Still needs work, here are some quick thoughts!
Paraphrasing: What I liked about this book was the concept of making a map making a mental model of all the ideas around a subject and how to think through those ideas completely by making use of the six hats. Verses what is mentioned in the book as western thinking to be critical of ideas and have ideas tied to ego and go with a single solution.
I think these concepts combine well with the other ideas expressed in the two books below of
- debate meetings (where no decision is made) but the landscape is learned / ideas discussed.
- who to invite to a meeting.
Wearing the blue hat in a conversation is an attempt to organize what was talked in the conversation/meeting. Discover action items, capture decisions, or schedule future decision future meetings / discussions.
I am not going to describe all of the hats people can look at other summaries / charts. Just remember, sometimes it is ok to wear the red hat. It is valueable to know that you are wearing and express to others that you are wearing the red hat. Atleast, I have found this to be useful to recognize and communicate in my conversations.
The book helps you to have a better understanding of what is happening in a conversation and make those elements known to conversation participants. Sometimes the hats are related to your or others intentions and goals; allong with [the hats] allowing us to think laterally to those intentions and goals.
My definitions of the hats using one word each:
White - Impartial
Red - Emotional
Black - Critical
Yellow - Constructive
Blue - Organizing
Green - Creative
Scott shares a list of different meeting types (p. 200), and emphasizes that 1:1, or face-to-face meetings are the most important:
- 1:1 Conversations
- Staff Meetings
- Think Time
- “Big Debate” Meetings
- “Big Decision” Meetings
- All-Hands Meetings
- Meeting-Free Zones
- Kanban Boards
- Walk Around
- Be Conscious of Culture
Imagine how effective each of your meetings would be if the objective or type meeting is announced in advance with specified outcomes.
~ source: https://www.choinque.com/radical-candor
^ I think there was another meeting, specifically for rolling out decisions to team members and stakeholders who were not a part of the "decision meeting". And I think the "Crucial Conversations" book mentions that sometimes we consider that people who care about this decision be involved in future meetings. But other times communicate that they are not the decision maker in this situation and need to get on board with what was decided and execute it to the best of their ability.
^ I like this concept of debate meetings, where it is clear that we are not deciding anything today but instead learning the landscape and chatting through all of the ideas completely and a future meeting will be for making a decision.
Paraphrasing: What I liked about this book was a concept of mentioning at the beginning of a decision meeting how the decision will be determined. In my opinion this helps me as an audience member know my role in this discusion. Is it to present facts and no suggestions? Or to make suggestions and contribute to the decision. Often I find that knowing this information at the beginning keeps me from being suprised at the end, when suddenly, a decision has to be made. Instead of having a large positive or negative reaction to the outcome of the decision meeting; I find that I am able focus more on executing what was decided whether I agree the decision best or not when operating in this model of knowing the decision maker at the beginning of the meeting.
4 Methods of Decision Making
Command – decisions are made with no involvement.
Consult – invite input from others.
Vote – discuss options and then call for a vote.
Consensus – talk until everyone agrees to one decision.How To Choose Which Decision Method to Use [What I took away was different! Who to invite to the meeting]
Who cares? Determine who genuinely wants to be involved in the decision along with those who will be affected. These are your candidates for involvement. Don’t involve people who don’t care.
Who knows? Identify who has the expertise you need to make the best decision. Encourage these people to take part. Try not to involve people who contribute to new information.
Who must agree? Think of those whose cooperation you might need in the form of authority of influence in any decisions you might make. It’s better to involve these people than to surprise them and then suffer their open resistance.
How many people is it worth involving? Your goal should be to involve the fewest number of people while still considering the quality of the decision along with the support that people will give it. Ask: “Do we have enough people to make a good choice? Will others have to be involved to gain their commitment?”
~ source: https://sourcesofinsight.com/4-decision-making-methods/