Point Lookout: a free weekly publication of Chaco Canyon Consulting
Volume 17, Issue 16;   April 19, 2017: Naming Ideas

Naming Ideas


Participants in group discussions sometimes reference each other's contributions using the contributor's name. This risks offending the contributor or others who believe the idea is theirs. Naming ideas is less risky.
President Obama meets with leaders about job creation, December 3, 2009

President Obama attends a breakout session, "Creating Jobs Through the Rebuilding of America's Infrastructure," during the White House Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, December 3, 2009. Official photo by Pete Souza.

When groups engage in joint problem solving, and members make contributions, other members sometimes identify the contribution with the contributor. We speak of (or think of) Chet's idea, or Jen's approach. Often we're unaware of doing it, and we intend no malice. It's a convenience. For many, it's actually a way of acknowledging the contributor, to confer credit. And it usually works well when used that way.

And then there are the other times.

As the discussion turns to the idea's disadvantages, identifying contribution with contributor presents risks. The contributor might experience criticism of the idea as personal criticism, even if the critique isn't offered in that spirit.

In some cases, though, the critique might have been intended to be personal. The criticizer might be using the problem solving exercise as cover for a personal attack. The situation can become ambiguous, complicated, and hostile, jeopardizing possibilities for a constructive outcome. That's one reason why identifying contribution with contributor is risky.

Misidentification is a second risk. We create most contribution-contributor identifications without discussion. Perhaps a facilitator does it, or the first person to use the phrase "Jen's idea," for example. The identification can stick whether or not it's welcome or correct. Others might feel offended if they have a sense of authorship of the contribution, but the idea is named for someone else. And rightly so, since most ideas that arise in group discussions have multiple authors.

Confusion is a third risk. If someone authors multiple contributions, should we number them? Jen's first idea, Jen's second idea, and so on? Usually, we give them names, but we still use the author's name too: Jen's Rotation idea, Jen's FIFO idea, or some such. It's almost as if we want to stay on the risky path.

Formal brainstorming processes deal with these risks by banning criticism altogether. Some brainstorming session designs also ban tagging ideas with their contributors' names. But in other group processes, how can we mitigate identification risk? Here are two suggestions.

Name the idea impersonally
As a contributor, We speak of (or think of)
Chet's idea, or Jen's approach.
Often we're unaware of doing it,
and we intend no malice.
as the first to reference a contribution, or as facilitator, when referring to a previously mentioned idea, use an impersonal name, and ask the group for approval. For example, "I have a thought about the Rotation idea, where we fill the role of scribe by everyone taking a turn from week to week. Is calling it Rotation OK?"
As scribe, record the idea with an impersonal name
When the Scribe, or the Facilitator acting as Scribe, records the contribution on a real or virtual flip chart, the Scribe can also create an impersonal name and check with the group for approval. For example, "Jen, have I captured that idea? And, everyone, is Rotation a good name for it?"

If you offer these suggestions at your next group discussion, best offer an impersonal name for them too. Maybe the Naming Ideas Idea. Um, maybe not. Go to top Top  Next issue: Why Dogs Make the Best Teammates  Next Issue

101 Tips for Effective MeetingsDo you spendyour days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenvMynaWrUOhqJLnhHner@ChachqrJMKcsDoGvXOzHoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Power poles after Hurricane Rita, 2005Email Ethics
Ethics is the system of right and wrong that forms the foundation of civil society. Yet, when a new technology arrives, explicitly extending the ethical code seems necessary — no matter how civil the society. And so it is with email.
The Cone NebulaShining Some Light on "Going Dark"
If you're a project manager, and a team member "goes dark" — disappears or refuses to report how things are going — project risks escalate dramatically. Getting current status becomes a top priority problem. What can you do?
A can of sardines — what many of us feel like on board a modern airlinerChanging the Subject: I
Whether in small group discussions, large meetings, or chats between friends, changing the subject of the conversation can be constructive, mischievous, frustrating, creative, tension relieving, necessary, devious, or outright malicious. What techniques do we use to change the subject, and how can we cope with them?
Rabin and Arafat shake handsCommunication Templates: I
Some communication patterns are so widely used that nearly everyone in a given cultural group knows them. These templates demand certain prescribed responses, and societal norms enforce them. In themselves, they're harmless, but there are risks.
An actual red herringSome Truths About Lies: IV
Extended interviews provide multiple opportunities for detecting lies by people intent on deception. Here's Part IV of our little collection of lie detection techniques.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Meetings for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

A Mustang GT illegally occupying two parking spaces at Vaughan Mills Mall, OntarioComing March 21: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: III
People who behave narcissistically tend to regard themselves as special. They systematically place their own interests and welfare ahead of anyone or anything else. In this part of the series we consider how this claimed specialness affects the organization and its people. Available here and by RSS on March 21.
Santa Claus arrives at 57th and Broadway in New York in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day ParadeAnd on March 28: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: IV
Narcissistic behavior at work is more damaging than rudeness or egotism. It leads to faulty decisions that compromise organizational missions. In this part of the series we examine the effects of constant demands for attention and admiration. Available here and by RSS on March 28.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuwkteIpWjThpQcdxner@ChacejjuoVXVNIOkFvOxoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

Reprinting this article

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many The Power Affect: How We Express Personal Powerpeople who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

Follow Rick

Send email or subscribe to one of my newsletters Follow me at LinkedIn Follow me at Twitter, or share a tweet Follow me at Google+ or share a post Subscribe to RSS feeds Subscribe to RSS feeds
The message of Point Lookout is unique. Help get the message out. Please donate to help keep Point Lookout available for free to everyone.
Technical Debt for Policymakers BlogMy blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your organization!
Go For It: Sometimes It's Easier If You RunBad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? Learn what we can do when we love the work but not the job.
303 Tips for Virtual and Global TeamsLearn how to make your virtual global team sing.
101 Tips for Managing ChangeAre you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or maybe even outright revolt?
101 Tips for Effective MeetingsLearn how to make meetings more productive — and more rare.
Exchange your "personal trade secrets" — the tips, tricks and techniques that make you an ace — with other aces, anonymously. Visit the Library of Personal Trade Secrets.