divergent thinking and problem solving

• Group Brainstorming Strategies
• Group Creativity
• How to Make Virtual Brainstorming Fun and Effective
• Ideation Techniques
• Improving Brainstorming
• Marketing Brainstorming
• Rapid Brainstorming
• Reverse Brainstorming Challenges
• Reverse vs. Traditional Brainstorming
• What Comes After Brainstorming
• Flowchart Guide
• Spider Diagram Guide
• 5 Whys Template
• Assumption Grid Template
• Brainstorming Templates
• Brainwriting Template
• Innovation Techniques
• 50 Business Diagrams
• Business Model Canvas
• Change Control Process
• Change Management Process
• Macro Environmental Analysis
• NOISE Analysis
• Profit & Loss Templates
• Scenario Planning
• What are Tree Diagrams
• Winning Brand Strategy
• Work Management Systems
• Balanced Scorecard
• Developing Action Plans
• Guide to setting OKRS
• How to Write a Memo
• Improve Productivity & Efficiency
• Mastering Task Analysis
• Mastering Task Batching
• Monthly Budget Templates
• Program Planning
• Top Down Vs. Bottom Up
• Weekly Schedule Templates
• Kaizen Principles
• Opportunity Mapping
• Strategic-Goals
• Strategy Mapping
• T Chart Guide
• Business Continuity Plan
• Developing Your MVP
• Incident Management
• Needs Assessment Process
• Product Development From Ideation to Launch
• Value-Proposition-Canvas
• Visualizing Competitive Landscape
• Communication Plan
• Graphic Organizer Creator
• Fault Tree Software
• Bowman's Strategy Clock Template
• Decision Matrix Template
• Communities of Practice
• Goal Setting for 2024
• Meeting Templates
• Meetings Participation
• Microsoft Teams Brainstorming
• Retrospective Guide
• Skip Level Meetings
• Visual Documentation Guide
• Weekly Meetings
• Affinity Diagrams
• Business Plan Presentation
• Post-Mortem Meetings
• Team Building Activities
• WBS Templates
• Online Whiteboard Tool
• Communications Plan Template
• Idea Board Online
• Meeting Minutes Template
• Genograms in Social Work Practice
• Conceptual Framework
• How to Conduct a Genogram Interview
• How to Make a Genogram
• Genogram Questions
• Genograms in Client Counseling
• Understanding Ecomaps
• Visual Research Data Analysis Methods
• House of Quality Template
• Customer Problem Statement Template
• Competitive Analysis Template
• Creating Operations Manual
• Knowledge Base
• Folder Structure Diagram
• Online Checklist Maker
• Lean Canvas Template
• Instructional Design Examples
• Genogram Maker
• Work From Home Guide
• Strategic Planning
• Employee Engagement Action Plan
• Huddle Board
• One-on-One Meeting Template
• Story Map Graphic Organizers
• Introduction to Your Workspace
• Managing Workspaces and Folders
• Adding Text
• Collaborative Content Management
• Creating and Editing Tables
• Adding Notes
• Introduction to Diagramming
• Using Shapes
• Using Freehand Tool
• Adding Images to the Canvas
• Accessing the Contextual Toolbar
• Using Connectors
• Working with Tables
• Working with Templates
• Working with Frames
• Using Notes
• Access Controls
• Exporting a Workspace
• Real-Time Collaboration
• Notifications
• Meet Creately VIZ
• Unleashing the Power of Collaborative Brainstorming
• Uncovering the potential of Retros for all teams
• Collaborative Apps in Microsoft Teams
• Hiring a Great Fit for Your Team
• Project Management Made Easy
• Cross-Corporate Information Radiators
• Creately 4.0 - Product Walkthrough
• What's New

Divergent vs Convergent Thinking: What's the Difference?

Divergent and convergent thinking are key components of problem-solving and decision-making, often used across different fields. They represent two different ways of approaching challenges: one focuses on generating many ideas, while the other narrows them down to find the best solution.

In this article, we’ll break down divergent vs convergent thinking styles, explore their practical applications, and show how they can help make better decisions and solve complex problems effectively.

Divergence vs Convergence: Definitions

How to apply divergent and convergent thinking, the pros and cons of convergent vs. divergent thinking, tips to get the most out of divergent & convergent thinking, when to use divergent vs convergent thinking, convergent vs. divergent thinking in project management, why you need both types of thinking.

Divergence and convergence are two opposing cognitive processes that play distinct roles in problem-solving and decision-making.

Divergent thinking is a creative process that helps generate a wide range of ideas or possibilities. It involves thinking broadly, exploring different angles, and coming up with multiple solutions to a problem. The main goal of divergent thinking is to promote creativity by allowing a free flow of thoughts without judgment or evaluation. In short, it’s about “thinking outside the box” and considering unconventional options.

Convergence

Convergent thinking, on the other hand, is a focused and analytical process aimed at selecting the best solution or idea from a set of options. It involves carefully evaluating, comparing, and narrowing down choices to identify the most effective and practical solution to a problem. Convergent thinking is about making decisions and finding the most suitable answer based on specific criteria, often guided by logic, data, and established principles.

This comparison chart gives a quick overview of the differences between divergent and convergent thinking.

Remember that divergent and convergent thinking aren’t separate stages, but often work together iteratively. You may need to switch between these thinking styles multiple times to fine-tune and improve your ideas. Additionally, involving a mix of people with different skills and thinking styles and expertise can also help increase the quality of both your divergent and convergent thinking processes.

Applying Divergent Thinking

Define the problem : Start by clearly outlining the problem or challenge you’re facing. Understand its scope and boundaries.

Brainstorm freely : Hold a brainstorming session where you and your team generate as many ideas as possible. During this phase:

• Do not criticize or judge ideas.
• Welcome unconventional and even seemingly impractical ideas.
• Build upon the ideas of others to spark creativity.

Mind mapping : Use mind maps or visual diagrams to explore connections between ideas and concepts. This can help you see the bigger picture and identify potential solutions.

• Ready to use
• Fully customizable template
• Get Started in seconds

• Role play and scenario building : Imagine yourself in different scenarios related to the problem. Role-playing and scenario building can help you consider various perspectives and possibilities.

Analogies and metaphors : Draw analogies or use metaphors to relate the problem to unrelated concepts. This can help generate fresh insights and creative solutions.

Idea capture : Document all generated ideas systematically, either on paper or digitally. Organize them for easy reference during the convergent thinking phase. Use the following brainstorming board to quickly record and organize ideas.

Applying Convergent Thinking

Evaluate ideas : Review the list of generated ideas from the divergent thinking phase. Consider factors like feasibility, practicality, and alignment with your goals and constraints.

Set criteria : Define specific criteria or parameters for evaluating ideas. This could include cost-effectiveness, time constraints, and the potential for implementation.

Rank and prioritize : Rank the ideas based on their alignment with the established criteria. Prioritize the top ideas that best meet your objectives.

Select the best option : Choose the single best solution or idea from the prioritized list. This decision should be well-reasoned and backed by data and analysis.

Plan implementation : Develop a detailed action plan for implementing the chosen solution. Outline the steps, resources, and timeline required for execution.

Test and iterate : Implement the chosen solution and monitor its progress. If necessary, be open to making adjustments and iterations based on feedback and results.

Reflect and learn : After implementing the solution, reflect on the process. What worked well? What could be improved? Use these insights for future problem-solving.

Convergent Thinking Pros and Cons

Divergent thinking pros and cons.

To maximize the effectiveness of divergent and convergent thinking, consider the following tips:

Clear problem definition : Start with a well-defined problem or challenge. Having a clear understanding of what you’re trying to solve or achieve is essential for effective thinking.

Time management : Set time limits for each phase of thinking. Divergent thinking sessions should encourage rapid idea generation, while convergent thinking should focus on efficient decision-making.

Diverse teams : Encourage diversity within your team. A variety of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives can lead to more comprehensive and innovative solutions.

Document everything : Keep detailed records of all ideas and decisions made during the process. This documentation can serve as a valuable reference and help maintain continuity.

Flexibility : Be willing to adapt and adjust your thinking approach as needed. Sometimes, the process may require going back and forth between divergent and convergent thinking to refine ideas and decisions.

Visual collaboration : Use visual aids, such as whiteboards, mind maps, and diagrams, to carry out idea generation and decision-making. Visual tools can boost communication and understanding within the team. With a visual collaboration platform like Creately , you can effortlessly conduct brainstorming sessions using readily-made templates for mind maps, concept maps, idea boards and more. You can also use its infinite canvas and integrated notes capabilities to capture and organize information in one place.

Iterative approach : Know that problem-solving often involves iterating between divergent and convergent thinking. It’s a dynamic process, and fine tuning ideas is needed for success.

Knowing when to use divergent thinking vs convergent thinking is key to effective problem-solving and decision-making.

Divergent Thinking

Convergent Thinking

In real projects, you often switch between these two thinking styles. Divergent thinking starts things off with idea generation and exploration during planning. As the project moves forward, convergent thinking takes over to make precise decisions and execute efficiently. A good balance between these thinking styles helps project managers guide their projects effectively while allowing room for innovation when needed.

Project managers use convergent thinking to analyze data, evaluate options, and select the most suitable solutions for the project. It’s particularly helpful when you have clearly defined problems or need to allocate resources efficiently. Convergent thinking makes sure that your project stays on course and meets its objectives with precision.

Divergent thinking, on the other hand, is the thinking style you turn to when you’re dealing with complex, open-ended challenges or seeking fresh, imaginative ideas. Project managers use divergent thinking for brainstorming and idea generation without constraints. This approach is useful in exploring various possibilities, finding unique solutions, and injecting creativity into the project.

It’s important to have both divergent and convergent thinking because they play different but complementary roles in problem-solving, decision-making, and creativity. Divergent thinking, for example, helps generate a wide array of ideas and solutions as it helps break away from conventional thinking allowing you to think outside of the box.

On the other hand, convergent thinking comes into play when you need to evaluate, select, and refine ideas or solutions. It helps you make informed decisions based on defined criteria, making sure that the most promising options are chosen for further development.

Having both thinking styles in your toolkit helps comprehensive problem-solving. Divergent thinking deepens your understanding of complex problems by taking into account multiple perspectives and angles, and convergent thinking helps you narrow down options to actionable choices.

In essence, divergent and convergent thinking represent two complementary approaches to problem-solving, with divergent thinking fostering creativity and idea generation, and convergent thinking facilitating decision-making and solution selection. Both thinking styles have their unique strengths and are valuable in various contexts.

Join over thousands of organizations that use Creately to brainstorm, plan, analyze, and execute their projects successfully.

More Related Articles

Amanda Athuraliya is the communication specialist/content writer at Creately, online diagramming and collaboration tool. She is an avid reader, a budding writer and a passionate researcher who loves to write about all kinds of topics.

Divergent Thinking: What It Is, How It Works

Weird or out of the box thoughts can yield a cornucopia of good ideas.

“Bring Your Weird,” is one of the values at Panzura , a cloud-management software company based in San Jose, California. “We believe that different thinking is what makes us awesome, and we encourage everyone to be their authentic self at all times,” said Ed Peters, chief innovation officer. 

What Is Divergent Thinking?

This “different thinking,” also known as divergent thinking, has resulted in many effective decisions for Panzura, including moving the company’s entire product-development and quality-assurance efforts to its Mexican nearshore unit, rather than nearshoring only parts of the process. 

More on Leadership Skills 11 Essential Leadership Qualities for the Future of Work

In the 1950s, psychologist J.P. Guildford came up with the concept of convergent and divergent thinking . Convergent thinking is organized and linear, following certain steps to reach a single solution to a problem. Divergent thinking is more free-flowing and spontaneous, and it produces lots of ideas. Guilford considered divergent thinking more creative because of its ability to yield many solutions to problems. 

“Divergent thinking is the ability to generate alternatives,” said Spencer Harrison, associate professor of organizational behavior at management school Insead. Divergent thinkers question the status quo. They reject “we’ve always done it this way” as a reason, he said. 

Divergent thinking can and should involve convergent thinking, said Peters of Panzura. The two ways of thinking “are a yin and yang that can become a virtuous cycle and a source of great pride for the team members that create ideas, products and moments.”

Characteristics of Divergent Thinking 

“All true thinking is divergent,” said Chris Nicholson, team lead at San Francisco-based Clipboard Health, which matches nurses with open shifts at healthcare facilities. “Everything else is imitation and doesn’t require thinking at all.” 

Divergent thinking encompasses creativity, collaboration, open mindedness, attention to detail and other qualities. 

Divergent thinking is creative , but it’s not creative thinking, which requires a complicated set of skills, Harrison said. Designers need to be empathetic to create suitable, organic solutions. That empathetic aspect of thinking is, in a way, divergent thinking because it leads to ideas, but it is not the sum and substance of divergent thinking, Harrison said. 

“Engaging in divergent thinking while problem solving tends to result in more creative solutions.”

Divergent thinking and creativity are intertwined, said Taylor Sullivan, senior staff industrial-organizational psychologist at Codility , an HR tech company based in San Francisco. “Engaging in divergent thinking while problem solving tends to result in more creative solutions,” she said. “This is important because leader creativity has been shown to promote positive change and inspire followers,” she said. Creative problem-solving also enhances team performance, particularly when it involves brainstorming, Sullivan added.

Open Mind 

“One of the key life lessons my father taught me was the importance of being willing to change your mind,” Sullivan said. Open-mindedness — the willingness to to consider new or different perspectives and ideas — is a hallmark of divergent thinking and is critical for effective leadership , she said. 

Collaborative

Idea creation at Donut involves cross-department collaboration , said Arielle Shipper, vice president of operations at the New York-based company, which makes office communication tools. “We always pull in people from across the organization, even if the problem we’re working on doesn’t touch their direct role,” Shipper said. Representatives from product and engineering especially bring a perspective that helps tie products and the solutions, she said. 

This collaboration involves getting input from everyone, even those who are reluctant to share thoughts, she said. “It’s important to me that everyone knows that their ideas are crucial for our work, even if they contradict what a more senior person is saying,” Shipper said. To spark conversation, she asks “is there anything you disagree with?” rather than “what do you think?” Asking the more tightly focused question, which Shipper calls a “simple but mindful shift in language” promotes a culture of acceptance and ideation. 

Rethink Language 

Along similar lines, Chris Nicholson and his team at Clipboard Health think divergently by escaping what he calls language traps, “when you realize that what’s happening is being obscured by the way people talk about it,” Nicholson said. 

To illustrate: Clipboard Health believes that new hires should “raise the median” on the team they’re joining. That belief, though, led to rejecting people for the wrong reasons, for example not having a Ph.D on a team filled with Ph.Ds. 

To get out of that language trap, the company settled on a multi-dimensional median for teams, meaning that candidates could excel in coding ability, humility or other skills .

Detail Oriented

“The devil is in the details,” said Leslie Ryan, managing director in cybersecurity and technology controls at JPMorgan Chase . “I have always thought outside the career and it has helped my career advance,” said Ryan, who has six direct reports and a team of 40. 

Earlier in her career, Ryan’s employer wanted to outsource functions that many people thought couldn’t be outsourced. Trade support was one such function. “It typically required a person to be in proximity to the trader and details of the trade,” Ryan explained. By dissecting a trading assistant’s job, she was able to pinpoint certain functions, such as reconciliations and reporting, that could be outsourced. 

Strategy 

“I tend to see the bigger picture — strategically and long term,” said Chris Noble, CEO of New York-based cloud-tech company Cirrus Nexus, who considers himself a divergent thinker. “I look at things from a perspective of not what we can’t do, but imagining what can be and where we need to go,” he said. The quality, which Noble attributes in part to his dyslexia, helps him visualize unique and forward-thinking products for Cirrus Nexus. 

More on Productivity Productive Downtime Is a Startup Leader’s Secret Weapon

Build Divergent Thinking Skills

Chris Nicholson of Clipboard Health honed his ability to think divergently when he was young; his family of six debated at the dinner table and his father enjoyed playing devil’s advocate. “That led us to see different perspectives,” he said. Nicholson thinks many people are able to think divergently, but perhaps are not in environments that foster it. Divergent thinking is “creative, reality focused, and persistent,” he said.

Ask Questions 

When faced with a problem, Nicholson asks questions: “Why do we think this is a problem? What do we achieve if we solve it? What data, experience and customer interactions do we have that backs up our hypotheses?” This “discovery stage,” he said, helps management understand a problem before it builds solutions. “Explore the mystery first and relish the discomfort of not knowing, rather than building a plan based on misguided beliefs,” he said. 

Let Thoughts Flow Freely

Free-flowing thought is a necessary step in divergent thinking, agreed Christine Andrukonis, founder and senior partner at leadership consultancy Notion Consulting, who considers divergent thinking a hallmark of leadership. “A great leader’s superpower is to be able to see into the future and anticipate what’s next, which requires divergent thinking,” she said. 

“A great leader’s superpower is to be able to see into the future and anticipate what’s next, which requires divergent thinking.” 

When presented with a problem, Andrukonis lets her thoughts flow freely and writes them down. Then she steps away to think about what she’s written down and perhaps identify patterns among the thoughts. She circles those patterns, steps away again, and then connects them to the bigger picture. 

“My step-away moments are literally that — going for a walk, spending time with my family, or doing something creative like painting,” Andrukonis said. Stepping away does not involve a meeting or work-related task, she said.

Listen Actively 

“When I face a problem, I innately begin thinking of different ways the problem can be solved,” said Daryl Hammett, general manager, global demand generation and operations at AWS , based in Seattle, Washington. 

Soon after, though, Hammett starts tapping his team for feedback. “We always start with working back from the customers’ needs, so I actively seek the advice and viewpoints of a diverse range of people, listening to their thoughts about the problems, goals, and challenges they face,” he said. 

By actively listening , he practices divergent thinking skills and builds solutions with his teams. “Problems are not linear,” he said. “They’re multi-dimensional and should be addressed from a variety of angles before the best solutions appear.”

To nurture divergent thinking, Hammett encourages his team to challenge him without fear of judgment. “I am always open to feedback and change,” he said. “Having two-way conversations helps me cut through the noise and put my people first.” 

He also considers divergent thinking a mark of effective leadership — it helped him navigate the management challenges of the pandemic and helps lead his team with flexibility. 

Both divergent and convergent thinking have their place in a leader’s skillset, said Spencer Harrison of Insead. Leaders who deal with stable and settled situations might benefit more from convergent thinking, while leaders with unstable, volatile environments might do well to think only divergently. 

“What research suggests is that divergent thinking might help you see new possibilities, but you would still need convergent thinking to realize and execute on those possibilities,” he said. “That said, because education and organizations tend to over-reward conformity, divergent thinking is probably a bit more rare and therefore likely more valuable especially in the long run over the course of a career,” Harrison said. 

Peters at Panzura has his own opinion. “Sometimes the divergent thinking path wins, much of the time it doesn’t,” he said. “We create more opportunities for divergence by repeating the saying: ‘You never lose. You win or you learn.’

Recent Career Development Articles

• Our Mission

5 Techniques to Promote Divergent Thinking

Encouraging students to generate many solutions to a particular problem leads to more creative thinking and better problem-solving.

Service robots. ChatGPT. Drone deliveries. In a constantly evolving world, the ability to think creatively and divergently is no longer a nice-to-have attribute but an essential skill. That’s why creativity, problem-solving, and innovation are among the top 10 most critical skills of the future, according to the World Economic Forum .

With the rise of new technologies that excel at convergent thinking, it’s becoming increasingly clear that schools must prioritize divergent thinking in students to equip them for a future of unpredictable challenges and opportunities.

Divergent and Convergent Thinking

The concept of divergent thinking was founded by psychologist J. P. Guilford in 1956. Divergent thinking is the process of generating many different ideas and possibilities in an open-ended, spontaneous, and free-flowing manner. Typically, students have been trained to find the most direct path to one “right” solution. This is called convergent thinking .

However, most problems don’t have just one solution. Divergent thinking allows students to see a problem or concept from many perspectives and helps them generate numerous viable solutions, fostering innovation and creativity. Plus, because there’s no right or wrong answer, it encourages open-mindedness, leading to better solutions.

5 Techniques That Foster Divergent Thinking

1. SCAMPER is a creative thinking strategy that generates new ideas for students by asking questions to make them think about modifying and improving existing products, projects, or ideas. SCAMPER is an acronym for substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to another use, eliminate, and rearrange .

I use the SCAMPER technique to foster divergent thinking by challenging students to develop new ideas for the work they are already doing.

For example, a few days after assigning a project, paper, or long-term assignment, I like to use this digital SCAMPER sheet to walk students through the process of SCAMPER, so that they take the time to look at what they are doing through a new lens. Students record their answers and then use the sheet to guide them to modify and improve the ideas or concepts they are working on.

2. Mind mapping uses visual diagrams to connect and organize information. It’s an effective way to promote divergent thinking and creativity in the classroom, as students have to think of how their learning connects. I use mind mapping to help students generate new ideas, explore different angles of a topic, or review how the material they are learning builds and connects.

To create a mind map, students start with a central topic and branch out with related ideas and subtopics, using different colors, shapes, and images to differentiate between them. Mind mapping uses keywords or short phrases and connects related ideas with lines or arrows.

Students can do mind mapping individually or in groups. Mind mapping fits in well as a review at the end of a lesson or the end of a unit, promoting retention and comprehension of information. I like giving students a choice when mind mapping using a digital template like this or drawing their own using colored pencils and paper.

3. Brainwriting is similar to brainstorming and is used to help at the beginning of a project or assignment. Brainwriting encourages shy or introverted students to express their thoughts by writing them down. Brainwriting also enables students to take their time to formulate ideas and build on suggestions made by others.

One popular form of brainwriting I use in class is the 6-3-3 exercise. This exercise has students get into groups of up to six participants and write down three ideas each on a piece of paper or sticky notes within three minutes . Once finished, students swap the pieces of paper and read what another participant came up with before adding three more ideas to what they read.

After students have added to the new ideas they received, the group discusses and considers all ideas and agrees upon the next steps for their project or assignment. Brainwriting is an excellent way to foster creativity in the classroom and encourage participation from all students.

4. Reverse brainstorming calls on students to brainstorm ways to make a problem worse or create more related issues. Doing this activity in class helps students identify potential obstacles and encourages critical thinking skills. I use this approach to engage students and generate new ideas in the classroom for planning a project or a paper, or before starting an assignment.

To start reverse brainstorming, I present a problem or challenge to the students and give them 5 minutes to create ways to worsen the situation. For example, I might ask students how to plan a research paper due in the coming weeks or question the wrong way to start a problem. Students then create a list of ways that would make the problem worse and explain why.

This allows students to identify potential roadblocks they may not have previously considered before starting a problem and helps them develop solutions to overcome barriers. Plus, it gets students talking about common misconceptions and errors when deciding how to tackle a problem.

5. What-if scenario planning involves having students imagine different scenarios and consider their potential outcomes. To use this technique in the classroom, I start by presenting a plan or problem to the students. Then, I ask students to imagine different what-if scenarios, such as “What if the problem were solved differently?” or “What if the situation were completely different?”

This technique allows students to consider a range of possible outcomes. It also allows them to look at content in new ways, from historical events to math problems. It’s a compelling way to promote critical thinking skills. What-if scenario planning is also an effective way to build students’ confidence in their ability to approach problems from different angles, which can be a valuable skill for future success.

By honing divergent thinking skills, students can tackle complex problems head-on and develop innovative solutions that keep pace with technological change. After all, the future belongs to those who can think differently and develop game-changing ideas.

Convergent vs Divergent Thinking (Definitions + Examples)

Picture this. You’re at work and your team has a big problem to solve. Everyone sits down together in a room and starts to brainstorm. One person comes up with a solution, but it’s immediately shot down by another coworker. The next person comes up with a solution, and that’s immediately shot down, too. It doesn’t take long for the whole team to feel very frustrated and exhausted. You’ll never come up with a solution if everything is immediately torn apart!

How can you make this situation more productive? The first step is to learn about different types of thinking. By understanding the difference between convergent and divergent thinking, you can more effectively plan out your brainstorming session and come to the best solution without frustration.

Definition of Convergent and Divergent Thinking

Convergent and divergent thinking are relatively new terms in the world of psychology. They were first introduced to the world in 1956 by an American psychologist named J.P. Guilford. These two cognitive approaches, when used appropriately, can be used to solve just about any problem that you face.

Divergent Thinking

Let’s start by talking about divergent thinking. When you think about “brainstorming,” you are thinking about divergent thinking. This type of thinking requires you to expand your mind and find innovative solutions. The possibilities are endless. Divergent thinking allows you to see products in materials in new and different ways.

Mind maps are the best way to put the results of divergent thinking on paper. Mind maps contain ideas that branch off from each other in different directions. There doesn’t have to be a lot of logic used when you are in “divergent thinking” mode. Remember, you are expanding what is possible, not limiting it.

Convergent Thinking

Now, let’s go back to the first example. There was divergent thinking happening - each person was coming up with an “out of the box” idea. But they were quickly getting shot down. The person that was critiquing their argument was in “convergent thinking” mode.

Convergent thinking isn’t bad or unproductive. It’s necessary! This process is more analytical and “realistic.” It uses logic to narrow down ideas. This part of the thinking process requires looking for fallacies and potential problems. By narrowing down ideas that would not possibly work, you can find one or two ideas that will work without a hitch.

Examples of Convergent and Divergent Thinking

Let’s say you’re planning an event, and trying to figure out where to have the event. By putting on your “divergent thinking cap,” you start to brainstorm. How fun would it be to have the event at Disney World? Or at the new hotel that is opening down the street? What about a big outdoor party with tents? All of these venues could attract potential guests and make the event really stand out!

Wow, these are a lot of great ideas!

But let’s approach this same problem with our “convergent thinking cap.” Disney World? Way out of budget, and most of the guests won’t want to travel that far. The new hotel down the street? That’s closer to the budget and guests can easily travel there. A big outdoor party? This is an option too, but only if the cost for lights, heating, and the tents actually did fit in the budget. Would you need a permit to hold the party outside? Would you have to worry about noise complaints?

As you can see, both of these processes are necessary to come to a solution. You can’t just set your heart on Disney World without considering practical factors, like budget or location. But when you do come up with an “out of the box” solution that does fit into your constraints, you’ve got a great solution on your hands.

How to Effectively Use Convergent and Divergent Thinking

Convergent and divergent thinking require two different parts of the brain. While convergent thinking relies more on logic, divergent thinking relies more on creativity. Switching back and forth between the two may not seem like multitasking, but it is a form of multitasking. And multitasking is not as effective as you may think.

In the meeting mentioned at the beginning of this article, your team was constantly switching back and forth between convergent and divergent thinking. Their brain had to switch back and forth, too. No wonder the group became worn out so fast!

Harvard instructors like Anne Manning suggest another approach to convergent and divergent thinking. Rather than doing them in the same meeting, try “batching” your divergent and convergent thinking tasks. Take an hour of the meeting for your team simply to brainstorm ideas. No critiques, no logic, no convergent thinking. Just keep expanding the ideas of where you should hold the event, for a solid block of time.

Give your team a break. This break could be an overnight break - many people have their best creative ideas when they are sleeping, showering, or thinking about other things. Tell your team to write down any more creative ideas that they might have, and bring them to you before the next meeting.

Then, hold a meeting that is focused solely on convergent thinking. Think about the budget. Location. The number of people that you expect to attend the event. You’ll be able to cross some ideas off of your list pretty quickly. That’s okay. Crossing off items on your list quickly means that you’re coming to a solution quickly.

And voila! You’ve found your solution. Now it’s time to focus on other elements of the event. Using inspiration from your previous brainstorms, you can truly make your event the greatest it can be, or solve any problem efficiently. You may decide to make the event Disney-themed, for example, to have a fun event without shelling out the costs of actually going to Florida.

The next time you’re faced with a problem, try this batching technique. You might find yourself coming up with a great solution without frustrations!

Narrowing Down The Ideas

Don't have two days to come up with an idea? Split your team into two groups and let the debate begin! Well, sort of.

Here's how this brainstorming session works. Give two teams a set amount of time (maybe 30-60 minutes) to brainstorm all ideas without any sort of dissent or questioning. Write them all down on the left side of a piece of paper. At the end of the time period, switch the sheets of paper between the two teams. (You may find overlap. That's good!) Set another time period for the groups to engage in divergent thinking. Instruct them to eliminate most of the ideas, leaving a handful for the first group to choose from. At the end of the second time period, switch the papers back to the original groups.

If both groups still have not come to a consensus about the idea for moving forward, instruct each group to choose  one  of their remaining ideas to bring to the table. Once that is chosen, both groups will present that idea and the decision will be put to a vote amongst both groups.

Choose Your Best Team Members for Each Job

If you have a strong team that respects each other's processes, you may want to split your team up by their strengths and allow some to focus on convergent thinking or divergent thinking. Some team members naturally lean toward one or the other. Allowing people to show off their strengths can get your team the best answer in a process that everyone enjoys.

How do you know which team members are more skilled at convergent vs. divergent thinking? There are a few ways to find out.

Have an Open Dialogue

Give your team members the opportunity to choose which type of thinking they would like to engage in (if they have to pick.) Get to know their preferred forms of brainstorming. You may find that your team naturally prefers one type of thinking over the other. You may also find that they like to brainstorm in different ways! Keep an open mind.

Give it a Few Trial Runs

If everyone is shrugging their shoulders, go through a few trial runs. Split the teams randomly or bring everyone together to brainstorm ideas. Clearly split your time between convergent vs. divergent thinking. You will find that some team members have a hard time with convergent thinking, or others fail to speak up once the convergent thinking is over! As you notice these patterns, you will get a better sense of which "group" prefers one style over the other.

Go by Myers Briggs

Does your team all know their Myers Briggs type? Use this to indicate which members are likely more inclined to participate in convergent vs. divergent thinking. Team members best suited for convergent thinking include:

These aren't the only team members who should participate in convergent thinking, but it gives you a good idea of who you might want in the room during this brainstorming portion.

The best divergent thinkers include:

This isn't set in stone. Trust your team members. If they prefer one style over the other, give them the chance to shine!

Other Ideas for Brainstorming

Knowing the differences between convergent vs. divergent thinking can help you brainstorm. However, this approach may not be the best process for every team. Below are some other ways to brainstorm new ideas and find solutions to your most pressing problems.

Storyboarding

Get your team together and treat your problem like a conflict in a book.  Create a "storyboard" that explains what led to the problem and the conflict at hand. (Post-its and erasable markers are great tools for this type of brainstorming!) This method gives your team a new way to look at your problem.

SCAMPER offers a great set of prompts for a conversation about solutions. This is a great form of brainstorming for teams that are generally not convergent thinkers.

SCAMPER stands for:

• Substitute :  What would happen to the project if we swapped X for Y?
• Combine :  What would happen to the project if we combined X and Y?
• Adapt :  What changes would need to be made to adapt this project to a different context?
• Modify :  What could we modify to create more value on this project?
• Put to another use :  What other uses or applications might this project have?
• Eliminate :  What could we remove from the project to simplify it?
• Reverse :  How could we reorganize this project to make it more effective?

Six Thinking Hats

In 1985, psychologist Edward de Bono wrote "Six Thinking Hats" about a problem-solving exercise that involved roleplay. He described six different "hats" a person could wear as they brainstormed new ideas:

• Logic : Facts
• Optimism : Value and benefits.
• Devil’s Advocate : Difficulties and dangers
• Emotion : Feelings and intuitions
• Creativity : Possibilities and new ideas
• Management : Manager of other "hats"

What would happen if you chose six people on your team to wear these "hats?" Would they think about a solution in a new way? Would they come up with great, new ideas? There is only one way to find out!

There are so many great ways to brainstorm new ideas. Try out a few different methods, be aware of convergent vs. divergent thinking, and enjoy solving your team's biggest problems!

Related posts:

• Functional Fixedness (Definition + Examples)
• Social Loafing (Definition + Examples)
• Lewin’s Change Theory (Definition + Examples)
• Kurt Lewin Biography - Contributions To Psychology
• Social Groups in Psychology

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

• 01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

• Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
• Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
• Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

• Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
• Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
• Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
• Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

• The printer is overused.
• The printer overheats.
• The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

• Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
• Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

• Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
• Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
• Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Divergent Thinking

What is divergent thinking.

Divergent thinking is an ideation mode which designers use to widen their design space as they begin to search for potential solutions. They generate as many new ideas as they can using various methods (e.g., oxymorons) to explore possibilities, and then use convergent thinking to analyze these to isolate useful ideas.

“When you’re being creative, nothing is wrong.” — John Cleese, Famous comedian and actor

Convergent and divergent thinking

• Transcript loading…

Divergent Thinking Can Open up Endless Possibilities

The formula for creativity is structure plus diversity, and divergent thinking is how you stretch to explore a diverse range of possibilities for ideas that might lead to the best solution to your design problem . As a crucial component of the design thinking process, divergent thinking is valuable when there’s no tried-and-tested solution readily available or adaptable. To find all the angles to a problem, gain the best insights and be truly innovative, you’ll need to explore your design space exhaustively. Divergent thinking is horizontal thinking, and you typically do it early in the ideation stage of a project. A “less than” sign (<) is a handy way to symbolize divergent thinking – how vast arrays of ideas fan out laterally from one focal point: Design team members freely exercise their imaginations for the widest possible view of the problem and its relevant factors, and build on each other’s ideas. Divergent thinking is characterized by:

Quantity over quality – Generate ideas without fear of judgement (critically evaluating them comes later).

Novel ideas – Use disruptive and lateral thinking to break away from linear thinking and strive for original, unique ideas.

Creating choices – The freedom to explore the design space helps you maximize your options, not only regarding potential solutions but also about how you understand the problem itself.

Divergent thinking is the first half of your ideation journey. It’s vital to complement it with convergent thinking, which is when you think vertically and analyze your findings, get a far better understanding of the problem and filter your ideas as you work your way towards the best solution.

A Method to the “Madness” – Use Divergent Thinking with a Structure

Here are some great ways to help navigate the uncharted oceans of idea possibilities:

Bad Ideas – You deliberately think up ideas that seem ridiculous, but which can show you why they’re bad and what might be good in them.

Oxymorons – You explore what happens when you negate or remove the most vital part of a product or concept to generate new ideas for that product/concept: e.g., a word processor without a cursor.

Random Metaphors – You pick something (an item, word, etc.) randomly and associate it with your project to find qualities they share, which you might then build into your design.

Brilliant Designer of Awful Things – When working to improve a problematic design, you look for the positive side effects of the problem and understand them fully. You can then ideate beyond merely fixing the design’s apparent faults.

Arbitrary Constraints – The search for design ideas can sometimes mean you get lost in the sea of what-ifs. By putting restrictions on your idea—e.g., “users must be able to use the interface while bicycling”—you push yourself to find ideas that conform to that constraint.

© Yu Siang and Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 3.0

Learn More about Divergent Thinking

Take our Creativity course to get the most from divergent thinking, complete with templates .

Read one designer’s detailed step-by-step account of divergent thinking at work.

This UX Collective article insightfully presents an alternative approach involving divergent thinking .

Answer a Short Quiz to Earn a Gift

Which characteristic best defines divergent thinking?

• Approach problems with a logical, step-by-step methodology.
• Focus on one specific solution and optimize it.
• Generate multiple, creative solutions to a problem.

How does divergent thinking differ from convergent thinking?

• Both approaches aim to refine a specific solution rather than finding new possibilities.
• Divergent thinking emphasizes the generation of many solutions, while convergent thinking narrows down to the best option.
• Divergent thinking finds a single best solution, while convergent thinking produces multiple ideas.

What is one primary benefit of divergent thinking in the design process?

• It broadens the range of potential ideas to increase innovation.
• It limits the scope of solutions to known and trusted approaches.
• It simplifies problem-solving by identifying the quickest solution.

Which approach exemplifies divergent thinking in a design project?

• The brainstorming of as many potential design concepts as possible.
• The immediate implementation of a single design idea.
• The iteration of one design until it meets specific project requirements.

Why is it important for designers to use both divergent and convergent thinking?

• To explore a range of creative ideas and then identify the most effective solution
• To implement each generated idea without filtering or analysis
• To refine one approach only after the elimination of all other ideas

Better luck next time!

Do you want to improve your UX / UI Design skills? Join us now

Congratulations! You did amazing

You earned your gift with a perfect score! Let us send it to you.

Check Your Inbox

We’ve emailed your gift to [email protected] .

Literature on Divergent Thinking

Here’s the entire UX literature on Divergent Thinking by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:

Learn more about Divergent Thinking

Take a deep dive into Divergent Thinking with our course Creativity: Methods to Design Better Products and Services .

The overall goal of this course is to help you design better products, services and experiences by helping you and your team develop innovative and useful solutions. You’ll learn a human-focused, creative design process.

We’re going to show you what creativity is as well as a wealth of ideation methods ―both for generating new ideas and for developing your ideas further. You’ll learn skills and step-by-step methods you can use throughout the entire creative process. We’ll supply you with lots of templates and guides so by the end of the course you’ll have lots of hands-on methods you can use for your and your team’s ideation sessions. You’re also going to learn how to plan and time-manage a creative process effectively.

Most of us need to be creative in our work regardless of if we design user interfaces, write content for a website, work out appropriate workflows for an organization or program new algorithms for system backend. However, we all get those times when the creative step, which we so desperately need, simply does not come. That can seem scary—but trust us when we say that anyone can learn how to be creative­ on demand . This course will teach you ways to break the impasse of the empty page. We'll teach you methods which will help you find novel and useful solutions to a particular problem, be it in interaction design, graphics, code or something completely different. It’s not a magic creativity machine, but when you learn to put yourself in this creative mental state, new and exciting things will happen.

In the “Build Your Portfolio: Ideation Project” , you’ll find a series of practical exercises which together form a complete ideation project so you can get your hands dirty right away. If you want to complete these optional exercises, you will get hands-on experience with the methods you learn and in the process you’ll create a case study for your portfolio which you can show your future employer or freelance customers.

Your instructor is Alan Dix . He’s a creativity expert, professor and co-author of the most popular and impactful textbook in the field of Human-Computer Interaction. Alan has worked with creativity for the last 30+ years, and he’ll teach you his favorite techniques as well as show you how to make room for creativity in your everyday work and life.

You earn a verifiable and industry-trusted Course Certificate once you’ve completed the course. You can highlight it on your resume , your LinkedIn profile or your website .

All open-source articles on Divergent Thinking

Design thinking, essential problem solving 101- it’s more than scientific.

• 7 years ago

How to Think and Work Divergently – 4 Ideation Methods

• 3 years ago

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:42px;color:#F5F4F3;}@media (max-width: 1120px){.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:12px;}} AI that works. Coming June 5, Asana redefines work management—again. .css-1ixh9fn{display:inline-block;}@media (max-width: 480px){.css-1ixh9fn{display:block;margin-top:12px;}} .css-1uaoevr-heading-6{font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-1uaoevr-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} .css-ora5nu-heading-6{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:flex-start;justify-content:flex-start;color:#0D0E10;-webkit-transition:all 0.3s;transition:all 0.3s;position:relative;font-size:16px;line-height:28px;padding:0;font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{border-bottom:0;color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover path{fill:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div{border-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div:before{border-left-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active{border-bottom:0;background-color:#EBE8E8;color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active path{fill:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div{border-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div:before{border-left-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} Get early access .css-1k6cidy{width:11px;height:11px;margin-left:8px;}.css-1k6cidy path{fill:currentColor;}

• Product overview
• All features
• App integrations

CAPABILITIES

• project icon Project management
• Project views
• Custom fields
• Status updates
• goal icon Goals and reporting
• Reporting dashboards
• workflow icon Workflows and automation
• portfolio icon Resource management
• Time tracking
• my-task icon Admin and security
• Admin console
• asana-intelligence icon Asana Intelligence
• list icon Personal
• premium icon Starter
• briefcase icon Advanced
• Goal management
• Organizational planning
• Campaign management
• Creative production
• Marketing strategic planning
• Request tracking
• Resource planning
• Project intake
• View all uses arrow-right icon
• Project plans
• Team goals & objectives
• Team continuity
• Meeting agenda
• View all templates arrow-right icon
• Work management resources Discover best practices, watch webinars, get insights
• What's new Learn about the latest and greatest from Asana
• Customer stories See how the world's best organizations drive work innovation with Asana
• Help Center Get lots of tips, tricks, and advice to get the most from Asana
• Asana Academy Sign up for interactive courses and webinars to learn Asana
• Developers Learn more about building apps on the Asana platform
• Community programs Connect with and learn from Asana customers around the world
• Events Find out about upcoming events near you
• Partners Learn more about our partner programs
• Support Need help? Contact the Asana support team
• Asana for nonprofits Get more information on our nonprofit discount program, and apply.

Featured Reads

• Leadership |
• Convergent vs. divergent thinking: Find ...

Convergent vs. divergent thinking: Finding the right balance for creative problem solving

Convergent thinking focuses on finding one well-defined solution to a problem. Divergent thinking is the opposite of convergent thinking and involves more creativity. In this piece, we’ll explain the differences between convergent and divergent thinking in the problem-solving process. We’ll also discuss the importance of using both types of thinking to improve your decision making.

Have you ever taken a personality test like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? If so, you’ve likely answered a bunch of questions for an algorithm to tell you how you interact with the world around you. One thing this test will tell you is if you make decisions more objectively (thinkers) or decisions more subjectively (feelers).

Anatomy of Work Special Report: How to spot—and overcome—the most crucial enterprise challenges

Learn how enterprises can improve processes and productivity, no matter how complex your organization is. With fewer redundancies, leaders and their teams can hit goals faster.

What is the difference between convergent and divergent thinking?

J. P. Guilford, a psychologist, created the terms convergent and divergent thinking in 1956. Convergent thinking focuses on reaching one well-defined solution to a problem. This type of thinking is best suited for tasks that involve logic as opposed to creativity, such as answering multiple-choice tests or solving a problem where you know there are no other possible solutions.  

Divergent thinking is the opposite of convergent thinking and involves more creativity. With this type of thinking, you can generate ideas and develop multiple solutions to a problem. While divergent thinking often involves brainstorming for many possible answers to a question, the goal is the same as convergent thinking—to arrive at the best solution. 

In practice, here’s what these different types of thinking might look like:

Convergent thinking: If the copy machine breaks at work, a convergent thinker would call a technician right away to fix the copy machine.

Divergent thinking: If the copy machine breaks at work, a divergent thinker would try to determine the cause of the copy machine’s malfunction and assess various ways to fix the problem. One option may be to call a technician, while other options may include looking up a DIY video on YouTube or sending a company-wide email to see if any team members have experience with fixing copy machines. They would then determine which solution is most suitable.

Convergent thinking in project management

You may use convergent thinking in project management without being aware of it. Because convergent thinking embraces structure and clear solutions, it’s natural for project managers to lean toward this approach. The benefits of convergent thinking include:

A quicker way to arrive at a solution

Leaves no room for ambiguity

Encourages organization and linear processes

There’s nothing wrong with using convergent thinking to align teams, create workflows, and plan projects. There are many instances in project management when you must reach solutions quickly. However, if you completely avoid divergent thinking, you’ll have trouble developing innovative solutions to problems.

The benefits of divergent thinking

It can be difficult as a busy project manager to slow down and think divergently. Projects have deadlines and it’s important to make decisions quickly. You may think that if you don’t come up with a solution right away, you’ll disappoint your clients or customers. 

However, working too quickly can also cause you to make decisions within your comfort zone instead of taking risks. Divergent thinking can benefit you as a project manager because you’ll adopt a learning mindset. Divergent thinking can also help you:

Identify new opportunities

Find creative ways to solve problems 

Assess ideas from multiple perspectives

Understand and learn from others

Fast results and predictability may work some of the time, but this way of thinking won’t help you stand out from competitors. You’ll need divergent thinking to impress clients or customers and set yourself apart from others.

Use convergent and divergent thinking for creative problem solving

You can use a mix of convergent and divergent thinking to solve problems in your processes or projects. Without using both types of thinking, you’ll have a harder time getting from point A to point B. 

1. Discover: Divergent thinking

The first stage of creative problem solving is discovery, and in this stage, you’ll need to use divergent thinking. When you have a problem at work, the first step is to discover the cause of the problem by considering all of the possibilities. 

For example, you may have had multiple projects run over budget. This begs the question: Why does this keep happening? If you used convergent thinking to answer this question, you might jump straight to a conclusion about why these budget overruns are happening. But when you use divergent thinking, you consider all possible causes of the problem. 

Possible causes of budget overruns may include:

Lack of communication between team members

Improper allocation of resources

Poor project planning

Projects taking longer than expected 

Now that you have all the possible causes of your problem, you can move on to the next stage of creative problem solving, which is to define your cause.  

2. Define: Convergent thinking

Use convergent thinking when narrowing down the potential causes of your problem. While it’s possible that more than one cause led to your budget overruns, convergent thinking requires a focused approach to solving your problem, so you’ll need to choose the cause you think is most problematic.

Lack of communication may have contributed to your budget overruns, but if poor project planning played a bigger role in your budget woes, then it’s the cause you should go with. When you create a solution to your project planning procedure, it can result in better budgeting. Most causes are also inter-linked. So better planning will improve workplace communication even if it wasn't the primary goal.

3. Deduce: Divergent thinking

In stage three, you’ll switch back to divergent thinking as you work to find a solution for your problem. If the cause of your budget overruns is poor project planning, then possible solutions may include:

Use a project plan template 

Better communication with stakeholders

More thorough research of project requirements

Implement cost control methods

You must consider all possible solutions to your problem before you can land on the best solution. 

4. Determine: Convergent thinking

The last stage of problem solving is when you’ll use convergent thinking once again to determine which solution will most effectively eliminate your problem. While all the solutions you came up with in stage three may solve your problem to some degree, you should begin with one action item to address. In some instances, you may focus on more than one action item, but only do so if these items are related.

For example, after discussing the possible solutions with your team, you decide that adding cost control methods to your cost management plan should prevent budget overruns and may even help you save money.

How to be a more divergent thinker

Becoming a more divergent thinker will help you exercise both sides of your brain and ensure you see problems from every angle. The following strategies can stimulate divergent thinking:

1. Think about your thinking process

Sometimes the best strategy is the simplest one. When you’re mindful about thinking divergently, it becomes easier to do. Try putting notes up in your office or adding steps in your processes that encourage divergent thinking.

Steps that encourage divergent thinking may include:

Require at least a one-hour break before sending emails regarding big decisions 

Before making a big decision, put yourself in the shoes of other team members and consider their perspectives

Don’t make big decisions without vetting your decision with at least two people

By taking active steps to think about your thinking, you may realize that divergent thinking comes more naturally. 

2. Try brainstorming and mind mapping

Brainstorming and mind mapping are two strategies that inspire divergent thinking because they help you think outside the box and generate new ideas. Mind mapping is a form of brainstorming in which you diagram tasks, words, concepts, or items that link to a central concept. This diagram helps you visualize your thoughts and generate ideas without worrying about structure. 

You can also brainstorm in other ways. Other divergent thinking brainstorming techniques include:

Starbursting: Starbursting is a visual brainstorming technique where you put an idea on the middle of a whiteboard and draw a six-point star around it. Each point will represent the questions: who, what, when, where, why, and how?

SWOT analysis: SWOT analysis can be used for strategic planning and brainstorming. You can use it to vet the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of an idea.

Lightning decision jam: Known as LDJ for short, this brainstorming technique begins with writing down positives about a topic or what’s working regarding the topic, then writing down negatives and identifying what needs to be addressed most urgently.

Try group brainstorming sessions to get fresh ideas and solutions. If you perform these sessions regularly, you may find them enjoyable and crucial for creative problem solving.

3. Free yourself from time constraints

Everyone has deadlines they must meet. But if you’re making an important decision or trying to solve a crucial problem, try to get rid of those strict time constraints so you don’t feel pressured to skip straight to a convergent thinking approach. 

Some techniques you can use to relieve pressure caused by deadlines include:

Request a meeting agenda in advance so you have time to prepare.

Use timeboxing to come up with multiple ideas in 5-10 minute intervals.

Set personal deadlines before official deadlines to give yourself some wiggle room.

It’s understandable to feel rushed to find the correct answer in a high-pressure work environment, but you won’t know that your answer is the correct one without taking the time to consider all possible solutions.

4. Use work management software

Work management is an approach to organizing projects, processes, and routine tasks in order to provide clarity to your team so they can hit their goals faster. Work management software, like Asana, can benefit both types of thinking. 

If you’re having trouble with divergent thinking in particular, there are certain features of the software you may find most useful. Work management software can stimulate divergent thinking by allowing you to:

Collaborate with others on projects

Share ideas and feedback quickly

Make changes at the click of a button

Keeping your projects online is also important because your team can work together regardless of whether they work remotely or in the office. 

5. Get curious and take risks

Sometimes team members settle into convergent thinking habits because they’re afraid of taking risks. While it’s important to prevent project risks when possible, you shouldn’t be afraid to steer away from traditional processes and think outside of the box.

The best project managers can switch between convergent and divergent thinking depending on whether a situation requires a quick and structured solution or an open mind. Not every situation requires subjectivity, but you’ll often need to use a mix of convergent and divergent thinking to be a successful leader.

Develop creative ideas with convergent and divergent thinking

We all have a natural cognitive approach to creative problem solving, and there’s nothing wrong with sticking to your guns. But if you want to inspire idea generation and solve problems in the best way possible, then you must use both convergent and divergent thinking. 

Related resources

Grant management: A nonprofit’s guide

Fix these common onboarding challenges to boost productivity

How Asana uses work management for organizational planning

Understanding dependencies in project management

Nitat Termmee/Getty Images

By Vanessa Leikvoll Leaders Staff

Vanessa Leikvoll

Culture and Personal Success Writer

Vanessa Leikvoll is a culture and personal success writer for Leaders Media. Vanessa is a certified Workplace Wellness Specialist and...

Learn about our editorial policy

Updated May 17, 2023

Reviewed by Hannah L. Miller

Hannah L. Miller

Senior Editor

Hannah L. Miller, MA, is the senior editor for Leaders Media. Since graduating with her Master of Arts in 2015,...

Igniting Creativity: Unlocking the Power of Divergent Thinking

What is divergent thinking, divergent thinking vs. convergent thinking, how divergent thinking facilitates creative thinking, benefits of divergent thinking at work, 4 techniques for how to become a divergent thinker, out with the old, in with the new.

Research shows that one’s ability to think creatively—called divergent thinking—is related to the levels of playfulness and creativity experienced as children. While being playful and creative as kids came easily for many, thinking creatively and playfully as adults can be challenging. 

However, according to some experts, creativity is an essential professional skill, and 60% of CEOs value creativity in their teams. Therefore, having the ability to think divergently not only propels you in professional situations, such as with a job interview, but it also helps cultivate collaboration, innovation, and increased productivity. 

As neuroscientist Dr. Andrew Huberman explains , “Divergent thinking involves taking one simple, what we would call in neuroscience or psychology, stimulus, one image or sound, etc., and trying to radiate out from that as many different divergent situations, properties, characteristics, events, things, from that one specific element.”

By learning how to think creatively, new ideas and possibilities can begin to cultivate. This cultivation, in turn, facilitates new outcomes, nurtures relationships, builds trust, and enables your most authentic self to come forward. 

Key Takeaways

• Divergent thinking requires creativity, patience, and openness.
• The opposite of divergent thinking is convergent thinking. 
• Companies that cultivate divergent thinkers grow 2.3 times more. 
• Several methods and techniques exist to help facilitate creative problem-solving.

“If I had asked the public what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.” Henry Ford

Divergent thinking is the cognitive process of breaking a topic down into several diverse and novel ideas. Also called “lateral thinking,” divergent thinking leverages creativity and free-flowing ideation, or “brainstorming,” to generate new thoughts and solutions for problem-solving .

Rewards of Divergent Thinking:

• Facilitates and promotes a growth mindset .
• Leads to new, creative opportunities.
• Promotes thinkers to consider creative solutions.
• Encourages thinkers to see problems from new perspectives.

The term was first coined by psychologist and The Nature of Human Intelligence author J.P. Guildford in 1956. At that time, Guildford was researching the concepts of intelligence and creativity and consequently discovered a distinction between two different ways of solving problems. Today, these two ways are known as “convergent thinking” and “divergent thinking.” 

Divergent Thinking: Generating a variety of answers to open-ended questions like, “How can wood be used to make decor?” 

Convergent Thinking: Generating one single answer to a specific closed question, such as “Where does the wood come from?” 

“Don’t be intimidated by what you don’t know. That can be your greatest strength and ensure that you do things differently from everyone else.” Sara Blakely

Divergent Thinking

When you start with a relatively small idea, problem, or goal and begin branching outward with creative solutions, that is divergent thinking. It can almost be thought of as a tree, starting with a root and expanding tall and wide. 

An example of this lateral thinking might be if a company’s quarterly sales were down, and the team began brainstorming ways to target new markets. The team may start considering prospective demographics, geography, and behaviors. In this scenario, the possible pathways are endless, and the team can consider all creative ideas to pursue the best one.  

Professions that commonly rely on divergent thinking for problem-solving:

• Interior design
• Graphic design
• Entrepreneurship
• Sales and marketing

Convergent Thinking

Conversely, when you begin identifying clear and defined solutions to more straightforward problems, that is convergent thinking. This type of thinking can be pictured as a funnel, starting wide and narrowing downward. 

An example of this would be if a hospital patient tells their nurse that they are experiencing some mild pain. In this scenario, the nurse wouldn’t begin brainstorming all possible solutions for reducing their pain; they would just administer pain medication.

Ultimately, divergent thinking allows room for creativity, exploration, and ideation, while convergent thinking leads to linear, well-defined solutions.  

Professions that commonly rely on convergent thinking for problem-solving:

• Engineering
• Architecture

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” Albert Einstein

Psychologist J.P. Guildford associa t ed creativity with divergent thinking during his research on intellect in 1956. When he distinguished between the two ways of thinking, convergent and divergent, he concluded that creativity was fundamental to divergent thinking to produce multiple possible outcomes. 

In his book, The Nature of Human Intelligence , Guildford explains the traits of divergent thinking that both rely on and cultivate creativity:

• Flexibility: This refers to being able to consider and propose multiple possibilities and ideas without getting stuck on just one.
• Fluency: Fluency is how well one can brainstorm many different pathways.
• Originality: For thinking to be divergent, the ideas considered must be original and novel. Ideas that are well-defined and traditional are reflective of convergent thinking.
• Elaboration: This trait refers to having the ability to elaborate and, ultimately, execute a proposed idea. Elaboration demonstrates the ability to organize new processes cognitively.

“A business has to be involving, it has to be fun, and it has to exercise your creative instincts.” Richard Branson

One study found that working collaboratively increased intrinsic interest, attention, and performance , even for more mundane tasks. From this, it’s clear that divergent thinking creates a workplace culture of psychological safety , which drives overall engagement, investment, and retention. 

Ways divergent thinking improves workplace culture:

• It facilitates adaptability: When problems arise, thinking outside the box is sometimes necessary to find solutions. Experts at McKinsey & Company say that adaptability is a critical factor that determines company success, particularly during challenging or transformative periods.
• It boosts productivity: Another McKinsey study showed companies that facilitated divergent thinkers grew 2.3 times more than those that didn’t. When employees are unhindered, and creativity is encouraged, they perform better.
• It sparks innovation: Novel and original ideas, which often lead to innovation, serve as the very premise of divergent thinking. For an idea to be novel, it must first be creative. 
• It nurtures growth: Doing the same things, in the same way, produces the same outcomes. By thinking differently and creatively, a company can embrace change and consider new pathways, which nurtures many growth aspects.

“Think different in order to change the rules. By definition, if you don’t change the rules you aren’t a revolutionary, and if you don’t think different, you won’t change the rules.” Guy Kawasaki

As Stefan Mumaw, author of Creative Boot Camp , says in an article for LinkedIn, “Creativity is a skill and any skill that you can undertake, the byproduct to it being a skill, is that you can get better at it . . . we’ve never really thought of creativity as being something that we can get better at. But you can.”

If divergent thinking is new to you, or you want to help facilitate more creative thinking amongst your team, there are fortunately several techniques for turning on the creativity engine.

1. The Starbusting Technique

The name “starbursting” comes from the visual representation of the technique. The central concept or topic is written in the center of a page or whiteboard, and questions are radiated from it like the rays of a star. This technique involves asking questions that start with “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” “why,” and “how” about a central topic. By exploring various aspects, the starbursting technique encourages divergent thinking and prompts people to think beyond their initial assumptions or biases.

2. The Brainstorming Technique

The brainstorming technique is the most widely known, involving multiple mediums and resources to influence the creative process. It can be done using a whiteboard, post-it notes, a virtual workspace, or any other medium. Brainstorming encourages thinkers to be creative, openly share their ideas, and build upon each other’s suggestions to generate a wide range of potential solutions or concepts. 

3. The Figure-Storming Technique

The figure-storming technique is an ideation method that uses visual representations or figures as prompts to stimulate new ideas and generate innovative solutions. It involves selecting a figure or object—such as an image, a piece of art, a toy, or some other object unrelated to a problem—and studying it carefully to generate new ideas that can be applied to the problem.  

4. The Rapid Ideation Technique

Rapid ideation techniques are a series of creative methods used to generate many ideas in a short amount of time quickly. These techniques are often used in brainstorming sessions, mind mapping, and other problem-solving contexts where speed and quantity of ideas are prioritized over detailed analysis or evaluation. They’re also designed to overcome analysis paralysis and encourage free-flowing idea generation.

“If you want something new, you have to stop doing something old.” Peter F. Drucker

In psychology, divergent thinking is all about allowing your mind to think in a free, unstructured way. It’s about exploring all ideas, good and bad, to find the best one. However, this doesn’t mean it will always lead to a successful or desirable outcome. 

Sometimes divergent thinkers have to engage in many rounds of ideation before the right creative ideas begin to surface. The key to creative problem-solving is to maintain an open and patient mind about what new ideas will come and when.  

Additional resources for practicing divergent thinking:

• Take this free divergent thi nking test .
• Read Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World by David Epstein.
• Watch Creative Ideas and Divergent Thinking by neuroscientist Dr. Andrew Huberman.

Continue refining your thinking processes by reading “ First Principles Thinking: How to Think Like the World’s Best Leaders .” 

Leaders Media has established sourcing guidelines and relies on relevant, and credible sources for the data, facts, and expert insights and analysis we reference. You can learn more about our mission, ethics, and how we cite sources in our editorial policy .

• Lieberman, J. Nina. “Playfulness and Divergent Thinking.” Taylor & Francis Online , Sept. 2012, pp. 219–24, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221325.1965.10533661 .
• Petrone, Authored. “Why Creativity Is the Most Important Skill in the World.” LinkedIn Logo , 31 Dec. 2018, https://www.linkedin.com/business/learning/blog/top-skills-and-courses/why-creativity-is-the-most-important-skill-in-the-world .
• Kapost, Team. “10 Stats about Creativity That Will Change the Way You Do Business.” Kapost , https://uplandsoftware.com/kapost/resources/blog/creativity-stats/. Accessed 17 Apr. 2023.
• “Creative Ideas & Divergent Thinking by Andrew Huberman.” YouTube , 27 Dec. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c59DpnCLpTg .
• Carroll, John B. “Reviews: Guilford, J. P. The Nature of Human Intelligence.” American Education Research Journal , vol. 5, no. 2, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00028312005002249 .
• Kyaga, Simon. “The Development of Modern Creativity Research.” Springer Link , pp. 43–74, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137345813_4
• Carr, Priyanka, and Gregory Walton. “Cues of Working Together Fuel Intrinsic Motivation.” ScienceDirect , vol. 53, July 2014, pp. 169–84, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103114000420?via=ihub .
• Healthcare, Center. “Future Proof: Solving the ‘Adaptability Paradox’ for the Long Term.” McKinsey & Company , https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/future-proof-solving-the-adaptability-paradox-for-the-long-term. 
• Cvetanovski, Biljana. “The Growth Triple Play: Creativity, Analytics, and Purpose.” McKinsey & Company , 21 June 2021, https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-growth-triple-play-creativity-analytics-and-purpose .
• Petrone, Authored. “Why Creativity Is the Most Important Skill in the World.” 31 Dec. 2018, https://www.linkedin.com/business/learning/blog/top-skills-and-courses/why-creativity-is-the-most-important-skill-in-the-world .

Search Leaders.com

How to Teach Divergent Thinking Skills in the Classroom

• December 21, 2020

To solve a problem they are struggling with, some students need only to “think outside the box.” This tactic is called divergent thinking, and it gets students to come up with several answers to a question and decide which is the best, most useful one.

Read on to take a look at divergent thinking, why it’s important, and how it differs from its opposite, convergent thinking. Then, discover a few strategies for helping students strengthen and maintain their divergent thinking skills.

What is Divergent Thinking?

Although divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity—here defined as the ability to have new ideas or make something new—the two skills are closely related.[3] Divergent thinking can lead to creativity as students come up with more unique solutions. Likewise, encouraging creativity in your students can lead them to consider divergent answers to their problems.

Studies also suggest that, as a whole, children have stronger divergent thinking skills than adults. For example, children are better at visualizing divergent ideas than adults. In fact, a person’s ability to think divergently decreases with age. It could be argued that teaching divergent thinking to students is less about teaching a new skill and more about maintaining it.

Divergent Thinking vs. Convergent Thinking

It’s important not to confuse divergent thinking with convergent thinking, a problem-solving strategy that is more often taught in schools. Convergent thinking encourages students to come up with one distinct answer to a question based on the information given to them.[6] After they have come up with this solution, they stop and do not come up with others.

Convergent thinking is not necessarily a negative thinking strategy. In some situations, there may be one answer to a question (though there likely isn’t only one way to get that answer). But in general, teaching divergent thinking over its convergent counterpart will help students solve problems more creatively and effectively.

Divergent Thinking Boosts Problem-Solving and Student Success

Divergent thinking can also help students become more open-minded, a crucial social-emotional skill.[4] As students learn to think about a topic from new angles, they’ll be able to consider ideas from beyond their own experiences. This can help them broaden their perspective and better understand people whose ideas differ from their own.

Additionally, divergent thinking strategies teach students how to problem solve.[2] Instead of stopping at the quickest, easiest, or most obvious solution, students spend time thinking of many different answers. That way, they learn to prioritize finding an effective solution over a fast one.

The younger a student is, the easier divergent thinking may come to them. For example, 90% of kindergarteners ranked at the “genius” level for divergent thinking in a study conducted by the Royal Society of Medicine.[14] If you can nurture this skill early in a student’s academic journey, you can help them maintain skills that will benefit them for their entire life.

Strategies to Encourage Divergent Thought in Schools

One simple yet effective way to help students think divergently is by asking open-ended questions.[12] Open-ended questions are defined as ones that cannot be answered by “yes” or “no.” The more open a question is, the more likely students will be able to come up with many different answers.

These open-ended question examples from the Coeur d’Alene Public School District can help you get started as you structure your lesson plans:

• What were the major effects of World War II for the United States?
• What is your favorite memory from childhood?
• What makes the leaves change color?

In class, encourage students to focus more on the learning process, and not on the answer.[16] If students worry too much about finding the “right” answer, they may hurry and choose their first answer. But if they spend a little more time on a question, they may think of a better one.

Additionally, teach your students to view failures as a positive rather than a negative experience.[10] Making mistakes provides learning experiences that can help students move toward a more successful solution. If a student is struggling with a project, praise them for working hard and encourage them to try again from another angle.

And finally, make sure to include time for creative play in your classroom. Studies show that playing pretend, for example, is linked to stronger divergent thinking skills in young students.[5] Assign students projects that allow them to use their imagination and play as they complete it. You could, for example, assign students an art project or have them perform a skit in small groups.

5 Quick Tips to Teach Students Divergent Thinking Skills

It’s crucial to encourage divergent thinking in schools in order to help students thrive. By thinking outside of the box, your students will come up with better and more thoughtful solutions.

These five quick and simple tips will help you move towards divergent thinking in the classroom.

1. Journaling is a great way to encourage self-analysis and help students think through many solutions to a question.[13] Assign students to keep a journal and ask them thought-provoking questions .

For earlier grades, journaling may involve more drawing and early attempts to write than full sentences.

2. Include free play in your curriculum, which is when students can work on projects of their own choosing.[11]

3. Ask students open-ended questions that cannot be answered with one solution.[8] You could, for example, ask what they believe makes life meaningful or how they would solve a global issue.

4. Brainstorming is a great example of a divergent thinking strategy. If a student is stuck on an assignment, encourage them to brainstorm answers or solutions—either on their own or with their classmates. Through brainstorming, students are taught to consider a variety of solutions instead of just one.[6]

5. Play this Animal Soup Activity to teach students how to come up with many outcomes to a situation.

• Runco, M.A., and Acar, S. Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential . Creativity Research Journal, 2012, 24(1), pp. 66-75.
• Vincent, A.S., Decker, B.P., and Mumford, M.D. Divergent Thinking, Intelligence, and Expertise: A Test of Alternative Models . Creativity Research Journal, 2002, 14(2), pp. 163-178.
• Runco, M. A. Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity . Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2008, 2(2), 93–96.
• Goodman, S. Fuel Creativity in the Classroom With Divergent Thinking . March 2014. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/fueling-creativity-through-divergent-thinking-classroom-stacey-goodman
• Hadani, H.S. The Creativity Issue: Why Imaginative Play in Early Childhood Could be the Key to Creativity in Adulthood . Toca Magazine. tocaboca.com/magazine/creativity-issue_imaginary-play/.
• Nelson-Danley, K. How to Teach Divergent Thinking . Teach Hub. July 2020. https://www.teachhub.com/teaching-strategies/2020/07/how-to-teach-divergent-thinking/
• Palmiero, M., Di Giacomo, D., and Passafiume, D. Divergent Thinking and Age-Related Changes . Creativity Research Journal, 2014, 26(4), pp 456-460.
• Amico, B. Crucial Creativity: The Case for Cultivating Divergent Thinking in Classrooms . Waldorf Education. February 2020. https://www.waldorfeducation.org/news-resources/essentials-in-education-blog/detail/~board/essentials-in-ed-board/post/crucial-creativity-the-case-for-cultivating-divergent-thinking-in-classrooms.
• Guido, M. How to Teach Convergent and Divergent Thinking: Definitions, Examples, Templates and More . Prodigy. July 2018. https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/convergent-divergent-thinking/.
• Briggs, S. 30 Ways to Inspire Divergent Thinking . InformED. June 2014. https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/divergent-thinking/.
• Iannelli, V. The Importance of Free Play for Kids . Verywell Family. March 2020. https://www.verywellfamily.com/the-importance-of-free-play-2633113.
• Hughes, D. Activities that Inspire Divergent Thinking . https://study.com/academy/lesson/activities-that-inspire-divergent-thinking.html.
• University of Washington Staff. Strategies of Divergent Thinking . https://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/imdt.htm.
• Abbasi, K. A riot of divergent thinking . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, October 2011, 104(10), pp. 391.
• Lewis, C., and Lovatt, P.J. Breaking away from set patterns of thinking: Improvisation and divergent thinking . Thinking Skills and Creativity, August 2013, 9, pp. 46-58.
• O’Byrne, W.I. Understanding key differences between divergent & convergent thinking . November 2017. https://wiobyrne.com/divergent-convergent/.
• Cohut, M. What are the health benefits of being creative? Medical News Today. February 2018. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320947.

More education articles

Preparing Your Child for Kindergarten: 6 Important Skills to Foster

As someone who has had the privilege of being a kindergarten teacher, I vividly recall the excitement and anticipation of children stepping foot into my

National Poetry Month: Elementary Classroom Activities & Picture Books

Every April, the literary world comes alive with rhythm and rhyme as we celebrate National Poetry Month. For elementary school teachers, this month is an

Bridging the Trust Gap in AI: Ethical Design and Product Innovation to Revolutionize Classroom Experiences

Written by Leah Dozier Walker Executive Vice President of Equity & Inclusion at Waterford.org The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds tremendous promise across the

Mental Health Awareness Month 2021: 7 Ways to Nurture Your Child’s Mental Health

MacKenzie Scott’s Yield Giving Awards Waterford.org a $10 Million Grant

• Camp Invention (K-6th)
• Camp Invention Connect (K-6th)
• Refer a Friend Rewards Program
• Club Invention (1st-6th)
• Leaders-in-Training (7th-9th)
• Leadership Intern Program (High School & College Students)
• About the Educators
• FAQs for Parents
• Parent Resource Center
• Our Programs
• Find a Program
• Professional Development
• Resources for Educators
• FAQs for Educators
• Program Team Resource Center
• Plan Your Visit
• Inductee Search
• Nominate an Inventor
• Newest Inductees
• Induction Ceremony
• Our Inductees
• Apply for the Collegiate Inventors Competition
• CIC Judging
• Meet the Finalists
• Past CIC Winners
• FAQs for Collegiate Inventors
• Collegiate Inventors Competition
• Register for 2024 Camp
• Learning Resources
• Sponsor and Donate

Why Creative Problem Solving Requires Both Convergent and Divergent Thinking

When it comes to developing creative ideas, often we are given platitudes, like “turn the problem upside down” and “think outside the box,” that sound nice but aren’t exactly helpful. Fortunately, by using the proven method of Creative Problem Solving (CPS), anyone can innovate.

What is Creative Problem Solving?

According to influential CPS educator Ruth Noller, CPS is best understood as a combination of its three parts :

Creative — specifies elements of newness, innovation and novelty

Problem — refers to any situation that presents a challenge, offers an opportunity or represents a troubling concern

Solving —  means devising ways to answer, to meet or to satisfy a situation by changing self or situation While there exist many different methods of implementing CPS, a majority promote two distinct methods of thought: convergent and divergent thinking. While you might have come across these terms before, read below for a refresher!

Convergent and Divergent Thinking

Convergent thinking embraces logic to identify and analyze the best solution from an existing list of answers. It’s important to note that this method leaves no room for uncertainty — answers are either right or wrong. Because of this, the more knowledge someone has of a subject, the more accurately they are able to answer clearly defined questions. In contrast, divergent thinking involves solving a problem using methods that deviate from commonly used or existing strategies. In this case, an individual creates many different answers using the information available to them. Often, solutions produced by this type of thinking are unique and surprising.

The Best of Both Worlds

When it comes to solving the types of problems that regularly arise in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields, it is sometimes assumed that convergent thinking should be avoided. On the surface, this makes sense, as complex problems often require novel solutions. Is there anything wrong with solely embracing divergent thinking strategies? Simply put, the answer is yes. Using divergent thinking on its own might produce unique solutions, but in extreme cases, these might not be grounded in reality. For example, let’s say you want to create a vehicle that runs using clean energy. Without using convergent thinking to first understand the problem, a great deal of time could be wasted trying solutions that have no chance of working. Powering a vehicle using cotton candy or mustard will do nothing, beyond making a mess. Instead, using convergent thinking to first identify a promising area to explore (biodiesel, hydrogen, electricity, etc.), will prevent a lot of frustration and loss of time. While this is of course an extreme example, it shows the importance of combining both divergent and convergent methods of thinking to solve complicated problems. See if you can encourage the children in your own life to embrace both modes of thinking, to help them invent the future!

Visit Our Blog

In all our education programs , we embrace the importance of CPS and view it as a key component of the Innovation Mindset   — a growth mindset infused with lessons from world-changing inventors. To stay up to date with the latest trends in STEM education, we invite you to check out our blog !

Related Articles

3 ways students benefit from hands-on learning, infuse summer fun with learning, 4 ways to give mom an awesome mother’s day.

Get started

• Project management
• CRM and Sales
• Work management
• Product development life cycle
• Comparisons
• Construction management
• monday.com updates

Solving complex problems with divergent thinking

Anyone that’s ever worked on or managed a project knows full well the challenges involved. Many of those obstacles are operational — keeping team members focused, managing deliverables, remedying scheduling conflicts, and so on. But most projects come up against problems where the solution isn’t linear or even obvious. These challenges require a little more creativity to overcome. Put another way, they require divergent thinking.

Down below, we’ll take a deep dive into the concept of divergent thinking and show you how to use it to tackle challenging problems. We’ll see a few examples of divergent thinking and show you how you can systemize it on monday.com to give your team a boost in creative problem-solving.

What is divergent thinking?

In the broadest sense and simplest terms, divergent thinking describes a way of looking at problems and solutions unconventionally. It’s about coming up with a novel way to solve a problem when the usual answers don’t work. And in many cases, it’s about seeing a solution to a problem that no one knew existed.

In project management and product development, thinking divergently is a necessary component of brainstorming, collaboration, and any form of creativity. But while this all captures the essence of divergent thinking, let’s see what thinking divergently produces by way of example.

Examples of divergent thinking 

There’s a good chance you’re reading this on the most successful example of divergent thinking in history.

The first smartphones were little more than miniaturized computers — small screens, physical keyboards, and operating systems not unlike the ones on a desktop or laptop. And given their success, almost no one saw a problem with the linear manner of shrinking a computer into a handheld device. That is until Steve Jobs of Apple unveiled the iPhone.

While modern smartphones are the latest and greatest result of divergent thinking, you can look throughout recorded history for endless examples. Cultural shifts and changes in entire societies are the results of divergent thinkers.

But divergent thinking isn’t reserved for famous inventors or revolutionaries. If you’ve ever turned a screw using a coin, made a paper airplane, or otherwise used something in a way it wasn’t intended, you were thinking divergently. With that in mind, let’s explore ways you can use divergent thinking to become a better and more creative problem solver.

How to use divergent thinking to become a better problem solver

Whether you’re finding a solution to a problem with no clear cause or you’re searching for an innovative way of doing something, divergent thinking techniques can lead you to new and surprising solutions. And like any other skill or way of thinking, you can improve creative thinking by practicing divergent thinking.

Here are a few ways you can think more divergently when faced with a complex or challenging problem:

• Let ideas fly:  The key to thinking divergently is to let your ideas flow freely. Don’t judge them as they come — instead, let them fly out freely and worry about quality control later.
• Switch sides:  In other words, empathize. Empathy requires the ability to disconnect from yourself and look at a problem from another person’s perspective.
• Mind map:  Mind mapping is an excellent organizational tool for discovering new connections between disparate ideas. You can use a mind map for subject mapping, making it a powerful canvas for innovation.
• Pose the problem as a question:  For challenging problems, try reframing the challenge as a question. Instead of, “users aren’t engaging with the new feature,” ask your team, “how might we make the new feature more engaging?”

Now that you know how to start boosting your creative problem solving, let’s explore how your new skills fit into project management.

Divergent thinking in project management

Most projects have some degree of divergent thinking already built in. Brainstorming sessions, for example, are divergent thinking in action. But just about every project could do with a few more creative ideas. In addition to the obvious benefits you’ve no doubt surmised, divergent thinking also  boosts morale and team collaboration .

That said, it’s important to consider both sides of the coin when it comes to managing projects. While we’ve only discussed divergent thinking so far, it’s important to consider its counterpart, convergent thinking. Divergent thinking and convergent thinking are two sides to the same coin. Where divergent thinking is free-flowing ideation, convergent thinking is about selecting the right ideas and making them happen. As such, it’s not enough to know how  to think divergently — it’s equally as important to know when  to.

When to use the divergent thinking method

Successful projects are governed by concrete metrics. Scope, schedules, deadlines, deliverables, budgets — these are the constraints that all projects operate under. Viewed from this perspective, the very idea of divergent thinking can seem counterintuitive. But by embracing and planning for divergent thinking in specific circumstances, projects can benefit from a range of perspectives that were otherwise unobtainable.

Divergent thinking is especially valuable during the ideation stage of a project. When team members are encouraged to let their imaginations run wild, not every idea will be a gold nugget, but it might be an idea that leads to a veritable treasure chest.

Unexpected challenges are also great opportunities to leverage divergent thinking. If you’re facing a complex problem with no apparent solution, why not invent your own? These are the moments that spark true innovation. In short, every project should have systems in place that allow for moments of divergent thinking and free-flowing creativity.

Systemize divergent thinking on monday.com

As a fully-featured WorkOS, monday.com enables you to systemize divergent thinking and integrate the creativity that’s necessary for real innovation.

With one of our newest tools,  Canvas , you can kick off new projects with a fully-collaborative, real-time online whiteboard. Intuitive tools let you and your team create diagrams, add sticky notes, and express thoughts, ideas, and information that lead to novel solutions.

Then you can converge those solutions in Workdocs  — a collaborative free writing document editor that lets every team member write their ideas simultaneously, adding comments, rearranging thoughts, and creating tasks — all in real-time. And since you can embed monday.com dashboards, images, and videos, you can turn a creativity session into an actionable document.

monday.com also has dozens of  integrations  for all your freeform, creative, and planning needs. From Adobe Creative Cloud and Google Docs to Slack and Zoom, collaboration on any tool is front and center.

Finally, any sort of creative endeavor requires fuel in the form of feedback and data. With  WorkForms , you can provide your divergent thinkers with all the fuel they need by creating forms you can embed just about anywhere, including websites and emails. Or just send them as a link.

From end to end, monday.com is the place where creative thinking and project efficiency converge.

Frequently asked questions

If the concept of divergent thinking has piqued your curiosity, here are a few answers to some common questions regarding the topic.

What is divergent?

Divergent describes something that develops in a different direction relative to another thing, often unexpectedly. You can use it to describe paths, journeys, ideas, products, and even people.

What is a divergent thinker?

Divergent thinkers are creative problem solvers. They use methods or thought processes to explore different paths that can lead to novel solutions. These processes occur in a spontaneous, free-flowing, emergent cognitive fashion. As such, a divergent thinker can often look at a problem from many angles and perspectives and imagine several possible solutions.

What does divergent thinking mean?

In essence, divergent thinking means imagining other possibilities without rational or reasonable constraints. When unique ideas are generated divergently, they’re neither good nor bad — they’re simply ideas. Creative thinking, examining a problem from different perspectives, and reframing a problem are all forms of divergent thinking.

What is the difference between a convergent thinker and a divergent thinker?

A convergent thinker is typically more organized and structured in their thought. They use reason and logic to deduce the best solution to a problem or the best idea to pursue. A divergent thinker is one who thinks creatively and without judgment. They use their imagination to come up with many possible solutions to a problem. Taken together, you could say the difference between the two is that a divergent thinker is an idea generator while a convergent thinker is an idea selector.

Turn problems into opportunities with divergent thinking

Much of the responsibility of a project manager involves structuring, planning, and organizing. Business is still business, after all — we’re all working under a deadline and within a budget. But that doesn’t necessitate tossing novel thinking and creativity out the proverbial window. There’s a reason creative industries have  faster job growth and slower job loss .

It all comes down to balance. By systemizing creativity into your project workflow with a WorkOS like monday.com, you can create opportunities for collaborative, convergent thinking that just might lead to the next big innovation.

Send this article to someone who’d like it.

• CPS Training
• CPS Facilitation

Site Sponsor

Site author.

Paul Reali, MS, MBA OmniSkills Founder & Principal 336.926.8833 * E-mail Paul

PLEASE READ: Permissions to Use Site Content

We encourage you to use the content you find on this site, in accordance with the Creative Commons license specified here, and on each page:

Click the image above for a description of these terms. For additional permissions (e.g., to license the work for commercial use), e-mail us .

DIVERGENT THINKING IN CPS

About divergent & convergent thinking: why both.

One key - perhaps the key - to the Creative Problem Solving process is the use of both divergent and convergent thinking.

Divergent thinking is wide and free. When you diverge, you generate many options. Divergent thinking is followed by convergent thinking , in which you assess, judge, and strengthen those options, and then decide what to keep and how to proceed.

CPS requires both divergent and convergent thinking, but not at the same time. Trying to do both at once is a mess. If you've ever been in a meeting where people are generating ideas, and shooting them down at the same time, you understand why we need to keep these two thinking modes separate.

DIVERGENT THINKING GUIDELINES

Whenever you think divergently, follow these guidelines for best results:

• Defer judgment
• Strive for quantity
• Seek wild and unusual
• Build on other ideas

A trained CPS facilitator can help you and your group to use these guidelines, and the divergent thinking tools, to their best advantage.

DIVERGENT THINKING TOOLS

There are many divergent thinking tools in the universe, including, perhaps, some you have created yourself. CPS is tools agnostic, so any tool you like for divergent thinking is likely to work just fine. Below are very brief descriptions of some of the tools we use for divergent thinking.

Brainstorming The classic idea-generating tool, often misused. Method: working from one statement or challenge, think, following the divergent thinking guidelines; every idea is said out loud and then written down, usually on a flip chart pad. When the ideas come fast, as they often do, it can be difficult for the recorder to keep up. Can be used individually or in groups.

Brainstorming with Post-its A twist on brainstorming that makes the recording process easier. Method: each person has a Post-it note pad; every idea is written on a Post-it, then said out loud. The facilitator collects the ideas as they are generated, and sticks them up on a flip chart pad. Having each idea on a separate sheet makes converging easier.

Brainwriting Like brainstorming, but done quietly. On a standard piece of paper, draw three rows of three boxes. Each person starts with one sheet, and a few extras are placed in a central pile. Each person writes an idea in each box of the first row (that is, three ideas), then puts the paper into the center pile, then takes another sheet from the pile. If that sheet has ideas on it, the person reads the ideas, then writes three more in the next row, either building on the existing ideas or adding new ones. Continue until all the boxes are full.

SCAMPER Questions that help to stretch the thinking in specific ways. SCAMPER is named as a mnemonic to remember these words: substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other uses, eliminate, rearrange. Method: for each word, ask questions to spur thinking. For example: What can you substitute for it? What can be combined with it? What can you subtract? What can you add?

Visual Connections Spur thinking by making connections from an unrelated image to the current problem. Method: facilitator shows an image (usually a photograph), and asks participants to write down 3-5 words suggested by the image. Several other images are shown, and words written down. Then, participants are asked to make a direct connection from the words they have written to the problem at hand.

Forced Connections A way to force novel thinking. Can be used on its own, or as part of a brainstorming or brainwriting session. Method: facilitator holds up or points to an object unrelated to the problem, and asks: "When you look at this (object), what ideas do you get for solving this problem?"

Excursions Mental or actual voyages that take people outside the problem to look for inspiration elsewhere. There are many variations. One method: participants close their eyes while the facilitator talks them through a journey to a specific place, or one of their own imagining. When they open their eyes, they record ideas that were inspired by the excursion.

Word Dance Often used when Finding the Question , to think of the problem statement in new ways. Method: in the current problem statement (which begins with "How might...", "How to...", "In what ways might...", or "What might be all the..."), circle the verb, then generate other verbs that might replace it. Then, circle the object or outcome words, and generate possible substitutes. (In both cases, unusual and off-course are OK.) Mix and match the responses. Choose the statement that best expresses the problem.

Idea Box A mix-and-match method for generating ideas. Method: beginning with the problem statement, select the essential characteristics of the problem, and list those on paper as column headings. For each column, list a variety of options. Then, mix and match, choosing one from each column. What ideas does that combination give you? Repeat with different combinations.

Why? What's Stopping You? A deceptively simple approach to identifying the root of the problem; similar to the more commonly-known "five whys" approach. Method: begin with a goal, wish or challenge, and ask: "why do you want this?" To the response, ask again. When you feel you have arrived at the root of the problem, ask, "What's stopping you?" Repeating this process to its logical end can lead to the creation of a new and more accurate goal/wish/challenge or a concise problem statement.

Here are some choices:

• Learn about the other side of the "dynamic balance" of CPS, convergent thinking .
• Return to the CPS overview .

CONTACT US WHEN YOU ARE READY

When you're ready to talk to us about teaching you this process or facilitating a problem-solving session, just holler .

Try for free

Divergent Thinking

Advantages of using divergent thinking , how to implement divergent thinking , convergent vs. divergent thinking, what is the divergent thinking psychology definition, how to combine divergent and convergent thinking for optimal results , techniques to stimulate divergent thinking, .css-uphcpb{position:absolute;left:0;top:-87px;} what is divergent thinking, definition of divergent thinking.

Divergent thinking, often referred to as lateral thinking, is the process of creating multiple, unique ideas or solutions to a problem that you are trying to solve. Through spontaneous, free-flowing thinking, divergent thinking requires coming up with many different answers or routes forward.

Divergent thinking can benefit work processes in the following ways:

Best possible solutions 

Increased team morale.

By dismissing the first idea, teams are encouraged to think outside the box and exercise their creativity. This encourages teamwork as they compare ideas and collectively work towards one goal, boosting team morale.

All You Need To Know About Product Management

More flexibility 

When faced with a complex problem, divergent thinking allows management to adapt their plans and processes to find an appropriate new solution, encouraging proactive development as opposed to restrictive reactive thinking. 

Too much divergent thinking can lead to endless ideation , and no solutions.

That’s where convergent thinking comes in handy. Convergent thinking organizes and structures new ideas, separating those with worth from those which can be left behind.

Creative problem solving begins with divergent thinking — to collect free-flowing ideas — before converging them so they’re relevant to the issue at hand. 

Both stages are critical. The divergent stage pushes you to explore all possible options, while the convergent stage ensures you’ve chosen the most appropriate solutions given the context.

Convergent thinking focuses on finding a well-defined solution to a problem by embracing clear solutions and structure.

For example, if a copy machine breaks at work, someone identifying as a convergent thinker would quickly call a technician to fix the machine.

Usually, project managers embrace convergent thinking without even knowing it, so you might already be familiar with this mentality.

Benefits of convergent vs. divergent thinking:

There is no room for ambiguity.

You tend to find solutions more quickly.

Perfect for linear processes and organization.

It allows you to align teams, plan projects, and create workflows in the most efficient way possible.

It’s a straight-to-the-point kind of approach to problem-solving.

Divergent thinking refers to the creative solutions you could find for a problem. This type of thinking allows for more freedom and helps you generate more than one solution by typically using brainstorming as the cognitive method.

Although the means differ from convergent thinking, the end goal is the same — to find the best idea.

For example, a divergent thinker would try to find the cause and develop a fix for that broken copy machine from the previous example.

They might even send a company-wide email to check whether any employees have fixed copy machines before.

Benefits of divergent vs. convergent thinking:

Using creativity to find solutions to problems.

Analyze ideas from different angles.

Identify and apply new opportunities.

Helps the user adopt a learning mindset.

Stand out from competitors by implementing creative ways to solve common problems.

Helps you learn and understand other people’s perspectives when brainstorming.

Divergent thinking involves a whole range of psychological steps. Usually, divergent thinking happens in a free-flowing and spontaneous manner, so ideas appear in a random, non-linear manner.

This is how divergent thinking opens the mind to potentially limitless solutions to problems that might not be obvious through linear, convergent thinking.

Divergent thinking is an essential part of creative thinking.

The best idea is never found by luck or pure chance. The creative process involves many steps that lead to new ideas.

From plucking out varieties of possible results to applying the idea to the problem at hand, divergent thinking is bound to lead you to more unique ideas than more straightforward, convergent thinking.

Achieving the best outcome through divergent and convergent thinking might seem challenging at first, but get it right and it can pay off in exciting and valuable ways.

Start with divergent thinking. You and your team may need to break out of established ideation routines and embrace a fresh approach, which is often difficult. Try to make it easier by being open to all possibilities and assuring your product team that there are no wrong ideas at this point. 

Look at all the potential choices and ideas available to you. Consider problems from all angles, including from the perspective of target users. You know their pain points and what solutions they’re looking for. That insight can help you make the most of divergent thinking. 

Next, move on to convergent thinking. Here you want to think about what is rather than what could be . Analyze your options, and compare their pros and cons carefully. When you have a comprehensive list of your ideas' good and bad points, you’ll find it easier to pick the best ones. 

Having trouble getting your team to try divergent thinking? Here are a few ways to kick-start the process:

Ask questions 

Some members of your product team may not know where to start. Stimulate divergent thinking by asking questions about the issue at hand and their views on it. 

Try roleplay

Have one team member play the role of a customer complaining about a product or a specific feature, and another could try to help them with it. This can spark discussions that lead to solutions.

Brainstorm possibilities

As a team, come up with as many ideas as possible, no matter how unrealistic they may be. Even one good option can lead to breakthroughs.

Create a mind map

Mind mapping takes a visual approach to brainstorming. Write the core goal/issue in the center of a sheet of paper or whiteboard, and get team members to write down thoughts about it.

Defer judgment until later

Avoid praising or criticizing ideas during the ideation process. Take note of everything, then analyze them later to find out how viable ideas are. 

Support strange and unusual ideas

Even if an idea seems ridiculous, there still might be something useful there. Encourage team members to open their minds to every possibility, no matter how bizarre they might be.

General FAQ

Glossary categories.

Feedback Management

Prioritization

Product Management

Product Strategy

Roadmapping

Experience the new way of doing product management

Book a demo

Advertisement

Executive functioning and divergent thinking predict creative problem-solving in young adults and elderlies

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 02 April 2022
• Volume 87 , pages 388–396, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Alice Cancer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3545-8540 1 ,
• Paola Iannello 1 ,
• Carola Salvi 2 &
• Alessandro Antonietti 1  

4899 Accesses

11 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The role of executive functioning in creative thinking is under debate. Some authors suggested that increased inhibitory control, a component of executive functioning, is detrimental to creative solutions, whereas others argued that executive functions are central to creative problem-solving, thus questioning Guilford’s classical distinction between divergent and convergent thinking. Executive functions decline with age. In this study, we investigated the contributions of executive functioning and its age-related decline and divergent thinking to creative problem-solving. To this aim, we divided our sample of sixty healthy adults into two age groups of young adults (20–26 years) and elderly (60–70 years) and we assessed their creative problem-solving abilities (using the compound remote associate problems) as well as other potential cognitive predictors of creative problem-solving (i.e., impulsivity, divergent thinking, verbal working memory, and decision-making style). A linear regression model revealed that the ability to solve problems creatively is negatively predicted by older age and impulsivity, while positively predicted by divergent thinking and verbal working memory. These findings reveal a combined contribution of executive functions and divergent thinking to creative problem-solving, suggesting that both convergent and divergent processes should be considered in interventions to contrast age-related decline.

Similar content being viewed by others

Meditation to improve lateral and divergent thinking among older adults: a 2-year follow-up study

A pilot study of cognition and creativity among persons with HIV disease referred for neuropsychological evaluation

Divergent Thinking in Older Adults: Understanding its Role in Well-being

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Creativity is a multifaceted construct, defined as the ability to generate novel ideas that are not only original and unusual, but also relevant, appropriate, and useful (Runco & Jaeger, 2012 ). Such a combination of originality and effectiveness provides both individual and societal benefits (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010 ) and supports advancements in various disciplines. Understanding the neuropsychological basis of the creative process is particularly relevant to facilitate the identification and development of creative thinkers and problem-solvers.

The literature presents mixed results about the role of executive functioning in the creative process (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010 ). Some researchers suggested that “superior executive functioning, such as increased attentional control, may be detrimental to reaching creative solutions” (e.g., Jarosz et al., 2012 ), thus implying that relatively less executive engagement would overall enhance creativity (Wiley & Jarosz, 2012 ). Problems can be solved creatively or via step-by-step analysis. Creative problem-solving is based on solution processes that are divergent, associational, and discontinuous (Runco, 2014 ) and it is obstructed by inhibition (Radel et al., 2015 ). Problem-solving via analysis instead requires the use of algorithms and step-by-step above awareness procedures that are facilitated by inhibition, shifting, and working memory (WM) capacity (Kane et al., 2004 ; Viterbori et al., 2017 ; Zelazo et al., 1997 ).

Creative problem-solving, which involves connecting weakly related and remote concepts, is facilitated by producing many alternative responses, re-organizing the problem space by de-contextualizing its elements, and connecting the ideas through unusual combinations (Antonietti & Colombo, 2013 ). According to the hypothesis of a detrimental role of executive functioning in creative problem-solving, increased attentional control would negatively interfere with such processes. A state of diffused attention facilitates internal focus, as well as the retrieval of weakly activated and irrelevant concepts, and provides original solutions to problems (Ansburg & Hill, 2003 ; Carson et al., 2003 ; Dykes & McGhie, 1976 ; Salvi & Bowden, 2016 ; Salvi et al., 2015 ). Several works based on neurophysiological markers are showing that creative problem-solving is associated with a state of disengagement from the external inputs (Jung-Beeman et al., 2004 ; Kounios et al., 2006 , 2008 ; Salvi et al., 2015 , 2020 ). When people are engaged in thinking creatively, they tend to gather distracting information by closing their eyes or by looking toward an empty space or a blank wall. This “looking at nothing” behavior is commonly understood to be a way to avoid distracting information so that one can concentrate on inner thoughts (Salvi & Bowden, 2016 ). Results from Jarosz et al.’s study ( 2012 ) supported this negative association, showing a positive effect of alcohol intoxication on RAT accuracy and speed, through lower attentional control and lower working memory (WM). Findings from clinical studies on creativity pointed to similar conclusions (Abraham, 2019 ). Patients with focal damage to the frontal cortex, a brain area that is typically involved in executive functions (Duncan, 2001 ), were shown to outperform healthy control in an insight problem-solving task (i.e., the matchstick arithmetic task, Knoblich et al., 1999 ) (Reverberi et al., 2005 ). Furthermore, high levels of creativity have been reported in Tourette’s patients, which were explained as the result of altered connectivity patterns between the frontal and prefrontal cortex (Colautti et al., 2021 ).

There is, however, a growing body of research showing that executive functions are central to creative thinking (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011 ). According to Nusbaum and Silvia ( 2011 ), divergent and convergent thinking are more closely related than the classical Guilford’s ( 1967 ) distinction presumed—namely, the expansive generation of novel ideas in contrast with the selection of a unique response from several possible alternatives (Guilford, 1967 ). Using latent variable modeling, Nusbaum and Silvia ( 2011 ) found that executive shifting predicted a successful performance in a divergent thinking task, namely, the alternative uses task (AUT) where respondents are asked to list as many ways of employing a common object as possible (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011 ; Silvia et al., 2009 ). Sharma and Babu ( 2017 ) reported a significant relationship between measures of creativity (i.e., Torrance Test of Creative Thinking—TTCT; Torrance, 1990 ) and inhibitory control, as measured by the Stroop test. However, no association was found between creativity and WM. Similar results were obtained by Edl et al. ( 2014 ) in a sample of design students, who showed a significantly lower Stroop interference effect as compared to a control group and a strong correlation between inhibitory control and creative thinking, as measured by TTCT (Torrance, 1990 ). According to the authors, these findings showed that inhibition is required to suppress dominant but irrelevant response tendencies during a creative task. Clinical evidence on dementia (Fusi, Crepaldi, et al., 2021 ; Fusi, Lavolpe, et al., 2021 ) showed that although patients with frontotemporal dementia could produce a great number of ideas, they were not able to flexibly combine the information to produce original ideas, due to damages in the prefrontal cortex. In addition, other findings highlighted that metacognitive control during the performance of a creative task, in the form of predictions/retrospections tasks, facilitates the broadening of the mental field (Antonietti et al., 2021 ), thus suggesting a combined contribution of convergent and divergent processes. Neuroscientific evidence supports the involvement of executive functions in creative thinking, showing a cooperative interaction of the default network (associated with mind-wandering and self-generated thought) and the executive control network (associated with working memory, relational integration, and task-set switching) during creative cognition (Beaty et al., 2016 , 2019 ).

Executive functioning is particularly susceptible to advancing age (Craik & Grady, 2002 ; MacPherson et al., 2002 ). Cross-sectional (Rhodes, 2004 ) and longitudinal studies (Sapkota et al., 2017 ) established a negative association between aging and executive functioning in healthy adults. Extensive literature highlights that the combination of limited resources, reduced efficiency, and increased interference between tasks may often lead to deterioration of cognitive performance with aging (Lacour et al., 2008 ; Wollesen et al., 2016 ). The distinction between crystallized and fluid intelligence is often used to frame this cognitive decline over the lifespan. Fluid abilities (e.g., executive functions, processing speed, WM, response inhibition) tend to gradually decline over the lifespan (Salthouse, 2012 ) when compared with crystallized abilities (e.g., vocabulary, general knowledge), which tend to remain stable or even improve through the last decades of life (Salthouse, 2012 ).

Processing speed, which refers both to the speed of cognitive task performance and the speed of motor responses, continues to deteriorate starting from the third decade of life on (Salthouse et al., 1995 ), thus resulting in a slowed processing that can negatively affect performance across a variety of cognitive domains. Slowed processing speed, as well as reduced capacity to ignore irrelevant information and poor use of strategies, is partly related to age-related decline in WM (Luszcz & Bryan, 1999 ). Aging is also negatively associated with response inhibition, which is the ability to inhibit an automatic response in favor of producing a novel one (Wecker et al., 2000 ). Impulsivity has been found to increase together with age-related cognitive decline (Sakurai et al., 2020 ), thus highlighting a high level of impatience and impulsivity among elderly people (Read & Read, 2004 ).

Besides executive functions and age-related cognitive changes, another component of creativity, namely, divergent thinking, can be hypothesized to have a predicting role in creative problem-solving. Divergent thinking, through the generation of numerous (i.e., fluency) and unconventional (i.e., originality) ideas that are shifted into various content categories (i.e., flexibility) (Guilford, 1956 ), elicits creative solutions to problems (Barbot et al., 2019 ). The generation of divergent options increases the chance to find among them the correct solution to the problem, ultimately facilitating its identification.

This study aims to further the understanding of the complex relationships between executive functioning, divergent thinking, and creative problem-solving in adults and older adults. More precisely, we aimed to measure the role of inhibition, divergent thinking skills, WM, and age-related cognitive decline as predictors of creative problem-solving. We hypothesized that if executive functions have a role in creative problem-solving and divergent thinking, we would find a correspondent decline in elderly people compared to young adults.

Materials and methods

Participants.

Sixty healthy participants volunteered to be involved in the study. The sample included two age groups: a subgroup of elderlies, aged 60–70 ( N  = 30) and a subgroup of young adults, aged 20–26 ( N  = 30).

Older participants were recruited among members of an association for the social promotion of elderlies in Milan, Italy. Younger participants were recruited among students attending non-humanistic University courses (i.e., architecture, engineering, law, economics, agriculture, and dentistry) in several institutions in Milan, Italy. For both subgroups, a voluntary response sampling method was used: the study was advertised on campus and at the elderly association.

Normal cognitive functioning, as measured through the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (Folstein et al., 1975 ) (corrected total score ≥ 24), was defined as the inclusion criterion for the elderly participants. Exclusion criteria for the whole sample were (a) medication with either tricyclic antidepressant or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs); (b) dementia or neurological disorders; (c) non-native Italian language—due to the verbal nature of the primary outcome measure, namely, a verbal problem-solving task.

Participants’ written informed consent was obtained prior to recruitment. The study was conducted following the ethical principles laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2001 ).

Assessment measures

Creative problem-solving.

The Italian adaptation of the Compound Remote Associate (CRA) problems by Salvi et al. ( 2016 ), originally developed by Bowden and Jung-Beeman ( 2003 ), was used to measure creative problem-solving abilities. The task, inspired by the Remote Associate Test by Mednick ( 1968 ), includes 80 problems in the form of triplets of words. Participants are asked to find a solution word that forms either a compound word or a common two-word phrase with each of the three problem words (e.g., the solution to the triplet CRAB PINE SAUCE, is apple —which forms the compounds crab apple , pineapple , and apple sauce ). A computerized version of the CRA problems was used. Participants had 15 s to complete each problem; if no answer was given before the time-out, an omission error was recorded. A CRA performance criterion ( C ) index was computed by subtracting the number of commission errors (i.e., incorrect responses) from the number of correct responses and dividing by the number of total CRA problems ( n  = 80). If C  = 0, the subject’s criterion was ‘neutral’, showing no inclination towards the generation of either correct or incorrect responses. If C  > 0, the subject generated a higher number of correct responses, whereas if C  < 0, the subject generated a higher number of incorrect responses. We used the remote associates as a matter of consistency with the literature that drove our hypothesis and since they are a classic measure of creative problem-solving (e.g., Mednick, 1968 ; Shen et al., 2016 , 2018 ).

Impulsivity

Self-reported impulsivity was measured through the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) (Italian version: Fossati et al., 2001 ; Patton et al., 1995 ). The scale, that measures the personality/behavioral construct of impulsiveness, includes 30 items describing common impulsive (e.g., ‘I change hobbies’) or non-impulsive (e.g., ‘I plan trips well ahead of time’) behaviors, to be evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = ‘Rarely/Never’ to 4 = ‘Almost Always/Always’). The scale’s total score was considered.

Furthermore, the Go/No-go paradigm, namely, a computerized motor response control task, was used to measure inhibitory control together with focused and sustained attention. Participants were required to respond to the presence of a target letter, during a sequential presentation of letters, by pressing the space bar on a computer keyboard. The task included 396 trials, in which each letter (either W or M) was individually presented on a computer screen for the duration of 150 ms, with an inter-stimulus interval of 750 ms. In the first condition (198 trials, W-Go) participants were asked to press the space bar in response to the target letter W and withhold their response to the non-target letter M. In the second reversed condition (198 trials, M-Go), they were asked to press the space bar in response to the target letter M and withhold their response to the non-target letter W. The ratio of targets to non-targets was 70:30 in both conditions. A composite measure of attention and inhibitory control was computed as the proportion of accurate responses, including the correct responses to the target letter (hits) and the correct rejections to the non-target letter.

Divergent thinking

Divergent thinking was assessed using AUT (Guilford, 1967 ). Participants were asked to list as many possible uses for common items, such as a brick, a newspaper, or a spoon. A total of six items were individually presented, for which participants had 3 min to generate as many responses as possible. A fluency score was computed as the average number of alternative uses generated by the participant for each item. Furthermore, two independent judges rated the originality of each response (i.e., the extent to which the provided use is deemed divergent from the intended uses of that object) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very). An originality score was computed by averaging the ratings by the two judges. The average originality score of the first generated response for each item was considered as a measure of immediate divergent thinking. We adopted a subjective scoring system, using raters blind to order of the responses (Hass & Beaty, 2018 ; Hass et al., 2018 ).

Verbal working memory

Verbal WM was assessed through the Digit Span subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) (Italian version: Orsini & Pezzuti, 2013 ; Wechsler, 2008 ). The subtest includes three tasks, in which participants are asked to repeat a series of digits forward (i.e., Digit Span Forward), backward (i.e., Digit Span Backward), and in ascending order (i.e., Digit Span Sequencing). A Digit Span scaled score was computed based on Italian normative data.

Decision-making style

To measure individuals’ habitual preference for intuition—a thinking style that can be related to cognitive divergence (Iannello et al., 2020 )—versus deliberation—a thinking style which, because of the reliance on analytical processing, can be related to convergent thinking—when making a decision, the Preference for Intuition and Deliberation (PID) scale (Betsch, 2004 ; Pachur & Spaar, 2015 ; Italian adaptation: Raffaldi et al., 2012 ) was used. The questionnaire includes 18 items (e.g., ‘I like situations in which I have to rely on my intuition’) to be answered on a 5-point scale (1 = ‘I don’t agree’ to 5 = ‘I completely agree’). Two separate scores representing the tendency to ponder decisions intuitively (i.e., Intuition subscale) or deliberately (i.e., Deliberation subscale) are computed.

Participants underwent two 90-min lab testing sessions. Tasks’ order was counterbalanced. Before completing the experimental procedure, the MMSE (Folstein et al., 1975 ) was administered to older participants to screen for any severe cognitive impairment.

Statistical methods

First, descriptive statistics of participants’ socio-demographic characteristics were computed. Second, age group (young adults vs. elderlies) differences were tested on years of education, decision-making style, and CRA performance parameters (i.e., response time, correct responses, commission errors, omissions, criterion). Given that group variances were unequal (Levene’s Test p  < 0.001) for most measures, Welch’s t test was used. The p value was adjusted to correct for multiple testing within measures of the same construct (i.e., CRA parameters, Alpha = 0.05/4 = 0.012).

Finally, a linear regression model was tested to measure the contributions of all predictors (i.e., impulsivity, creativity, verbal WM, decision-making style) to the CRA criterion index, which was assumed as the most relevant score of creative problem-solving performance. A sample size of 60 was calculated to be enough to detect a medium effect size ( η 2  = 0.2) in a linear multiple regression model with six predictors, with a power of 0.80 and alpha set at 0.05. The assumption of no multicollinearity was confirmed in all multiple regression models (all VIF values ranged between 1.02 and 1.57). Predictors were entered into the model using the forward method and they were selected by comparing the models’ goodness of fit ( F tests) and considering AIC values. Effect sizes have been reported as Cohen’s d .

Participants’ characteristics

The sample was composed of a subgroup of elderlies, aged 60–70 ( N  = 30, M age  = 64.9, SD 4.28) and a subgroup of young adults, aged 20–26 ( N  = 30, M age  = 23.8, SD 2.11). Gender was equally distributed between age groups (young adults: 60% female, elderlies: 66.7% females, χ 2  = 0.29, p  = 0.59).

In our elderly sub-sample, 43.3% of participants were retired and 56.7% were employed. They underwent formal education for 6–21 years ( M  = 13.2; SD 4.65) and they were employed for 0–50 years ( M  = 32.2; SD 13.2). The years of formal education of the younger participants ranged from 13 to 20 ( M  = 17.2; SD 1.83).

Age differences in decision-making style and CRA parameters

Table 1 reports differences between age groups (young adults vs. elderly). The two groups differ in years of education, with younger participants being significantly more educated ( t  = 4.46, p  < 0.001, d  = 1.15). Given that the education variance was vastly explained by the age group ( β  = − 1.00, CI [− 1.45, − 0.55], p  < 0.001), this measure could not be included in the subsequent regression model among the other predictors.

Decision-making style, as measured by the two subscales of the PID questionnaire, was comparable between groups (preference for deliberation: t  = − 1.24, p  = 0.22; preference for intuition: t  = 0.63, p  = 0.53).

As for the CRA problems, we compared each parameter (i.e., response time, correct responses, commission errors, omissions, criterion) between age groups to explore the specific performance profile of young adults and elderlies. CRA response times were overall rather long, with high variability ( M ms  = 7082; SD = 3059). Furthermore, short response times were found to be strongly associated with a higher commission error rate ( r  = − 0.58; p  < 0.001). The comparison between age groups showed that the elderlies tended to respond significantly faster than the younger participants ( t  = 6.49, p  < 0.001, d  = 1.68). The omission rate ( t  = 2.23, p  = 0.03) and the number of correct responses did not differ between groups ( t  = 1.08, p  = 0.28). However, the elderlies produced significantly more commission errors ( t  = 3.43, p  < 0.001, d  = 0.89). A high commission error rate points to difficulties in managing impulsivity. Furthermore, the CRA criterion index showed a significantly poorer performance of elderlies, as compared to young adults ( t  = 2.85, p  = 0.006, d  = 0.74).

Predictors of CRA performance

CRA performance, measured as the CRA criterion index (adj R 2  = 0.46, F 1,49  = 7.50, p  < 0.01), was negatively predicted by age ( β  = − 0.41, CI [− 1.63, − 0.11], ns), impulsivity (self-report scale: β  = − 0.15, CI [− 0.01, 0.001], ns; Go/No-go task accuracy: β  = 0.38, CI [0.13, 0.61], p  < 0.01), with inhibitory control uniquely contributing to the prediction. Furthermore, CRA performance was positively predicted by divergent thinking (fluency: β  = 0.14, CI [− 0.01, 0.03], ns; originality: β  = 0.09, CI [− 0.05, 0.10], ns) and verbal WM ( β  = 0.29, CI [0.005, 0.03], p  < 0.01), with the last one uniquely contributing to the prediction (Table 2 ).

The results of our study provide further evidence on the debated role of executive functions in creative problem-solving. Because executive functions decrease with aging, we compared the problem-solving performance, as well as WM, impulsivity, and divergent thinking of a group of older adults to a one of younger adults. Results showed that problem-solving is negatively predicted by aging and impulsivity, and positively predicted by divergent thinking and verbal WM.

The novel approach which was implemented in our study consisted in testing divergent thinking, using the classical AUT, as a predictor of creative problem-solving. Such a decision was based on the assumption that divergent thinking is a predictor of creative responses (Runco & Acar, 2012 ) rather than a measure of creative thinking. Based on these premises, a two-componential structure of the creative process leading to generate a unique solution to a problem, such as in the CRA tasks, was hypothesized. We suggest that the process leading to creative problem-solving comprises two sequential steps: (a) a divergent phase and (b) a convergent phase. In the first phase, a great number of disparate options are rapidly generated, regardless of their appropriateness. In the second phase, the generated options is narrowed down by inhibition control, through the suppression of dominant but irrelevant responses, to find the unique appropriate solution to the problem. These steps mirror the two main features of creative productions, namely, originality and effectiveness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012 ). While a decreased executive functioning would be beneficial in the first step of the creative process, the second convergent phase requires the involvement of WM and inhibition control. The results of our study confirmed this assumption, showing that both divergent thinking and executive functioning predict a better performance in creative problem-solving. Such a hypothesis is consistent with the dual pathway model postulated by Nijstad et al. ( 2010 ). The model assumes that there are two pathways to creative performance: (a) the flexibility pathway, which assumes a flexible switch between broad cognitive categories, as well as the use of remote associations; (b) the persistence pathway, which requires the systematic and focused exploration of possibilities, and the in-depth exploration of limited task-directed perspectives. According to the authors of the dual pathway model (Nijstad et al., 2010 ), during creative problem-solving, individuals switch from more flexible to more systematic processing modalities, thus highlighting the combined contribution of both pathways. Further Beaty et al. ( 2019 ), based on the interaction of functional connectivity between different networks during the creative performance, identified three processes that would predict an individual’s creative ability and which are in support of our results: (a) goal-directed memory retrieval, namely, the ability to strategically search episodic and semantic memory for task-relevant information; (b) prepotent-response inhibition, namely, the ability to suppress interference from salient and/or dominant responses; and (c) internally-focused attention, namely, the shielding of internal processes from external interference.

In regards to age-related cognitive decline, a recent systematic review by Fusi et al. ( Fusi, Crepaldi, et al., 2021 ; Fusi, Lavolpe, et al., 2021 ) highlighted the nonlinear and multidimensional nature of the relationship between aging processes and divergent thinking performances. Mixed results can be found in the literature depending on figural vs. verbal divergent thinking tasks, and when specific indexes are considered (i.e., originality, fluency, and flexibility). The authors of the review also underlined the role of WM and processing speed, which explained the discrepancies between younger and older adults. Overall, creative performances of the elderlies, particularly in the verbal domain, are comparable to those of younger individuals when no time constraints are set during the task and the workload is not too high (Fusi, Crepaldi, et al., 2021 ; Fusi, Lavolpe, et al., 2021 ). In our study, CRA problems imposed a time constraint to complete each problem (i.e., 15 s). To manage the limited time available to generate a response, the older participants in our sample responded faster than the younger participants. We interpreted this result as a strategy to compensate for the age-related decreased processing speed, by rapidly generating a greater number of incorrect responses in a shorter time. However, based on the available data, we cannot predict what would have happened if no time constraint was imposed in the CRA task.

Interestingly, the number of omission errors did not differ between the younger and older subsamples. Older participants showed a significantly lower overall performance in the creative problem-solving task and an increased number of commission errors. The higher commission error rate in the elderlies revealed an impulsive tendency, typical of age-related cognitive decline (e.g., Morales-Vives & Vigil-Colet, 2012 ), that was detrimental for the performance in the creative problem-solving task used in our investigation. This result is also confirmed by the significant and independent negative contribution of inhibition control (i.e., Go/No-Go task). We hypothesized that impulsivity, both as a personality/behavioral trait (as measured by BIS-11) and a neuropsychological ability (as measured by Go/No-Go task), would facilitate the production of disparate ideas in the first divergent phase of the creative problem-solving process, but that it would interfere during the second convergent phase, in which WM and inhibition control help discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate solutions.

As for the association between WM and creative thinking, the insignificant role of WM found by Sharma and Babu ( 2017 ) was consistent with Jarosz et al.’s ( 2012 ) results on intoxicated participants. Nonetheless, the task used for measuring creative thinking by the former, namely, figural TTCT, does not require heavy demands on WM capacity (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2008 ). On the contrary, our results evidenced a positive association between verbal WM and creative problem-solving. The role of WM is twofold: (a) To maintain the novel information activated, and thus easily accessible during the resolution of a task; (b) To discriminate between task-related relevant and irrelevant information (Unsworth & Engle, 2007 ). We argue that both processes are crucial for solving CRA problems, especially in the last convergent phase of problem-solving. Such a result is consistent with the study by Colombo et al. ( 2018 ) on the relationship between creativity and cognitive reserve, who found a positive correlation between the digit span and the creativity performance in healthy adults.

One of the limitations of the study is having adopted verbal tasks to measure divergent thinking, WM, and creative problem-solving. Given the prevalence of verbal tasks, we controlled for participants’ decision-making style to exclude any possible effect of individuals’ preference for a verbal code on the task performance—analytical people tend to prefer processing information that is primarily verbal (Betsch & Iannello, 2009 ; Epstein et al., 1996 ; Raffaldi et al., 2012 ). Nonetheless, as a future direction, the predictions we found should be re-tested using nonverbal measures, to exclude a domain-related effect of executive functioning on creative problem-solving.

Furthermore, the discrepancy in the two investigated subsamples (i.e., younger, and older adults) made it impossible to control for educational level in our model. Nonetheless, previous research excluded that education plays a significant role in divergent and creative thinking (Palmiero, 2015 ).

Conclusions

Our study furthered the understanding of the contribution of executive functions and divergent thinking to creative problem-solving. According to the classical definition of creativity, creative products are both original and appropriate (Runco & Jaeger, 2012 ). The results of our study highlight a combined role of divergent thinking and executive functions in the solution of creative problems.

Specifically, divergent thinking would support the generation of numerous original ideas and unusual associations, crucial in the first divergent step of the creative process, whereas inhibition control and WM would support the appropriateness assessment of the generated options to ultimately identify the unique appropriate solution.

In conclusion, to facilitate creative problem-solving processes, not only divergent thinking but also executive processes should be trained and improved by interventions. Such an approach would be especially functional to target the detrimental role of age-related cognitive decline in problem-solving.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abraham, A. (2019). The neuropsychology of creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27 , 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.011

Article   Google Scholar  

Ansburg, P. I., & Hill, K. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 34 (7), 1141–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00104-6

Antonietti, A., Cancer, A., Colombo, B., & Iannello, P. (2021). Metacognitive experience across the creative process. In D. Moraitou & P. Metallidou (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research across the life span: a tribute to Anastasia Efklides (pp. 59–79). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51673-4_4

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Antonietti, A., & Colombo, B. (2013). Three creative mental operations. In A. Tan (Ed.), Creativity, talent and excellence (pp. 13–26). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4021-93-7_2

Barbot, B., Hass, R. W., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2019). Creativity assessment in psychological research: (Re)setting the standards. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13 (2), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000233

Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20 (2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Beaty, R. E., Seli, P., & Schacter, D. L. (2019). Network neuroscience of creative cognition: Mapping cognitive mechanisms and individual differences in the creative brain. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27 , 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.08.013

Betsch, C. (2004). Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation (PID)[Preference for Intuition and Deliberation (PID): An Inventory for Assessing Affect-and Cognition-Based Decision-Making]. Zeitschrift Für Differentielle Und Diagnostische Psychologie, 25 (4), 179–197.

Betsch, C., & Iannello, P. (2009). Measuring individual differences in intuitive and deliberate decision-making styles: A comparison of different measures. Foundations for tracing intuition (pp. 259–279). Psychology Press.

Google Scholar  

Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35 (4), 634–639. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195543

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499

Colautti, L., Magenes, S., Rago, S., Zanaboni Dina, C., Cancer, A., & Antonietti, A. (2021). Creative thinking in Tourette’s Syndrome: An uncharted topic. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.649814

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Colombo, B., Antonietti, A., & Daneau, B. (2018). The relationships between cognitive reserve and creativity. A Study on American Aging Population. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00764

Craik, F. I. M., & Grady, C. L. (2002). Aging, memory, and frontal lobe functioning. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 528–540). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195134971.003.0031

Duncan, J. (2001). An adaptive coding model of neural function in prefrontal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2 (11), 820–829. https://doi.org/10.1038/35097575

Dykes, M., & McGhie, A. (1976). A comparative study of attentional strategies of schizophrenic and highly creative normal subjects. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128 (1), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.128.1.50

Edl, S., Benedek, M., Papousek, I., Weiss, E. M., & Fink, A. (2014). Creativity and the Stroop interference effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 69 , 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.009

Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 390.

Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). «Mini-mental state». A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12 (3), 189–198.

Fossati, A., Ceglie, A. D., Acquarini, E., & Barratt, E. S. (2001). Psychometric properties of an Italian version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11) in nonclinical subjects. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57 (6), 815–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1051

Fusi, G., Crepaldi, M., Colautti, L., Palmiero, M., Antonietti, A., Rozzini, L., & Rusconi, M. L. (2021). Divergent thinking abilities in frontotemporal dementia: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 652543. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652543

Fusi, G., Lavolpe, S., Crepaldi, M., & Rusconi, M. L. (2021). The controversial effect of age on divergent thinking abilities: A systematic review. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55 (2), 374–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.461

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53 (4), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040755

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence . McGraw-Hill.

Hass, R. W., & Beaty, R. E. (2018). Use or consequences: Probing the cognitive difference between two measures of divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02327

Hass, R. W., Rivera, M., & Silvia, P. J. (2018). On the dependability and feasibility of layperson ratings of divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 1343. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01343

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61 (1), 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416

Iannello, P., Colombo, B., Germagnoli, S., & Antonietti, A. (2020). Enhancing intuition in problem solving through problem finding . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Jarosz, A. F., Colflesh, G. J. H., & Wiley, J. (2012). Uncorking the muse: Alcohol intoxication facilitates creative problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 21 (1), 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.01.002

Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P. J., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2 (4), e97. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097

Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133 (2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189

Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25 (6), 1534–1555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1534

Kounios, J., Fleck, J. I., Green, D. L., Payne, L., Stevenson, J. L., Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2008). The origins of insight in resting-state brain activity. Neuropsychologia, 46 (1), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.013

Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J. I., Subramaniam, K., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind: Neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17 (10), 882–890. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01798.x

Lacour, M., Bernard-Demanze, L., & Dumitrescu, M. (2008). Posture control, aging, and attention resources: Models and posture-analysis methods. Neurophysiologie Clinique/clinical Neurophysiology, 38 (6), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2008.09.005

Luszcz, M. A., & Bryan, J. (1999). Toward understanding age-related memory loss in late adulthood. Gerontology, 45 (1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000022048

MacPherson, S. E., Phillips, L. H., & Della Sala, S. (2002). Age, executive function and social decision making: A dorsolateral prefrontal theory of cognitive aging. Psychology and Aging, 17 (4), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.4.598

Mednick, S. A. (1968). The remote associates test. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2 (3), 213–214.

Morales-Vives, F., & Vigil-Colet, A. (2012). Are old people so gentle? Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity in the elderly. International Psychogeriatrics, 24 (3), 465–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021100161X

Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21 (1), 34–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323

Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39 (1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002

Orsini, A., & Pezzuti, L. (2013). Italian validation of the Wechsler adult intelligence scale. (WAIS IV) . Giunti OS.

Pachur, T., & Spaar, M. (2015). Domain-specific preferences for intuition and deliberation in decision making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4 (3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.07.006

Palmiero, M. (2015). The effects of age on divergent thinking and creative objects production: A cross-sectional study. High Ability Studies , 26 (1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1029117

Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51 (6), 768–774. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6%3c768::AID-JCLP2270510607%3e3.0.CO;2-1

Radel, R., Davranche, K., Fournier, M., & Dietrich, A. (2015). The role of (dis)inhibition in creativity: Decreased inhibition improves idea generation. Cognition, 134 , 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.001

Raffaldi, S., Iannello, P., Vittani, L., & Antonietti, A. (2012). Decision-making styles in the workplace: Relationships between self-report questionnaires and a contextualized measure of the analytical-systematic versus global-intuitive approach. SAGE Open, 2 (2), 2158244012448082. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012448082

Read, D., & Read, N. L. (2004). Time discounting over the lifespan. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94 (1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.01.002

Reverberi, C., Toraldo, A., D’Agostini, S., & Skrap, M. (2005). Better without (lateral) frontal cortex? Insight problems solved by frontal patients. Brain, 128 (12), 2882–2890. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh577

Rhodes, M. G. (2004). Age-related differences in performance on the Wisconsin card sorting test: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Aging, 19 (3), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.3.482

Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Black, S. R., & Mccown, S. M. (2008). Age-related changes in creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42 (1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01079.x

Runco, M. A. (2014). Cognition and creativity. Creativity (pp. 1–38). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410512-6.00001-1

Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Sakurai, K., Li, H., Inamura, N., Masuoka, N., & Hisatsune, T. (2020). Relationship between elevated impulsivity and cognitive declines in elderly community-dwelling individuals. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 21032. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78124-5

Salthouse, T. (2012). Consequences of age-related cognitive declines. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 (1), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100328

Salthouse, T., Fristoe, N. M., Lineweaver, T. T., & Coon, V. E. (1995). Aging of attention: Does the ability to divide decline? Memory & Cognition, 23 (1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210557

Salvi, C., & Bowden, E. M. (2016). Looking for creativity: Where do we look when we look for new ideas? Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161

Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S. L., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22 (6), 1814–1819. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0845-0

Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Bricolo, E., Perugini, M., & Beeman, M. (2016). Validation of Italian rebus puzzles and compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, 48 (2), 664–685. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0597-9

Salvi, C., Simoncini, C., Grafman, J., & Beeman, M. (2020). Oculometric signature of switch into awareness? Pupil size predicts sudden insight whereas microsaccades predict problem-solving via analysis. NeuroImage, 217 , 116933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116933

Sapkota, S., Bäckman, L., & Dixon, R. A. (2017). Executive function performance and change in aging is predicted by apolipoprotein E, intensified by catechol-O-methyltransferase and brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and moderated by age and lifestyle. Neurobiology of Aging, 52 , 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.12.022

Sharma, S., & Babu, N. (2017). Interplay between creativity, executive function and working memory in middle-aged and older adults. Creativity Research Journal, 29 (1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1263512

Shen, W., Hommel, B., Yuan, Y., Chang, L., & Zhang, W. (2018). Risk-taking and creativity: Convergent, but not divergent thinking is better in low-risk takers. Creativity Research Journal, 30 (2), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446852

Shen, W., Yuan, Y., Liu, C., Yi, B., & Dou, K. (2016). The development and validity of a Chinese version of the compound remote associates test. The American Journal of Psychology, 129 (3), 245. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.3.0245

Silvia, P. J., Martin, C., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2009). A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple method for assessing divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4 (2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.06.005

Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance Tests of creative thinking. Figural forms A and B: directions manual . Scholastic Testing Service.

Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114 (1), 104–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104

Viterbori, P., Traverso, L., & Usai, M. C. (2017). The role of executive function in arithmetic problem-solving processes: A study of third graders. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18 (5), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2017.1392307

Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV). San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson, 22 (498), 1.

Wecker, N. S., Kramer, J. H., Wisniewski, A., Delis, D. C., & Kaplan, E. (2000). Age effects on executive ability. Neuropsychology, 14 (3), 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.14.3.409

Wiley, J., & Jarosz, A. F. (2012). Working Memory Capacity, Attentional Focus, and Problem Solving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 (4), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412447622

Wollesen, B., Voelcker-Rehage, C., Regenbrecht, T., & Mattes, K. (2016). Influence of a visual–verbal Stroop test on standing and walking performance of older adults. Neuroscience, 318 , 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.01.031

World Medical Association. (2001). World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79 (4), 373–374.

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A problem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology, 1 (2), 198–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.198

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Costanza Pezzi Guarnati and Sabrina Rago for their important contribution to the data collection and dataset completion phases of this study.

Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

Alice Cancer, Paola Iannello & Alessandro Antonietti

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Carola Salvi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Cancer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Area Vasta Emilia-Nord and all participants provided written informed consent prior to testing.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cancer, A., Iannello, P., Salvi, C. et al. Executive functioning and divergent thinking predict creative problem-solving in young adults and elderlies. Psychological Research 87 , 388–396 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01678-8

Download citation

Received : 22 September 2021

Accepted : 14 March 2022

Published : 02 April 2022

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01678-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How Divergent Thinking in Business Can Make You More Competitive

By Marty Strong

Conformity, compliance, and obedience are the enemies of a healthy creative mindset. Social structures designed to hem us in, contain our enthusiasm, and restrict our intellectual musings are with us from the day we are born. So, it’s no wonder new leaders have a difficult time embracing innovation, creativity, and experimentation.

We were all children once, and as children, we could dream big colorful thoughts. If we agree that to be competitive in business demands imagination, drive, and insight, how can we reinvigorate the lost child in all of us, so we are truly competitive?

Relearning how to think like a child

Divergent thought isn’t about antisocial behavior, nor is it aimed at destroying the structure of controls that help regulate our worst collective and individual impulses. Instead, divergent thought in the context of leadership is the ability and the willingness to push back on what’s considered normal. To constructively identify a new method, a new path, or new horizonal objective, leaders need to learn how to comfortably sidestep their robotic application of the “rules” to effectively see the opportunities that exist all around us every day.

All industries, markets, and economies have operational rules. These rules are established through edicts (laws), the physics of business operations (capitalism and its methodology), traditions (our firm always does this), and common agreement among participants (ethics, morality, and communications norms).

New or aspiring business leaders can make their mark in significant ways by learning how to think differently. It doesn’t have to be adversarial, conflict driven, or rough. Bending, breaking, or making your own rules should be accomplished professionally and with an eye to creating and implementing an effective communications strategy to influence outcomes.

The term “thought leader” is loosely applied to people who are willing to express their insights on subjects related to their expertise. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are divining a new tomorrow or advocating a different way to do things. Most of the time they are simply willing to step up to the microphone and opine openly.

To become a divergent thinker requires more than technical expertise, it requires more than a willingness to express opinions. Divergent thinking requires the suspension of individual or collective (team) conformity long enough to see what possibilities lay just outside the established boundaries of business engagement.

How to think divergently in business

How can you as a rising star learn, or relearn, how to think like a child again, unencumbered by the inhibiting weight of “mature” thought processes? Here are five tips to help you reap the rewards of thinking differently:

1. Understand the order of things

Artists often reflect on the value of understanding the foundational aspects of light, texture, context, and color before diverging to create something wonderfully new or outrageous. Architects have the same basic approach to designing buildings; understanding physics, the properties of building materials, laws, regulations, and so on is a legitimate starting point before imagining the impossible.

As an aspiring leader, you too should learn the primary logic behind your organization’s standard operating principles before you open your mind to color outside the established lines. This approach keeps you grounded, and more importantly, it prepares you to win your influence campaign.

2. Establish a divergent mindset

To establish a divergent mindset, you must have:

• Intellectual humility. This is a state of mind which allows you to see new information and insights in a clear light. To achieve intellectual humility, you will need to set aside any fears and anxieties, as well as your ego and confidence from past successes.
• Intellectual curiosity. This is having rapt attention to odd sources of inputs. Intellectual curiosity is almost impossible to achieve unless you have intellectual humility.
• Intellectual creativity. Once you have gathered your data, which may include both strange and not-so-strange insights, it’s time to influence or to build your thought pattern toward a desired goal. The value of intellectual creativity is amplified by adherence to the first two stages of thought exploration.

Humility, curiosity, and creativity should together become a new mindset, and for them to become a habit, you must practice.

3. Practice, practice, practice

Turning a new way of thinking into a habit requires repetition. Make it an intellectual exercise where every day you pick an area of your life or your business that you think needs improvement. Follow the stages of establishing a divergent mindset and practice until you become proficient and comfortable.

Start with humility, and then follow it with curiosity, where you search for new insights. Don’t shortcut the curiosity stage. If done right, you will be forced to seek ideas and information outside your normal groupthink relationships (friends, family, coworkers). Ask strangers for their opinions; read, so you can learn from sources outside your comfort zone. Finally, when you're ready, apply what you’ve learned to the change you think is warranted and start creating a solution.

4. Pick your battles

Divergent thought is a catalyst that drives innovative and inventive outcomes. While your practice sessions will establish your habits, they won’t necessarily prepare those around you for your divergent ideas. If your divergent solution is going to impact organizational normalcy in a big way, you’ll need to make allies.

Convince, influence, communicate, and sell your vision. If you've thought it out and presented it well, you will gain support, even before pitching it to the people in power who can say yes. Make sure your communication and presentation skills are professional, and look for any weaknesses in your argument.

5. Never, ever quit

The Navy SEALs screen and select candidates based on intellectual factors, such as high emotional IQ, high creativity, and high psychological resiliency. All these traits boil down to a simple mantra: Never quit! In problem solving, there are always options, but quitting is never one of those options.

Applied divergent thinking is arduous. If presented professionally and constructively the blowback will be minimized but not eliminated. Tension and friction are a part of business, and every great new idea will attract naysayers and intellectual adversaries. You need to be prepared to take the hits, roll with the punches, and stay on your feet to finish the fight. As they say in the SEALs, “You have to stay in it, to win it.” Never quit thinking divergently.

Encourage divergent thinking

Young minds, young leaders, are always ready to help organizations. They want to improve the situations they experience, but are often unable to convert their passion into a constructive format that will contribute to change management success.

Adopting divergent thinking as a habitual mindset, combined with superior presentation and communications skills, will prepare any young mind to positively influence their organization. Creatively guiding your organization to a brighter future is not only rewarding, it also sets you up for incredible success in the years ahead.

Be different, embrace divergent thinking!

About the Author

Post by: Marty Strong

Marty Strong is a retired Navy SEAL, CEO, speaker, and the author of Be Visionary: Strategic Leadership in the Age of Optimization .

Website: www.martystrongbenimble.com

Connect with me on LinkedIn .

Into all problem-solving, a little dissent must fall

Events of the past several years have reiterated for executives the importance of collaboration and of welcoming diverse perspectives when trying to solve complicated workplace problems. Companies weren’t fully prepared for the onset of a global pandemic, for instance, and all that it engendered—including supply chain snarls and the resulting Great Attrition  and shift to remote (and now hybrid) work, which required employers to fundamentally rethink their talent strategies . But in most cases leaders have been able to collaborate their way through the uncertainty, engage in rigorous debate and analyses about the best steps to take, and work with employees, suppliers, partners, and other critical stakeholders to react and, ultimately, recover.

And It’s not just COVID-19: many organisations have had to rethink their business strategies and practices in the wake of environmental concerns, the war in Ukraine, and social movements sparked by racial injustice, sexual misconduct, and widespread economic inequity . Ours are fast-moving, complex times, rich not just in worrisome challenges but also in exciting potential—organisations that enable innovation will find ample opportunities to thrive. So now more than ever, decision makers can’t act alone; they must bring diverse perspectives to the table and ensure that those voices are fully heard . 1 Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle, Kevin Dolan, Vivian Hunt, and Sara Prince, “ Diversity wins: How inclusion matters ,” McKinsey, May 19, 2020.

But while many leaders say they welcome dissent, their reactions often change when they actually get some. They may feel defensive. They may question their own judgment. They may resent having to take time to revisit the decision-making process. These are natural responses, of course; employees’ loyalty and affirmation are more reassuring to leaders than robust challenges from the group. There is discomfort, too, for potential dissenters; it is much safer to keep your thoughts to yourself and conform  than to risk expulsion from the group. 2 Derived from this work on the evolutionary origins of social and political behavior: Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior , Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001.

What’s missing in many companies, in our experience, is the use of “contributory dissent” or the capabilities required to engage in healthy if divergent discussions about critical business problems. Contributory dissent allows individuals and groups to air their differences in a way that moves the discussion toward a positive outcome and doesn’t undermine leadership or group cohesion . 3 McKinsey itself has established obligation to dissent as one of its core values alongside those focused on client service and talent development. For more, see Bill Taylor, “True leaders believe dissent is an obligation,” Harvard Business Review , January 12, 2017.

McKinsey’s research and experience in the field point to several steps leaders can take to engage in healthy dissent and build a culture where constructive feedback is expected and where communication is forthright. These include modeling “open” behaviors, embedding psychological safety  and robust debate into decision-making processes, and equipping employees with the communication skills that will allow them to contribute dissenting opinions effectively.

In this article we outline the steps leaders can take to encourage healthy dissent, and the actions teams and individuals can take to share their voices and perspectives most effectively. It takes both sides, after all, to engage in robust debate, find the right solutions, and enable lasting, positive change.

How leaders can encourage contributory dissent

Senior leaders in an organisation play a central role in ensuring that individuals and teams see contributory dissent as a normal part of any discussion. They can signal the importance of dissent by taking a series of steps to institutionalise the practice within an organisation and empower employees to share their ideas freely and productively. Specifically, senior leaders should strive to inspire rather than direct employees to collaborate, explicitly demand dissent and, taking that one step further, actively engage with naysayers (see sidebar “How to encourage healthy dissent”). 4 Leaders can also draw on McKinsey’s “influence model” for changing mindsets and behaviors: role modeling, fostering understanding and conviction, reinforcing with formal mechanisms, and developing talent and skills. For more, see Tessa Basford and Bill Schaninger, “ The four building blocks of change ,” McKinsey Quarterly , April 11, 2016.

Inspire, don’t direct

How to encourage healthy dissent.

To encourage dissent through personal leadership:

Lead to inspire, not to direct:

• Empower the group to come up with ideas: “None of us knows the answer yet, but we can work it out together if we harness the best of everyone’s thinking.”

Foster dissent by actively seeking it:

• Explicitly seek dissent; give people permission and encouragement.
• Consider including dissent as a stated organisational value.
• Make provision for open discussion in the buildup to decisions.

Welcome open discussion when it comes:

• Listen to dissenters and naysayers, and thank them for their insights.
• Recognise this as a usefully unfiltered channel for understanding the organisation’s perceptions on issues.
• Seek to bring dissenters along the decision journey, so they become positive influencers later during implementation.
• Employ deliberate techniques such as red teaming and pre-mortems to widen the debate and mitigate groupthink.

As the inspirational speaker Simon Sinek put it, “The role of a leader is not to come up with all the great ideas. The role of a leader is to create an environment in which great ideas can happen.” 5 Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action , New York, NY: Portfolio, 2009. That is especially important for fostering an atmosphere of collaboration and contributory dissent. Rather than immediately jump into a discussion about solutions, one senior leader in an international organisation addressed his team’s anxiety in the wake of a crisis. “Let me guess,” he said, “you’re all feeling confused and uncertain about the way ahead. Terrific. I’m so glad we are of one mind and that we all understand our situation correctly! I’m sure that we can work it out together, but it’s going to require the best of everyone’s thinking. Let’s get started.” His authenticity and understated humor allowed him to connect with the group and inspired them to keep calm, carry on, and generate solutions that the leader alone couldn’t have come up with. Harvard professor Ron Heifetz describes this as creating a holding environment, a key element of adaptive leadership. 6 Ronald A. Heifetz and Mary Linksy, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading , Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002; Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linksy, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World , Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009.

Explicitly demand dissent

It’s not enough for leaders to give people permission to dissent; they must demand it of people. In many companies, individuals and teams may (understandably) default to collegiality, not realizing that there are ways to challenge ideas while still respecting colleagues’ roles and intellect. It’s on senior leaders, then, to help employees understand where the boundaries are. In World War 1, Australia’s General Sir John Monash was determined to develop better tactics to overcome the catastrophic impasse of trench warfare. He knew there were answers to be found from the experience of soldiers in the trenches, but he needed to loosen the military discipline of blind obedience: “I don’t care a damn for your loyal service when you think I am right; when I really want it most is when you think I am wrong.” Monash scheduled open battle planning sessions and pulled in advice from whoever offered it. In doing so, he built ownership of and confidence in his plans among all ranks. The resulting orchestration of tanks, artillery, aircraft, and troops led to rapid advances along the Somme Valley, and Monash garnered respect and appreciation from his troops, whose chances of survival and ultimate victory had increased markedly.

Actively engage with naysayers

Taking the demand imperative one step further, it’s beneficial for leaders to actively seek out the views of vocal naysayers , who can turn into influential champions just by being part of the conversation. They can immediately improve the nature of business debate and may boost the quality of the final decision, although engaging with naysayers can be tough. Some dissenting opinions can be ill-informed or uncomfortable to hear. The objective for senior leaders, then, is to put their discomfort aside and listen for signs of cognitive dissonance within an organisation. As an example, front-line employees may say things like “We’re not considered strategic thinkers,” or “The company doesn’t put people first,” while senior management may actually feel as though they have made strides in both of those areas. Still, leaders need to absorb such comments, treat them as useful data points, assess their validity, and engage in what may be a challenging discussion. They may want to use red teams  and premortems , in which teams at the outset anticipate all the ways a project could fail, to frame up dissenting opinions, mitigate groupthink, and find a positive resolution. These behaviours also serve to enhance organizational agility and resilience .

How leaders can establish psychological safety

Senior leaders need to establish a work environment in which it is safe to offer dissenting views. The McKinsey Health Institute’s work on employee well-being points to a strong correlation between leadership behaviors, collaborative culture, and resistance to mental health problems and burnout : only 15 percent of employees in environments with low inclusivity and low support for personal growth are highly engaged, compared with 38 percent in high-scoring environments. 7 “ Addressing employee burnout: Are you solving the right problem? ,” McKinsey, May 27, 2022. Leaders can build psychological safety (where team members feel they can take interpersonal risks and remain respected and accepted) and set the conditions for contributory dissent by rethinking how they engage in debate—both the dynamics and the choreography of it.

The dynamics of debate

The poet and playwright Oscar Wilde described a healthy debating culture as one in which people are “playing gracefully with ideas”— listening to, and even nourishing, opposing points of view in a measured and respectful way. 8 The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Volume 2: De Profundis, “Epistola: In Carcere et Vinculis,” Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press, 2005. Indeed, the best ideas can emerge at the intersection of cultures and opinions. In 15th century Florence, for instance, the Medici family attracted and funded creators from across the arts and sciences to establish an epicenter of innovative thinking that sparked the Renaissance. 9 Frans Johansson, The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts, and Culture , Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2004. Closer to this century, we have seen cross-discipline innovations like the application of biologists’ research on ant colonies to solve problems in telecommunications routing. And in the business world, extraordinary innovations have been achieved by open-minded leaders bringing together smart people and creating the conditions for playful exploration.

To achieve a state of “graceful play,” senior leaders must carefully manage group dynamics during debates. Rather than lead with their own opinions, for instance, which might immediately carry outsize weight in the group and stifle discussion, senior leaders can hold back and let others lead the discussion . They can lean in to show genuine curiosity or to explicitly recognise when a dissenting view has changed their thinking. But by letting other, more junior voices carry the agenda and work through ideas, however imperfect, senior leaders can establish a climate of psychological safety—and garner more respect from colleagues long term. 10 Amy C. Edmondson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth , Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

Leaders will also need to be aware of cultural differences that may crop up during debates. For example, many Australians speak candidly and are happy to address issues squarely. By contrast, the concept of “face” is so important in many Asian cultures that a more circumspect approach is taken. And the Pacific and Maori cultures emphasize displays of both strength and respect. 11 Erin Meyer, The Culture Map: Breaking through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business , Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs, 2014. These differences in debate dynamics really matter. They can be a great source of hybrid vigour, 12 “Heterosis, also called hybrid vigour: the increase in such characteristics as size, growth rate, fertility, and yield of a hybrid organism over those of its parents. The first-generation offspring generally show, in greater measure, the desired characteristics of both parents.” Encyclopedia Britannica , accessed September 19, 2022. if sensitively managed, or a source of conflict and disenfranchisement if not. To approach these differences in a positive way, senior leaders could undertake a mapping exercise that identifies the different styles of the cultures present, thereby providing validation and enabling pragmatic measures to integrate them.

Choreographing debate

Beyond just managing debate dynamics, business leaders must take a hand in choreographing the debate and, specifically, in helping to design collective-thinking processes  so people know how best to play their part. Business leaders may adopt a structured approach  to brainstorming, for instance, or plan strategic off-site schedules that combine deliberate thinking with “distracted” thinking—taking time to engage in a social activity, for instance—to take advantage of employees’ deep-thinking processes.

How deliberate choices by the leader can optimise a decision-making process

A leader must consciously assess each new situation and design the collective-thinking process accordingly, then articulate this so that people know how best to play their part.

In doing so, the leader should consider an array of questions, the answers to which will determine the context, for example:

• What does success look like?
• Will the organisation underwrite initial failures in the interests of agility and innovation?
• How broad and freethinking an analysis is required?
• What are the explicit expectations for contributory dissent?
• Are any topics and behaviours out of bounds?
• Who will lead the discussion, and how will comments be captured?
• Does urgency mean that it’s better to be directive?
• Who will be consulted?
• Which decisions can be delegated, and to whom?
• Whose support needs to be built?
• What parameters and boundaries exist?
• Are there interim decisions and communications required?
• What form should the deliverable outcomes take?
• When are the deliverables required?
• Direction setting on these parameters by the leader focuses the team, while also creating space for creativity and iterative learning.

To create a sustainable structure for debate, business leaders will need to consider questions relating to team structure and rules of engagement: What does success look like when it comes to contributory dissent? What topics and behaviors are out of bounds? Who will lead the discussion, and how will comments be captured? Who has the final say on decisions, or which decisions can be delegated, and to whom? (For a more comprehensive explanation, see sidebar “How deliberate choices by the leader can optimise a decision-making process.”)

Having these parameters in place can free up the team to think more creatively about the issue at hand. Establishing such protocols can also make it easier to raise dissenting opinions. At one company, people are asked to call out their underlying values or potential biases when expressing a dissenting view. During meetings of the promotion committee, for instance, a statement like “I think we are making the wrong decision” would be rephrased as “I am someone who values experience over collaboration, and this decision would risk losing too much institutional knowledge.”

How individuals and teams can engage and dissent

As we’ve shared, senior leaders can take steps to set conditions for robust discussion and problem-solving, but individuals and teams themselves must also have the right mindsets and skills for contributory dissent to work well (see sidebar “How teams and individuals can dissent effectively”). In particular, they must embrace the obligation to dissent, actively make space to analyse ideas that are different from their own, and then find ways to either iterate on others’ ideas or respectfully agree to disagree.

Embrace the obligation to dissent

How teams and individuals can dissent effectively.

For dissent to be effective, its delivery requires courage and tactical skills underpinned by sincere respect and grace. Speaking up with respect is the right thing to do, and the responsibility to do so exists, even if there is uncertainty. The following guidelines are useful in enabling effective dissent:

Prepare a welcome for dissenting views:

• Understand the context and motivations of others, appreciate their views, and syndicate your own.
• Stop and strategise before wading into the conversations, establish a solid platform for agreement, and explicitly seek permission to dissent.

Play the long game:

• Be open minded and iterative. Don’t expect to succeed on the first try.
• Listen to others for what their views might add rather than to defend your own.

Withhold assent if you need to, but do it carefully:

• Withholding assent is a legitimate option if done judiciously.
• Minimise offense to and loss of face for the decision maker.
• If principles or legality is at stake, document your dissent.

Individuals and teams need to exhibit a certain amount of humility and confidence in order to speak truth to power with respect; they must be sure for themselves that doing so is the right thing to do. To build this confidence, individuals and teams should remember that the very act of dissent can be valuable, even if the contribution itself isn’t 100 percent baked. Others can react or build on the dissenting view—which, in itself, can be a satisfying process for a dissenter. If the ultimate decision isn’t what they proposed, they still helped shape it by offering and testing a worthy possibility.

Make space to analyse different views

Individuals and teams may need time to determine their positions on an issue. During this period, it’s important to be (and seen to be) open-minded and respectful of others’ views. That means asking lots of questions, gathering information, assessing others’ motivations, and acknowledging their views before syndicating alternatives of your own. Much of this fact gathering can be done one-on-one, in a nonconfrontational way, in offline conversations rather than in a tension-filled meeting room. In these conversations, individuals could start by reaffirming a shared commitment to finding a solution to the issue at hand, their respect for the decision-making process and the group, and areas of broad agreement. They could also signal their possible intention to dissent and seek permission to do so rather than confronting people head-on. People will find it harder to refuse that permission, and will be less likely to get defensive, when approached with statements like “This is a great discussion, and I love the vision of where we are headed, but would it be OK for us to explore some alternatives for how to get there?”

Agree to iterate …

Individuals and teams that decide to offer dissenting views should agree to iterate on other solutions, rather than digging in. Their dissenting opinions should be cogent, persuasive, and open-minded—but dissenters shouldn’t expect to change hearts and minds on the first try. They should plant seeds gently and bide their time; they might even see their idea come back as someone else’s. The critical skill required here is active, open listening: dissenters should listen carefully for others’ additive insights and find ways to build on them. In their contributory dissent, individuals and teams can take a moment to summarize what others have said and then use statements like “Can I offer another take?” and then allow the momentum of the conversation to take over.

… or agree to disagree

But what happens if, after all the considered and tactful input, the dissenter still believes a decision is heading in the wrong direction? In our experience, withholding assent then becomes a legitimate option: people shouldn’t agree if they don’t agree. This is where all the careful, respectful groundwork the dissenter has done can pay dividends. In fact, a dissenting view gains even more power when an individual can say something like, “I still believe in my alternate solution, but I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this process, and I respect that you have the final say.” In this case, the dissenter is supporting the leader while flagging that the open debate hasn’t convinced them to change their initial view.

Of course, withholding assent should be a relatively rare action, taken only after an individual or team has shown that they can accommodate other views and have aligned with the consensus when they believe it’s right to do so. Think of US Supreme Court associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the consensus view on many decisions but who is especially celebrated for the positive changes that arose from her highly influential dissenting opinions on issues such as gender equity, human rights, and religious freedom.

Contributory dissent can help strengthen employee engagement, unlock hidden insights, and help organisations solve tough challenges. But putting it into practice takes courage and humility, and it won’t just happen by accident. Leaders need to be intentional about welcoming challenges to their plans and opinions, even when it’s uncomfortable to do so. They need to establish cultures and structures where respectful debate can occur and where individuals and teams feel free to bring innovative—and often better—alternative solutions to the table.

Ben Fletcher is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Sydney office, Chris Hartley is a partner in the Melbourne office, Rupe Hoskin is a senior expert in the Canberra office, and Dana Maor is a senior partner in the Tel Aviv office.

The authors wish to thank Jacqueline Brassey, Nikki Dines, Richard Fitzgerald, Sam Hemphill, Ayush Jain, Jemma King, and Martin Nimmo for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

How to demonstrate calm and optimism in a crisis

The four building blocks of change