Divergent Vs Convergent Thinking

In "Think Like a Rocket Scientist", Ozan Varol talks about two types of thinking that are crucial for idea generation - divergent thinking and convergent thinking.

While many people may not be familiar with the terms per-se - most people are familiar with the concepts they represent. Divergent thinking is most similar to what people know of as brainstorming - it is thinking of ideas in free-flow, without restrictions, no matter how potentially ridiculous or impractical. Convergent thinking, by contrast, is usually thought of as closer to critical, or scientific/engineering thinking - what is possible and what is practical given real world constraints.

While most people are familiar with these two types of thinking, Varol makes the point that most of the time, people don't leverage them correctly - or at least in a way that produces the optimal outcome.

Let's take an example. A bunch of people on a team gather in a conference room to discuss how to solve a particular problem. People start spouting out ideas, but almost as fast as Person A mentions an idea, Person B comes along with a 'yeah, but..' that nixes the idea. How likely is it that Person A is going to continue volunteering ideas? Not very likely - they got shot down, and it's a natural human response to start closing up after being shot down. The result is what most everyone has experienced - an initial flurry of ideas, followed shortly thereafter by everyone starting to converge on a single idea, many times put forth by either a person of authority, or by whoever in the room has the loudest voice. It may seem something productive has happened, since an idea and a plan of execution was the result of the meeting, but a few critical things occurred:

1. Because so many ideas were shot down, the team members don't feel their input was valued.
2. The idea that gained traction was likely an idea that stayed within the well-worn confines of how things have always been done, which likely has its own challenges.
3. The opportunity to come up with a really game-changing solution to the problem was ruined before it had a chance to be explored.

What really happened here was that the initial divergent thinking process was stunted. It is true that with divergent thinking, many of the ideas will be tossed out quickly - but the truth is also that a great idea is a close cousin, or a simple tweak of, a not-so-great idea. I think everyone has experienced, at least to some degree, a state of flow where ideas and thoughts and connections flow freely and things become elegant and simple. Yet, getting into that frame of mind is not necessarily quick and easy - we have to be kind to our (and others') creative selves, not be too critical right out of the gate, and prevent the rational and critical part of our brain from overtaking the creative side during this time. How many times have you had a list of ideas, thought you had identified the winning horse right away - but after a refining process, it turned out that another idea was the unexpected winner? The goal of divergent thinking is to expand on the field of potential ideas, not trim it down from the start.

Which leads to... convergent thinking. Convergent thinking is a critical component, but it is important that it be engaged in at the right time - which is, ideally, when divergent thinking has come to it's natural end. At that time, it's not just that all the single ideas are still on the table - it's that all the ideas and combinations of ideas are still available. The single idea by itself may be ridiculous, but when combined in a unique way with another idea - a very elegant and simple solution may present itself. This is why it is so important that divergent thinking be allowed for as long as possible, and not be considered a waste of time. Once you've entered the convergent thinking phase, you figure out which ideas and combinations are not worth pursuing, and which ones still move the needle in terms of achieving the end goal.

By allowing a full divergent thinking process the opportunity to thrive, followed by the convergent thinking process to gradually determine which ideas are worth pursuing, you increase the chance that a simple, elegant and truly impactful solution will present itself, as opposed to being limited by the 'same old' style solutions used in the past.

Preparing to Listen

Welcome to the blog post that has probably the least compelling title I've written yet. In some ways, that is intentional, because if you clicked on the link and are reading this post, then you are one of the few people I run into who are actually interested in improving your listening skills.

The past few weeks, I've been listening to a lot of podcasts about.. listening. What may seem like a rudimentary skill is actually quite complex and deceptive. Hearing someone say words is one thing - listening is a whole other story. And deep listening, a term I heard about from Oscar Trimboli, is listening on a whole other level.

In a previous post, I wrote about the importance of showing your face during a video conference call. In this post, I wanted to dig in a little more on the first aspect - that being on video holds you accountable to be present and listen.

While putting yourself out there for the audience to see does certainly help keep you engaged, the main thing I wanted to highlight with this post is that distractions happen before the conversation takes place.

Think about the typical work day, and what you are doing in the 5-10 minutes prior to getting on a call with a customer or colleague. Many times, we are working on some other project up until the last minute, at which point we tell ourselves (or the people we are already communicating with) some variant of "I gotta jump on a call in one minute". We hurriedly hop from one topic to another, marveling at our ability to get shit done quickly and efficiently.

Unfortunately, the truth is not quite so polished and rosy. We set ourselves up for being distracted with that kind of cadence. We hop on the new call, and during the exchange of pleasantries, maybe we decide to check our email real quick, because the real substantive stuff hasn't started yet. Given the nature of email communications, chances are one of those emails is requesting a response from us - so now we are on a call about topic A, thinking about topic B.

Or, maybe we are in a bit of a flow state with one project, and not wanting to kill our momentum, we go until the last minute before the call. We then end up having to either purge the entire cognitive pipeline to be present for the scheduled call (which is not fun, and requires a spin-up period to get back into flow), or we end up on the call but not really giving it our full attention.

While these are just a couple examples, and they don't happen every time, I think they are good examples of how we set ourselves up for distraction, because I'd bet good money that anyone reading this has experienced one of the above, or something similar.

Fortunately, there are a few simple things that can be done upstream to help:

• Leave a clean checkpoint on what you are working on. Some time before the scheduled interruption (perhaps 30 minutes?), start thinking about the task at hand and where you can tie off loose ends to leave a clean checkpoint to pick up on later.
• Give yourself time to purge distractions and clear your mind. If you are going to do something like check your email prior to a scheduled call or meeting, because you were wrapped up in something else that left it unattended for a period of time - give yourself enough time to either attend to anything requiring immediate attention, or give yourself permission to read the email and then put it aside and attend to it later. Chances are, if it came to you via email, it's not actually super-time critical.
• Finally, put your phone on airplane mode, close out your email, close your laptop - do whatever you need to do to remove distractions during the call. Only you know if your phone beeping, buzzing or flashing during a call will be a distraction, so only you can know how to manage it.

Try really thinking on how you get distracted, and taking steps to eliminate those distractions prior to a situation that demands your listening attention, and see if you notice a difference. I find that when I am fully present to listen, my recollection is better and in the long run, it is actually a significant time saver.

The Importance of Letting People See Your Face When Working Remotely

Most of my work is done from the comfort of a home office. The home office is a mixed bag of convenience and distractions, the details of which have been written about time and time again, so I won't bother going into that detail here. I will, however, dig a little bit into one aspect, and that is the use of video during collaborative calls, and why it is generally to your advantage to let the tape roll.

Let's start with laying some groundwork. Those who have been working remotely for some time know that there is an element missing when you are not physically in the office. That usually starts to make itself apparent after a few weeks or months - you miss out on the water cooler talk, the informal conversations in the hall, the distinct separation of work and home life, etc. There is a sense of having to work harder just to make your presence and contributions known to your coworkers when you are unseen. There is a fear of being on the wrong end of the 'Out of sight, out of mind' equation when working remotely.

So, when we have a conference call or meeting with coworkers or customers, that is one of the few opportunities we have to make a visual impact on our audience. And yet, what do most people do? Stop the video feed. It's less intimidating to have a nice, vaguely professional picture of yourself on the screen vs putting your mug up for everyone to see - especially if you are the only one doing so. We seem to think it's more professional to show a still image of ourselves, vs a live image where there might be some clutter in the background. It logically makes a degree of sense - we want to put our best foot forward and portray professionalism.

But the truth is - people generally don't care all that much, if at all, so long as you meet a minimum standard and don't cross the NSFW line. Additionally, sometimes showing a degree of humanity can be beneficial, as well.

So, why is it important that we show our faces? Two primary reasons - It holds us accountable to be present and listen, and the other people feel heard.

It Holds us Accountable to be Present and Listen

I'll come right out and say it - no one is a perfect listener. We start listening to the story in our head, instead of what the speaker is saying. We get distracted if we see or hear a notification on our phone while we are on a call. We start solving a problem being discussed while the person with the issue is still describing the problem. These are all natural tendencies, and everyone has experienced them.

But this also means people are understanding when it happens, if you are honest with them. "Sorry, I got distracted there for a few moments, can you repeat that last bit?", or

"Sorry, I was following an internal thought thread while you were speaking, and realized that I wasn't fully listening to you. Can you repeat that?"

If you've seen Brene Brown's TED talk on The Power of Vulnerability (one of the most viewed TED talks of all time), you know how powerful this act of letting down your guard can be.

In the end, the difference between a good listener and a poor listener is that the good listener is able to recognize when they have gotten distracted or become disengaged, and have mechanisms to bring themselves back to the conversation. Having a live video feed is one such mechanism. Knowing you are going to be seen by others allows you to go through the mental process required to be present for the upcoming conversation, and give it the attention it requires. Afterall, if it made it on to your calendar in the first place, you decided it was worth your attention.

The Other Person Feels Heard

According to research by Oscar Trimboli, the most common frustration people report is that their audience stops listening. A portion of what we communicate is the words we use, but a significantly larger portion of what we communicate is through our body language. If we are speaking with someone who is walking away from us, that's not the same as someone who is sitting across from us, giving us their undivided attention. If all the other person sees is a still image, they have no idea whether we are actually listening to them, or doing the dishes in the background while on mute. If the other person can see that you are intently listening to them, you are being empathetic, and that person will feel heard, as opposed to feeling like they wasted their time.

As a datacenter engineer, a critical aspect of my job is working with customers and understanding their concerns or frustrations, and being their advocate. A manager has to work with the range of personalities present on their team, and keep everyone engaged and going in the same direction. A salesperson who can normally depend on a lunch meeting with a customer to discuss an issue or a solution may be relegated to a video conference call instead. Regardless of the position you hold, there is someone on the other end of the videoconference who appreciates it when they know you are giving them direct and undivided attention.

So, in wrapping this up - as of the time of this blog post, most people are working from home due to Covid, and have been for some time. I anticipate that this pandemic has opened the floodgates for a WFH culture to extend into the future. Part of the challenge that comes with a WFH culture is feeling that your work ethic and contributions are up to snuff, as compared to the standard of physically going into a workplace. If you have a mechanism that allows you to demonstrate to your colleagues that you are present during conversations with them, it is to your benefit to leverage that mechanism as much as possible.

On the other side of the coin, there are certainly times when portrayed professionalism is paramount. C-level execs engaging in major corporate events that are now virtual, interviews, award presentations, etc - those are instances where it is absolutely necessary to display polished professionalism. In these situations, prior to rolling the camera, the person gets dressed up, cleans up the background of their office a bit, and other such touches. Yet, notice that they are still on live video - because it matters.

The Pros and Cons of a Pros/Cons List

Every day we are faced with making a lot of decisions, and most of these decisions are relatively inconsequential - meaning that if we don't make the optimum choice, we have opportunities to course correct, or the resulting negative outcome doesn't significantly alter our lives. However, there are some occasions where we have to make a major decision, and the potential outcomes are large and have obvious implications down the road. Such examples might be deciding which of two potential houses to purchase, what type of vehicle to purchase to replace an old one, or even something like whether to bother investing in putting solar panels on your roof.

A very common practice to help assist with making these decisions is to create a pros and cons list. By brainstorming a bunch of factors and writing them down, we are supposedly then in a better position to determine the best course of action.

There are certainly benefits to a pros and cons list, and they are a helpful tool - but like all analytical tools, they don't capture the entire story. So I wanted to take a few minutes to explore some of the detractors inherent in a pros and cons list, because if we can be cognitively aware of them, we can take steps to mitigate their effect.

• Lack of Magnitude

In my view, the primary downside to a pros/cons list is the lack of magnitude of each item. If we are faced with a decision and come up with five pros and three cons for option A, and four pros and three cons for option B, it's really easy to get caught up in the numbers and think that option A is best. Yet, if the cons for A are really concerning to us, we may be better off going with option B, which may have fewer pros, but also a different set of cons that we are not as concerned about.

I think that most people, by the time they reach general adulthood, have recognized, in some way, this particular issue of a pros and cons list. What I find interesting is that this one issue branches into a couple other more subtle issues, such as:

• Lack of Probability

A pro's and con's list tends to generate a list of factors that appear to be binary - they either happen, or they don't, and each outcome is essentially given equal probability. Yet life is generally not binary like that. If a list of con's has five items, some of those cons could be stretches, while others are almost guaranteed. The format of a pros and cons list makes it difficult to evaluate relative probabilities of the various potential outcomes.

• Amplification of Biases

This is probably the most subtle impact of a pros and cons list. When we are coming up with our list of factors, it's nearly impossible to eliminate the impact of our own bias. This can range from intentionally not including certain factors in the list because we don't want to consider them, to adding extra, almost trivial, items to the pros side because we have already made a gut decision and are looking to us a pros and cons list as an objective validation of what we want.

So, if a pros and cons list is still a useful tool, how do we go about making the best decision, when the tool has these negatives associated with it? Dampen the bias by game playing all the decisions out, and go with the option that yields the best probability of a favorable outcome. Note that this does not eliminate the possibility of a bad outcome, but it does minimize it.

Here's an example: if you are playing poker, and you are going into the river with a pocket Ace and 4 of hearts, the flop showed a 2, 3 and 5 of hearts - you have a straight flush, and chances are you are going to win that hand. Sure, an opponent may have a higher ranking straight flush, but the chances of that are extremely low. So 99 times out of 100, you are best off raising the pot by a large amount to capitalize on your strong hand.

In IT, I see this sort of thing play out a LOT. With virtually every engagement, there are knowns, unknowns, and risks. Each one affords the opportunity to say 'If we go this direction, this could happen; if we go that direction, that could happen'. After 20 years, I've learned that one cannot just simply list potential outcomes and go with the one that seems to have the largest number of benefits. Too many times, that has led to immediate progress, only to be stymied on the back-end by large amount of troubleshooting (at best), or unexpected downtime (at worst), because something wasn't fully thought through.

Disclaimer: Information in this post is derived partially from my own experience, and partially from information obtained from Annie Duke, about how to make better decisions.