Week 3 Disc due in 24 hours

Instructions attached. No Plagiarism

Must use Headings/Templates below when answering questions. Use APA Citations and References

Select one problem, either in your personal or professional life, that you currently have ownership of and motivation to solve. Practice divergent thinking by generating a list of possible solutions or approaches to your problem. Then, practice convergent thinking and select the solution that you think holds the most promise. Be sure to justify your selection. Read “The Paradox of Samsung’s Rise” and consider how Samsung integrated the cultures of employees from all over the globe in order to stimulate creativity and innovation. Consider the influences of culture on this type of thinking and creativity in general.

With these thoughts in mind:

Post

 

the following:

· A brief description of the problem along with your list of solutions, the solution you selected, and the justification for your selection.

· Next, describe the experience of using divergent thinking and convergent thinking. If you had not approached the problem using divergent and convergent practices in a systematic way, would you have arrived at the same solution? Explain why or why not.

· Finally, explain any aspects of culture that could either inhibit or support this creative process.

Week 3 Discussion Posts Templates

 

*You are required to organize your initial discussion post using this template. These headings are mandatory! Put your thoughts under each heading. Then post.  Regards.

Initial Post Template

A brief description of the problem along with your list of solutions, the solution you selected, and the justification for your selection.

Next, describe the experience of using divergent thinking and convergent thinking. If you had not approached the problem using divergent and convergent practices in a systematic way, would you have arrived at the same solution? Explain why or why not.

Finally, explain any aspects of culture that could either inhibit or support this creative process.

References

Reference:

Khanna , T., Song, J., & Lee, K. (2011). The paradox of Samsung’s rise. Harvard Business Review, 89(7/8), 142–147.

Puccio, G. J., Mance, M., Switalski, L. B., & Reali, P. D. (2012). Principles for divergent and convergent thinking: Becoming a better creative thinker. In Puccio, G.J., Mance, M., Switalski, L.B. et al. (Eds.), Creativity Rising: Creative thinking and creative problem solving in the 21st century (1st Ed.), (pp. 51–70). Buffalo, NY: ICSC Press. Copyright 2012 by ICSC Press. Reprinted by permission of Omniskills, LLC/ICSC Press.

HBR.ORG July–AuGust 2011
reprint r1107n

The Globe

The Paradox of
Samsung’s Rise

Samsung’s unlikely success in mixing Western
best practices with an essentially Japanese
business system holds powerful lessons for today’s
emerging giants. by Tarun Khanna, Jaeyong Song,
and Kyungmook Lee

This document is authorized for use only by Phenekia Morgan in MGMT-6635-2/MMSL-6620-2/COMM-6505-2/WMBA-6020-2/WMBA-6020B-2-Foster a Culture of Innovation2020 Spring Sem

01/06-04/26-PT2 at Laureate Education – Walden University, 2020.

http://hbr.org/

http://hbr.org/search/R1107N

The Globe

Ph
o

to
g

r
a

Ph
y:

a
P

Im
a

g
es

A s today’s emerging giants face the challenge of moving beyond their home markets, they have
much to learn from the pathbreaking ex-
perience of South Korea’s Samsung Group,
arguably the most successful globalizer of
the previous generation.

Twenty years ago, few people would
have predicted that Samsung could trans-
form itself from a low-cost original equip-
ment manufacturer to a world leader in
R&D, marketing, and design, with a brand
more valuable than Pepsi, Nike, or Ameri-
can Express. Fewer still would have pre-
dicted the success of the path it has taken.
For two decades now, Samsung has been
grafting Western business practices onto its
essentially Japanese system, combining its
traditional low-cost manufacturing prow-
ess with an ability to bring high- quality,
high-margin branded products swiftly to
market.

The two sets of business practices could
not have seemed more incompatible. Into
an organization focused on continuous pro-
cess improvement, Samsung introduced a
focus on innovation. Into a homogeneous
workforce, Samsung introduced outsid-
ers who could not speak the language and
were unfamiliar with the company’s cul-
ture. Into a Confucian tradition of rever-
ence for elders, Samsung introduced merit
pay and promotion, putting some young
people in positions of authority over their
elders. It has been a path marked by both
disorienting disequilibrium and intense
exhilaration.

Like Samsung, today’s emerging gi-
ants—Haier in China, Infosys in India, and
Koç in Turkey, for instance—face a para-
dox: Their continued success requires turn-
ing away from what made them successful.
The tightly integrated business systems
that have worked in their home markets

Samsung’s unlikely success
in mixing Western best
practices with an essentially
Japanese business system
holds powerful lessons for
today’s emerging giants. by
Tarun Khanna, Jaeyong Song,
and Kyungmook Lee

The Paradox of
Samsung’s Rise

2 harvard Business review July–August 2011
This document is authorized for use only by Phenekia Morgan in MGMT-6635-2/MMSL-6620-2/COMM-6505-2/WMBA-6020-2/WMBA-6020B-2-Foster a Culture of Innovation2020 Spring Sem

01/06-04/26-PT2 at Laureate Education – Walden University, 2020.

are unlikely to secure their future in global
markets. To move to the next level, they,
too, must reinvent themselves in ways that
may seem contradictory. And when they
reach new plateaus, they will need to do so
again.

For seven years, we have traced Sam-
sung’s progress as it has steadily navigated
this paradox to transcend its initial success
in its home markets and move onto the
world stage. It is a story we believe holds
many important lessons for the current
generation of emerging giants seeking to
do the same.

The Rise of a World leader
Founded in 1938, the Samsung Group is
the largest corporate entity in South Ko-
rea, with $227.3 billion in revenue in 2010
and 315,000 employees worldwide. Best
known for its flagship, Samsung Electron-
ics (SEC)—producer of semiconductors,
cell phones, TVs, and LCD panels—the
group’s highly diversified businesses span
a wide range of industries, including fi-
nancial services, information technology
services, machinery, shipbuilding, and
chemicals.

By 1987, when Lee Kun-Hee succeeded
his father as only the second chairman in
the company’s history, Samsung was the
leader in Korea in most of its markets. But
its overseas position as a low-cost producer
was becoming untenable in the face of
intensifying competition from Japanese
electronics makers, which were setting up
manufacturing plants in Southeast Asia,
and rising domestic wages in South Korea’s
newly liberalizing economy.

In the early 1990s, Lee spotted an op-
portunity in the reluctance of Japanese
companies—the analog market leaders—to
adopt digital technology, which consumers
were flocking to in cameras, audio equip-
ment, and other electronic products. This
opened the door for Samsung to surpass its
rivals if it developed the agility, innovative-
ness, and creativity to succeed in the new
digital market.

For those qualities Lee looked to the
West. In 1993, he launched the New Man-

agement initiative to import Western best
practices related to strategy formulation,
talent management, and compensation
into Samsung’s existing business model.
The aim was to markedly improve market-
ing, R&D, and design while retaining core
strengths in manufacturing, continuous
improvement, and plant operations. Exe-
cution of this mix-and-match strategy took
three broad forms:

• A formal process to identify, adapt, and
implement the most appropriate Western
best practices.

• Steady efforts to make Samsung’s cul-
ture more open to change by bringing out-
siders in and sending insiders abroad.

• Intervention by Lee to protect long-
term investments from short-term finan-
cial pressures.

In this way, slowly and steadily but not
always smoothly, Samsung has built its
hybrid management system as a series of
experiments, first in SEC and eventually
throughout the Samsung Group (see the
exhibit “Seeking the Best of Both Worlds:
Samsung’s Hybrid Management System”).

The results have been impressive: By
2004, SEC was delivering startling profit-
ability numbers—$10.3 billion (almost 19%)
on $55.2 billion in revenue—making it the
world’s second most profitable manufac-
turer, behind Toyota. Since then, even in the
wake of the recent global economic crisis,
SEC’s profits have been higher than those of
the five largest Japanese electronics firms
(Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Hitachi, and
Sharp) combined. The company achieved
record profits of about $14.4 billion on
$138 billion in revenue in 2010, compared
with $11.7 billion for Intel, $0.86 billion
for Panasonic, and a net loss of $3.2 bil-
lion for Sony. From obscurity in the 1990s,
the Samsung brand rose to number 19 on
the 2010 Interbrand global ranking, with a
value of $19.4 billion. But it wasn’t easy.

A Tightly Fitting System
Samsung’s Japanese roots are strong:
When the company was founded, South
Korea was a Japanese colony. Samsung’s
first chairman, Lee’s father, was educated

in Japan, and the company built its corpo-
rate muscle in industries—consumer elec-
tronics, memory chips, and LCD panels—
that Japan once dominated. Accordingly,
Samsung rose to prominence in its home
market under the Japanese model of un-
related diversification and vertical integra-
tion in pursuit of synergies. Diversification
suited South Korea’s weak external capital
markets because it allowed the company to
rely on internally generated cash from one
operation to fund the others.

The Japanese hierarchical labor model
also suited the Korean context. The institu-
tions underpinning South Korea’s manage-
rial labor markets were under developed,
making mobility across corporations rare.
The absence of a well-developed stock

market and of sufficient competition for
talent, combined with a strong Confu-
cian tradition of respect for elders, led to a
seniority- based compensation and promo-
tion system. (For a fuller discussion of the
logic behind Samsung’s original business
model, see “Why Focused Strategies May
Be Wrong for Emerging Markets,” Tarun
Khanna and Krishna Palepu, HBR July–
August 1997.)

To compete outside its home markets,
Lee knew, Samsung would need to move
beyond its well-integrated system to en-
gage with non-Koreans in non-Korean con-
texts. That meant introducing practices
inconsistent with the status quo.

Lee did not underestimate how unset-
tling that would be. Accordingly, he took
great care to change only what needed to
be changed and to ensure that Samsung
adopted the most appropriate practices in
a way people could understand and em-

to compete outside
its home markets,
samsung would need
to engage with non-
Koreans in non-Korean
contexts.

For artIcle rePrInts call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500, or vIsIt hbR.oRG

July–August 2011 harvard Business review 3
This document is authorized for use only by Phenekia Morgan in MGMT-6635-2/MMSL-6620-2/COMM-6505-2/WMBA-6020-2/WMBA-6020B-2-Foster a Culture of Innovation2020 Spring Sem

01/06-04/26-PT2 at Laureate Education – Walden University, 2020.

http://hbr.org/

brace. The company established new orga-
nizations to seek out and adapt best prac-
tices from abroad. Lee advocated directly
for the practices he deemed most critical
and solicited employees’ input in the de-
velopment of each. Results were carefully
measured. If resistance was too strong, the
company delayed adoption, modified the
practice, or—as was the case with stock
options—abandoned it.

In this way, Samsung injected some
highly incompatible business practices
into its business model. Beginning in 1997,
for instance, the company slowly intro-
duced into its seniority-based pay struc-
ture a merit-based compensation system
modeled after the best practices of Gen-
eral Electric, Hewlett-Packard, and Texas
Instruments. The amount an excellent
performer could be given relative to a poor
performer in the same job increased each
year, up to a differential of 50%. Similarly,
Samsung took steps to allow high per-
formers to advance more rapidly through
its seniority-based promotion system by
steadily shortening the minimum number
of years they were required to stay at a par-
ticular level.

Other processes could be adapted and
adopted more globally. GE’s Six Sigma, for
example, fit well with Samsung’s continu-
ous improvement culture. But at GE only
managers and specialists were involved in
the system, whereas at Samsung the entire
rank and file participated. Samsung simi-
larly adopted a socialized profit-sharing
program, modeled after HP’s, in which all
employees, not just top and general man-
agers (as at many Western companies), are
eligible for a bonus based on a percentage
(up to 50%) of their salary.

This careful approach to importing
Western business practices reduced dis-
ruption but also slowed progress. So, in a
company where the chairman’s authority
coexisted with a need for consensus in the
managerial ranks, Lee sought to increase
receptivity to ideas from elsewhere. This
he did in two ways: by bringing new think-
ers in from outside and by sending insiders
abroad.

SeekinG The beST oF boTh WoRldS:

Samsung’s hybrid Management System

SAMSunG’S
hybRid SySTeM

STRATeGy
Diversification but
more focus within
businesses

Ability to tap into
both internal and
external capital
markets

Focus on continuous
improvement and
applied R&D but
also on innovation,
marketing, and
design to establish
brand and premium
pricing

Long-term coopera-
tive supplier relation-
ships but with some
level of competition

huMAn ReSouRceS
Interweaving of
internal workforce
with outsiders
attracted through
market-based
compensation

Annual recruitment
for entry-level posi-
tions; open recruit-
ment for experienced
specialists

Coexistence of
seniority-based
and merit-based
promotion and
compensation; mostly
standardized but
some individualized
incentives

Diversification strategy

Focus on continuous opera-
tional improvement to pre-
pare for price competition

Limited recruitment, mostly
once a year, and only for
entry-level positions

Seniority-based promotion
and compensation;
standardized incentives

Dependence on internal
capital markets

Long-term relationships with
suppliers based on deep,
unconditional cooperation

Dependence on internal
labor market, which results
in long-term employment

Focus strategy

Dependence on external
capital markets

TRAdiTionAl
JAPAneSe SySTeM WeSTeRn SySTeM

Imagine introducing a focus on innovation into a company optimized for continuous
process improvement. or merit pay and promotion into an organization with a strong
tradition of reverence for elders. these are just some of the challenges samsung has
faced in creating its unique hybrid management system.

Focus on innovation,
marketing, and design
to establish strong brands
and premium pricing

Contingent relationships
with suppliers based on
market pricing

Dependence on external
labor market attracted by
market-based compensation

Open recruitment of the best
candidates for all positions
as needed

Merit-based promotion and
compensation; individualized
incentives

4 harvard Business review July–August 2011

The Globe

This document is authorized for use only by Phenekia Morgan in MGMT-6635-2/MMSL-6620-2/COMM-6505-2/WMBA-6020-2/WMBA-6020B-2-Foster a Culture of Innovation2020 Spring Sem
01/06-04/26-PT2 at Laureate Education – Walden University, 2020.

bringing outsiders in
It is perhaps an indication of the insularity
of Samsung’s culture that for decades, the
only outsiders the company recruited were
ethnic Koreans. As far back as 1983, when
it entered the memory chip business, the
company had hired ethnic Korean engi-
neers and executives away from Intel, IBM,
and Bell Labs. These people had played
crucial roles in Samsung’s ascent in less
than a decade to global leadership in the
chip industry. But when Lee tried to extend
the approach to Samsung’s senior execu-
tive ranks—what the company refers to as
S-level talent—the newcomers met with a
formidable wall of resistance.

And little wonder. Because promotions
at Samsung had always come from within,
the newcomers were perceived to be (and
actually were) taking advancement away
from incumbents. Not surprisingly, in-
cumbent managers closed ranks, setting
the newcomers up to fail by withholding
important information, exaggerating their
mistakes, and excluding them socially.

To be fair, this reaction was in part jus-
tified: At first, some of Samsung’s recruits
had a poor grasp of what was expected
of them, and sometimes they were actu-
ally more junior than the company had
intended. What’s more, success is contex-
tual—to some degree S-level hires had per-
formed well in their previous jobs because
of their familiarity with the system. The
tightly knit nature of Samsung’s culture
was a separate issue that needed special
attention.

Take the case of Eric Kim, who in 1999
was recruited to be SEC’s chief marketing
officer. Nowadays, most senior SEC execu-
tives recognize Kim as the person who ini-
tiated the “Samsung DigitAll: Everyone’s
Invited” marketing campaign and estab-
lished the strategy that turned Samsung
into a truly global brand.

SEC CEO Yun Jong-Yong threw his
weight behind Kim from the start, declar-
ing to his other senior executives, “Some of
you may want to put him on top of a tree
and then shake him down. If anybody tries
that, they will be severely reprimanded.”

Nevertheless, through it all, Kim had a hard
time getting support from other senior peo-
ple. “Though Yun fully supported me and
asked other senior executives to help me,
they were reluctant to do so in my first two
years at SEC,” he told us in a 2004 interview.

“Now they help me on my task-related is-
sues, but I still feel that I am emotionally
isolated from them.” In conversations we
had in 2004 with senior executives at SEC,
several were still downplaying Kim’s con-
tribution to the dramatic improvement
of SEC’s brand. Three months after those
conversations, when Kim’s contract ended,
he left SEC to become the chief marketing
officer at Intel.

Improving the quality of the S-level
recruits—and their reception inside the
company—was no small task, and Lee
thought expansively about how to address
it. Beginning in the early 1990s, Samsung
sent international recruiting officers (IROs)
abroad to familiarize themselves with for-
eign talent. And in 2002, Lee made 30%
of the annual performance appraisal of
Samsung affiliates’ CEOs dependent on
hiring and retaining S-level talent. Thus
motivated, Yun, for instance, took steps
to ease newcomers into the organization
by having them serve in an advisory ca-
pacity in their first months to get to know
something of their colleagues, the culture,
and the business before taking up their
posts. He also instituted a formal mentor-
ing program in which he met at least quar-
terly with each S-level recruit to give and
receive feedback.

Samsung’s efforts to recruit and retain
non-Korean MBAs and PhDs were hindered
by cultural, social, and political tensions, all
of which were magnified by the language
barrier. To help assimilate these recruits,
Lee in 1997 ordered group headquarters
to set up a unique internal management
consulting unit, the Global Strategy Group
(GSG), which reports directly to the CEO.
Its members—non-Korean graduates of
top Western business and economics pro-
grams who have worked for such leading
global companies as McKinsey, Goldman
Sachs, and Intel—spend fully two years in

Harvard
Business
Review

Business
Not As
Usual

hbr.org
The Revival of Smart

16425_HBR_1third_vert.indd 2 12/3/10 1:16 PM

For artIcle rePrInts call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500, or vIsIt hbR.oRG
This document is authorized for use only by Phenekia Morgan in MGMT-6635-2/MMSL-6620-2/COMM-6505-2/WMBA-6020-2/WMBA-6020B-2-Foster a Culture of Innovation2020 Spring Sem
01/06-04/26-PT2 at Laureate Education – Walden University, 2020.

http://hbr.org/

GSG and are required to learn rudimentary
Korean before taking up their posts. Even
so, many of them have eventually been as-
signed to overseas subsidiaries, usually in
their home countries.

Cultural fit is a hard nut to crack. Of the
208 non-Korean MBAs hired into GSG since
it was created, 135 were still working for
Samsung as of December 2010. The most
successful are those who have taken the
greatest pains to fit into the Korean culture
(see the sidebar “Advice from a Returning
Executive”).

Still, the rate of acceptance has been
steadily rising. Before GSG, no non-Korean
MBAs worked at SEC for more than three
years, but fully 32% of the non-Korean
MBAs recruited to SEC the year GSG was
established were still with the company
three years later. Over the next 10 years,
that figure rose to 67%. The effect of these
employees on the organization has been
something like that of a steady trickle
of water on stone. As more people from
GSG are assigned to SEC, their Korean
colleagues have had to change their work
styles and mind-sets to accommodate
Westernized practices, slowly and steadily
making the environment more friendly to
ideas from abroad. Today, SEC goes out of
its way to ask GSG for more newly hired
employees.

Sending insiders out
In the late 19th century, the Japanese im-
perial government sent its elite officers
overseas to study successful Western
practices and institutions. They brought
back, among other innovations, the Brit-
ish postal system, the French judicial
system, the American system of primary
education, and the German military or-
ganization, adding innovative features of
their own to suit the local environment.
Samsung acts similarly, sending high po-
tentials to Japan for advanced degrees in
engineering; to the United States for fur-
ther education in marketing and manage-
ment; and to Singapore, Hong Kong, and
New York for training in high finance. On
returning home, these employees fill key

positions and, in implementing what they
have learned, become important change
agents.

Squarely in this tradition is Samsung’s
regional specialist program, arguably the
company’s most important globalization
effort. Each year for more than two de-
cades, Samsung has sent some 200 talented
young employees through an intensive 12-
week language-training course followed
by one full year abroad. For the first six
months, their only job is to become fluent
in the language and culture and to build
networks by making friends and exploring
the country. In the second six months, they
carry out one independent project of their
choice. Initially sent mainly to developed
countries, in the past 10 years they’ve gone

more often to emerging regions, especially
China and, most recently, Africa.

Like their colleagues who have trained
abroad, the specialists come back to major
posts at headquarters or in the business
units at home and abroad. In those roles
they disseminate information about how
successful foreign companies operate, and
they advocate for and experiment with
best practices.

It would be hard to overestimate the
value of the connections regional special-
ists forge. One of the first specialists, for ex-
ample, went to Thailand in 1990, where he
became fluent in the language and estab-
lished relationships with prominent local
figures. He stayed on to earn an MBA at the
Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Ad-

advice from a returning executive
choi chi-hun, a graduate of tufts with an
mBa from george Washington University,
spent 19 years working at ge, six at its
headquarters in the United states, before
he was recruited to samsung in sep-
tember 2007. although he was a native
Korean who’d served in the country’s air
force and even worked at samsung for
some months in 1985, he went through
the external senior-level initiation process,
spending seven months as an adviser
to yun Jong-yong, the ceo of samsung
electronics (sec), and a year and seven

months as president of sec’s printer busi-
ness before serving as ceo of samsung
sDI and now as ceo of samsung’s credit
card business.

as an outsider with deep inside knowl-
edge, choi took care to fit into the culture
and as a result saw none of the assimila-
tion problems that dogged many of his
senior-level colleagues. he did not speak

english with his Korean colleagues. he
showed full respect to subordinates older
than he was. he generally behaved as
other Korean employees of samsung did.

his advice to his fellow senior-level
recruits is to do the same. choi points to
one of his successful protégés, whom he
helped samsung recruit in part because
he knew the man would steep himself in
Korean culture and be game, for instance,
to eat kimchi and drink Korean wine at
the dinner party given in his honor on his
first day.

still, choi is clear about the critical
benefits outsiders bring to the organi-
zation. as someone intimately familiar
with ge’s talent management system, for
instance, he was in the ideal position to
share the challenges that companies like
ge face (which generally do not come
across in a benchmarking exercise), offer
potential solutions, and suggest which
parts of the system samsung could
successfully adopt. senior recruits from
other companies bring similar knowl-
edge, along with a fresh eye for ineffec-
tive and inefficient practices that insid-
ers may take for granted. assimilated
as he is, choi has advocated for a more
market-oriented, performance-oriented,
and meritocratic culture, aiming to
cultivate at samsung the meritocracy
he knew at ge.

choi did not speak
english with Korean
colleagues, respected
his elders, and
behaved as other
Korean employees did.

6 harvard Business review July–August 2011

The Globe
This document is authorized for use only by Phenekia Morgan in MGMT-6635-2/MMSL-6620-2/COMM-6505-2/WMBA-6020-2/WMBA-6020B-2-Foster a Culture of Innovation2020 Spring Sem
01/06-04/26-PT2 at Laureate Education – Walden University, 2020.

New York. A substantial number of gradu-
ates of the intensive three-year training
course have joined Samsung as designers.
Following that lead, SEC has established de-
sign research institutes in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, China,
and India. Each year SEC sends 15 design-
ers abroad to prominent design schools
for one to three years to learn cutting- edge
trends. As a result, SEC has won a panoply
of design awards. Combining this design
excellence with its traditional technological
competence has allowed the once low-cost
imitator to sustain a high-price strategy for
its TVs and cell phones.

AS lonG and hard as the company’s tran-
sition has been, the hybrid model has
brought Samsung not to a pinnacle but to
another plateau, which it will once again
need to transcend. To keep steadily mov-
ing upward, it will have to reach a higher
level of diversity and decentralization—to
become a Brazilian company in Brazil, for
instance, not a Korean company that does
business in Brazil. It will need to find new
models for new practices so it can once
again move beyond its current strengths
and deal with further paradoxes that may
arise. That’s an effort that bears watching,
not only by the new generation of emerg-
ing market companies but also by Western
competitors, which someday may reach
the limits of their ability to impose Western
culture on the rest of the world.

hbR Reprint r1107n

quire fundamental trade-offs between the
short and the long term and between cul-
tural fit and domain expertise—have been
made in good times and in bad, often over
the objections of Samsung’s top managers.
That would not have been possible with-
out Lee’s unambiguous and consistent
involvement.

Five years after the launch of the S-level
recruitment program, support for it from
Samsung Group affiliates’ CEOs was dis-
tinctly lukewarm and would probably have
remained so had Lee not tied so much of
their compensation to its success. The
Global Strategy Group, known within the
company as the “chairman’s project,” would
probably not have survived the Asian fi-
nancial crisis—so deep it helped usher the
Daewoo Group into bankruptcy—had Lee
not funded it even in the face of Samsung’s
own record-breaking losses.

David Steel, executive vice president
of SEC and the highest-ranking person
to come out of the GSG, noted that the
commitment of top management and the
support of the managerial ranks are both
necessary for the success of a program like
this. Much of the chairman’s influence
is transmitted symbolically. But the sub-
stance and symbolism of that support are
no small thing.

Lee’s long-term focus has been essential
to his most recent initiative: the develop-
ment of Samsung’s design expertise, a ca-
pability the chairman believes will be criti-
cal for the company’s continued growth.
Just as many never imagined that Samsung
could become a dominant global player,
many question its design aspirations. But
Lee set the agenda back in 1996. That year
Samsung established and funded the Sam-
sung Art & Design Institute in collaboration
with Parsons the New School for Design in

ministration at Chulalongkorn University,
the same school that many of Thailand’s
prime ministers and high-ranking govern-
ment officials and corporate CEOs have
attended. From his immersion he gained a
comprehensive understanding of the coun-
try’s regulations and tax systems. His close
ties enabled him to introduce SEC’s TV, au-
dio, and video products to Thailand’s elite
and to recruit a vice president of Hitachi
to Samsung at a time when Hitachi was a
market leader and Samsung was virtually
unknown.

He is hardly alone. Another regional
specialist, who went to Indonesia in 1991,
used his language fluency and personal
networks to establish a sales subsidiary
whose sales doubled annually for three
consecutive years. A third, sent to Banga-
lore in 2009, devoted his project to aiding
a rural community there and then applied
the intimate knowledge he had gained to
the development of home electronics that
Samsung could sell in the region.

Regional studies are markedly out of
fashion these days in business schools, as
discipline-based research in economics,
political science, sociology, and the like
has taken precedence. This has had the in-
advertent effect of diminishing geographic
intelligence—a global institutional void, we
argue, that Samsung is a leader in filling. In
fact, Samsung’s experience suggests that
it may be time for Western companies and
business schools to place more emphasis
on developing strong regional connections
and expertise.

What only the
chairman can do
Samsung’s globalization efforts have
taken substantial investments of time,
money, and executive will. Some S-level
hires took the IROs 10 years to recruit. SEC
spends about $100,000 over and above
annual compensation to train and sup-
port each regional specialist, not to men-
tion the opportunity costs and turnover
risks the company incurs by taking elite
employees away from key positions for
15 months. These investments—which re-

Tarun khanna is the Jorge Paulo lemann
Professor at harvard Business school and

a coauthor of Winning in Emerging Markets:
A Road Map for Strategy and Execution (harvard
Business review Press, 2010). Jaeyong Song
( jsong@snu.ac.kr) and kyungmook lee
(kmlee@snu.ac.kr) are professors at seoul
national University in south Korea.

the effect of non-Korean mBas recruited to
samsung has been like that of a steady trickle
of water on stone. the environment has slowly
become more friendly to ideas from abroad.

For artIcle rePrInts call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500, or vIsIt hbR.oRG

July–August 2011 harvard Business review 7
This document is authorized for use only by Phenekia Morgan in MGMT-6635-2/MMSL-6620-2/COMM-6505-2/WMBA-6020-2/WMBA-6020B-2-Foster a Culture of Innovation2020 Spring Sem

01/06-04/26-PT2 at Laureate Education – Walden University, 2020.

http://hbr.org/search/R1107N

mailto:jsong@snu.ac.kr

mailto:kmlee@snu.ac.kr

http://hbr.org/

CCrreeaattiivviittyy

RRiissiinngg

Creative Thinking and
Creative Problem Solving in the
21st Century

Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D.
Marie Mance, M.S., M.Ed.
Laura Barbero-Switalski, M.S.
Paul D. Reali, M.S., M.B.A.

Chapter 7:
Principles for Divergent & Convergent Thinking:
Becoming a Better Creative Thinker

Just as the performance of an engine can be improved by a good tune up,

so can your mind. In this chapter we provide principles that will help to tune

up your mind; specifically, becoming more effective at engaging in divergent

and convergent thinking.

Although the separation of divergence and convergent thinking is

fundamental to good creative thinking, rarely have we been taught about the

difference between these two forms of thinking and how to be more effective

in employing them. Follow the principles presented in this chapter and you

will transform not only your thinking but also your behavior; that is, you will

think and behave in more creative ways.

Principles for Divergent Thinking

Four key principles have been proven to be effective at enhancing

divergent thinking:1

 Defer judgment

 Go for quantity



Make connections

 Seek novelty

1 Puccio, G. J., Mance, M., & Murdock, M. C. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change. (2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

These principles are interrelated; they work together to improve our

abilities to keep our mind open and explore a wide array of possibilities from

multiple perspectives.

Defer Judgment

To Defer Judgment means to hold evaluation until a later time.

Deferring judgment requires the ability to suspend skepticism and to

entertain the potential value of every alternative you might generate. This can

be more difficult than it sounds (not that we’re saying it sounds easy in the

first place). Particularly in Western cultures, we are not taught to suspend

judgment. We are taught to be decisive, which people generally take to mean:

decide immediately. While there are many cases where a quick decision is

required, premature judgment is the enemy of creative thinking.

Let us be clear: judgment is a necessary component of creative thinking.

We use judgment to isolate and develop promising options. The issue is when.

Premature judgment eliminates novel thoughts before they have a true chance

to be considered, and places a stranglehold on our ability to think in original

ways. Like a parachute that deploys too early, premature judgment places a

drag on our thinking. (Better than a parachute that deploys too late, of course,

but that’s a different problem altogether.) Deferring judgment means

suspending judgment, not eliminating it.

Both criticism and praise can stop the flow of ideas and options. When we

think of premature judgment, we naturally think of its negative form, criticism

(e.g., ―no, that will never work!‖). But positive judgment can also be

detrimental when it is premature. Just as criticism can block your imagination

and stop the productive flow, praise in favor of an option during the

divergent process (―yes, that’s it!‖) can hinder the search for even more-

promising ones.

Let’s illustrate. In a workplace, a group is generating ideas for a problem.

Someone tosses out an idea, which the group leader immediately praises. The

others in the group might respond positively, and try to outdo that idea, but it

is also likely that it will stop them cold. (Imagine: the sound of crickets.)

Those who shared ideas earlier—ideas that were not praised—might now feel

negatively towards their own ideas. Others may begin to judge their ideas

even before they say them, holding off until they feel that they, too, can be

praised.

Deferring judgment has both an external and an internal side: it applies

both to others’ opinions, thoughts, and ideas, as well as to our own. These two

abilities are similar, yet we often encounter people who are much better at one

than the other. For many, deferring judgment toward other people’s thoughts

does not come easy, as is demonstrated in many contentious workplace

meetings. For others, the greater difficulty is on the internal side. Someone

who is fully able to defer judgment of others’ contributions might be hard-

pressed to remove his or her own filters, self-talk, and internal censorship.

Suspending judgment on others creates an atmosphere that promotes creative

thinking, but for novel thoughts to come out it is crucial to first suspend

judgment on ourselves, to allow our thoughts to be shared publicly.

For many, successfully learning how to not judge one’s own thinking too

quickly is the spark that ignites personal creativity. Whenever you put a

creative idea or product out into the world—a business idea, story, artistic

creation, theory, etc.—you invite feedback, but you expect that feedback only

at the appropriate time. This lesson holds true for the creator as well. In order

to create we must first silence our own internal critic, or at least lock the critic

up until evaluative thinking is appropriate.

We wonder: how many great ideas have not been able to see the light of

day because of premature evaluation? Deferring judgment is a skill and a

mental attitude that can be learned and improved through practice. Our

experience as teachers and facilitators tells us that people who go through

training in creative thinking show significant progress in their ability to defer

judgment in a group situation.

Deferring judgment is the overarching principle that lies at the foundation

of the remaining three. Premature judgment prevents the mind from

generating a large quantity of options, seeking wild ideas, and making new

and unique combinations.

Go for Quantity

To Go for Quantity is to be a fluent thinker, generating many ideas,

options, and alternatives.

Quantity breeds quality.2 The more alternatives we generate, the more

likely we are to find a promising option and, ultimately, produce a creative

2 Osborn, 1957.

breakthrough. We can think of quantity in two ways: in particular and in

general. In the particular, it is beneficial to seek a quantity of ideas when

engaged in divergent thinking; that is, when addressing a particular problem.

In general, a habit of divergent thinking leads to a quantity of ideas, which

means we have more possibilities to play with in our lives. We’ll consider

each of these in turn.

Fluency of thought is critical to the production of options that are diverse

and bring in multiple perspectives, whether these are data, challenges, ideas,

or action steps. On any question, our minds first tend toward thoughts and

ideas that have been already tried or employed in other circumstances. Such

familiarity makes us feel comfortable because it recalls our habitual patterns

of thinking. After having ―purged‖ the most obvious thoughts, our minds are

ready to venture into unfamiliar territories that can lead to new and different

options. When we are engaged in divergent thinking of any kind, the ―Go for

Quantity‖ principle is an intentional push for new possibilities. When we do

this, we are much more likely to discover something fresh than if we stop too

soon. Creativity researchers have called this the ―extended effort‖ principle.

(The opposite is known as the ―I always order the same thing‖ principle.)

Let’s say you are working on a problem, such as what gift to give your

partner. The first ideas that come to mind tend to be the least original: gifts

you have given your partner before, and things you already know your

partner likes. These are algorithmic responses; if you are looking for a known

answer, you can stop there. But if you were to continue your divergence,

more original ideas and options can be generated. Research has shown that

the most original thoughts generally come in the latter third of the options

produced.3

Consider now the habit of divergent thinking, the tendency to produce

ideas and options in multiple contexts and over time. Here are some

staggering numbers: Thomas Edison held more than 1,000 patents, J. S. Bach

produced more than 1,000 musical compositions, and Pablo Picasso

completed more than 20,000 works. Often the creator is not aware which ideas

or products will ultimately find favor from the field or marketplace, but the

sheer volume of work makes it more likely that some will be true creative

3 Parnes, S. J. (1961). Effects of extended effort in creative problem solving. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 52, 117-122.

accomplishments. And, creativity begets creativity. Dean Keith Simonton, a

leading creativity researcher, demonstrated through statistical analysis that a

creator’s best works are generally produced at a time when he or she

produced a large amount of work.4 The American chemist and humanitarian

Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel laureate, said:

You have to have a lot of ideas. First, if you want to make discoveries,

it’s a good thing to have good ideas. And second, you have to have a

sort of sixth sense—the result of judgment and experience—which

ideas are worth following up.5

The benefit of producing many options is not limited to eminently

creative people. Consider your own life. The more choices you create for

yourself, the more likely you will achieve your goal, whether this refers to

finding a job, choosing a university, or generating alternative solutions for

resolving a problem. Why? First, alternatives make us more powerful. To be

without options is to be powerless; one must accept what is given. Second,

having alternatives make it more likely that we will find success. If our first

plan does not come to fruition or, after further inspection, does not seem

workable, we can easily move to another alternative. (This is sometimes called

Plan B. We have found it helpful to also have a Plan C, a Plan D, and maybe a

Plan E, which is made possible by having many alternatives in the first place).

Third, as we play with alternatives, we learn. We gain insight into what is

important, what will work, and which pathways hold the greatest promise.

When we create many options for ourselves, even though we might not

pursue them all, we allow ourselves to compare and contrast, to engage in

mental experiments, all of which leads to more effective decisions.

If you seek newness, push for more thoughts and ideas. Go beyond what

you already know. Practicing the ―Go for Quantity‖ principle opens wide our

ability to make meaningful connections and to generate a variety of original

possibilities. The more options you have, the more combinations you can

4 Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity & leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
5 As quoted by Nancy Rouchette, The Journal of NIH Research (Jul 1990), 2, 63. Reprinted in Linus
Pauling, Barclay Kamb, Linus Pauling: Selected Scientific Papers, Vol. 2, Biomolecular Sciences (2001),
1101.

make, and greater are the chances you will think up outcomes that are truly

novel.

Make connections

To Make Connections is to combine things that had not been combined, or

to draw inspiration from one thing when working on another.

Making connections is essential to the creative process. New thoughts or

ideas are very often a combination of previously unrelated thoughts or ideas,

which assume a new form as they intersect or are looked at from a different

perspective. Most new consumer products are the combination of different

parts that, when put together, create a new whole. This combination principle

is most evident in the area of consumer electronics, where products that once

stood alone are now blended into a single multifunction product. Consider:

what does your mobile telephone do besides make calls? It probably takes

photographs, which is a distinctly un-phone like thing to do. It might also

shoot video, send and receive email, allow you to play games, tell you where

on the Earth you are, and provide directions to the nearest Starbucks. And in

some market areas, you can now use your phone to purchase your coffee.

Analogical thinking is a cornerstone of invention. Alexander Graham Bell

used the human ear to assist in the development of the telephone. Salvador

Dali’s painting The Persistence of Memory, which depicts melting clocks, was

inspired by a dream of melting cheese. Observations about the design of the

microscope aided in overcoming the technical challenges associated with

building the great dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. In each of these

instances, the breakthrough came as a result of exposure to a distinctly distant

domain. The mind seeks associations, linking one idea to another. If all your

thoughts are limited to one domain, the chain of ideas you produce are less

likely to be original, because others who are experts in the domain are likely

to make the same associations.

To stimulate original ideas, span boundaries. There are many ways to do

so: read broadly, travel to new places, interact with others outside of your

field, etc. Frans Johansson’s popular book, The Medici Effect, highlighted the

benefits of thinking across boundaries. He concluded, ―For most of us, the

best chance to innovate lies at the Intersection. Not only do we have a greater

chance of finding remarkable idea combinations there, we will also find many

more of them.‖6

Making connections is the best way to increase the flexibility of your

thinking and to elaborate on options that have come up previously. Letting

your mind freewheel by following a stream of associations is also a very

effective way to boost the fluency of your thinking and the number of options

that can be generated. When working in a group, a thought shared out loud

often sparks a new connection for another person (which is one of the reasons

that group Brainstorming is so effective). Don’t just focus on your own

thinking, listen carefully to others’ ideas to see if they spark new insights for

yourself. By allowing for other sources of stimulation you keep your own

thinking fresh.

Seek Novelty

To Seek Novelty is to pursue the goal of originality.

There is no creativity without originality. Thus, the guideline Seek

Novelty is both a reminder and an encouragement to generate options that

are new and unusual, options that go beyond the obvious and the familiar.

Creativity is not just originality, of course; creative solutions must also be

useful, valuable, and appropriate. But that determination comes later. The

divergent phase is the time to pursue novel responses. Alex Osborn wrote: ―It

is easier to tame down than to think up.‖7

Seeking novelty means pursuing a mental leap that breaks away from the

current paradigm of thinking,8 which is often bound to habits and tradition.

The words ―wild‖ and ―unusual‖ are not out of place here. As noted earlier,

when faced with a challenge, our first thoughts are of the familiar. To get to

new thinking, we need to intentionally push beyond the familiar. Any

unusual or even bizarre thought can lead to a practical and useful one. It is

precisely this kind of original thinking that often leads to a breakthrough.

Without new thinking we are doomed to merely sustain the status quo.

When working in a group, going a little wild releases tension, builds

energy, and creates an atmosphere of playfulness and humor that supports

6 Johansson, F. (2004). The Medici effect: Breakthrough insights at the intersection of ideas, concepts, and cultures.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, p. 20
7 Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination, Revised Ed. New York: Scribner, p. 156.
8 Torrance, E. P. (1999). Making the creative leap beyond. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.

people’s willingness to take risks, and encourages the collective flow of

thoughts. When thinking alone, seeking novelty is best sought through

freewheeling, letting your mind wander and venture into the unknown. In

both cases, shutting down your ―internal judge‖ is essential to unleashing

your imagination and your ability to generate original thoughts.

The ability to generate original insights is essential to creative behavior.

What about you: do you do this easily? Or do you look at others and wonder

how they do it so easily? One proven way to improve originality in thought is

to continue to generate options when you believe you have exhausted all

possibilities—and here you see how the Seek Novelty principle is a good

partner for the Go for Quantity principle.

Seeking novelty is also closely related to the Make Connections principle.

Analogies and metaphors, for example, are a good way to spark new and

fresh perspectives. Take a mental or actual excursion to explore a territory far

away from your problem space, then connect what you find back to your

problem. For a mental excursion, close your eyes and go where you please.

For an actual excursion, go wherever you like and can afford. Take a walk.

Visit a factory. Go for a hike. Board a plane. The sky’s the limit, literally.

Principles for Convergent Thinking

As we stressed earlier (and often), judgment is an essential part of creative

thinking, which needs to be applied deliberately and at the appropriate time.

According to Sidney Parnes, one of the fathers of Creative Problem Solving:

I must re-emphasize that divergent production—the creation of many

unevaluated alternatives at each stage—is not an end in itself, but only

a means to an end. Ultimately judgment re-enters the scene, facilitating

convergence, solution and effective decision-making—the ultimate

purpose of the creative process.9

If judgment’s paramount role in the creative process is indisputable, the

way in which you apply judgment is critical to achieving creative solutions.

Four key principles guide effective convergent thinking:10

9 Parnes, S. J. (1997). Optimize the magic of your mind. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited, p. 54?
10 Puccio et. al. (2007)

 Apply affirmative judgment

 Keep novelty alive

 Stay focused

 Check your objectives

Practicing these principles can help you turn you options into valuable

alternatives, without killing their novelty.

Apply Affirmative Judgment

To Apply Affirmative Judgment is to identify what is good about an idea,

and to continuously work to overcome its flaws.

Just as Defer Judgment is the cornerstone of divergent thinking, Apply

Affirmative Judgment is the cornerstone of convergent thinking. This

principle encourages you to approach evaluation with a constructive attitude.

It implies that evaluation of options must begin by examining their positive

aspects, and with the positive intention to build on them and make them

stronger.

The assumption that evaluation should—indeed, must—begin from a

positive perspective might run counter to our typical thinking. When

confronted with something new—an idea, a goal, an action plan, etc.—often

our first instinct is to criticize, to look for flaws before looking at merits.

Anyone who has been in a meeting has witnessed the deathblow of

immediate negative judgment: ―it is not possible,‖ ―we have tried this

before,‖ ―it is too expensive,‖ ―over my dead body,‖ and so forth.

The most productive way to conduct an assessment is to first look

carefully at the positive facets of an option, and only then at its limitations.

Starting from the positive side actually changes the perception of the

negatives. Consider these two scenarios.

When the negatives lead the discussion, we have begun convincing

ourselves that something will not work. The positives—if they are even

permitted to see the light of day—will carry little weight, because of the

mental gauntlet that has been laid down. The positives would have to

accomplish the giant task of overcoming the barriers already in place.

When the positives lead the discussion, success becomes the de facto

outcome. Momentum is established, and energy is generated. When the

negatives are introduced, they become obstacles to be overcome on the way to

our success—obstacles that will be overcome if at all possible, with the help of

our positive energy and attitude.

Granted, it might be that a given option (a goal, idea or action) is deemed

after careful examination to be unworkable—impractical, undesirable,

structurally flawed, etc.—and needs to be discarded. That is to be expected; it

is a natural consequence of the creative process that some answers are

discarded on the way to having some be accepted. Encouraging affirmative

judgment does not mean avoiding a thorough critical analysis. It means

keeping your mind open long enough to identify an option’s merits and

potential before looking for reasons to discard it.

Affirmative judgment is fundamental to effective convergent thinking

overall and to the convergent principles to follow. It is also a natural

continuation of the divergent thinking principles. In our experience (and, we

suspect, yours), the automatic response to a novel idea is criticism. If the

purpose of divergent thinking is to deliberately stretch our minds to generate

novel approaches, what would be the sense of immediately throwing out the

novel ideas? Therefore, it is critical when applying convergent thought that

we truly explore the potential of all options with an open mind. As a gentle

reminder, Table 1 shows some examples of prematurely critical reactions to

some now well-established ideas.

Table 1: Premature Criticisms

“The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in
order to earn better than a ‘C’, the idea must be
feasible.”

A Yale University management professor
in response to Fred Smith’s paper
proposing an overnight delivery service.
Smith went on to found FedEx.

“This „telephone‟ has too many shortcomings to be
seriously considered as a means of communication.
The device is inherently of no value to us.”

Western Union internal memo, 1876

“A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market
research reports say America likes crispy cookies,
not soft and chewy cookies like you make.”

Response to Debbi Fields‟ idea of starting
Mrs. Fields‟ Cookies

“With over 50 foreign cars already on sale here, the
Japanese auto industry isn‟t likely to carve out a big
slice of the U.S. market.”

BusinessWeek, August 2, 1968

Source: http://www.rinkworks.com/said/predictions.shtml (accessed on August 16, 2010)

Keep Novelty Alive

To Keep Novelty Alive is to defend the quest for a creative outcome while

forging a solution and making decisions.

Convergent thinking is by nature careful and selective. When it is time to

make a decision, one needs to consider the real value and relevance of an

option. In doing so, people often become conservative, retreating to their

comfort zones, and discarding possibilities that present true uniqueness. They

forget that this is exactly what they were looking for when they decided to

engage in creative thinking! This principle reminds us of the importance of

novelty, which needs to be nurtured and protected throughout evaluation

and refinement.

Group dynamics tend to increase conformity; people are prone to follow

the majority judgment. It is a reality that poses an interesting paradox. While

group dynamics can release great energy and foster risk taking in a divergent

phase, the same group setting can lead to a conservative approach in the

convergent phase, in support of the safest or most conventional choices.

(Followed by irony: people complaining afterward that nothing really new

has emerged from the meeting.)

Whether you are applying convergent thinking alone or in a group,

remember that creative outcomes require taking some risk. It is difficult to

achieve novelty when you are too bound to safety. One solution is to make

newness part of your decision criteria; and another is to find ways to

overcome the risks. This is the work of solution development (e.g., refining,

improving, perfecting), which is a primary outcome of convergent thinking.

Instead of discarding a promising option because it sounds too risky, first ask

yourself how might you minimize the risks presented in it, or anticipate and

overcome them.

Stay Focused

To Stay Focused is to be persistent.

Convergent thinking is reflective and purposeful. It asks you to focus on

the task at hand and invest the necessary thought and energy to ensure that

the best alternatives are being selected and then developed. Staying focused

means also to be resolute about the choices that need to be made. It means to

analyze the various possibilities with fairness and objectivity, and then to

have the persistence to refine, craft and test the options that have been

selected.

Convergent thinking requires deliberate effort and discipline. It is why

most creative outcomes are the fruit of hard work, and seldom the result of a

spark of genius, as it is often romanticized in a naive view of creativity.

Thomas Edison—he of the statement ―genius is one percent inspiration and 99

percent perspiration‖— was a classic practitioner of iteration. He famously

tested thousands of different materials to find the best one for a light blub

filament.11 More recently, James Dyson created more than 5,000 prototypes

over 5 years to develop his industry-changing vacuum cleaner.12 This practice

is characteristic of virtually all eminent creators. Over time, often over many

years, they are generating, testing, practicing, refining, and perfecting their

thinking. They experience both successes and failures, but all along they

remain focused and learn from their experiences, which culminate in original

theories, products, and solutions. Rare is the ―one hit wonder‖ — the person

who struck gold on the first try. Rare is the overnight success whose success

really happened overnight.

One of the more challenging aspects of the creative process is to dissect

and improve an option that you have generated and, naturally, to which you

feel a great attachment. Vincent Ruggiero referred to this ―blindness toward

the imperfections in your ideas‖ as a great obstacle to judgment that weakens

one’s ability to be truly critical.13 (Writers are exhorted to ―kill your darlings‖

during the editing process, to strike from the text those beautiful phrases and

story lines that, however lovely and beloved, do not fit.)14 Yes, the same

judgment that you banished from the premises during the divergent phase

must now be invited back in, to be applied objectively and deliberately, now

that it is time to evaluate, make decisions, and develop solutions.

One sure way to keep focused is to turn back and look at your objectives,

which leads us to the fourth and final principle for convergent thinking.

11 http://www.fi.edu/learn/sci-tech/edison-lightbulb/edison-lightbulb.php?cts=electricity
12 http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/dysonvac.htm
13 Ruggiero, (1999). xxx
14 Attributed to William Faulkner, and before him, Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch.

Check Your Objectives

To Check Your Objectives is to stay aware, while solving a problem, of what

you wanted to accomplish in the first place.

If thinking is defined as a purposeful mental activity, the purpose of

creative thinking is to bring about results that combine newness and value

and that meet the objectives you have established. The Check Your Objectives

principle reminds you to work toward a defined purpose. It is convergent

thinking’s compass.

In order to attain results that have value and are relevant to your

challenge, you need to keep track of what you are looking for: your defined

objectives. Many meetings at work end up being inconclusive and

disorganized because people lose sight of the objectives they are trying to

accomplish, which are the very reason they gathered in the first place.

When you make a major purchase, such as a car or a house, or make an

important decision, such as which job to take or which university to attend,

you will establish some decision rules to guide your convergence. So, too,

with creative thinking. Decision rules are both objective and subjective, both

quantifiable and intuitive. Once you have your decision rules, you can ask

yourself: of the options generated, which one(s) best match your goals,

desires, or expectations? Which will make you happy, satisfied, or fulfilled?

Which best achieve the objectives?

Convergence without decision rules is akin to guessing. Don’t leave the

decision to chance; rather, be systematic by testing the options against the

desired outcomes.

It is natural and beneficial to take detours during the divergent phase,

which purposefully asks us to be adventurous and pursue novelty. It is

equally critical during the convergent phase to return home, to steer your

mind and your process back to its original course.

The Wild Card Principle: Allow for Incubation

To Allow for Incubation is to step away from the problem, to give your

brain a chance to rest, and an opportunity to do its best work.

Where do you get your best ideas? (Do they come from Schenectady?15)

What are you doing when you generate a truly novel idea, one that resolves a

problem, or serves as a breakthrough to a difficult or perplexing situation?

What activities are you involved in when you get your best thinking done? If

you respond like most people, it is likely that some of your best thinking, or

most creative thinking, occurs while involved in an activity unrelated to the

problem you were trying to solve.

So, think about it: where are you, and what are you doing, when you get

your best ideas? We are fond of asking this question. Some of the more

popular responses are: while driving, shaving, exercising, reading, traveling,

or just before falling asleep. It’s odd: rarely do people say they get their best

ideas at work. Or perhaps it’s not so odd. We get so immersed in our work

that we don’t take the time, or have the time, or are allowed the time, to think

and to reflect. (Staring out the window is not generally seen as a constructive

activity.) Our minds are so fully dedicated to our algorithmic work activities

that it is seldom possible to engage in higher-order thinking, such as creative

thinking. Thus, it is natural when engaged in a routine or extraneous activity

that some part the mind is freed up to make new connections or to generate

new insights related to a problem we’ve placed on our mental back burner.

We refer to ―Allow for Incubation‖ as a ―wildcard‖ principle because it

does not neatly fall into either divergent or convergent thinking. In fact, it is

essential during both kinds of thinking. Taking a break is equally useful in

allowing a new option to emerge, or in gaining a new insight into an existing

alternative that is under consideration.

Research supports the value of incubation time.16 The benefits of

incubation are sometimes concrete, sometimes not. On the concrete side, we

sometimes experience a sudden spark, commonly called the ―aha‖ moment,

which you have no doubt experienced yourself. Equally important, if not so

apparent, are the effects that incubation has on your thinking ability. Without

you realizing it, incubation provides necessary rest, or a change in

15 The science fiction writer Harlan Ellison says there is no answer to that famous question, ―where do
you get your ideas?‖ He claims to always respond: they come from Schenectady. ―There’s a swell idea
service in Schenectady; and every week I send ’em twenty-five bucks; and every week they send me a
fresh six-pack of ideas.‖ Retrieved from http://www.doorly.com/writing/HarlanEllison.htm, November
29, 2010.
16 Smith, S. M., & Dodds, R. A. (1999). Incubation. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Creativity, Volume 1, A-H (pp. 39-43). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

perspective, or some behind-the-scenes mental work. When you return to the

problem, things have changed, usually for the better.

Whenever possible or whenever it is necessary—for example, when you

have pressed your mind to come up with a new approach (divergent

thinking), or when you are making a decision (convergent thinking)—take a

break, go for a walk, sleep on it, exercise, listen to music, work on something

else, or do nothing, and see what new insights naturally come to mind.

Tools for Deliberate Divergent & Convergent Thinking

The principles for divergent and convergent thinking, along with the

wildcard principle, are easy to learn and apply. Once internalized, these

principles make divergence and convergence feel comfortable, like the natural

processes they are.

That said, even the most adept divergent and convergent thinker can

benefit from a little help. To help enhance your thinking skill, we offer two

fundamental thinking tools and describe how they can be applied within

groups. A thinking tool is a structured strategy to focus, organize, and guide an

individual or group’s thinking.17 Below we describe one fundamental thinking

tool for divergent thinking (Brainstorming) and one for convergent thinking

(Hits). Additional tools are presented in Chapter 10.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is tool for deliberate divergent thinking employed by

groups. It was first described by Alex Osborn in the 1950s, and is one of the

most popular thinking tools in the field of creativity. It is widely disseminated

and used—and like many ubiquitous concepts, widely misunderstood and

misused, too.

Brainstorming is not a free-for-all for which the only rule is ―think!‖

Brainstorming has a structure, and there are guidelines for how it works best.

It’s a tool, not unlike the tools you have in your house. Every one of them,

from a hammer to a chain saw, comes with a set of guidelines for how to use

it. Brainstorming, like a hammer, seems so simple that anyone should be able

to pick it up and swing it. But if you’ve ever hammered your thumb, driven a

nail in crooked, or participated in a ―brainstorming session‖ in which the only

17Puccio, et al, 2007.

new thing that emerged was a headache, then you understand that all tools

have a range of effectiveness based on how well you use them.

Perhaps because it is neither hammer nor chainsaw but something far

more subtle, Brainstorming is surprisingly controversial in the creativity field.

There are studies which show that group brainstorming is more effective than

individuals working along, and studies which show the opposite. One

takeaway from this discord is that one can design a study to prove anything.

(―Brainstorming cures the common cold!‖ ―Brainstorming causes the common

cold!‖) Another takeaway is that it is not an either/or situation. There is more

than one way to think divergently, and when used effectively, Brainstorming

is a profoundly effective method.

The keys to making Brainstorming work are: convening the right group,

having a clearly defined question, and deliberately following the four

divergent thinking principles shared earlier. These keys are described below.

Gather a resource group

When selecting the group members, consider the characteristics you want

in the group, given the task at hand. Do you want people familiar with the

situation, or participants who have a fresh perspective, or a mix of both?

Whomever is invited, be sure they are made aware of the purpose of the

session so that they come mentally prepared for the meeting (that is, they

know the purpose of the meeting, are willing to engage in divergent thinking,

etc.).

Our experience has been that a group with five to eight members works

best for Brainstorming. With fewer there may not be enough energy, while

more may make it difficult for some members to have their voices heard.

Use the divergent thinking principles

When used in a group, the divergent thinking principles (Defer Judgment,

Go for Quantity, Make Connections, and Seek Novelty) serve as guidelines to

support behavior that encourages a broad search for many, varied and

original options.

At least one member should be charged with ensuring that the group

adheres to the principles. If the group has a facilitator, that task falls to that

person. Otherwise, anyone familiar with the guidelines can keep an ear out

for counterproductive responses.

Identify and describe the task

Before beginning, describe the focus (goal) of the meeting and any key

data and background information. Describe the task for which you want to

apply divergent thinking, and be sure that the participants are aware of, and

agree to, the principles for divergent thinking.

Brainstorming steps

Having prepared as above, engage in Brainstorming by following these

steps.

1. Post—and be aware of, and employ—the divergent thinking guidelines.
2. Post—and refer to as needed—the question that is being addressed.
3. Set a quota for the number of ideas/options you want (50 is a good

opening target).
4. Do one of the following.

 Traditional group method: group members say ideas out loud; a

facilitator or recorder captures each idea on flip chart sheets, butcher

paper, whiteboard, or with an electronic medium.

 Post-it method: to contribute an idea, a group member will: a) write it

down on a Post-it; b) say it out loud; c) hand the sheet to the facilitator

to post (best: on flip chart sheets in an orderly way).
5. Stay with it. The more original ideas come out later in the process.
6. Incubate – take a break – if necessary, then return and diverge again.
7. Add an enhancement, such as SCAMPER or forced connections (see

Chapter 10 for more information) to elicit different types of responses.

Hits

As you now know, divergent thinking must be balanced by convergent

thinking. Hits is a convergent thinking tool for quickly identifying the most

promising options.

The main function of Hits is to select the options that stand out as being

most promising or favorable among those that have been generated with

divergent thinking. Hits is an intuitive tool focusing on options that grab your

attention, are on target, or seem to sparkle (here, it is OK to be distracted by

shiny things).

Hits is a simple tool; and in fact, sometimes convergent thinking is simple.

You use your implicit understanding, subjective impressions and tacit

knowledge to make your selections. No rocket science required (unless, of

course, you are a rocket scientist).

Using Hits

Use Hits to decide which options you will carry forward, by following

these steps.

1. Post—and be aware of, and employ—the convergent thinking guidelines.

Pay particular attention to ―Check Your Objectives,‖ which reminds you to
converge with your original criteria in mind.

2. Post—and refer to as needed—the question that is being addressed.
3. Look over the divergently-generated options.
4. Hit—that is, mark, using a method such as colored sticky dots—the most

promising options, limiting your hits to 20% of the total number that were
generated. (For example, if you generated 50 options, you may hit up to 10
of them.) In a group, divide the markers among the group members,
allowing each member to cast their hits. When working in a group it might
be a good idea to encourage members to make their choices individually
before showing them publicly (this can avoid peer pressure or group
think).

After Hits: Highlighting

In some cases it is valuable to cluster the hits that have been selected into

groups. This is called Highlighting, a natural extension of Hits.

1. Working only with the ―hits,‖ cluster similar options together into natural

groups, allowing unique items to stand alone.
2. Label each cluster of options with a distinguishing and descriptive title.

Moving Forward

The principles presented in this chapter, if practiced and internalized, can

literally transform your thinking, and as a consequence enhance your creative

behavior. These principles can be practiced alone or in groups. When applied

individually they can serve as guiding values. Ask yourself: ―Am I spanning

boundaries to make new connections?‖ ―Am I truly suspending evaluation on

myself and others?‖ ―Do I remain focused when pursuing new ideas?‖ In

groups these principles can be used as guidelines to align thinking, ensuring

that everyone is pulling in the same direction. Just as our values in general

guide our actions, these principles serve as a guide to your creative behavior.