The Fragility of Idea; or - the default half-life of original thought

The thesis is straightforward: it's far easier to walk away from an interaction with a feeling of "Job Well Done" if you were able to quash an idea righteously, than to deeply explore and assess its impact.

So how does this play out in business or educational discourse?

Person A has an original idea. This person sees value in the idea, but is hesitant to bring this idea forward unless they are in a position to do so. This will either mean they are in a position of authority, or well respected by authority in the work that they do, or they feel extremely well-versed in the area in question. A fourth possibility enabling this idea to be born into discussion is that the person is oblivious to the impropriety of uttering it.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the idea is eventually brought forward. Persons B, C and D now have the responsibility of being the gateway to the idea's fruition - in whatever form. That's an enormous responsibility especially when persons B, C and D had no idea that they had this power. Oftentimes, this is going to be while they are sitting in the coffee room and have no idea that they are shaping the organization's future.

And why do they hold this power? Simply because Ideas Are Fragile.

Two concepts that illustrate this fragility: 1. Consensus; and 2. The derogatory term "Half-Baked" Idea.

Consensus
I've conducted working committees and PLCs with the standard 'One Voice' as a group norm. This is the idea that we have our discussions in the room, but when you leave, we stand as a unified voice with one message. This has never sat well with me, but I had grown to understand its importance. In an environment of threat and conflict, you can't be seen as being weak by way of dissension in the ranks.

So the hero (on the white horse) in this situation is the person who can quickly quash ideas that may cause  the potential for dissension.

So where does this come from? Obviously I've alluded to "dissension in the ranks" purposefully in a previous paragraph. It seems to originate from a military background or militaristic organization's point of view. The idea that you're always under threat from the outside would force you to unify to face a foe.

For most of us, this dynamic is simply not the structure we live and work under. Yet we seem to hold on to the concepts that would protect us from this threat if it did exist. Even if it did hold true, it's questionable that this would be a profitable approach to take.

It's probably always been the case that the best work done under these conditions allowed the agents or representatives 'on the inside' to be exposed to dissension to more fully understand what needed to be understood. Our concept of the structure, though, has degenerated into the 'One-Voice' model which is a detriment to us all.

The best work I've seen committees, PLCs and working groups undertake has involved a great deal of disagreement and full exploration of those disagreements. It's an ideal opportunity for understanding a good number of things: a colleagues unique perspective, their strengths, their needs, our own needs, our own perspectives more deeply. Truly, your own Mission/Purpose will only be strong if you can allow those discussions to happen.

You want to be a hero in the 21st Century? Nurture ideas. You want to be a hero in the middle ages? Quash ideas.

It all depends on the century in which you reside.

The Half-Baked Idea
 I, myself, love half-baked ideas. Heaven knows I have enough of them myself.

How in the world could this have turned into a derogatory term?

In an organization with intelligent agents could - and should - promote the half-baked idea as a standing agenda item.:

1. Minutes from Last Meeting
2. Agenda
3. Operational
4. Half-Baked Idea 1 - Hugh and Manny
5. Half-Baked Idea 2 - Cher and Ida

The Half-Baked idea is an invitation for compulsory inventive contribution. Every idea that quality people bring to the table is something that is worthy of exploration. It may die on the table, of course, but the experience of exploring it do so becomes an organizational asset that can't be dismissed lightly.

I've actually been fortunate to be on both sides of positive experiences with fleshing out Half-Baked ideas. My own half-baked ideas have grown to fruition through the support of colleagues more often than I could ever have imagined. I've also been able to support others in their further development of half-baked ideas to a positive outcome.

It's not as rare as you might think.

Yet I've been amazed at the difficulty of well-educated folks participating in a true brainstorming session! Brainstorming is an exercise in voicing half-baked, quarter-baked - and less - ideas without judgement on ideas. Over and over, I find people unable to fully participate in these exercises without bringing in the negative judgement and downright condemnation of ideas - right in the middle of the brainstorming activity!

This is simply the outcome of an environment that promotes the quashing of ideas instead of the nurturing of ideas.

The Imperative
For the foreseeable future, we can probably, in most business and educational environments, assume that a person bringing forward an original thought is putting themselves out on a limb. It's an unhealthy vulnerability, of course, but for the time-being, it's probably the case, unless that person is working in a very supportive environment.

This risk-taking is something that should not be taken lightly. The motivation should be weighed against your perception of that person's feeling of security and support within the organization. The less that the person is suspected to feel supported in the organization, the more the idea should be probed deeply for merit.

An idea will always have value. Exploring the idea - deeply - will have value whether or not it blossoms fully, partially or not at all.

Allow dissension. We aren't in combat. Successful cohesion within an organization doesn't come from stifling opinion and original thought, but from liberating and capitalizing on it.

Value the minds at the table. Respect the minds at the table. Expect everyone to bring their 'A-Game'. If they do, none of it is a waste of time.

Promote the Half-Baked idea. Too many people feel that they have to flesh out the operational aspects of everything they propose because otherwise it will be thrown into the circular file one minute later. It should be the idea's originator's sole responsibility to take on the whole endeavour.

Last - I will allude to a concept given to me as I moved between sub-career to sub-career. Don't be too married to your own ideas. You don't need credit for all of your own ideas. If you truly feel that the idea has merit and should move forward, it really shouldn't matter that you get credit. You're not being paid to get credit - you're being paid to contribute.

So drop the idea in someone else's ear. Then wait. When it comes up again, support it. It may have been your idea, but it doesn't matter - it's moving forward and you are uniquely positioned to support it.