Six thinking hats

A common error we sometimes fall victim to is shortcutting our understanding of complex ideas. I have heard Edward De Bono’s rich parallel thinking strategy reduced to labelling that can border on insults rather than its intended use. Edward De Bono sees that parallel thinking can avoid unnecessary arguments when it is understood that individuals may be seeing different aspects or facets of a scenario which results in a different view being expressed, rather than one part being wrong and the other being right. My article on Conflicting conflict theories which describes the Rashomon effect further explains this. The Rashomon effect (named after the Japanese movie “Rashomon” directed by Akira Kurosawa explores a scenario from the gaze of four different characters, each of whom saw something different.

Edward De Bono’s six hat theory seeks to provide a way to avoid conflict by acknowledging different aspects of a ‘gaze’ or view. 

Without getting too deep into a discussion on Postmodernism, this is one of the core elements of Postmodernism, a term that is not used as much anymore, we tend to have adopted the term ‘woke’ now. The undercurrent of both remains similar, with one aspect being that the new thinking understands the complexity of varying views while the old way of thinking (I.e. Modernism) likes the certainty of things the way they were. While I do hold the view that there are some absolutes in the world, some thinking or views is not as absolute as we would like to think, hence the need to understand and acknowledge different views or gazes. 

There is so much more to be said on Postmodernism, and although we have so much data to work with, we still don’t have enough to fully understand what it means. Quite frankly it is why this zeitgeist is still called Postmodernism. It is at the same time a reaction to, and a conflation of the different aspects of Modernism, which has not yet landed on a new zeitgeist in its own right, hence the term ‘Post’. And probably won’t for some time.

So back to Edward De Bono’s six thinking hats, and some more practical and useful aspects of his work.

The principle is that we should approach problem solving from different angles. The six hats represent:

White - basic information and data, opinions of others can be included, but not your own opinion, as this falls under the red hat.

Blue - meta, the thinking of the thinking, primarily this is analysis which is mostly conducted from the facilitator of the discussion, but others can and should be included.

Red - passions and opinions. These are far from irrelevant but should not overtake the discussions. By assigning a hat, and therefore time to this aspect of the discussion it enables these components of the discussion to be given limited but appropriate air.

Black - Judgement or caution. This is one I have heard as an insult along the lines of “there he is with his black hat again”, which is a gross misrepresentation of the hat. It is about considering the risks for the purpose of mitigating them.

Yellow - Positivity or optimism. Think sunshine and bright sky possibilities. By now I am sure you can see the benefits of having the optimistic view being balanced by the cautious view.

Green - Creativity. Think of the expanse of green fields and endless possibilities. This is where the group builds on the information, feelings, hopes and the cautions to expand the opportunities by critically analyzing all that is on the table and take it to the next level.

There is a lot of merit in understanding the six thinking hats model, but I continue to hear contradictory misapplications. Much of what I have heard is a result of not understanding all of De Bono’s thesis but aside from this, advice that I was given a long time ago which I apply in a variety of situations is - Chew the fruit, spit out the pips. 

Here are what I hope might be some helpful takeaways. 

• Don’t use hats as labels or as a way to disparage people.

• Don’t create clumsy meetings by dividing every item discussion into six hats but DO develop an understanding of the benefits of understanding the six hats.

• Don’t allow one person only to wear a ‘hat’ all the time.

Here are two examples to expand on the last point. 

I have heard it said that only the facilitator should wear the blue hat. While this is primarily true, my opinion is that the facilitator (or chair in a board meeting) should at some point provide the opportunity for others to wear the blue hat.

Another piece of advice I came across is to share the wearing of hats at various times, especially black hats. This was what really prompted this article and can be a way to manage those who may be more inclined to appear negative in meetings. Ask a member of the group, not the one that most would usually adopt the role, to apply black hat thinking to a scenario. This is a way to acknowledge the importance of this thinking while not allowing one to carry the burden alone. By sharing the role you are validating that it is okay to be cautious and at the same time alleviating the responsibility for some to only ever face that burden. The same can be applied to other hats as well. 

By acknowledging that each hat has a valuable role, and that each person should learn to apply the various hat thinking in appropriate circumstances, you can provide personal and professional development to each member and add value to meeting discussions.

Considered discussions evaluating risks and opportunities leads to greater productivity and possibilities.