Thinking perspectives, openness and collaborative exploration...why wouldn’t you want to have more constructive conversations?
Inés Parra Alberca
Employee Engagement Specialist | Communications & Marketing Consultant , Marketing and Corporate Social Initiatives, CSR & Innovation.
Adopt the six thinking perspectives in order to get the most out of your conversations.
Do you create a constructive dialogue in your conversations? Do you aim to get a complete view of the matter so as to find better options and new perspectives? Or, do you just want to publicly prove that you are right?
Take advantage of your conversations. Access perspectives that you might not have considered. Acquire deeper knowledge that can lead to your next success or innovation. Put aside giving speeches about your points of view and instead immerse yourself in joint exploration of the topic of conversation.
THE PROBLEM / THE CONFLICT
We have all witnessed conversations in which two people are defending their own (different) positions, but do not reach any understanding.?
Observing from the outside, we may clearly see that each perspective has its merits and its validities.?
When participating in such a conversation, though, it is more difficult to come to this realisation. Each party defends his or her own position, proving with arguments, rebukes and justifications that the other position is wrong. In conversations, each stage of one’s speech tends to be judged, valued and responded to immediately. You accept what I say or you reject it. This back and forth mentality can suggest there is only one truth, and the truth with the greatest weight, the truth that resonates most, is the one that I defend.
It is as if two people are looking at a house – or any other object, for that matter – from different angles. Each is unable (or perhaps unwilling) to see the angle from which the other is looking. Each describes the house in a different way. Each says that the other is ‘wrong’.?
This approach to perspective, and to conversation, is largely due to the way we have been taught to think. This way of thinking is based on the conception (formation of an idea) that one argument is ultimately destined to come up trumps, to outweigh other arguments and perspectives. To demonstrate that this reasoning – your own reasoning – has greater weight, the other, alternative reasonings are broken down through argumentation.
THE OLD MODEL STILL IN USE
This method of thought and conversation – showing the ‘other’ is wrong – has as a background in the doctrines and philosophies of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, all the way back in Ancient Greece.
Socrates was one of the first to celebrate and practice ‘critical thinking’, making reasoning, logic and argumentation principal tools of thought. Plato supposed that to attack what is considered untrue is to demonstrate the truth. Aristotle conceived of classification (e.g. true/untrue...) as an intrinsic part of the nature of things.
Although critical thinking plays a fundamental role in decision-making, the complete discarding of ‘other’ perspectives limits us in the acquisition of knowledge on the whole, and in many cases may inhibit our ability to progress or innovate.
If we continue to use this argumentation-based method, we will continue indefinitely immersed in a conflict between two opposite opinions, a conflict with a persistent victor: our own opinion. We will therefore continue without exploring other opinions, without accessing a broader, vital, global vision of what we are dealing with. We’ll also miss more than one opportunity to improve or innovate.
Let's see an example:
What if, instead of defending our argument by attacking views to the contrary, we adopt an open stance? What if instead of rejecting or accepting, we opt instead to just explore?
If our two aforementioned house observers were to openly explore the house together, from all the perspectives, what may happen? Not only would they discover that the other person’s perspective and claims are also right, but both would observe the house from angles that neither of them had contemplated before. The communication pattern of denying and attacking would be disrupted.
A NEW MODEL TO USE
When we are in a conversation and each party has a different point of view, we could, instead of continuing with the argument, lead the conversation towards a joint exploration of the topic, using different perspectives to:?
By exploring the above, we would be accessing a 360o view of the subject.
Furthermore, we would inevitably find many more points in common with the other person, more than we could imagine from the position of defending our own perspective.
Let's see the example:
Through this model, we can create and participate in conversations where all points of view are considered in an empathetic way, without labeling or judging. Without accepting or rejecting any of the contributions, we bring to the conversation information, data, positive factors, negative factors, agreements, differences and potential alternatives...
THE SIX PERSPECTIVES OF THOUGHT
?
These make up the different types of thinking, according to Edward de Bono.?
A physicist, psychologist, philosopher, inventor, author and consultant (quite the back catalogue of professions), de Bono is known internationally for coining the term "Lateral Thinking". This – and various other theories and learning techniques – are currently used by and deployed within world leading companies such as Apple, British Airways, IBM, NASA and Ford, among many, many others.
According to de Bono, through identifying and implementing the six perspectives of thought, two conversing parties – let’s call them A and B – are able to explore an event or topic from all perspectives. A and B are thus able to go from confrontation to cooperation, from frustration to exploration.?
To identify each of the perspectives of thought, Edward de Bono created a technique to be used in conversations, meetings and/or negotiations: the Six Thinking Hats (which is likely how you became acquainted with the work of de Bono, right?).?
Each of the Thinking Hats reflects a perspective and approach to thought. Each has a colour that relates to its nature, making them more easily identifiable.
The idea is that A and B engage in a constructive interaction, donning the six hats at different times, understanding and responding to different points, putting forward their own prompts…
ORGANIZATIONAL / GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Blue Hat
Through the organisational or global perspective, we define what we are talking about and identify which perspectives we should use and the questions to ask.
Thus we will ask ourselves: What issue or topic are we confronting? How can the situation or event be better defined? How can I take perspectives to contribute alternatives and build something better? What do I need to know to understand the whole thing?
FACTUAL PERSPECTIVE
White Hat
Through the factual perspective, we focus exclusively on information and facts, without providing any opinion. Data, figures and statistics are key here.
So we will ask ourselves: What are the facts – what do I know about this topic? What do I not know? Where can I find this information?
INTUTIVE PERSPECTIVE
Red Hat
Through the intuitive or emotional perspective, we can identify our personal acceptance or rejection of the event or situation, as well as its possible successes or failures based on knowledge, experience and understanding.
To be clear: intuitions are emotions connected with past experience and knowledge. You may not consciously remember these but they feed into your intuition on a topic, issue or event.*
So, we will ask ourselves: What does my instinct tell me? What are my feelings about the issue? What do these feelings tell me about possible decision-making? Does my intuition tell me that this is the right solution?
PESIMIST PERSPECTIVE
Black Hat
As with ‘intuition’, there is generally misunderstanding and misuse of the term ‘pessimist’. It may be believed that being pessimistic is akin to being realistic, and that being optimistic is to be a dreamer. Both are a misinterpretation.
Optimism and pessimism are both based on logic. If it cannot be proved that your view is based on logic, we are perhaps in the realm of fantasy and drama, rather than optimism and pessimism.**
Through the pessimistic perspective, we seek to avoid dangers and difficulties based on logic. We look at what may possibly go wrong, or why something may not work.?
So we will ask ourselves: What is the defect or where is the lack within this topic? In how many ways is it likely to fail? What are the possible risks and associated negative consequences? What are the existing and potential challenges that we face?
OPTIMISTIC PERSPECTIVE
Yellow Hat
Through the optimistic perspective, we seek to identify the benefits and opportunities based on logic and functionality. We look for the reasons and the possibilities that it can turn out well.
So we will ask ourselves: What are the benefits? What are the values? Under what circumstances can it work? How can I best address this problem to reach a positive outcome? What are the long-term benefits?
CREATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Green Hat
Through the creative perspective, we look for new ideas, options and alternatives (both obvious and fresh). Ideas raised are modified to avoid difficulties. Suggestions are improved. New, open possibilities are raised.?
So we wonder: What alternatives could exist here? What other possibilities can I identify? How else can this be done? How could I make it work? How can I think outside the box? What if...?
THE KEY TO USE IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS
The key to having more constructive conversations, then, if we are able to synthesise the above – is to give our opinion without judging to the contrary. Continue contributing. Use each of the different perspectives, listening to the other person in the conversation. Reflect without judgment.
Use open-ended questions to channel contributions into each of the perspectives. Communication techniques such as SAVI (The System for Analysing Verbal Interaction) and Nonviolent Communication can help you to formulate questions with a tone suitable to collaboration.
Obviously, this kind of conversation or interaction will only happen in cases where none of the people have radical or extreme views. Unfortunately, there are people who will consistently look for faults to exploit with their own views.?
These people can be real challenge, and in some cases the conversation will end where it started: without understanding. With these, a simple ‘I do not agree’ or ‘I have different opinion’ are perfectly apt. Or there’s always the polite "perhaps we will have to accept that we definitely disagree".
However, hope should not be lost. The kind of person who is always looking for failure may one day open up to constructive conversation. As a general rule, they surprise themselves with their own ability to cope with and consider other perspectives.
* ?International scientists such as Neurologist Antonio Damasio have proved the relationship between intuition, emotions and past experience. Through emotions and feelings, the subconscious tells us if something will go right or not. This emotion is based on a past experience that we do not remember, but that our unconscious connects by comparing it with the present experience. This does not mean intuition is always right.
** Optimism, Pessimism and Realism represent a rather confusing triangle of terms. If you disagree with something, pessimism is a pretty common resource to draw upon, often met by "how pessimistic you are! Can you not be a little more optimistic?” You might then revert with “I prefer to be realistic." Here, the conversation usually ends or moves on without questioning the link between pessimism and realism.
References:
Six Thinking Hats. Edward de Bono. Editorial: Granica Publisher: Penguin Life ISBN-10: 0241257530
Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them Publisher: Vermilion. ISBN-10: 1785041894
Conversation Transformation. Recognise and overcome the 6 most destructive communication patterns. Ben E. Benjamin, PH.D, Amy Yeager, and Anita Simon, ED.D.?Publisher: McGraw-Hill ISBN-10: 007176996X
Conversation samples based on:
The trend to reshore manufacturing study Backing Britain. A Manufacturing base for the future.?
Banner: Photo by Jopwell from Pexels
Slides: Photo by Fauxels from Pexels
Very special thanks to Sam Fletcher, whose reviews, edits and translations have helped navigate some of the more tricky turns of the Spanish language and better express these notions in English.