The box of ideas @ Fabio Garganego
This tool is ideal for coaches who work with teams and want to help them to identify and explore the best ideas and strategies, allowing equal space for all. The tool can be used, as well, by the manager who struggles to give space to the team. This tool is particularly useful when we manage a large team.
How many times have we participated in a meeting, as manager or participant, and what have we noticed when we are asked to share our thoughts or ideas on a specific topic or project?
We are asked by the manager or group of coaches who are working with the team to think of ideas regarding a new project, the improvement of a technical component, or the possibility of launching a new product on the market. The request is to share your ideas at the next meeting. What will happen? Which will be the idea that has the greatest probability of being listened to, taken into consideration, even before being analyzed and then chosen. We are not yet at the preliminary or final project. We are talking at the brainstorming level.
How valid we think this statement is: In a team, not all the ideas are equal!
We are all convinced that all ideas have the same dignity of being proposed. Who disagrees? But group dynamics lead to confirm the opposite. The ideas are filtered, as linked to whoever proposed them, based on the role, popularity, charisma or consideration that the person has in the team or in the organisation. In a nutshell to biases.
Have you ever tried to get an idea shared or listened to and to decouple who actually proposed it from? Probably not! Some multinational companies try to implement it. They ask their employees to present new ideas, or improvements to projects already on the market. But how many of us do it on a team level? It doesn’t matter how many people the team consists of. To be a team it is enough to be two.
What is the idea box and how does it work?
I started using this model when I was working as a manager in a tech company. At the time I realized that not everyone had the same opportunity to freely express their ideas or propose their own assessments and considerations. But above all, those who predominantly took the floor were not those who brought most of the contributions and ideas, in terms of novelty or innovation. Yes, here too we could apply Pareto’s law of 80 – 20.
Just in a “bossy” way they tended to speak above others. We all know that too often the message of whoever screams the loudest gets through, starting from the local market to the board meetings of big companies. While sometimes, those who think, reflect and reason may not have the strength to share their ideas.
This type of behavior occurs at all organizational levels, it applies to every context, for the simple fact that each of us likes to be interesting and not interested in improvement or what others have to share.
What happens if we decouple the process … if the proponent of the idea whispers it to a sheet of paper! The part about being interesting loses its importance!!!
The idea box model is divided into four phases. The process can be repeated and iterated if necessary:
- Phase 1: Decouple the idea from the proposer
- Phase 2: Reading and understanding
- Phase 3: Evaluation and consideration
- Phase 4: Feedback and reflective analysis at the end of the process
Phase 1: Decouple the idea from the proposer
One day I decided to try something different. The first time, I arrived at the office with a shoebox from a famous brand, with a rectangular hole in the center, made with scissors and not very professional and about twenty pre-printed sheets with indications and fields to fill in. I explained the process to the team and I asked everyone to take a sheet or two and think, between today and the next meeting, about how we can improve the quality of our … “xyz service” … I tried to be clear, but not too detailed, because I didn’t want to direct their ideas too much.
I specified that if they didn’t have any ideas, they could still come back with the sheet folded in four (not filled in) and insert it empty in the box. I confirmed that our director and I would also participate in the idea sharing process. Even our ideas would be scrutinized and evaluated and eventually rejected.
I checked that the instructions were clear to everyone, and I asked a member of the team to repeat what was required of each of us.
To better ensure the decoupling between idea and proposer, I turned the document into electronic format so that it would have been possible to prepare it on the computer and print it.
I specified that only I would have access to the contents of the box with the ideas and that we would share and read them in the next meeting.
Having put your idea in the box, so that it could not be traced back to whoever proposed it, completely eliminated the stage effect. Who loved to show off, could not do it. Therefore, the waste of time caused by those who liked to repeat the same concept three times to be seen was eliminated. Sometimes I jokingly asked myself, if these people were getting paid for what they spoke at the meetings … indeed they should have taken part of their salary away as they were wasting everyone else’s time.
The result obtained, that is having put one’s idea in the box, so that it could not be traced back and associated with whoever proposed it, completely eliminated the stage effect, those who loved to show off could not do it. So the waste of time linked to who was eliminated: for example, he loved to repeat the same concept three times to be seen. The process can be managed digitally using for example a form from Google, Microsoft or another tool, choosing to create them anonymously.
Below I propose an example of a form for the creation of ideas
Once all the proposals have been received, it is possible to move to phase 2, sharing and reading what has been collected. The first few times you use this tool, it may happen that some of the proposals are incomplete. These proposals can also be analyzed in a group, anonymously, and ask the person who proposed it to re-present it in the next meeting, inserting it back into the box.
Phase 2: Reading and understanding
Here you can choose to share ideas with the whole group or a small group, based on the needs, size and time available. Here too it is important to have a form or table on which to write down what we are interested in evaluating individual ideas and projects. For example, we are interested in the feasibility, originality, implementation time, number of people involved, cost, implementation complexity…
It may happen that some ideas are not clear, that is, some concepts may have remained in the pen (as they sometimes say). Here discretion is left to those who proposed and formulated the idea of proposing it again within a pre-established deadline. So you can review it.
Below is an example of the summary table to be used during the reading and comprehension phase.
In one meeting we were able to explore 12 ideas in one hour. Which in a normal meeting we would not have been able to go beyond one or two exhibits. We completed the reading and first skimming at the next meeting. And then we moved on to phase 3.
Phase 3: Evaluation and consideration
After having carefully read all the ideas; having examined and screened them; one can proceed to the evaluation and, if necessary, to the phase of consideration and implementation, based on the complexity or what is expected.
It might be useful and interesting to repeat the idea box process focusing on the two or three ideas chosen, starting from phase one. Or if you prefer to work openly with the team head-on.
In my experience both solutions can be valid, we leave the discretion to whoever is managing the process. The question I suggest you ask yourself is: “In my team, will the contributions to the project/idea, at this point, be balanced and distributed equally or will someone tend to influence others to the detriment of their creativity / originality / improvement of the …?” In other words, let’s go back to the initial concept that not all ideas are equal in the team!
Benefits and advantages of the tool
A tool like this used with the team offers the following advantages and benefits:
- Democratization of the process
- Everyone has the same space and time to express themselves (talk and share)
- Space to think safely
- Freedom from judgment and prejudice
- Convergence in ideas where possible
- Reduction of communication bubble overlap
- It reduces the sense of protagonism
Democratization of the process
Everyone has the right to express themselves and not just those who speak during meetings for reasons related to the meeting dynamics. Especially those who usually do not speak in public, being reserved and introverted.
Same space and time to express yourself
Everyone has the right to propose the same number of ideas, if required by the rules, of engagement. The best ideas that everyone wants to propose.
Freedom from judgment and prejudice
Not everyone is equally comfortable presenting an idea or asking a question in public in front of other people. It is not the intent of this article to verify where our prejudices come from and what they are based on. The reasons can be different. Writing helps you feel more relaxed and free. It also encourages not to feel judged by others.
Convergence in ideas
Possibility of receiving similar ideas with different development processes which can be compared, integrated and improved.
Communication bubble
Let’s remember that in communication, as in proxemics, each of us covers his own space or communication bubble , and this also happens during meetings.
The size of the bubble is related to several factors. Here are some of the main factors, useful to encourage reflection:
- Role within the organization
- Reputation that the person has in general
- Reputation linked to the subject matter
- Tone of voice
- Clarity in exposition
- Interest in the proposed topic
Each of these areas can be appropriately declined, but we will see it in another article.
It reduces the sense of protagonism
The time lost in listening to those who like to show themselves in front of others is largely eliminated.
Phase 4: Feedback and reflective analysis at the end of the process
This part was added after I spoke with Elisabetta, a friend and colleague; who suggested adding the part relating to reflective analysis and sharing of feedback in order to make the process more complete.
Regarding the reflective analysis, we can be inspired and use Kolb’s method. Kolb’s method is based on the following four stages of learning: 1. making the experience, 2. reflecting on what went well, 3. extracting what worked well and what can be improved for a new experience that we’re going to have, 4. Distill the results to use them in a new experience we’re going to have. In our case the experience will be a new brainstorming using the box of ideas.
At the same time, the entire team can ask itself a few questions to help each other work better in the reflective area:
- How can it be used differently?
- How can the process be improved?
- What have I learned?
- What did the team learn?
- Where did the best ideas come from (if known)?
- How could we reward those who provide the best ideas?
- How is the team strengthened by using this tool?
To make the reflective process more articulated and broader, it is essential to request feedback from the team. There are several frameworks and tools that can be used, for instance: the BOOST model, the Johari window. One of the things to consider and not underestimate is the sense of trust and psychological safety that the team perceives. We are well aware that they cannot be developed in the blink of an eye.
It is important, in order to get the best and honest feedback, that we choose which type of feedback to request. Opt for open and shared feedback with the team or written feedback (named or anonymous).
[lt id=”13″]
The important thing is to always ask yourself what do you want to get from the feedback? Let us always remember that the answer provided in the feedback is not wrong, but it is often the question that is formulated appropriately.
Let us always remember that the answer given in the feedback is almost never wrong. It is often the question that is not formulated correctly.
Template 1: Idea proposal example (simplified version)
Title …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Short description (150 words)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Long description (500/1000 words)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Lead time …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Costs ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Optional: enter a small detail of phases and timeline or Gantt
[table “13” not found /]
Model 2: Summary table of the proposed ideas
Below is an example of the table to be used to summarize the quality of the work performed by team members
[table “14” not found /]Corresponding to the chosen factor, a score from 1 to 3 or 5 can be assigned, or a brief description that summarizes the correspondence between the criterion to be observed and what has been observed.
From here we then proceed with the subsequent steps related to the need for which the tool was chosen.
Model 3: Reflective analysis
Here are two examples of reflective logs, useful for reflective analysis by the manager’s coach and one for the team member.
For the coach / manager / facilitator
[table “15” not found /]For the team
[table “16” not found /]
About the author
Fabio Garganego is a Faculty Member at Kingstown College and a Team Coach and Business Coach with a particular interest in Team coaching and Corporate Wellbeing. He has over 10 years experience in coaching and mentoring teams in different organisations. Fabio is a native of Italy, fluent in French, English. He has been working and living in Ireland for the last 7 years. He has a Master degree in Electronic Engineering and a Master in Organisation, Management and Innovation. He is the co-founder of Pentago, a team coaching company that operates in Ireland, UK and Italy.
