The Use of Lateral Thinking in Finding Creative Conflict Resolutions
The Use of Lateral Thinking in Finding Creative Conflict Resolutions
The Use of Lateral Thinking in Finding Creative Conflict Resolutions
A.J. Richardson, The Urban Transport Institute, Australia R.C. Hupp, Bodman Longley, Detroit R.K. Seethaler, The Urban Transport Institute, Australia
5 January 2003
ABSTRACT
Often, our ability to find creative and acceptable solutions to conflict situations is limited by our inability to break out of our habitual ways of thinking about the conflict. By the time a problem gets to the conflict resolution stage, most parties have become entrenched in their views and can only see the problem from their own perspective. What is needed is a conscientious effort and a deliberate technique for seeing the problem from other, perhaps innovative, perspectives. The techniques of Lateral Thinking, developed by Dr. Edward de Bono, are a good example of a set of such deliberate techniques for creative thinking. This paper will explain why Lateral Thinking is useful in Dispute Resolution, and will describe some of the techniques involved in Lateral Thinking (such as Concept Triangles, Random Inputs, Provocation and Movement). It then extends the conventional discussion of Lateral Thinking for use within the context of Dispute Resolution, wherein creative solutions are only useful if they are acceptable to all parties involved. The idea of consistent creative solutions holds promise for quickly finding acceptable solutions in multi-party dispute resolution environments.
Bodman Longley
INTRODUCTION
Alternative methods of conflict resolution are becoming more widespread in an attempt to avoid the negative aspects of adversarial litigation. Rather than spending much time, effort and money on seeking to prove the other party wrong, more time is being spent on trying to find solutions which are acceptable, perhaps even beneficial, to both parties. The search for such "win-win" solutions is at the heart of many alternative conflict resolution methods. However, even with the best of intentions, it is often difficult to find solutions which are beneficial to both parties. The parties themselves are in the worst position to see such solutions, since their involvement in the dispute has effectively polarised their view of the situation such that they can only see the situation from their point of view. In such a situation it is essential to have an independent "third party" facilitator who has at least some chance of seeing the dispute from both sides of the fence (de Bono, 1985). However, even a "third party" facilitator will have difficulty in designing creative "win-win" solutions since, as will be described later, such creativity is not a natural function of the human brain. Fortunately, however, there are some techniques which can assist in finding creative solutions to conflict resolution problems. This paper seeks to show the role that creative thinking can play in the design of "win-win" solutions to conflict resolution problems. Drawing upon the techniques of creative thinking developed by Edward de Bono, the paper will show how all parties in conflict resolution can improve their skills in Lateral Thinking. The paper will outline some fundamental ideas, and some myths, about creativity and describe three major techniques in creative thinking, namely the concept triangle, random inputs, and the use of provocation. It will describe why and how these techniques work, and will then demonstrate their use in a range of conflict resolution situations.
Bodman Longley
People are generally more aware of the need for creativity in the former case. Indeed, in the latter case, many people are much happier to "let sleeping dogs lie" and can see no need to fix things if they aren't broken. However, it is clear, in hindsight, that often the best time to have changed something was when things were going well, since after that time things can only go downhill. Sometimes it is worthwhile looking for improved resolutions before the situation leads to conflict.
Bodman Longley
Bodman Longley
Bodman Longley
Figure 1
With the "concept triangle", one uses the first idea to identify a general concept, and then uses this general concept to develop many different ideas, using this same 6
Bodman Longley
Figure 2
It can be seen in Figure 1, and Figure 2, that it is possible to go directly from the problem to a concept and then on to ideas. However, in practice, it is usually easier and more natural to first think of a specific idea and then identify the underlying concept. The advantage of using concept triangles to generate ideas is that it is a much more comprehensive and exhaustive method of generating ideas than simply trying to list all the individual ideas. It also gives a much better understanding of the structure of alternative solutions and the nature of the initial problem. It also helps in documenting the possible solutions, because it gives a natural grouping of different ideas which helps in preparing reports on the problem. The use of concept triangles is helpful when you are trying to identify, and categorise, ideas that are already within your span of knowledge, but when you need some assistance in remembering or identifying them. However, when you need to develop an idea of which you are currently totally unaware (i.e. when you need to be really creative), then other methods of Lateral Thinking are needed. 7
Bodman Longley
A
Figure 3 The Constraining Effect of Routine Thinking
We start at point A looking for a new idea but, each time we undertake this process, our routine way of thinking, including our brain's powers of pattern recognition, leads us down the same path to conclusion B. We can't seem to break out of our routine way of thinking to find the new idea located at C. We stay on the well-worn path, and don't (or can't) venture into the side alley which would lead us to C. And the more we try, the more likely we are to keep finding ideas with which we are already familiar in the corridor between A and B. Just as falling rain carves deeper and deeper rivers in the valleys of the landscape (because it always runs downhill to the lowest point), so new information falling on our senses tends to run into the same thought channels, carving deeper and deeper impressions on our "brainscape". The same process occurs for each person involved in the conflict resolution process. Each of these people has their own "brainscape" which channels the incoming information in specific ways to arrive at a particular conclusion. The nature of their "brainscape" will depend on a variety of factors including their professional background (lawyers process information in different ways to social scientists, who in turn process information differently to engineers), or their previous experience in the conflict under resolution (parties on different sides will see the same "objective" information in totally different ways, leading to very different suggestions for resolution of the conflict). Thus, each person can start from the same point A, but their different "brainscapes" will lead them to very different conclusions at B and D, as shown in Figure 4.
Bodman Longley
Figure 4
What is needed is a way of collectively forcing us out of our comfort zone (i.e. out of the obvious paths from A to B, or from A to D) so that we have a chance of finding the new idea at C which may be a way of resolving the conflict to the mutual benefit of all parties. Before considering the application of Lateral Thinking in conflict resolution, consider its use in finding a new idea in a more general context. One way of getting out of our thinking rut is by the deliberate introduction of a random stimulus which has nothing to do with the topic about which we are thinking. This random input has the effect of deliberately moving us away from the usual path between A and B, thus putting our mind temporarily in an unusual, unstable position such that we might see the new idea at C. Having discovered this new idea, we then see, in hindsight, how it relates to the issue or problem we were considering at A. Importantly, we must be able to explain logically how the idea at C is able to solve the problem we were considering at A, as shown by the reverse arrow from C to A in Figure 5. 9
Bodman Longley
Figure 5
While we could not have found C from A by logical thought processes, we must always be able to show, in hindsight, how C is logically connected to A. We are all familiar with this concept. Having found a new idea, by whatever process, we often say to ourselves or others "How obvious! Why didn't I see this before?". Explaining good ideas is not very hard; finding them in the first place is much more difficult, unless specific Lateral Thinking Techniques are employed. One of the simplest, but most powerful, techniques in Lateral Thinking is the use of the Random Word. The Random Word technique is a deliberate method of generating a random starting point, from which we can start looking for new ideas. There are many ways of generating a random word. The simplest is to open any book on a random page and, with eyes closed, point to a place on the page with your finger. You then select the next noun following the place at which you have put your finger. Another technique, often used in Lateral Thinking training sessions, is the use of a card containing 60 numbered nouns (specially chosen for their evocative nature). The person looks at their watch and reads the time to the nearest second. They then select the noun from the list corresponding to the number of seconds. The idea of the Random Word technique is to use this random word (noun) to generate ideas relating to the focus of the thinking effort. An example will explain the technique further. The first thing that needs to be done is to define the focus of the thinking. This may be a specific problem or just a general area. In this case, let us assume that we want some new ideas about Improved Security at Airports We write this in the Focus box in Figure 6.
10
Bodman Longley
Figure 6
The next step is to select a Random Word. In this case, we have used a card with 60 nouns, have looked at our watch and seen that the number of seconds is 34, and have selected the 34th word on the list, which was "party". We write this in the Random Word box in Figure 6. Now, without thinking about the Focus, we write four things that come to our mind about "party" within the brackets on the arrows emanating from the Random Word box in Figure 6. This stage of the process should be done quickly and without thinking about the Focus (which requires a degree of discipline). In this example, the word associations with "party" were balloons, political, birthday and celebrations. The next task is to use these associations to come up with new ideas about "improved security at airports". In this example, the line of thought might be something like this: Balloons: give rise to the idea of cushioning shapes filled with air, which leads to the idea of "bubble-wrap" plastic sheeting used to protect fragile items. From here, emerges the idea of wrapping all baggage in high-strength, shock-absorbing "bubble-wrap" balloons to mitigate the effects of any explosive devices contained in the baggage. Political: the word association of a political "party" quickly leads to the idea of continuing political talks and negotiations to try to minimise the threat to airport security. This is an example of where the use of the random word does not lead to an immediate idea for resolving the problem. Rather, it leads to an underlying 11
Bodman Longley
12
Bodman Longley
Figure 7
Unlike the Random Word starting point, which has no connection with the mainstream of thought between A and B, the Po process uses this mainstream to deliberately generate a starting position which is outside the mainstream, from which we can then work towards a new idea by the process of "movement". The first step in the Po process, therefore, after identifying the Focus of the thinking, is to establish something that is taken for granted about the Focus (i.e something that is part of the mainstream thinking on this topic). One then moves away from this mainstream thought by means of one of five different techniques: Escape: with this provocation, we simply negate what we have taken for granted about the topic. For example, if the Focus is "Water Pollution", a taken-for-granted statement may be "water runs downhill". An Escape provocation would be "water does not run downhill". It doesn't matter that this statement looks to be impossible. Indeed, that is the whole point of a Po statement; it must be out of the mainstream of thought about the topic. The issue now is how we can move on from this Po statement to find some new ideas about Water Pollution, which is the Focus of our thinking in this example. Techniques of movement will be described later in this section. Reversal: here, we take the opposite of the statement that we have taken for granted. Sometimes this can be done by taking the opposite of a key word in the statement, or simply by reversing the statement such that the subject of the sentence becomes the object and the object becomes the subject. For example, if the takenfor-granted statement is "water runs downhill", then possible Reversal provocations are "water runs uphill" (by taking the opposite of "downhill") or "hills run down water" (by reversing the subject and object of the sentence). Exaggeration: if the thing that is taken for granted contains some numerical measurement or quantity, then we can often get a provocation by simply exaggerating (upward or downward) that measurement or quantity. For example, if the taken-for-granted statement is that "water runs downhill", an Exaggeration provocation might be that "water walks downhill" or that "water runs down many hills". Distortion: if there is a time sequence or a relationship in the taken-for-granted statement, then we can often get powerful provocations by distorting that sequence 13
Bodman Longley
Bodman Longley
Bodman Longley
16
Bodman Longley
C2
C1
A
Figure 8 Inconsistent Creative Solutions to a Conflict Situation
A
Figure 9
17
Bodman Longley
CONCLUSION
This paper has outlined some of the basic characteristics of creative thinking, and has described three methods of Lateral Thinking proposed by Edward de Bono. The Concept Triangle has been shown to be useful in expanding the range and number of alternatives, given an initial idea about an area or problem. The Random Word technique has been described as a way of generating substantially new ideas, well removed from our conventional line of thought. The use of Provocation and Movement has also been described as another technique for generating creative new ideas. With each of these techniques, examples have been given to illustrate the concepts involved. The methods have then been discussed in the context of dispute resolution, where it has been emphasised that the only useful creative ideas are those which solve the problem from the perspectives of all parties involved in the dispute. The techniques
18
Bodman Longley
REFERENCES
de Bono, E. (1967). The Use of Lateral Thinking. Penguin Books: Middlesex, UK. de Bono, E. (1972). Po: Beyond Yes and No. Penguin Books: Middlesex, UK. de Bono, E. (1985). Conflict: a better way to resolve them. Penguin Books: Middlesex, UK. de Bono, E. (1986). Six Thinking Hats. Penguin Books: Middlesex, UK. de Bono, E. (1992). Serious Creativity: using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. HarperBusiness: New York.
19
Bodman Longley