PDF Summary:Time to Think, by Nancy Kline

Can you remember the last time you felt truly listened to? Or the last time you had a genuinely great idea? It’s possible those two moments were the same. In Time to Think, teacher and researcher Nancy Kline explains that what and how we think determines everything we do, and that the quality of our thinking is determined by how well we listen to each other. She describes a step-by-step process for taking on the role of the listener to help someone else engage in higher-quality thinking, resulting in great ideas that lead to powerful action.

In this guide, we’ll explain how high-quality thinking comes from high-quality listening, and we’ll explore Kline’s process for a productive thinking session. We’ll discuss key components of the thinking process and we’ll look at how the thinking session process can be adapted for a group setting. Finally, we’ll note some characteristics of a productive thinking environment. We’ll add research and ideas from other experts to expand on and supplement Kline’s advice.

(continued)...

Step 3: Identify Assumptions That Limit Thinking

The third step in the thinking session process is to identify the roadblocks that are currently preventing the thinker from achieving their goal. Kline explains that these roadblocks take the form of limiting assumptions, or beliefs that the thinker holds that curtail their ability to identify or implement the best course of action. There are three types of limiting assumptions:

• Facts. These are statements of reality. For example, if the thinker is a college student who wishes their class had more hands-on activities, one of their assumptions about why they can’t change that might be, “I am not the professor.” That’s an objective, true statement.
• Conjectures. These are assumptions of things that might happen. For example, if the thinker is a stay-at-home parent who wants to rejoin the workforce but is worried about missing out on time with their family, their conjecture-based limiting assumption could be, “My family will resent me for not being around as much.”
• Core assumptions. These are fundamental beliefs that we’re often unaware of but that impact the way we think about the world. For example, if the thinker is having trouble talking to their partner about difficulties in their relationship, their bedrock assumption might be, “My needs are less important than keeping the peace in the relationship.”

Limiting Assumptions, Cognitive Biases, and Untrue Facts

Limiting assumptions can relate to or arise from cognitive biases. Like core assumptions, these are underlying beliefs we hold about the world that can distort our thinking. Biases provide shortcuts for our thinking so we don’t have to spend as much time or energy on making a decision, but because they’re often inaccurate, they can lead to highly flawed thinking in the form of assumptions and conjectures.

Using the examples above, the stay-at-home parent’s conjecture that their family will resent them for not being around as much might arise from the availability heuristic bias, which is the tendency to over-rely on specific examples that quickly come to mind rather than considering all pertinent information or possible alternatives. Thus someone might rely on the specific, easily accessible example of another parent who went back to work and whose family resented them.

Some people might have implicit bias that leads to stereotyping. An example of such a biased belief might be, “Women should stay at home to take care of the family.” The thinker who assumes that their needs are less important than keeping the peace in their relationship may be operating from the status quo bias, which leads them to think that any change in their current relationship dynamic will result in conflict.

Additionally, while facts are ostensibly universal and undeniable, we’re often taught “facts” that aren’t actually true, and certain types of facts (particularly scientific facts) can ultimately be proven untrue even if they’ve been held as fact for decades or centuries. Also, as Darrell Huff explains in How to Lie With Statistics, facts can be manipulated or presented in a way that leads others to make inaccurate judgments. Thus, while you may be making an assumption that appears to be a fact, you should still examine it to make sure it’s truly reflective of reality.

To identify the thinker’s main limiting assumption, take the goal they expressed in Step 2 and ask them what they’re assuming that prevents them from achieving this goal. Once they pin down their assumption, memorize it word for word.

Again, your job as the listener is not to identify the assumption for the thinker, but to provide the setting for them to uncover it themselves, explains Kline. You may feel like you know what their limiting assumption is, and that therefore you know what the solution to their problem is. However, if you misidentify their assumption, there’s a high likelihood that you’ll offer them a solution that clashes with their actual limiting assumption, making your solution seem useless and discouraging.

(Shortform note: Some people note that when you try to identify the thinker’s assumptions and solutions for them, you’re making your own limiting assumption that you understand their perspective as well as or better than they do—which is impossible, because you’re not them. Such an assumption will hamper your communication with the thinker and make them feel misunderstood and alone. Remember that they’re a unique person with different thoughts, beliefs, and experiences than you, and don’t try to impose your own thinking on theirs.)

Once the thinker has identified their goal and their main limiting assumption, you can move on to Step 4.

Step 4: Ask a Liberating Question… and Then Keep Asking

The fourth step in the thinking session process is to ask the thinker a liberating question that challenges their limiting assumption. According to Kline, this is a very specific question that’s based on the statements they’ve made about their goal and assumption (which is why it’s so important to memorize those). This question replaces the thinker’s limiting assumption with an assumption that frees their thinking, and as with the other aspects of the thinking process, it needs to be identified by the thinker.

To help the thinker identify their liberating assumption, ask them what the converse of their limiting assumption is. Do not try to identify this for them. Again, the thinker chooses their specific words for a reason, because those words are more meaningful to them than any other phrasing would be. Always use the thinker’s words rather than your own.

For example, if the thinker wants to pursue a career change but they’re afraid to try, and their limiting assumption is “It’s not okay to fail,” your first thought might be that the liberating assumption would be “It’s okay to fail.” But if you ask the thinker what the converse of “It’s not okay to fail” is, they might instead say “Failing helps you grow.” So then, using their words, incorporate that converse assumption directly into your liberating question: “If you knew that failing helps you grow, how would you go about changing your career?”

(Shortform note: Kline’s process of asking liberating questions is a type of coaching, or a way of guiding and supporting members of an organization to help them develop already-existing skills. This is distinct from a managerial approach, which is more appropriate when members of an organization are gaining brand new skills or tackling a role or task they’ve never encountered before. Employees in this position might not have the knowledge or skills needed to identify limiting assumptions and form liberating questions, so they would need more direct guidance. However, if your employees already have a strong foundation for what you’re asking them to do, a coaching approach could elevate their understanding and performance.)

Note that simply saying “That’s not true” won’t dispel a limiting assumption. To you as an outsider, the core assumption “My spouse might leave me if I am honest with them” may seem absurd, but to the thinker it’s a very real threat. It’s important that you take it seriously and not dismiss their feelings.

(Shortform note: Contradicting a person’s limiting assumption not only dismisses their feelings: It can also be redundant, as the thinker may already know that their assumption isn’t true but still believe it. Research shows that people often hold beliefs they know to be irrational, and that the cognitive process of identifying a thought as irrational is separate from the cognitive process of correcting that thought. Thus, pointing out that a thought is irrational is likely to be unproductive because it targets the wrong cognitive process.)

Once you’ve identified the assumption, work with the thinker to create a liberating question. Use the following formula: “If you knew,” plus [the liberating assumption] (which we’ll discuss shortly), plus “how would you [go about reaching your goal]?” Then ask the thinker the question and listen to their response, says Kline. As with Step 1, you should pay close attention and not interrupt, even when the thinker is quiet for a long time. After they answer the question, ask it again. Allow them to answer, and then ask yet again. While the question remains the same, the thinker will continue to generate new ideas on each occasion. Continue to ask the question until the thinker is certain they’ve answered it fully. When they’re out of ideas, you can move on to Step 5.

(Shortform note: While repeating a question can elicit new ideas, it may also make the responder feel like there’s a certain “right” answer you’re trying to get from them, a phenomenon known as “suggestive questioning.” This is another reason it’s vital to use the thinker’s own words in the question and to avoid adding your input as they talk.)

Step 5: Write Down the Liberating Question

The fifth step of the thinking session process is simple: Have the thinker write down the liberating question they’ve identified, verbatim. You might find that they struggle to remember it precisely, so make sure you help them get it exactly right. Even though you’ve asked them the question several times already, it’s easy to forget once they leave the session, so they need to write it down so they can refer back to it as they continue working on their issue.

(Shortform note: Writing down the question is useful to the thinker not only because they can refer back to it later, but also because the process of writing down your thoughts helps clarify and concretize them, helps you think about them on a higher level, and makes it easier to take action on them.)

Step 6: Appreciate Each Other

The sixth step in the thinking session process is to express appreciation so that both the thinker and the listener leave the session feeling positive about themselves and what happened. This appreciation shouldn’t focus on what you talked about in the session—meaning, the listener shouldn’t say “You did a great job generating ideas”—but should instead be a statement about what you respect about the other person, such as “I admire your teamwork skills” or “I appreciate your attention to detail.” Then when you receive appreciation from the thinker, don’t resist or argue with it. Simply say “Thank you.”

If you do this, at the end of the session, the thinker will leave feeling empowered about their problem and with many new ideas and possible solutions, and the listener will feel satisfied and encouraged about the work they did (and they’re also likely to have learned a lot along the way).

(Shortform note: Showing appreciation can be difficult, particularly in the workplace, because most of us do it so rarely that we haven’t built up the skills to do it well. However, research shows that it improves the mood of the person receiving the appreciation, as well as having physical and mental health benefits for the person giving the appreciation. Expressing appreciation for others also helps build trust, rapport, and a good reputation.)

Thinking in Larger Groups

As individuals, our thinking determines the majority of our actions. However, many of the circumstances of our lives are determined by the decisions of groups of people, like our corporate leaders determining our job responsibilities or our government representatives determining our rights with little to no input from us. To elicit the best problem-solving processes, it’s essential that these groups engage in the highest-quality thinking possible. The above process is designed for a one-on-one thinking session, but it can also be adapted for group settings like work meetings, family conferences, or classroom discussions.

Thinking Sessions in Remote Settings

During the Covid-19 pandemic, many organizations began holding group meetings remotely via video conferencing applications like Zoom. Remote meetings have a different dynamic than in-person meetings because it takes more concentration to focus on video meetings and it’s more difficult to pay attention to body language and other nonverbal cues, among other things. This takes a toll on meeting participants and their engagement, a phenomenon that experts call Zoom fatigue. It can have a particularly limiting impact on problem-solving processes like Kline’s thinking session because of the high level of engagement and energy that these require.

If you participate in or run virtual meetings, be aware of how the remote setting impacts your meetings and consider scheduling shorter, more flexible meetings with plenty of breaks to prevent fatigue.

In group situations, Kline emphasizes that you must highlight the positive before addressing the negative, or the thing that needs to be improved (if improvement is the goal of the session). This means showing a lot of appreciation for each other and discussing what’s going well for everyone both at the beginning of the meeting and at the end. She says you should strive for a five-to-one appreciation-to-criticism ratio.

(Shortform note: Research shows the importance of appreciation in group settings: The greatest factor in employee engagement is feeling that employers care about their wellbeing and success. Beginning a meeting with appreciation and maintaining it consistently establishes these positive effects early and helps everyone feel more valued and comfortable.)

Taking Turns

The group setting means more turn-taking. Kline stresses that everyone must have a chance to share whatever they’re thinking, without interruption or contradiction. For this reason, group thinking sessions work best in smaller groups of around 12 or less.

(Shortform note: The average workplace meeting has about 18 participants, which can make turn-taking difficult. Others suggest that meetings even smaller than those Kline recommends are ideal, with some recommending meetings with nine or fewer participants and others noting that virtual meetings are most efficient with four or fewer participants.)

Allow Everyone to Reflect by Splitting Into Smaller Groups

As in the one-on-one sessions, the goal of group sessions is to identify limiting assumptions and replace them with liberating ones. The group can regularly reflect on these as a whole, but you can also divide the participants into smaller groups or pairs to ponder the assumptions that might be limiting the group’s thinking and the questions that would liberate their thinking. These small-group discussions should be timed at about five minutes per person in the small group to maintain the flow of the meeting. After the small group discussion, go around the room and let each person share what they thought about.

(Shortform note: The smaller group discussion format can also be adapted for virtual meetings using breakout rooms, or you can allow participants to brainstorm silently about the group’s limiting assumptions and add their ideas to a shared document. Additionally, in the classroom, research shows that the small group discussion is a more effective (and more popular) teaching method than the lecture, particularly when students come to the discussion well prepared. Using this knowledge, you might consider asking your meeting participants to work on identifying some limiting assumptions in advance so they can come ready to discuss them with their peers.)

Characteristics of a Thinking Environment

Attention, limiting assumptions, and liberating questions are all aspects of the thinking environment that are directly incorporated into the thinking session process. However, other characteristics also impact how conducive a space is to good thinking.

Diversity and Equality

Good thinking occurs best in a setting that’s reflective of reality, explains Kline, and diversity is reflective of reality. The world doesn’t consist of just one type of person, so your thinking space should be filled with different kinds of people. Additionally, everyone should be on equal footing, with no one considered superior to anyone else—even if some people are higher up in the organization’s hierarchy. While people may have different responsibilities, everyone can be a brilliant thinker, and everyone should be given an equal opportunity to employ their brilliance.

How Diversity and Equality Impact Organizations

Some people object to the idea of deliberately creating diverse groups and organizations, suggesting that such groups don’t perform as well as groups built solely with achievement in mind. However, research shows that teams perform better and engage in higher levels of thinking when they consist of participants with a variety of backgrounds and perspectives.

To foster a greater sense of equality in meetings, experts recommend engaging all members of the group as much as possible with hands-on, collaborative activities, changing the person who leads the meeting on a rotating basis so everyone gets a chance, and soliciting and implementing feedback from all members about how to improve future meetings.

Relaxed Atmosphere

According to Kline, thinking spaces should have a relaxed, unhurried atmosphere that communicates to thinkers that they can take their time to do their best thinking. Many business executives believe that conveying urgency gets better results from their employees or group members, and some groups even fabricate a sense of urgency deliberately to get these results. But this only leads to greater stress and less effective thinking.

(Shortform note: Some experts suggest that a lack of urgency in the workplace results in complacency and reduced productivity, and that urgency helps with long-term planning and problem solving, as well as improving an organization’s reputation. However, others argue that a perpetual sense of urgency reduces innovation and makes employees fearful, while also undermining employee trust in managers. This suggests that in workplace-based thinking sessions, while everyone should be given plenty of time to think and share, it may be best to impose a time limit of some kind on the session.)

Cooperation, Not Competition

Finally, your thinking environment needs to be one that encourages cooperation over competition. Kline explains that our society tends to exalt competition as the key to progress. However, in reality, competition doesn’t guarantee that anything we do or create will actually be good: It only means our creation will be better than something else. Competition obstructs thinking because it drives us not to do well, but just to do better than others. And by limiting our thinking to what others are already thinking, Kline says, we close ourselves off to a wide range of possibilities.

(Shortform note: Research suggests that competition can sometimes be beneficial to creativity and innovation, and that whether it’s harmful or helpful depends on how it affects employees emotionally. As with urgency, fear-based competition is harmful and can increase the likelihood of unethical behavior, while competition that’s driven by a feeling of excitement enhances people’s work. For thinking sessions, encourage group members to think about the positive outcomes of what they’re working toward, and refrain from punishing thinking you don’t feel is “good enough.”)