Duncker’s original test looked at how people would use simple items –a candle, a box of drawing pins and a box of matches – to solve a basic problem.  This test was further developed to see how additional parameters would influence problem-solving creativity.

One such parameter was to look at how adding pressure and consequences would impact upon things.  One group of subjects undertaking the test were told that they would be offered a financial reward for successfully solving the task and the precise amount of the reward would depend upon how swiftly the task was solved.  Another group was offered no such financial incentive and, self-evidently, no pressure of time was therefore generated.

Interestingly, it was found that the group who were financially motivated and time pressured were significantly less successful than the group that had no such motivation to succeed.  It appeared that adding the pressure to achieve a reward and complete the task quickly actually inhibited creative problem solving.

At Watt Works we believe that this is another key to developing effective creativity generating environments and stimulating problem solving within organisations.  When your people are reminded of the importance of finding a solution, or placed under pressure to do so, it is likely that their natural problem-solving resources will be hampered.  On the contrary, when people are able to be free, relaxed and playful in problem solving there is a much greater chance that innovative and exciting solutions can emerge.

Interestingly, it is axiomatic that free, spontaneous problem solving and creativity flourishes in the non-pressured, playful world of young children.  Even more interesting is that functional fixedness is not observed in children at the age of five.  It only emerges around age seven.  Can a childlike environment of fun, possibility and exploration be the key to corporate creativity and problem-solving?

On our Watt Works Creativity Skills courses, available both in-house and at a number of UK venues, we suggest that just might be the case.

Evidence shows that the names we have (and the scarcely conscious associations with them) can affect what we choose to do for a career and how we relate to the world. For example, research has shown that the name Sheryl (spelt with an ‘S’) is much more commonly represented amongst proprietors of shops selling sea-shells (feel a tongue-twister coming on?) than the name Cheryl (spelt with a ‘C’). Fascinating stuff!

A couple of examples of this phenomenon have captured my attention recently. I was looking at a classic text on the field of Appreciative Enquiry, an approach to organisational change based upon collaboratively seeking out and developing the best in organisations. The senior author? David L. Cooperrider (is it just me or does that have some phonetic resemblance to ‘co-operator’?) Imagine that – a ‘co-operator’ developing approaches based upon collaboration!

This theme also took my mind back to over a decade ago when I came across a physiotherapy practice near where I lived. The name of the physiotherapist? Brian Strain.

Whilst some of these examples may seem just to be amusing co-incidences they could also be examples of the phenomenon of ‘priming’, in which subtle, un-associated cues affect how we notice and respond to subsequent experience – including choices about our career and vocation. On our NLP training we look in detail at the power of language to influence reality, both consciously and unconsciously, and in an up-coming blog I will be looking at a debate on how to use language in weight management services within the NHS.

Materials for the Duncker Candle Problem

If I placed these objects in front of you (exclude my business card which would, of course, go straight into your pocket or onto your smart-phone) and asked you how to fix the lit candle to a cork pin-board so that the wax would not drip onto the surface below, how would you go about it?

I first encountered this problem when I was a student at the University of Aberdeen in the late 1980s and I am proud (and a little smug, I confess) to be able to say that I solved the problem within seconds. The psychology student who was testing me told me that some people fail to solve the problem even after fifteen minutes. Let me give you a hint. When Duncker first presented this problem to subjects, with the drawing pins contained within the box, only a small number solved the problem. However, when the pins were placed on the table outside the box, a much higher proportion of subjects came up with the solution.

What was the answer? Successful subjects used the box that had held the drawing pins as a ‘shelf’ to hold the candle and used the drawing pins to fix the ‘shelf’ to the pin-board. Hey presto! An elegant solution. Why, you may be asking, is this relevant to creativity?

The answer is that this simple test demonstrated a concept that is called functional fixedness. Functional fixedness occurs when an object that is initially presented as having a particular function (such as a box having the function of being a container for drawing pins)becomes less likely to be subsequently thought of as having other functions, such as being an improvised shelf. When the drawing pins are presented separate from the box this cognitive bias is less likely to exist and limit problem-solving opportunities.

At Watt Works, on our Creativity Skills courses, we look at ways to overcome personal and organisational functional fixedness in order to generate exciting and creative problem solving.

If you find this concept interesting, keep an eye on this Blog as more information on overcoming functional fixedness and other creativity blockers will be coming soon.

The famous psychiatrist and hypnotherapist, Milton H. Erickson, once observed:

“In any work, you are going to use words to influence the psychological life of an individual today; you are going to use words to influence his organic life today, you are going to use words to influence his organic life twenty years from today.

So you had better know what you are saying.  You had better be willing to reflect upon the words you use, to wonder what the meanings are, and to seek out and understand their many associations.”

Erickson, a major influence on NLP, was absolutely right.

The particular piece of research on names exemplifies this.  A poll of 3000 teachers in the United Kingdom found that almost half admitted to forming opinions about new pupils solely based upon seeing their names on the school register.  A full third of teachers stated they believed that names such as Callum, Crystal and Chardonnay were potentially indicative of badly behaved children.

When you appreciate the Pygmalion Effect and the Golem Effect you will understand how such expectations (even if the teacher attempts to suppress them) will nonetheless have a powerful effect.  I look at this process in depth in our forthcoming audio-book Dealing with Difficult People).

Words, not merely names, have the powerful ability to set expectations and shape our responses to events.  Knowing this, I cringe a little when I see how carelessly people use language.  I watched a documentary recently that followed the medical team in an Australian Accident & Emergency department.  A young woman was brought in with a broken ankle and in less than a minute the doctor must have used the word “pain” half a dozen times.  Yes, a broken leg is painful and the procedure he was about to do was not going to be fun but research clearly shows that using the word “pain” primes people to experience much more pain from the same stimulus than using a word such as “sensation”.  By using the word with such little awareness the doctor was effectively amplifying the distress the patient was likely to experience (unintentionally, I am sure).

Recently, I have watched the news about Kofi Annan’s diplomatic mission to resolve the conflict in Syria.  In interviews he has repeatedly stated that the task will be “difficult”.  Maybe it will, but by using that word he is setting a frame that will shape the responses and beliefs of all those he negotiates with.  Is the frame a helpful one?  Ask yourself what language he could have used instead.

Erickson’s exhortation to be aware of the complexities and connotations of the language we use applies not just to medicine, therapy and diplomacy but to every encounter we have in business and the workplace.  Are you placing restraints upon what is achievable by the language you use or are you using language to expand possibilities?

“Unless I have completely missed it, the Occupy Wall Street campaign has no such clear objective and therefore no way of knowing when or if it will be achieved. The upshot is that protesters are either obliged to stay put indefinitely or else demonstrators will gradually drift away over time if the authorities wait long enough, leaving perhaps a much diminished hard-core to continue.”

It seems that this is exactly what happened and after the final eviction of protesters a number of City workers who had worked close to the impromptu camp voiced opinions which come to much the same conclusion. An IT worker in a bank, Linda Aldroish, commented:

“If they had a better case I might have been more understanding but they were railing against everything and anything.”

A Corporate Financier, Will Forbes, observed:

“I came to speak to a few of them and they all have different agendas. They were just complaining but not offering any solutions.”

Anyone who has worked in Coaching will have had similar experiences at an individual level with clients. Many people are well aware of what they don’t like in their current situation and are very good at complaining but have no perception of what they want instead. An important step in coaching, therefore, is to help clients construct a clear, compelling and positively stated goal to move towards. NLP tools such as the SCORE Model can be powerful ways to do this.

So, whether you are looking for personal coaching services or are looking to change the world through political protest, take some time to consider exactly what it is that you want to have happen, rather than just raging against the machine.

I have worked privately with many individuals who have been utterly terrified of presenting or speaking in front of a group.  It is no exaggeration to say that presentation anxiety has thwarted otherwise highly promising careers and caused more than enough sleepless nights and sweaty palms.

Although I deeply empathise with those I work with to become confident presenters, I do not share their experience.  I love presenting to and teaching others – it is when I feel most alive.  Yet it has not always been so.  I remember when I joined the school Debating Society.  Something inside me compelled me to make my Maiden Speech but in the minutes leading up to it I was shaking like a leaf. I got through my speech and the rest is history – I have not shut up since.  Part of the reason I feel I am now a reasonably confident presenter is that I have had lots of practice, in many different contexts.  Whilst practice isn’t the whole story it certainly helps as a method of desensitising to the unique stimuli of the presentation situation.

What do I mean by “unique stimuli”?  Well, there is probably no other time in your life when you have had to stand directly facing a number of other people, arranged in a unified group, who are looking at you with the expectation that you will provide input and content for the next period of time whilst they sit silently and assess you.  We don’t experience this in any other context and for many it is deeply unfamiliar and uncomfortable.  We are used to being ‘part of’ the group in our interactions and conversations, yet presenting can (doesn’t have to but can) create a sense that we are ‘apart from’ the group.  In short, I am hypothesising that the unique sensory perspectives of presenting to a group triggers within us deep visceral fears.  Instead of ‘group’, we could use the word ‘tribe’ and from an evolutionary perspective, scrutiny by and potential expulsion from the tribe has huge associated risks.

This isn’t the whole story, as some people layer on top of this all sorts of other pressures, expectations and concerns that maximise their discomfort, but it is an important point.  Reassuringly, however, people can become familiar and comfortable with these new sensory experiences if they are given the opportunity to do so.  Furthermore, the many other common beliefs, expectations, inner pressures and so on and so forth that can contribute to presentation anxiety can also be explored and evolved.

Our three day course, Presenting Persuasively, enables delegates to explore their expectations and assumptions, develop skills in stagecraft and audience interaction and challenge limiting beliefs they may have about presenting.  The outcome is a more confident, flexible and resourceful presenter and, who knows, perhaps the ‘risk’ that you might even start to enjoy it.

When circumstances are not as we desire, it is easy to go into a ‘problem mind-set’ in which all our attention goes onto the problem – its causes, its intricacies and its lamentable effects on our lives.  The states that are generated as a result are rarely positive and resourceful. We ruminate and worry and are not in optimal states to generate change.  Furthermore there is a risk that we feed and nourish the problem.  The highly regarded American psychologist, Dr Michael Yapko, has observed that whatever we give our attention to we amplify in our awareness.  This is consistent with the old principle from Chinese medicine that “Qi flows where attention goes.”

When we start to search for solutions, however, the states we generate are very different. We are encouraged to focus on possibilities, positive outcomes, what things will be like when the problem is behind us (note the spatial metaphor – where do your problems go when they are solved?). We can connect with our resources, strengths, energy and optimism. The whole experience is different as we start to feed and nourish positivity. Our chances of generating positive change are significantly enhanced.

Another limitation with focusing on problems rather than solutions is that it plays to the assumption that we need to fully understand the problem in order to construct a solution and that the solution in some way must mirror the problem. These are not always useful assumptions. Problems are often generated by limited perspectives or disempowering beliefs. Staring at and studying these more intensely is likely to reify them rather than allowing them to be destabilised in order to evolve new possibilities. Paradoxically, effective solutions may have nothing to do with the causes of the problem.

An analogy I sometimes use is that of a lobster in a lobster pot. The lobster got in through the funnel-like opening but you can bet your bottom dollar that staring at and contemplating the way into the pot is NOT going to provide a way out.

At Watt Works we offer professional, empowering Executive Coaching, Business Coaching and Life Coaching services to enable clients to identify and implement the solutions they seek.

In NLP we say that mind and body are an interlinked system.  Any change in the mind will impact upon the body and vice versa.  This really shouldn’t come as any great surprise – except perhaps to the medical profession!

As a result of my recent physical suffering my mental and emotional state has been testy, to say the least, and I have noticed it – as have others.  Small frustrations, ambiguous situations, even simple courtesy from other people that has occupied more of my time and attention than I feel able to give at the moment has tested my patience to the absolute limit.  In other words – the meaning and interpretation that I have placed upon the communications and interactions of others has been subjectively altered significantly by my physical state; and altered in a way that has not been useful.

Well, that’s what happens when you are sick, you might say.  No-one will hold a few harsh words against you.  Point taken and I am sure that is the case but let’s look further.  If we know that one’s subjective physical experience is likely to have a powerful effect upon how we process, interpret and respond to communications from others can this principle be usefully applied in other situations?  I suggest it can.

Recently, I taught a course on Dealing with Difficult People.  A certain number of the principles on that course are also covered on our Conflict Resolution Skills training.  An important focus on those courses (and many of our other trainings) is the interactional nature of relationships – good and bad.  Relationships elicit communication loops where one person communicates with another, the other interprets the communication and responds and so on and so forth.  We have a process of reciprocal influence.  Sometimes this works smoothly and productive outcomes emerge.  In cases where there are strained relationships or active conflict, however, the situation can be different.

In the latter case, as soon as we enter into an interaction with the other person, we are likely to experience a change in state – physiological arousal – through stress, anxiety, fear, anger, frustration or whatever.  Due to these heightened physical states (just as I experienced while battling the disabling symptoms of flu) our perception of, interpretation of and response to ambiguous or neutral statements by others is much more likely to be biased towards perceiving hostility, aggression and other negative traits.  If such a subjective interpretation leads us to respond defensively or with a ‘pre-emptive strike’ so to speak, the likelihood of the situation escalating is self-evident.

So what can we do about this?  Well, one of the fundamental skills in NLP is what we call State Management.  On our NLP Training you can learn to manage, control and select physical and mental states that will give you optimal choice and control, rather than being a helpless puppet-on-a-string and hostage to your own automatic responses.

The possibilities offered for developing more harmonious relationships and moving beyond conflict are exciting.

Many of you will be familiar with the late Christopher Hitchens – the writer, journalist and polemicist who died last December.  Hitchens was particularly well-known for his vociferous atheism and his combative, no-punches-pulled style of debating.

Hitchens locked horns in public debates with many prominent religious figures including the Reverend Al Sharpton and Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.  Hitchens wasn’t backward about coming forward and made excoriating attacks upon religious faith.  It was clear that Hitchens believed that reason, logic and rationale were on his side and that any ‘reasonable’ man or woman should have been won over by his oratory.

I do not for one moment intend to render an opinion on the merits of the religious question.  Rather, I merely intend to point out that Hitchens did not seem to fully appreciate the complexity of what he was attempting to overthrow or the vested interest of his adversaries in resisting him.  Let me explain.

NLP Trainers and authors, Joseph O’Connor and John Seymour observe:

“Our inner world of beliefs, thoughts, representational systems and sub-modalities also form a system.”

I would add that this system includes our sense of personal identity – the “I am…” statements we make about ourselves.  These inner or intra-personal systems integrate with other external systems – the inter-personal systems we share with friends and family, our culture, our community, our society and so on and so forth.  In totality, you have a wide system, made up of the interplay of a number of sub-systems.  What do systems like to do?  Well, if they are fairly stable and produce useful outcomes, they tend to want to preserve themselves and don’t particularly like being disrupted or thrown out of balance.  They maintain their own ecology and homeostasis we might say.

Let’s look at the sort of systems that a distinguished Rabbi, perhaps someone with a teaching position as well as a congregation, his own radio show and a number of books in print will be part of.  Such a person’s personal identity, beliefs, values, family life, relationships, self-esteem, community standing, reputation, career, financial security – just about everything, in fact – are all predicated upon the truth of his religious faith.  The impact of that faith being undermined or shattered is almost unimaginable.  Yet, Hitchens believed that it should readily yield to reason and logic and that his adversaries should have been ready to abandon their religious faith as readily as redecorating their bedroom.

Please be aware that when you are attempting to change someone’s mind, or are disagreeing with them over a matter that is enormously important to them, you may in actuality be attempting to destabilise a critical part of their personal architecture.  Proceed with tact, care and sensitivity.

In real life people and groups can lack awareness that multiple perspectives are possible. We often have a default perspective that we apply in situations that do not have clear meaning and we act as if that was the only possible perspective. If such default perspectives are healthy and empowering – well and good. For many, however, the default position is disempowering and harmful. In psychology, such habitual perspectives are often called ‘attribution style’. It is well recognised that attribution styles can have a powerful effect upon mental well-being.

So, how many contexts that we believe have cut and dried meaning are actually more ambiguous than we might at first imagine? Research has shown that even such an experience as physical pain can be significantly influenced by the interpretation we place on it. Physical suffering can be created where it would not otherwise exist – simply by the language we use. A bold claim? Perhaps, but one experiment involved two groups of volunteers, each of which were to be given a series of electrical shocks. The shocks were administered by one volunteer to another and a set of written instructions were given for the process. The instructions and the levels of shock were identical between the two groups with one small linguistic difference.

One group was asked to report the “pain” caused by the electrical shock. The other instructions used a neutral word such as ‘sensation’ instead of the word “pain”. The results? The group briefed with the word “pain” reported a significantly higher level of discomfort than the other group. The inclusion of a single four-letter-word had provided a frame within which to perceive and understand a physical stimulus that might otherwise have been interpreted differently. A reality of suffering was thereby called into existence.

In my next blog I will expand further upon what this can mean for us in a range of different contexts.