Generate Fresh Ideas

Italian folklorists tell the story of three workers cutting stones in the hot sun. When the first was asked what he was· doing, he replied, “I am chipping these stones to make them just the right size.” The second replied, “I am earning my wages.” 10 the same question the third replied: “I am building a cathedral.”

It is all too easy to get caught up in a narrow perception of a problem. We are likely to get so enmeshed in the nitty-gritty of coping with a crisis that we lose sight of our objective. Stepping back to look at the big picture is often the best way to figure out where to direct our energies in the resolution of a dispute. Yet to tell someone to stop thinking the way they have been is like telling a child not to think of elephants. To reframe a problem is likely to require both a clear purpose and an action to advance that purpose. To break out of an existing frame and to clarify both purpose and proposed action will require fresh ideas. This chapter suggests a way of coming up with such ideas

 

Diagnose Obstacles to Progress

We can start trying to get a negotiation unstuck by identifying the symptoms of the problem by asking “What is wrong?” One common assumption is poor choices made with incomplete information under intense time pressure. Another symptom might be burdensome time-wasting meetings where people’s talents are not put to good use. What causes such difficulties during negotiations? Three explanations stand out.

We fail to analyze. When medical doctors are faced with a patient’s complaint, they have a systematic way of disposing the underlying illness that is, of looking for a cause of the symptoms. Before prescribing medication, they check temperature, blood pressure, pulse, and breathing, they take careful history of the patient’s previous illnesses, and they listen to his complaints. Most people who deal with confrontation by contrast have no such organized way of diagnosing a situation before making decisions about what to do. We lack a diagnostic checklist to help us be sure -whether or not we are under pressure of time- that we have gathered the pertinent information we need to make a good decision.

 

Working alone, we use only one “map” of the world. A map helps us understand the world by simplifying it. A useful Subway map of Boston, for example, eliminates curves and distorts distances while highlighting information about stations and transfers for passengers needing to get from one place to another. At the same time, such a map is grossly inaccurate; it would be a dangerous map for someone to use who was digging up the streets or planning a new extension to the subway. To understand a complex system such as a city, we would want to consult an atlas of different maps and integrate the information from each of them.

A significant conflict is like a city in that it is complex and has so many facets that one point of view will never give us the whole picture. Yet when we are working on a problem on our own, we often see things exclusively through the lens of our own partisan perceptions. We fail to explore other· points of view that would offer enlightening perspectives.

Working in a group, we are crippled by our group assumptions. Working with others, our thinking is constrained by conventional ways of acting. In diplomatic circles, for instance, protests are often lodged not because they do any good but because protesting is ”what is done.” Any freely invented option may be pounced upon by adversaries as an official offer, or treated by critics at home as a concession. People at the top of an organization often see their primary concern as having their existing views prevail. Lower-level bureaucrats are likely to accord a cool reception to fresh thinking. Participants in a meeting often operate using unspoken assumptions, such as:

 

“An idea that I suggest is a proposal that I am recommending.”

“My goal is to generate an idea which others will like.”

”We are looking for something on which we will all agree.”

“My name will be attached to any idea I advance.”

“I am going to be judsed by the merits of my ideas.”

“Bad ideas will reflect poorly on those who suggest them.”

“Pointing out flaws in an idea is a valuable activity.”

Such assumptions produce heavy self-censorship. Even without these barriers to sharing new ideas, most of us are untrained in the art of generating fresh ones. The imaginative creativity of a typical four-year-old is quashed rather than fostered by years of formal education and socialization. We need ways to break free of these kinds of constraints without turning every meeting into a free-for-all.

Reference

Fisher, R., Borgwardt, E. and Schneider, A. 1994. Beyond Machiavelli. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.