative approach to problem solving and their own vision of themselves in their life. Creativity is the outcome of Lateral thinking.
I advised the participants that they might better understand the definition as we proceeded with the next activity. The activity would be problem solving using lateral thinking. The problems would be presented to the group, one at a time, for solution.
As each problem was presented, the individuals openly tried to figure out the solution. While there might be more than one solution, I pushed the group to come up with a very specific solution. As more problems were solved, I observed that some individuals became more and more willing to take risks, while others remained quiet, and still others became increasingly frustrated. One individual became down right agitated. This individual commented that she felt stupid and was clearly upset. However, with time and encouragement she was comforted. In fact, at one point, she decided to propose a completely absurd solution and with that the group found the way to the correct solution. I reminded her of that and she seemed to feel better.
I further observed that as the comfort level increased, in that individuals felt safer taking risks, the conversation was livelier. As individuals took risks, the creativity level increased. The group began to see that by bouncing ideas off one another, they were stimulated to think beyond the more predictable Vertical thinking that would allow them to make connections. Lateral thinking, although not altogether easy and familiar, did make room for more possibilities, possibilities that may even seem ridiculous at first but ultimately lead us down a creative path.
Throughout this activity, I asked each individual to wear the green hat. What I found out was that while it may sound fun to wear the green hat, in practice it can be very uncomfortable. Vertical thinking is more familiar; it is what we know and expect. Being foolish is risky business, even in a room of familiar people.
As the participants left my door, I challenged them to use lateral thinking in their life. We all agreed that lateral thinking, in conjunction with the times one has to wear the black hat, can afford us the opportunity to think outside the box while at the same time walking the path of achievement and accountability.
After several weeks, I asked for feedback from the participants. The consensus was that for a few days to a week, each participant had the concept of lateral thinking in her mind. It came up in conversation with friends and colleagues. It was something of a novelty. However, after a week or so none of the participants was still using the concept as a part of her thinking processes. All agreed that it would take more interaction with lateral thinking concepts and exercises to maintain that kind of thinking. Problem solving never really changed, and familiar and long standing thinking prevailed. All participants enjoyed the activity and did not regret their participation.
I can conclude that in my attempt to wear the green hat, I structured an exercise that introduced new concepts, but rested on what was familiar to me. Working within a time frame and expecting others to not heed the structure is counterproductive. On the other hand, I believe it was a start. The concept of lateral thinking is excellent but it requires time to be nurtured and exercised regularly.
This exercise in lateral thinking gave me insight into how I would do things, next time. I learned that while I understand the concept of lateral thinking, I don’t practice lateral thinking and, therefore, conducted the activity from a vertical thinking perspective. The next time, I would give up the controlled structure and give the individuals freer range to decide for themselves what the answer is, and accept that there can be more than one answer that works. Breaking the group into smaller groups and then coming back together and looking at the answers that were discovered would be helpful. I realize now how ingrained the desire to have the “correct” answer is.
All the participants were positive in their view of the exercise. All participants said that they, on their own, were not able to adopt lateral thinking in the long term (more than a few weeks). Using their vertical thinking was more familiar and comfortable. An exercise like this would have to have at least one if not more follow-up sessions, with discussion on what short and long term changes, if any, occur. This type of reinforcement is necessary.
Taking this activity outside the safety of the group could prove useful. I would consider asking the individuals to take the exercise to their family, friends, and co-workers and see what results they get. Reconvening and collecting the data would reinforce the concept of lateral thinking as well as bring it to more people.
I am left with questions now that I’ve experienced lateral thinking thus far. What is my next step? If I embrace the concept of lateral thinking, how do I go about incorporating it into my everyday life? How do I go about creating an environment that supports lateral thinking?
It is clear to me that I have more research to do to gain a better, more practical understanding of lateral thinking. I consider this to include more reading and discussion around the concept. As I develop my understanding, I can then apply this thinking more deliberately in my art, my studies, and my work. While old habits die hard, persistence can see me through. My desire is to change my way of thinking to enhance my own creativity. As my thinking changes, so too will the environment around me change. I see this change as positive in my development and see it as an opportunity to tap into creativity I’ve yet to discover.
We recently held the 6th annual Camden Colloquium, which is an art show. Over the years we have lost some of the energy that makes this show very special. We were stuck in the familiar and didn’t even really know it. Three of our visual artists dropped out of the show at the next to last minute. This left us with a dilemma and feelings of wonder about the show and where we would go with it. But at the last minute, an artist came forward. Unwittingly, we found out the answer to the question, “What do cow skulls have to do with a local art show?” The answer, of course, is they breathed new life into the show. The last minute artist is a painter of cow skulls, not to mention saw blades. I couldn’t quite wrap my mind around what that meant. I reminded myself of the effort behind the show and that it was always allowed to have a life of its own, without too many hands and minds trying to control it. Due to time, I didn’t see her work until the day of the show. I was amazed. These are stunning pieces, and really gave the show a flair not before experienced. After the show the other colloquium organizer and I put our heads together. Feeling a renewed sense of purpose, we agreed to view the next show in a new light. I even spoke of lateral thinking. I know that once a new word is spoken, it can begin to find a place in everyday language.
My work life is much more of a challenge in terms of lateral thinking. In the past month, I have been named as one of the members of the Steering Committee for Regional Accreditation, as well as co-facilitator for the Student Success Committee. These are large opportunities and large challenges. These bodies have an organized structure. That is not to say that lateral thinking doesn’t have its place. Within the framework of the expectations of higher education, there is room and time to wear the green hat, even if it is tempered by the black hat of caution and Vertical thinking, in our data collection and committee work. While I am very familiar with that black hat, I have the privilege of working with creative minds that are open to possibilities.
What is even more challenging is the community of the college itself. I have observed over the past five years that the community is suspicious of change. The familiar road is safe; however, regional accreditation demands change. Making the connection to the value of regional accreditation for those who accept change grudgingly may take cosmic energy to achieve. Nevertheless, it will happen. Over the next two years, I will be in the middle of that challenge. As I work with the committees, I can see that incorporation of lateral thinking could free up the minds within this culture, giving the faculty and administrative staff a change to wrap themselves around a change that will mean something better for everyone.
If I look at my own experience and the times when I’ve actually changed my way of thinking, I realize change did not happen overnight. Even with an event that is large and has a great impact, I still had experiences that led up to the change. To alter my way of thinking, problem solving, and the way I see the world around me, I would need first to accept the possibility of change and trust the change will take me to a better place. I would need great permission to look foolish in taking the chance. Putting on a green hat, literally or figuratively, is one thing; wearing it on a regular basis takes courage along with hard work.
[1] Roger Von Oech, “A Whack on the Side of the Head,” Warner’s Books, Inc., December 1998, p. 24
[2]Ibid., p. xi.
Creativity and Lateral Thinking
Von Oech suggests that a good “whack” upside the head is what is needed to get the average person off her chair and looking at the world through new eyes, with an open mind and guided by a sense of humor and a willingness or the courage to get it wrong sometimes.
Having come from the world of right and wrong, I know well the risk I take with von Oech’s approach. He would have me throw caution to the wind and make changes. He would have me play and be foolish. The purpose, of course, is to find that part of me that has been taught out by school and maturity. Namely, he would ask me to use my imagination.
As we grow, we are encouraged to play as a way to learn. As we grow further, we are expected to give up childish ways and focus on reason and practicality. And still further growth requires a mental lapse in remembering play and replacing it with thoughts of logic and objectivity.
Logic and reason are tough task masters. They leave little room for error. “When you play, you give yourself a license to try different approaches without fear of penalty.” The penalty of making an error is a strong deterrent to not taking things seriously. Making an error is tantamount to looking foolish. Von Oech dismisses such thinking by describing the notion that there is more than one right answer. He doesn’t stop there. Foolishly, we should not so readily decide that the right answer, if left unquestioned, is the best answer. Having an open mind and letting all sorts of thoughts in can lead us to a different, better place.
This sort of behavior demands a sense of humor. Humor breaths in freshness to our thinking “…humor forces you to combine ideas that are usually not associated with one another.”[1] We cannot take ourselves so seriously if we allow ourselves to laugh. Our ego, our identity, our values are easily tied to our ideas. Loosening those ties allows the flow of ideas and ultimately leads to awareness of more possibilities.
All of von Oech’s words, exercises, quotas, etc. are designed for and aimed at one thing. Specifically, he wants his readers to think creatively. Creative thinking is a tool to manage such things as paradox, contradiction, ambiguity, and just being around humans. Embracing these elements and turning them into a new way of seeing the world can lead us to news ways of thinking. By exercising our imagination and allowing the free flow of ideas, we open up the world around us; learned behavior can be shrugged off. What might be perceived as failure can be seen as taking a step closer to discovery.
Creativity has somehow, in our minds, become a commodity only owned by the few. That would mean that our natural creativity is dormant What if we twist that around, as Edward de Bono does in his book, Six Thinking Hats? How successful we are in our world depends on how well we think. When our thinking gets bogged down by the demands of the world around us, we can become confused. “Emotion, information, logic, hope and creativity all crowd in on us. It is like juggling with too many balls.”[2] De Bono sorts out our thinking to help eliminate confusion.
The six hat method of thinking brings order by bringing focus. Each hat has a definition attached to its color. More specifically, the white hat is neutral, objective by nature. The red hat, not surprisingly, takes the emotional view. The black hat is cautious and careful. The yellow hat is optimistic and positive. The green hat grows new ideas, indicating creativity, and the blue hat is all about organization.
Not only does the wearing of the hats simplify and clarify confused thinking, it can also help us to move from one place to another. The hat as a metaphor can be changed by asking an individual to take one hat off and put a different hat on. If we are stuck in the cautious world of playing it safe, we can take the black hat off and put on the red hat, giving ourselves permission to acknowledge our emotions and how we feel about something. In other words, we can look at things from different perspectives without losing sight of our goal.
The reason De Bono’s methodology works is because he doesn’t eliminate all that it means to be human and to think like a human. Rather his methodology brings order to what can be a very busy mind. We cannot be expected to give up our feelings, just as we cannot deny our logic. So it is true that we cannot give up our creativity, no matter how old we grow to be.
De Bono uses the color green for the hat we wear when we are given permission to be creative. In other words, when we wear the green hat, it is time to think in new and “provocative” ways. Anyone can wear this green hat. The green reflects growth, newness of thought, and creativity. Not only is creativity not a commodity, it is alive in anyone who dares to wear the green hat.
Just as von Oech subscribes to play and fun and foolishness, de Bono gives us permission to let go and use “the creative pause to consider, at any point, whether there might be alternative ideas. There need be no reason for this pause.” It is more a matter of the desire to find answers that go beyond being satisfactory, more than what has been done over and over again. It is a matter of stepping outside the ordinary. The risk is the same here as before…looking foolish, rubbing against the grain and challenging the old school.
In order to take the concepts of creativity off the page and into practice, I conducted a practical experiment. I invited eight people together to present the concept of lateral thinking to them and test whether it inspires creative thought.
To begin with, I wanted to prepare the members of the group to take a step in the direction of thinking differently than they were accustomed to. I wanted to create an environment that gave the individuals some time to come together through an activity in which t they could work together for a common, attainable goal. The hope was that once they worked together they would be able to take on another challenge and feel a certain level of comfort with each other. Once the participants were involved in problem solving using lateral thinking, they would have an opportunity to view problem solving through a larger window of possibilities. The participants would be asked to think differently, at least for the moment.
I invited eight participants to come to my home for activities related to my class on creativity and imagination. Seven people attended, although one of the seven arrived late. Around 6:00 pm we all gathered. After a few minutes of introduction (most of the participants knew one another), I talked about why I had asked them to attend and what they could expect.
I introduced the survey for all to complete. The survey included some demographic information along with conceptual ideas and perspective descriptions of their own creativity. We would return to these perspectives later in the evening.
As a way for the participants to get better acquainted and to get the creative juices flowing, I introduced the group activity. Because there were six participants, I had them break into two groups of three. Following is a description of the activity:
Helicopter Escape: Each group was given a packet of parts that could be put together to build a helicopter. This helicopter had to be built exactly as a replica. If anything was out of place or missing, the helicopter would be deemed by the facilitator to be unfit for flight. Each packet contained exactly what each group needed. Verbal instructions were provided by the facilitator so all could hear and they were repeated as needed and requested. The instructions were that each team must complete its helicopter so they could fly out of the jungle. They must use all the parts provided. There was a replica available for the teams to view to help them with the construction. However, only one member from each team was allowed to view the replica at a time. There was a time limit of 30 minutes to complete the activity.
Each team set about sorting out the helicopter parts. Both teams discussed how to proceed. Without assigning who would do what, each team had one person view the replica, one person following whatever directions were given, and one person who fed the parts of the helicopter to the other team members and built smaller parts of the entire helicopter. Occasionally, a team member would ask a question and information would be given when appropriate. If the facilitator could not give the information requested, the team would have to proceed on its own.
After 15 minutes I announced that there were 15 minutes left for the activity. This seemed to create a surge of energy and increased activity. More viewing of the replica was needed, and occasionally the teams had to be reminded that only one member from each team was allowed to view the replica at a time. The teams were informed when there were only five minutes left for the activity. Within those five minutes, each group brought its helicopter to the facilitator to be inspected. Both groups were told their helicopter was not fit for flight and they could not escape the jungle. Each team returned to construction and both teams built their helicopter properly to fly out safely before the 30 minutes expired.
As the facilitator, I made notes about my observations during the activity. Before we discussed how the groups performed in the activity, they asked that I give them my observations. Following are my observations:
1. Each group worked in cooperation
2. As time became a factor, each group forgot that only one member of a team could view the replica. They had to be reminded several times.
3. Each team became more competitive with the other, even though they were never told this was a competition, or that only one helicopter could escape the jungle
4. Small, friendly grumbles where heard when the facilitator informed the team that its helicopter was not fit for flight.
5. Frustration levels increased as the teams had to figure out what was wrong when their helicopter didn’t match the replica.
6. A great sense of relief was observed when each team completed the activity in time.
7. Each team had an individual who gave instructions to the others. However, one team had individuals do some role reversal when new information was introduced from viewing the replica.
I asked the teams to give their individual accounts of the activity. To begin with I asked why there was competition. The response was that they were trying to get out of the jungle before the other team. However, I never said that only one team could escape. Several members took it upon themselves to decide that this was a win/lose situation. Once I pointed out that it was not possible to win or lose, there were looks of confusion and wonder. The activity was not an exercise in who could build a better helicopter, but how all participants worked together to build their helicopter.
I commended each team on the team members’ ability to work together towards their end goal. There was obvious cooperation. Even when the rules were broken due to the stress of time, each team easily went back to working within the assigned framework. Each team was successful.
We collectively took a 30 minutes break to relax and eat pizza.
We came together again as a large group to participate in the next activity. Before beginning, I gave a small presentation on how lateral thinking is defined. Following is the definition given:
Lateral thinking is taking two seemingly unrelated concepts and finding a connection. This differs from Vertical thinking, in that it is not top to bottom thinking or orderly. Quite the opposite, Lateral thinking is more random and much more risky. With that risk, individuals can find a more creative approach to problem solving and their own vision of themselves in their life. Creativity is the outcome of Lateral thinking.
I advised the participants that they might better understand the definition as we proceeded with the next activity. The activity would be problem solving using lateral thinking. The problems would be presented to the group, one at a time, for solution.
As each problem was presented, the individuals openly tried to figure out the solution. While there might be more than one solution, I pushed the group to come up with a very specific solution. As more problems were solved, I observed that some individuals became more and more willing to take risks, while others remained quiet, and still others became increasingly frustrated. One individual became down right agitated. This individual commented that she felt stupid and was clearly upset. However, with time and encouragement she was comforted. In fact, at one point, she decided to propose a completely absurd solution and with that the group found the way to the correct solution. I reminded her of that and she seemed to feel better.
I further observed that as the comfort level increased, in that individuals felt safer taking risks, the conversation was livelier. As individuals took risks, the creativity level increased. The group began to see that by bouncing ideas off one another, they were stimulated to think beyond the more predictable Vertical thinking that would allow them to make connections. Lateral thinking, although not altogether easy and familiar, did make room for more possibilities, possibilities that may even seem ridiculous at first but ultimately lead us down a creative path.
Throughout this activity, I asked each individual to wear the green hat. What I found out was that while it may sound fun to wear the green hat, in practice it can be very uncomfortable. Vertical thinking is more familiar; it is what we know and expect. Being foolish is risky business, even in a room of familiar people.
As the participants left my door, I challenged them to use lateral thinking in their life. We all agreed that lateral thinking, in conjunction with the times one has to wear the black hat, can afford us the opportunity to think outside the box while at the same time walking the path of achievement and accountability.
After several weeks, I asked for feedback from the participants. The consensus was that for a few days to a week, each participant had the concept of lateral thinking in her mind. It came up in conversation with friends and colleagues. It was something of a novelty. However, after a week or so none of the participants was still using the concept as a part of her thinking processes. All agreed that it would take more interaction with lateral thinking concepts and exercises to maintain that kind of thinking. Problem solving never really changed, and familiar and long standing thinking prevailed. All participants enjoyed the activity and did not regret their participation.
I can conclude that in my attempt to wear the green hat, I structured an exercise that introduced new concepts, but rested on what was familiar to me. Working within a time frame and expecting others to not heed the structure is counterproductive. On the other hand, I believe it was a start. The concept of lateral thinking is excellent but it requires time to be nurtured and exercised regularly.
This exercise in lateral thinking gave me insight into how I would do things, next time. I learned that while I understand the concept of lateral thinking, I don’t practice lateral thinking and, therefore, conducted the activity from a vertical thinking perspective. The next time, I would give up the controlled structure and give the individuals freer range to decide for themselves what the answer is, and accept that there can be more than one answer that works. Breaking the group into smaller groups and then coming back together and looking at the answers that were discovered would be helpful. I realize now how ingrained the desire to have the “correct” answer is.
All the participants were positive in their view of the exercise. All participants said that they, on their own, were not able to adopt lateral thinking in the long term (more than a few weeks). Using their vertical thinking was more familiar and comfortable. An exercise like this would have to have at least one if not more follow-up sessions, with discussion on what short and long term changes, if any, occur. This type of reinforcement is necessary.
Taking this activity outside the safety of the group could prove useful. I would consider asking the individuals to take the exercise to their family, friends, and co-workers and see what results they get. Reconvening and collecting the data would reinforce the concept of lateral thinking as well as bring it to more people.
I am left with questions now that I’ve experienced lateral thinking thus far. What is my next step? If I embrace the concept of lateral thinking, how do I go about incorporating it into my everyday life? How do I go about creating an environment that supports lateral thinking?
It is clear to me that I have more research to do to gain a better, more practical understanding of lateral thinking. I consider this to include more reading and discussion around the concept. As I develop my understanding, I can then apply this thinking more deliberately in my art, my studies, and my work. While old habits die hard, persistence can see me through. My desire is to change my way of thinking to enhance my own creativity. As my thinking changes, so too will the environment around me change. I see this change as positive in my development and see it as an opportunity to tap into creativity I’ve yet to discover.
We recently held the 6th annual Camden Colloquium, which is an art show. Over the years we have lost some of the energy that makes this show very special. We were stuck in the familiar and didn’t even really know it. Three of our visual artists dropped out of the show at the next to last minute. This left us with a dilemma and feelings of wonder about the show and where we would go with it. But at the last minute, an artist came forward. Unwittingly, we found out the answer to the question, “What do cow skulls have to do with a local art show?” The answer, of course, is they breathed new life into the show. The last minute artist is a painter of cow skulls, not to mention saw blades. I couldn’t quite wrap my mind around what that meant. I reminded myself of the effort behind the show and that it was always allowed to have a life of its own, without too many hands and minds trying to control it. Due to time, I didn’t see her work until the day of the show. I was amazed. These are stunning pieces, and really gave the show a flair not before experienced. After the show the other colloquium organizer and I put our heads together. Feeling a renewed sense of purpose, we agreed to view the next show in a new light. I even spoke of lateral thinking. I know that once a new word is spoken, it can begin to find a place in everyday language.
My work life is much more of a challenge in terms of lateral thinking. In the past month, I have been named as one of the members of the Steering Committee for Regional Accreditation, as well as co-facilitator for the Student Success Committee. These are large opportunities and large challenges. These bodies have an organized structure. That is not to say that lateral thinking doesn’t have its place. Within the framework of the expectations of higher education, there is room and time to wear the green hat, even if it is tempered by the black hat of caution and Vertical thinking, in our data collection and committee work. While I am very familiar with that black hat, I have the privilege of working with creative minds that are open to possibilities.
What is even more challenging is the community of the college itself. I have observed over the past five years that the community is suspicious of change. The familiar road is safe; however, regional accreditation demands change. Making the connection to the value of regional accreditation for those who accept change grudgingly may take cosmic energy to achieve. Nevertheless, it will happen. Over the next two years, I will be in the middle of that challenge. As I work with the committees, I can see that incorporation of lateral thinking could free up the minds within this culture, giving the faculty and administrative staff a change to wrap themselves around a change that will mean something better for everyone.
If I look at my own experience and the times when I’ve actually changed my way of thinking, I realize change did not happen overnight. Even with an event that is large and has a great impact, I still had experiences that led up to the change. To alter my way of thinking, problem solving, and the way I see the world around me, I would need first to accept the possibility of change and trust the change will take me to a better place. I would need great permission to look foolish in taking the chance. Putting on a green hat, literally or figuratively, is one thing; wearing it on a regular basis takes courage along with hard work.
[1] Roger Von Oech, “A Whack on the Side of the Head,” Warner’s Books, Inc., December 1998, p. 24
[2]Ibid., p. xi.
posted by TCW at 12:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home