DR Edward de Bono thinks about the way one should think, and is rightly known as the Father of Thinking on Thinking. Edward has been credited with producing thinking techniques that are simple, practical and powerful. A CD prepared by a group of South African professors as a tribute to him has acknowledged Edward as one of 250 men who have contributed the most in the entire history of mankind. He is also known among the top 20 visionaries in the world, Bill Gates being one of them.

Edward is ranked amongst the world's leading management gurus and thought leaders, in the same league as Bill Gates, Michael Porter, Tom Peters, Philip Kotler, Peter Drucker, Stephen Covey, Gary Hamel, and C.K. Pralahad. But even in this elite league, he is the first among equals, as the International Astronomical Union has named a minor planet after him: DE73 becoming edebono.

He is the originator of the term Lateral Thinking, which has an official entry in the Oxford English Dictionary. Peter Veberroth, who organized the Olympic Games in Los Angeles, and for the first time ever turned a profit, attributed his success to the use of De Bono's Lateral Thinking tools. So did John Bertrand, skipper of the successful Australian challenge for the America's Cup. There are four million references to Dr De Bono and his work on the Internet.

With 69 books to his credit that have been translated into 42 languages, Edward is on the Accenture list of the fifty most influential business thinkers in the world, and his methods are taught in thousands of schools around the world and are mandatory on the curriculum in many countries.

While Edward's instruction in thinking has been sought over the years by top multinationals around the world, he has also had some unusual clients, like, for instance, the Australian cricket team! He even facilitated thinking sessions for Noble Laureates in South Korea in the early 1990s.

The University of Pretoria and the University of Malta have both set up De Bono Institutes, with the former having made him the first 'Professor of Thinking' in the world. The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology recently awarded him 'Doctor of Design' degree. There is a De Bono Institute in Melbourne and the Edward de Bono Foundation UK/Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Edward is the world's leading authority on conceptual thinking as the driver of organizational innovation, strategic leadership, individual creativity, and problem-solving. Since 1970, his exclusive tools and methods have brought astonishing results to organizations large and small worldwide and to individuals from a wide range of cultures, educational backgrounds, occupations and age groups.

His Six Thinking Hats, Lateral Thinking T, and DATT (Direct Attention Thinking Tools) training courses are now being implemented in organizations of all sizes because of their simplicity and their power to change thinking behaviour, increase productivity, foster team-building and evoke profitable innovation.

Born in Malta, Edward was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, is an MD and PhD, and has held appointments at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, the University of London, and Harvard University.

In a recent interview with Dawn Magazine, Edward said he never knew he would touch the pinnacle of fame. "I was just interested in the subject. I kept working on the subject, and gradually people said it was making sense and it was time to pay more attention to thinking because judgment alone is not enough," he remarked in his characteristic forthright manner

Edward de Bono was invited to Pakistan by Chairman of the Higher Education Commission, Dr Atta-ur-Rahman, who is said to be interested in incorporating some of Edward's work in the national curriculum.

The following are excerpts from the interview:
 

[ ^ back to top ]

Q. Before we move on, why did you evade questions regarding Kashmir's resolution during your recent presentations in Pakistan?

A. There are many countries in the world that use my work in schools, and the children do much better. As a result, they control their lives. There are many drug addicts who have been rehabilitated through my work. In terms of my services for peace, I can't say this is what you should do in Kashmir. I am going to help if people would ask me. The methods I would suggest would make big difference. But if people are not interested, I can't impose anything.

Q. Fair enough. Moving on, how did you come up with the concept of Lateral Thinking, or LT, as you call it?

A. My background is that of medicine and psychology. In medicine, I have been dealing with more complicated systems - kidneys, respiration, circulation, brain, etc. From that, I developed the idea of self-organizing systems. I wrote a book in 1969, The Mechanism of Mind, which described how nerve networks form patterns. My book was read and hailed by the leading physicist of the world, the Nobel Laureate, Professor Marray Geo. We could put creativity on the basis of the behaviour of the systems, not just magic or inspirations. That was the basis for designing Lateral Thinking tools.

Q. Did you invent LT, or did you discover it?

A. Let's put it this way: I invented the concept of LT. This does not mean that, historically, there may not have been people who from time to time who may have thought on such lines, but they could not do it deliberately because they did not take it as a subject. So, I invented it. I give you an example. In mathematics, when you devise a new theory, are you inventing it or discovering it? The answer is, it is inventing! But it makes sense.

Q. From your examples of LT, it appears that only genius and intelligent people are capable of making use of LT. Is that so?

A. No. I am involved in teaching of thinking in general - LT is only one part of it all. And we teach thinking to four-year-olds in schools; top executives and so on.

And there are different aspects of thinking. I have taught thinking to Down Syndrome youngsters as well as Nobel Prize winners. No, it is not for geniuses! Thinking is something that everyone can do. The relationship between thinking and intelligence is like a relationship between a motorcar and the driver. You can have someone who has much money and buys an expensive car, but is a bad driver. You can have someone who doesn't have much money, buys a simpler car but is a better driver.

So, you could be very intelligent, but if your thinking is not good, the result is not very effective. You could be less intelligent, but a good thinker. Obviously, the ideal is that you are very intelligent and a very good thinker. It is not just intelligence.

Q. Some problems cannot be resolved through vertical thinking. Sometimes LT also fails to provide an answer. How can one move forward then?

A. The point is, both have their place. Traditional thinking is like 'front-wheel' of a motorcar. It is excellent, but is not enough. Vertical thinking - the logical thinking - is how well you climb the ladder. Perceptual thinking, or LT, is where you place the ladder! And being able to climb the ladder very well does not tell you the ladder is on the right place. And indeed there is a mathematical term by [Kurt] Gvdel, which says that from within a system, you can never logically prove the starting point. That is the very key because it does not matter how logical you are, the point you start from, the concepts and perceptions, are not themselves proved by the logic.

Q. Sometimes solutions are achieved through LT, but in the end it seems that they were basically the product of logical thinking. How a distinction could be drawn in such cases?

A. Once you have an approach or solution in hindsight, you cannot tell how you came to it. When you look backwards, it is always logical. Because if it wasn't logical, you won't accept it as being valuable. But to get there you have to use methods that are different from logic.

Q. Can LT solve all problems?

A. No! There are some problems where you may not be able to find the answer. There are some problems where you are better off with traditional analysis. There are problems where traditional analysis will not give you an answer; LT will give you an answer. Where traditional analysis gives you an answer, LT has the potential to give you a better answer.

Q. Do you think vertical thinking [VT] has become stagnant and failed to offer creativity?

A. The purpose of LT is specifically to generate new ideas. I would not call VT stagnant in a bad sense. VT is about continuity, sometimes about complacency. But VT works best when all the starting points are given, as in mathematics, and then you work it out. That is why I use the analogy of the front wheel of a car.

Q. How could one develop the skills required to think laterally?

A. First of all, you need motivation - you need to want to do it. You need to believe there is a possibility of doing it. And then, there are specific processes and techniques. The book of mine that describes these processes and techniques is Serious Creativity. For the first time in history, we could treat creativity as a 'thinking skill', not just as an 'inspiration'.

Q. What is creativity?

A. The word 'creative' is not really precise. For instance, artistic creativity means the ability to express yourself, having aesthetic judgment. There may not be much change. Some artists might be repeating the same style, but subjects may have changed. Creativity in general sense means producing something new that has value. To me, LT is the ability to change ideas to change the way of doing things. Artistic creators are not necessarily good at LT. The word 'creativity' is very vague. LT is very precise: the ability to produce new concepts, new ideas, new solutions.

Q. In contemporary terms, is the trend of 'suicide attacks' a result of LT?

A. Not at all. Suicide is explicitly forbidden in Quran. The suicide bombers say they have no other way of expressing ourselves than the act of suicide bombing. So, in that sense, it is the opposite of LT.

Q. Isn't it a creative kind of terrorism?

A. I don't think it is particularly creative. Maybe in individual cases where someone has used creativity to get into a situation, but not otherwise.

Q. How do you rate the thinking of neo-cons in the Bush administration?

A. I think their thinking is very conservative. They say, 'This is the situation. They are the bad guys. And we must be against the bad guys.' This is uncreative. What we need to do in thinking and the world politics is the ability to design ways to move forward. Judgment is not enough. There are different people, different groups, different fears, different ambitions, different needs; the task is how to design a way forward.

Q. In one of your books, you have written that western thinking is thoroughly fascist in its righteousness and certainty. What does it exactly mean?

A. That means that people believe that they have the truth. They are right and the other people should accept their views. In other words, it wants to impose its notional truth and righteousness on other people.

Q. Are you satisfied with the patterns of thinking of the big powers?

A. I think there is a need for more creative thinking. And one of the things I am working on is to set up a World Centre for New Thinking. The centre will be a platform and channel for new ideas and thought from any source. It will work to increase the ability to generate new ideas and to provide new options, because once an idea is thought, you can't un-think it. It is there. It is on the table. And that can take part in negotiations and other things. The existing bodies - UN and individual democracies - cannot produce new ideas because new ideas are not representatives! So, you aren't representing anything.
 

[ ^ back to top ]

Q. What needs to be done to promote creative thinking in the world?

A. There are two directions I am working on: one, the introduction of thinking as a subject in all schools. It is beginning to happen in many countries. Two, the ability to inject some new thinking, alternative thinking, and additional thinking into world's politics and conflicts, and so on.

Q. Are you satisfied with the current system of education?

A. I am back to the example of the front wheel of a motorcar. The present system is good, but it is not doing enough. We need to teach the youngsters how to think. In the US, there is a government programme for unemployed youngsters, The New Deal Programme. We found teaching them thinking for five hours in all increased the employment rate to 500 per cent. That shows a huge impact of teaching thinking. These youngsters had 10 years of education, but five hours of thinking made a big difference compared to the 10 years of education.

Q. Do you see any relation between thinking and Islam?

A. In the world at the moment, there is a perception that Islam is full of fundamentalists and terrorists. But if you read Quran and Hadith, Islam is more about thinking than any other religion. And the great Prophet Mohammad has been quoted as having said that one hour of thinking is worth more than 70 years of praying. He says the ink of a scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr. He says one learned man is greater than 100 worshippers. Very, very strong stuff! And there are 130 verses in Quran specifically about thinking. So, this version that Islam is contrary to thinking is not true.

Q. As an inventor of LT, do you also believe in luck?

A. Of course! But LT enables you to make better use of your luck.

Q. Do you have any competitor?

A. I don't think I have. But there are other people working in the area of creativity. But most of them are in the area of exaltation or description. I am working from the basis of how the brain works as a self-organizing information system and from that we can design specific tools. Just describing what creativity means to do is not very strong. It is very weak.

Q. In the absence of any competitor how do you improve your work?

A. I think within a field; there are always more things to do. Scientists don't work because they are in competition. They work to pursue matters and issues. They want to develop new things.

Q. Who has impressed you the most as a thinker?

A. That's difficult to say. I can't choose one person. As a philosopher, I would single out William James. He was the pragmatist. And he said that at the end of the day you can describe something anyway you like, but what is the practical value of that! So, he was very pragmatic and very operational.

Q. What is the difference between an intellectual and a thinker?

A. There should be no difference. But sometimes there is! A thinker is interested in the effect of your thinking - the practical processes by which you could produce results. Intellectuals are often interested in intellectual games - with certain starting concepts, with certain starting perceptions and you move these around and how you assemble in different ways. They may not have practical results out of it. The world of intellectuals has to be sure that there is employment for the intellectuals. Whereas, the thinkers are to make the world a better place.

Q. What is the difference between a leader and a thinker?

A. A leader can be a thinker as well. And a thinker may be a leader. A leader is someone who is able to take decisions; is able to sense what people are willing to accept; is able to plan forward and take people with him. A thinker does not necessarily have to take into account what other people are thinking. He has to think his own thoughts.

Q. Do dreams have any significance?

A. There are two views on this. One, that they are significant. The other, that they are not. Man is just playing around. But the dreams in terms of ambitions are different things.

Q. What is your one singular failure in life?

A. I don't think of any particular failure. Getting something done in a general way takes time. I would like to see the work I am doing in school happening more fast. But if it is not happening, it not a failure.

Q. What is your vision about success?

A. Each person designs success for himself. For businessmen, it is running an effective business. For some, it would be making money. Painters might be painting pictures with which they are pleased. Success is doing what you are set to do and achieving it.

Q. Do you consider yourself a successful man?

A. I consider myself in worldly terms a successful man. But in terms of how much more is to be done, I have still to go a long way.

Q. What type of people read your books?

A. They can be anyone! I find airline pilots very interested in my books. Your top military people read my books. In Australia, a fellow came to me and said he read my books, which, according to him, changed his thinking and won him a Nobel Prize! So there is a wide range. They could be simple people, could be academicians, people in business, military ...

Q. What has been most exciting to you among all the things you have seen done with your work?

A. One truly satisfying experience I had was at London's Heathrow Airport. I was in the traveller's lounge, returning at about five in the morning from a long trip, and they have this arrangement where you can take a shower there. There is a shower attendant who takes your name and cleans the showers and so on. And this shower attendant noticed my name and said, "de Bono - are you the gentleman who writes those books about thinking?" I said, "Yes," and he said, "Oh, I have read all of them!" Now that is satisfying. This is not a person who was reading them because of his profession or because he was directed to do so, the books just made sense to him. That is refreshing and very satisfying.

[ ^ back to top ]
 

On the other end of the spectrum, there's this experience I had with the US Navy. I was asked to meet 20 admirals in Newport, Rhodes Island, where they used my creative thinking methods to consider the possible effects of Y2K. We decided that not much would happen, and, as it turned out, not much did. But the top Navy leadership recognized the value of these methods enough to seek my assistance, and I was the only civilian and the only foreigner involved in the meeting.

Q. What was the biggest challenge of your life?

A. There wasn't really a challenge because things happen step by step, gradually. There has been no big challenge.

Q. Do you have any detractors?

A. There are people who obviously don't know my work. There are people who have it second-hand. There is none who has challenged me directly. Because when I am talking to people who are Nobel Prize winners, top mathematicians, physicists, etc., they say, "Yes, what you are talking makes perfect sense." And if someone says, "Well, I don't think it works", it is like saying the cheese does not exist. It does!

Q. How do you convince people?

A. I explain the process. They say, "Yes, I can understand the process. This makes sense." If people find difficulty in being convinced, it is their problem.

Q. What has been the secret of your success?

A. Being interested in the subject and by continuing to work at the subject.

Q. What in your view is your contribution to the world?

A. My contribution is that I have proved that thinking is a skill that can be taught and is being taught worldwide. That is a huge contribution. Then, I have provided the means for people to use creativity deliberately, something that many people are now doing. These are two huge contributions. There has been no contribution equal in the history of the world of thinking. That is a big jump. There is no person in the history since the Greeks who has made any specific contribution to the subject of thinking.

Q. Are you undermining the work of Aristotle and Socrates?

A. No. What I am saying is that they have a value just as a front wheel of a motorcar has, but that is not enough. It is too judgmental, too rigid. It does not have enough elements of creativity and design.

Q. You are a proponent of ideas and change, whereas public is averse to change. Why?

A. Because they are comfortable where they are. New things are a risk for them. They have their power through the existing game. So why should they want a change?

Q. Can a thinker make no mistake?

A. A thinker can make mistake in the sense that sometimes if the information he has is incorrect. Sometimes his perceptional information is incorrect. Sometimes the values he uses are inappropriate.

Q. What is your message to the world?

A. Nothing will make more difference than better thinking. The future of the world will depend directly on the quality of our thinking.

Q. What legacy would you like to leave behind?

A. At several levels: one, thinking is a skill that can be learnt by everyone whether you are a Down Syndrome child or a genius. And that it is possible to develop thinking. That creativity is something we can learn as a set of some mental processes. It is not a mystical talent. And we should pay far more attention to the process of thinking than we have for the last 2,000 years.

  (Mohammad Shehzad is Resident Editor at LEAD Pakistan).