Creative Streak

NY Times Interview with Richard Anderson, CEO of Delta Air LInes

I'm not a fan of posting links to recent news articles, but I couldn't resist in this case.  I very much liked this recent interview by Adam Bryant of Richard Anderson, CEO of Delta Air Lines, for "Corner Office" in The New York Times on 25 April 2009.

On the second page of the link, Anderson has some specific points about communications which I think is not only timeless - but timely, given that customers, shareholders and employees need more - and more compelling - communications in challenging times.

Of course, I didn't mind either the barbs about PowerPoint and Blackberry. Here too he subtly underscores the key point that modern technology won't make you a better communicator if you don't know how to communicate effectively in the first place.

How to Listen: 4 Methods

As a continuation of the post on Listening (22 April 2009), there are four basic ways to reply to your respondent's answers. Each will demonstrate that you're pro-actively listening to the respondent, and will also in turn, will increase the efficiency of your listening.

1. Paraphrase

Perhaps the easiest listening method, paraphrasing means re-stating an answer in different words without altering its meaning. It shows you’re listening, it shows the respondent that you’re thinking about what they say, and it ensures you understand their answer.

For example: “So what you’re saying is this: (repeat their answer but use different words or phrases).”

2. Itemized Response

This method helps you to clarify and simplify a respondent’s answer, particularly if their answer wasn’t clear or organized. You simply repeat or list the key points. For example: “Let me see if I understand. The problems you’ve outlined are (Point A), (Point B), and (Point C).”

Listening (Questioning Principle #3)

(This is the third in a three-part series on the basic principles of questioning, starting on 20 April 2009.)

The third questioning principle is possibly one of the most difficult things to do in the world: to listen, perhaps because we spend so much of our time trying to tune out things going on around us.

Listening is actively hearing what a person is saying – or not saying – and analysing the answers for understanding and insights. There’s four simple principles of good listening.

1. Look receptive. This is more than simply looking interested. Eye contact is essential, as is facial language (like nodding) and body language (such as leaning forward slightly.) Speakers also tend to work harder when they see the listener is actively involved.

It’s also good to bring a pad and pencil: first (obviously) to write important things down, but also, it demonstrates to the respondent you’re interested. But, if you think you’re going to hear elaborate or complex answers, it’s also good to bring a voice recorder (if the respondent says it’s OK) to ensure you stay connected to the answers.

Questioning Styles (Questioning Principle #2)

(This is the second in a three-part series on the basic principles of questioning, starting on 20 April 2009.)

The second principle – Question Styles – focuses on how to write or phrase the two types of questions: closed and open.

Closed questions confirm specific information that you already know, by clearing up confusion, or by narrowing information about a particular topic to specific focus. Closed questions generally require short or one-word answers, such as yes or no.

Open questions prompt the respondent to express their views, opinions, concerns or issues, or to share insights about a specific topic. Open questions often lead to creativity as they ‘open up’ the possibilities of a new solution or answer. They also build involvement between you and the respondent during the questioning time, because thought-provoking questions tell your respondent whether or not you’ve ‘done your homework.’

A Questioning Strategy (Questioning Principle #1)

(This is a three-part series on the basic principles of questioning, starting on 20 April 2009.)

A Questioning Strategy is a fancy way of saying that you need to think of your questions in advance. This is important for several reasons.

• It allows you to think about the purpose of your questions: to uncover the necessary information from your source or interview, particularly from the respondent.
• It gives you time to structure your questions thoughtfully with respect to the situation and the respondent.
• You are able to think about how you might ask stupid questions if necessary – and sometimes they are, although don’t worry too much about this. In certain situations, it’s ironic that you can look smart by asking stupid questions.

If your questions are determined in advance, you now have the luxury to listen to the answers. Obviously this improves the effectiveness of the third principle, Listening.

What If This Wasn't a Hypothetical Question?

Successful research in advance of brainstorming requires developing proper questions, either mental questions which you use to identify, analyse and judge the information you are gathering, or verbal questions which you might use in an interview with a subject matter expert. The quality of questions can have a tremendous impact on developing ideas, but no more so than the third element – listening.

 There are the three basic principles of questioning.

• Questioning Strategy - What are the questions to ask?
• Questioning Styles - What type of questions to ask?
• Listening - What are the answers telling us, or not telling us?

In the next three daily posts, I'll address each one independently.

What About Intuition?

Intuition is defined as making a decision without a specific thought process, based on a personal perception of the truth. People often say they ‘feel’ the answer, or it’s a ‘gut reaction.’ Sometimes intuition is coupled with an assumption or an educated guess.

In contrast, strategic thinking is based on a rational thought process,  which in turn is based on the essence of rational thought: facts. Intuition and/or assumptions can absolutely play a role in strategic thinking, but consider these points.

First, it’s very difficult to convince an analytical person why you’re taking a specific course of action if you can’t define exactly how and why you came to that decision. This is particularly true when the idea you're proposing is risky or will be implemented in volatile times.

Second, you can’t repeat intuition from one assignment to another. And, because it’s not based on a methodology, you can’t teach it to colleagues or staff. If you can’t repeat it or teach it, it also makes it impossible to improve your or other’s performance.

That said, intuition can have tremendous value when it comes from someone with significant or objective experience. But even in these situations, it should be used as a guide or another element to consider in the overall strategic thought process. In the end, absolutely consider intuition – just don’t rely exclusively or primarily upon it. If your instinct is strongly telling you a certain path or option is appropriate, try to figure out why.

How Information Becomes Ideas (A Bit of Follow-up)

The step-by-step process of the Information Chain is one way to define ‘analytical thinking.’

As I mentioned at the end of the previous post, turning data into insight sounds easy in theory, but in reality, it’s a complex and difficult skill to learn, do or teach. Anyone who’s ever spent time in a classroom can appreciate that each student learns and applies information differently.

That said, there are some principles of analytical thinking which help to make the research portion more efficient. When the research is conducted in the right way, the brainstorm at the end of the Information Chain becomes more efficient too.

Start with a specific objective or goal, preferably one linked to the business or communications objective.

Always conduct research using quality information. A search on Google, Yahoo or Wikipedia might be a place to start, but it is not the research itself. The best research comes from a source that can be verified for accuracy.

If you're not sure where to start, begin by researching the history of the topic or issue. What context created the current state of affairs?

Research should always include information gathered as directly as possible from the target audiences involved. This should go without saying, but do not guess.

I fully appreciate people have less time than more, but it's preferable to have more information than less so you can judge it in context.

Insights come from knowledge, not just information. How often do we rush through the knowledge phase because we don't have time? Simply reading a document - but not allowing your brain to synthesize it - will not give you substance. You'll fall victim to the cliché ‘garbage in, garbage out.’

How Information Becomes Ideas

Creativity needs all types of fuel to be ignited, but perhaps none more so than curiosity.

Very loosely adapted from the theoretical elements of research, creativity is the natural process evolving from the transformation of general information into ideas, a six-step process that I call in my workshops "the Information Chain."

Building from the hour-glass figure highlighted in my post on 16 January 2008, the creative process begins when you (the brainstormer) states the ...

GOAL ... which establishes the initial general direction for your curiosity to gather information. In other words, 'to research.' To begin research, you dive into the world of ...

DATA ... which simply describes all of the static information there is the world, the vast majority of which you’re not familiar and perhaps don’t even know to know. With your curiosity intuitively asking 'why is this?' or 'why isn't that?', you begin to gather specific data, such as text, charts or pictures. By selecting these individual items, you turn data into ...

INFORMATION ... which is distinctive data you have selected for your continued curiosity, primarily because you believe this information will help to make decisions or to take steps to accomplish the goal. (Don't forget, even bad information is helpful because it tells you where not to research.)

The process of how you chose the information is also important, as is the process of interpreting the information. By interpreting information, it’s no longer static. In fact, you moved it into your head, and by doing so, you've turned information into ...

KNOWLEDGE ... which is information that you’ve acquired by learning. Generally speaking, you have two types of knowledge. First, you have your existing knowledge, accumulated over the years - which also gives you perspective and context. (Existing knowledge is specifically known as 'crystalline intelligence.') Second, you have your immediate knowledge, which is new information acquired about your topic or issue. Immediate knowledge informs, adds to or changes your existing knowledge. Both types force you to interpret, synthesise and reduce your collective knowledge to an ...

INSIGHT ... the isolation of the essential understanding of a topic, or perhaps of the issue itself. People often say information is power, but information is more or less useless until you decide what it means, or what to do with it. This final point - action - is when you transform the insight into an ...

IDEA ... the most powerful and valuable stage of the Information Chain because it allows you to say "Here is what we should do with our knowledge." (It's also a poor excuse for me to use a favourite quote of Thomas Huxley:  "The great end of life is not knowledge, but action.")

The Information Chain - from goal through information to knowledge and ideas - might sound clear, but in reality, the path is rarely linear, defined or simple. It’s more likely that a lot of information was synthesized and twisted together - sort of like making taffy - that any path would be impossible to trace.

In fact, noted theologian Albert Schweitzer probably said it best: "As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more mysterious."

Ah, therein, lies the fun of creativity and ideas.