Thinking is something we all do naturally, but do we all do it well? According to Edward de Bono, we need to teach thinking as a skill, so that people have tools to use in order to think better. In 1985, de Bono published Six Thinking Hats
There is only one problem with this method — everyone on your team needs to understand it and be able to use it. Therefore, like other skills, there needs to be some training upfront, whether its by reading the book or learning through example. Using the Six Thinking Hats won’t come naturally, but it can used naturally once learned.
Here’s a quick look at the Six Thinking Hats. If you find that you want to know more, you can likely borrow de Bono’s book at the library, there are copies available from some online booksellers (e.g.,Amazon.com
The White Hat — The white hat offers only facts when it looks at the problem. Words or phrases associated with the white hat are:
- Facts
- Figures
- Objective
- Neutral
- Checkable facts
A person using the white hat can offer the opinions of others, but cannot offer his/her own opinions (that happens elsewhere).
The Red Hat — The red hat offers pure emotion when looking at the problem. In being emotional, the red hat does not need to be logical or consistent. Words or phrases associated with the red hat are:
- Emotion
- Feelings
- Hunches
- Intuition
- Impression
- Apprehension
The Black Hat – The black hat sees negatives when it looks at the problem. However, it is not emotionally negative. It doesn’t try to solve, the problem but show risks or even errors in thinking. Words or phrases associated with the black hat are:
- Negative
- Gloomy
- Logical negative
- Risks
- Speculative negative
The Yellow Hat — The yellow hat sees positives when it looks at the problem and comes
up with positive ideas or solutions, but not creative solutions (that
is done elsewhere). Words or phrases associated with the yellow hat are:
- Positive
- Sunny
- Optimistic
- Logical positive
- Speculative positive
- Focused on benefits
- Hopeful
- Constructive
The Green Hat — The green hat sees creative solutions when it looks at a problem. Words or phrases associated with the yellow hat are:
- Creative
- New ideas
- Alternatives
- "Crazy" ideas
- Provocative
- Options
- Choices
- New concepts
The Blue Hat — The blue hat is the conductor or choreographer. It helps the group maintain focus and use the other hats effectively. When possible, it provides direction, adds comments/observations, and defines/redefines the problem.
Who wears the hats? As you read about the blue hat, you may have wondered who wears each hat? There are no assigned roles. People may be asked to "put on" a different hat during a problem-solving session in order to look at the problem from a different point of view. The leader may be the one most likely to wear the blue hat, but anyone can wear it, if it is necessary.
Wear? Yes, I keep using the word "wear." Figuratively speaking, of course. Yet I think it could be helpful to have cards with the different colors as reminders of the different hats. Perhaps the front could be the color and the back could have the qualities listed for that hat.
de Bono tells us that we don’t need to be in a group to use the Six Thinking Hats. Therefore, I’m looking forward to using it with myself when I have problems to solve! I suspect that the map I will build using the Six Thinking Hats will lead to a well thought out solution.
Jill – I find this a very interesting process. I wonder how we could use it within LMD as we work through our challenges?
This sounds interesting. I have ordered a copy and look forward to reading it. Thanks for the info!
-Michelle
Juanita, perhaps we can keep in mind to generate ideas and information before deciding on a solution. de Bono gives examples of situations where a decision was made, but then when they went through this process, they decision was changed. In other words, they people had made their initial decision without all of the information.
I wonder if SLA had used this process in the past, then how the decision over the name change would have come out? I suspect that much of the discussed used 2 – 3 hats. What if we can used all six?
Jill – I presume you’re referring to the SLA name change that failed. I’m not convinced it was a question of failing to think through the change sufficiently – but perhaps more a failure of communicating the rationale sufficiently.
Juanita, but what if we had been given more information from the decision map they created, so that we understood what each “hat” had contributed? What if the membership had been asked to put on a different hat during the discussion (prior to the vote)? Of course, easy to look backwards and say “what if.”
Jill – I think your idea that we could have framed the discussion that took place immediately before the vote by asking the speakers to put on “hat” and speak from that point interesting. Hmmm. Certainly would have made for a different dialogue – perhaps more thought-provoking instead of emotion-provoking. But, as you say, hindsight is 20-20.