De Bono's 6 Hats Explained

Hello, my name is Paul Sloane, and I'd like to take you through this little e-learning miniseries. I've got a number of different presentations here, and today I want to look at de Bono's 6 Thinking Hats, which is a very powerful way of running meetings. It was created by Edward de Bono, and he's written a book about this. And the way it works is it gives you a discipline which you can use in discussions, in meetings, in boardrooms, in other situations, which I think you will find allows you to review ideas and proposals and agenda in a much more effective way. But before I explain the method, let me just give you a little bit of background to this. Because the thinking that we use in the Western world is an adversarial style of thinking, and it comes to us from a Greek tradition. The Greeks taught us how to think. And in the original Greek thinking, one person has a thesis and somebody else holds the opposite idea, the antithesis, in order to challenge that. If the two emerge, you get a synthesis. These are all Greek words. And it's an adversarial style of thinking. And a very good example of it is in a court of law where the prosecution will say, this man is guilty, he's committed all these terrible crimes, he should be locked up, here's all the evidence. And the defense will paint the opposite picture and say, this man is innocent, all of the evidence is circumstantial, you've got to find him not guilty. And the jury is faced with 2 stark alternatives: either he's guilty or he's innocent. And the 2 sides paint entirely opposite views. Another good example in the British system is the government and the opposition. The opposition's official title is Her Majesty's Opposition, and it's their job to oppose the ideas of the government, to test them, to challenge them. That's the system we have, and it's also a system that works in many meetings and boardrooms. We're used to it. One person comes up with an idea and other people immediately challenge it and throw up objections. And it's what de Bono calls I am right, you are wrong thinking. And we tend to dig into our positions. And I constantly reinforce my position in order to argue that I'm right, and you reinforce your position to argue that I'm wrong. And the problem with it is, one of the problems is that ego can interfere with judgment. So both sides dig in, and I will never back down and admit that you were right because I would lose face in the meeting. And consequently, in many meetings, it's the most powerful people, the people with the most prestige, the most authority, whose opinions count the most and whose decisions get approved. And this is not always the best route. Well, Six Thinking Hats overcomes these issues because it's not adversarial. Six Thinking Hats is parallel, parallel form of thinking, in that everyone thinks in the same style at the same time. And you review a proposition from different points of view whilst wearing one of 6 hats, and the hat you wear determines your thinking style at that time. It's a very simple system, so let's just quickly go through the hats and explain what they are. The first hat is the hat of information, the white hat, the hat of data. And with this hat, you would typically review the facts, the data, the analysis— not opinions, not discussion of whether it's right or wrong, but just the actual data. These are the statistics we have about the incidence of MRSA in the hospital. Let's look at the facts. Let's look at the data. Typically you'd have a white paper, and a white paper is data and it goes with the white hat. So you'd review the data, or with the white hat on you might identify what data you need to know. What do we need to know here? What are the essential statistics that we need? After you've covered the white hat, then you would put the red hat on. And the red hat is the hat of feelings or emotion. This is a very interesting hat because normally in meetings we don't discuss our feelings, even though they might appear. We don't actually talk about them. And men in particular don't talk about feelings. It's seen as somehow weak to talk about your feelings. But feelings are very important. And in this, with this hat on, you just go around the room and say, how do you feel about this proposal that we relocate our offices to India? And people say, I feel angry. I feel sad. I feel excited. I feel nervous. And no one can argue with you. If you say you feel angry, you feel angry. And it's just recorded. It's expressed. It's articulated. And somehow that's cathartic. Once you've expressed your anger, It's out there, and it's not a hidden emotion that affects your argument. But with the red hat on, you're asked for your feeling, and you can't say something like, well, I think the return on investment would be poor. That's not a feeling. That comes from your head. That's logical. A feeling has to come from your heart, and it has to be an emotion. So you go around and you collect everyone's feeling, initial feeling, and it's very quick. There's no discussion on that or disagreement. And then you move on to the next hat, which is the yellow hat. And the yellow hat is the hat of sunshine, of optimism. And with the yellow hat on, you say, what's good about this idea? What are the benefits? What would be good for our company or our business if we implemented this idea? And even if you think it's a terrible idea and it's come from your worst enemy in the company, you have to find something good to say about it. Well, if we relocated our offices to India, it would reduce our costs. Very significantly. What else? Well, we'd be able to streamline our operations because we'd have everyone in the same building instead of being in separate buildings as we are now. What else? Well, we'd be able to recruit new staff very easily because there's lots of trained graduates around. What else? And you just go around. Everyone goes around and in turn says a benefit, an advantage. And then when you've collected as many as you possibly can and you've exhausted the list, What I like to do then is to prioritize. Which are the really big yellow points, the biggest advantages, the biggest benefits of this proposal, this idea? And you prioritize, and the really big ones are this, this, and this. So those are the first 3 hats. And the next hat we put on is the black hat. Some people wear this hat all the time at work. And the black hat is the hat of pessimism, of risk. of caution. And with the black hat on, what we say is, what could possibly go wrong with this idea? What are the dangers? What are the risks? What are the downsides? So then you go around the room, and even if you think it's a terrific idea, it's your pet project, it's something you really want and really believe in, you have to point out a risk or a danger, an exposure that this would lead to. So you say, well, What's wrong with this idea? Well, we'd lose some of our best staff. They wouldn't make the move to India. What else? Well, we'd be remote from our key customers. Our government contacts are all in London and Paris. We'd be far from them. What else is bad about this idea? You go around and you collect all of the possible disadvantages, all of the possible drawbacks. And then when everyone's done that, what I like to do is to prioritize and say, what are the really big black points here? What are the really major concerns we have, the biggest risks, and you identify those. So far we've worn 4 hats in this meeting, and before we go on to the next hat, which is the green hat, let's just review what's happened in the meeting. We've analysed the data. We've got everyone's initial feeling expressed. Remember, we go back here. We've looked at all of the possible advantages here with the yellow hat on. And then with the black hat on, we've looked at all of the possible disadvantages or drawbacks and prioritized them. So we've looked all around the subject, and we haven't had a single argument yet, which is quite remarkable, because there's been no scope in the process for an argument really. We've all been pointing in the same direction. Obviously, you have to have a discussion. There has to be some contention. But you have that discussion with the green hat on. And the green hat is the hat of creativity. Of growth, of brainstorming. And with the green hat on, you say, what ideas have we got to improve this proposition? Can we make it work? Can we adapt it in some way? Can we do something useful with it? And it's very useful at this stage to have the yellows in view and the blacks in view on flip charts on the wall. And you say, these are the big yellow points, the advantages that we want. This is terrific for the company if we can improve communication and Reduce costs. And these are the big drawbacks, the concerns that we've got here about losing key staff and being remote from customers or whatever else. And then consequently what you do is you come up with ideas. Who's got an idea to combat any of the blacks, to mitigate any of the risks or dangers? And you review that with the green hat on here. And this can go on for quite a while. You may end up with a substantially different proposition with the green hat on, in which case you'd say, right, well now we need to go back to the beginning, put the white hat on again, and review what data we need for this proposition, see how people feel about this, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the new proposition. And you can do that. You can go back and forward between the hats. The only important rule is everyone must wear the same hat at the same time. You can't have some people wearing yellow while some people are wearing black. Otherwise, you're back to a normal meeting, aren't you? Because that's what happens in many meetings. Some people are for the proposition, other people are against. So, with the green hat on, you have the discussion and you may reach a conclusion. The only other hat is the blue hat. The blue hat is a sort of meta hat. The blue hat is the process hat, the hat of control. And with the blue hat on, you review the 6 hats process, or the thinking hats process. So you could put the blue hat on at the beginning and say, we're going to spend so long on white, so long on red, so long on yellow and blue. Then we're going to have a 20-minute review of the green and we're going to reach a decision. You're talking about the process. You'd put the blue hat on at the end when you say, did the process work for us? What worked well and what didn't work well about this method? You can also put the blue hat on in the middle and say something like, this isn't working because you're wearing white while you're wearing red. You know, we've got to all wear the same hat at the same time. But typically you don't spend long on the blue hat if the process is well facilitated and working properly. And that basically is it. This is one of the propositions I use on my workshops. I use a variety of different propositions for groups to look at. And a controversial proposition like this will normally exercise the method very well. So here's the proposition. All train and bus journeys will be free to passengers and paid for by increased taxation. So then we'd run through the hat, and with the white hat on, we'd say, what information would we need here? Well, typically you'd need to know what it would cost, how much taxation would go up, what increase in capacity and infrastructure would be needed to handle it, what the current passenger rates are, what the projected passenger rates are, Those kinds of items of data are the things you'd have in a white paper if you were in government and you were thinking about implementing this. You then ask people their feelings, and some people say, I'm very angry about this. I don't think we should be subsidizing people out of my taxation. I'm taxed enough. Other people will say, I feel really good about this. It will really improve social mobility, or whatever. So you get people's initial feelings. feelings about it. Then you go around and you look at all the benefits. What would be good about this? Who would benefit by it? And even if you think it's a lousy idea, you have to say, well, it would be good for students. It would be good for tourists. It would be good for old people. It would take traffic off the road. It would reduce congestion, reduce pollution. You go through all of the possible benefits if you moved a lot of traffic onto trains and buses and away from cars and so on. And once you've got all of those, then you prioritize. What are the big, most important points? Go through that. We then move on to the black hat. What's bad about this idea? And people typically say, well, taxes will go up, that the system would be totally overloaded, it wouldn't be able to cope, we'd all be jam-packed like sardines. You'd be subsidizing wealthy commuters who can afford to pay, and they would be packed on trains in the morning because it would be full of other people. You'd get tramps sitting on warm buses all day just going round and round because it's free. All of these sorts of ideas come up and you look at which are the most important, which are the most dangerous ones, which are we most concerned about. And then we move on to green and what ideas have we got to make it better? How could we improve it? And typically people here are looking at compromises. What if we did it at certain times of day or for certain groups? What if we had buses or trains that were sponsored by— major corporates, so it didn't involve an increase in taxation, but there's a Microsoft bus, or a Google bus, or a Shell bus or train. These sorts of ideas are the things that come up. And then with the green hat on, people try to reach a decision. Either they say, yes, we like the idea. No, we don't like the idea. It's got too many flaws. It's irredeemably flawed. Or else they come up with an amended version. Well, if we did this, and this, and this, if we came up with Some combination of greens, we could support it in the group. And they try to reach a majority decision, and typically they do quite quickly. And then in the workshop we review, how did that feel? How did it work? What was it like for you? And most people say it was much better than a normal company meeting. It forced them to look at the proposition from different points of view and to reach a more balanced view more quickly. So that basically is the method and how it works. These are the benefits, as I see it, of the 6-hat. First of all, it forces everyone to consider the proposition from all points of view. So the most powerful advocates of the idea have to criticize it. The most powerful critics of the idea have to find good things about it. And that's really useful, because everyone's working generating more ideas. You see more positives and more negatives if you use this than in a normal meeting. The data, the benefits, and the drawbacks are all reviewed before any argument or discussion. So you don't really get into the yes it is, no it isn't kind of routine that you get in normal meetings. Let's reduce prices. No, that's a bad idea. Yes, it's a good idea. All that sort of thing you don't get into because you're looking at the thing all around. It speeds up meetings, definitely. It seems to help meetings move faster if you do this. And I think it leads to better decisions, and most of the people in the workgroups think that. Some people change their minds as a result of seeing all the points of view. Others agree that it— gives them a more balanced view, but it certainly speeds things up because it removes strife. It removes some of the angst and the adversarial nature that currently imbue most meetings. So basically that's it, the 6 Thinking Hats. If you're going to use it, I would recommend a number of things. First of all, buy the book, the de Bono book. They're quite straightforward and easy to read. Secondly, I would recommend that you get everyone a set of hats. Actually wearing the hats helps reinforce the change in behavior. You can use a big 6-sided dice or something like that, or cards that you put in the middle of the table, but I actually think the hats help the process, and I use sort of baseball hats when I do it in small groups. And finally, I would say practice it on some remote propositions, such as the one I showed you there about the free public transport, before you use it on an internal discussion. And people learn the method, learn the discipline on something abstract or remote from their current work, and then you use it on your current work. And you need to facilitate it quite rigorously the first couple of times until people get the hang of it. So I would recommend it to you. It's used in many companies. It's been used in boardrooms, used in jury rooms, used in committees to great effect, and it's a very useful tool. So the Six Hats method is ideal for a difficult proposition, a knotty proposal that somebody's come up with that you would normally get into a long argument over. If you've got a broad-ranging meeting, then you can use Six Hats. But the discipline of being forced to look at everything from, in the full round of all the possibilities, the data, the emotions, the advantages, the disadvantages, and then the creative development of the idea works really well, I find, with a single contentious proposition. Once again, if you have any questions or comments on this, here's my email address and here's my website. So why not try Dubona's 6 Hats? I want to wish you good luck and great success.