Six Thinking Hats

When wearing the blue hat, people do not think about the subject but instead about the thinking needed to explore the subject. De Bono compares the blue hat to a computer program that tells the machine what to do from moment to moment. The blue hat is the “programming hat for human thinking” (147). It structures a thinking session formally and can also be used to give moment-to-moment instructions, for instance by saying a group should begin looking for alternatives.

De Bono revisits his metaphor of map-making for the parallel thinking process, in which the “terrain” is first explored, then routes are observed, and finally a route is chosen. Too often, thinking sessions begin with conclusions based on past experience and then look for support for the conclusions. The same thing happens in politics and in the courtroom, where each side begins with an established position.

The blue hat provides structure and keeps the thinking session from becoming haphazard. It doesn’t just organize the use of the other hats but can organize other aspects of thinking, such as assessing priorities or listing constraints.

Providing focus is a key role of blue hat thinking. The focus may be broad or narrow, but either way, it should be spelled out in a concrete fashion. Blue hat thinking can also bring the attention of a group back to the focus if it drifts away.

Asking a question is the easiest way to focus thinking. A facilitator might ask an exploratory “fishing” question, without knowing what will ensue. Alternatively, the facilitator can ask a “shooting” question, checking out a point that has a yes or no answer.

A problem is “really only a special type of question: how do we achieve this?” (154). This is why defining the problem is so important. A range of definitions can be provided.

The facilitator must set specific thinking tasks, such as finding an objective or gaining exploratory ideas. If the task can’t be carried out, the failure must be noted.

De Bono says that most of the time, six hat thinking will consist of “occasional interventions” done in the course of a normal discussion, which proceeds in argument style. The facilitator can occasionally ask for a specific type of thinking. However, the process can also be done by laying down a set sequence of steps.

This sequence should be customized to fit the situation. For instance, if the subject is one that evokes strong feelings, it would make sense to begin with red hat thinking. The next step might be white hat thinking to gather information; the facilitator can return to the white hat step as needed. Next would come yellow hat thinking to bring up existing proposals and suggestions; then an interplay between blue and yellow hat thinking to ask questions, pinpoint problem areas, and define areas that require new concepts.

Green hat thinking would then try to generate new concepts. This could be done by individuals or as a group. Under the blue hat, the facilitator would organize the available proposals, possibly putting them into different categories such as those that need more development. A mix of white, yellow, and green hat thinking would follow to develop each proposal.

Pure yellow hat thinking would give a positive assessment to each viable alternative, while black hat thinking would point out which ones are unusable. Yellow hat and green hat thinking would follow to overcome the objections to the ideas.

Another round of black hat thinking would point out risks and dangers. A blue hat session would put together an overview of what has been achieved and organize the strategy to be followed. Red hat thinking would follow to let thinkers express their feelings about the choices. Another round of yellow and black hat thinking would look for the alternative that best fits the needs. A final blue hat session would set out the strategy for implementing the chosen plan.

The blue hat thinker can make comments about what they observe, for instance pointing out that a particular discussion is premature. This thinker can also give an overview or summary about what has taken place up to a certain point.

While de Bono discusses this role as if it is mainly taken by the facilitator, blue hat tasks can also be carried out by all members of the group. For instance, the facilitator might ask the group to individually summarize, then share their thoughts.

The blue hat role can be assigned to someone other than the chair or facilitator of a meeting. In addition, anyone can exercise a blue hat function. It may be necessary, for example, to keep a discussion from drifting away from its central focus or departing from the hat color strategy that is in use.

In practice, there is a lot of overlap between the various hats, and it is not practical to keep switching hats with every new remark. The main point is that once a thinking mode has been set, the thinkers should make a conscious effort to think that way.

The blue hat thinker may raise the point that opposing beliefs might both be correct under certain circumstances. The task would then be to see which set of circumstances matches the reality of the situation.

De Bono compares a blue hat thinker to an orchestra conductor: The thinker calls for the use of the other hats. This thinking is in charge of summaries, overviews, and conclusions. This can be done as a running feature or at the end of a session.

Blue hat thinking can be used for occasional interjections or in a step-by-step sequence. The role may be assigned to one person, but anyone can offer blue hat comments.

A final decision can be difficult to make. The final blue hat can define a new thinking focus, the task for a new thinking session. It can also make a red hat decision based on emotion.

De Bono reiterates that the biggest enemy of thinking is complexity. The Six Thinking Hats concept has two main purposes. It simplifies thinking by letting a thinker deal with one thing at a time. It also allows a switch in thinking that is “definite without being offensive” (172) because it emulates a role-playing game.