The logical, deductive approach to problem solving that we are all taught is not always the best for trying to create breakthrough ideas. In fact it can be positively counter-productive. You often need to be "illogical," non-linear, and put the cart before the horse (that is, have the idea before you know why it's valuable) to help get things rolling.
One of my favorite quotes is from fabled IBM engineer Howard Aiken:
"Don't worry about other people stealing your ideas. If you're ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
Whenever I show this in a presentation it always elicits a wry smile, as we've all seen this happen. It's easy to understand why - in their nascent stages, breakthrough ideas are rough, full of holes, easy to find fault with. The more radical an idea and the more it challenges conventional thinking, the harder it can be to see the value in it at first. Sometimes even the person who came up with the idea can't say exactly why the idea seems compelling, so they fumble around for explanations and try to interest others.
But this pattern of having the idea before you understand why it's great and before you can rationalize it logically is one of the most powerful tools in an innovator's kit. We just have to give ourselves permission to use it.
Our educations tend to emphasize a linear path to having new ideas: research, analyze, deduce, solve. Unfortunately, creativity is usually much messier than this simple model. The subconscious is a powerful tool for generating unexpected ideas - ideas which at first can be hard to explain. We have probably all had the "lightning bolt" experience of being distracted and relaxed, and having an idea or a solution come out of the blue. I commute by train to work, and I often find that my best ideas come while traveling home from work and reading a book or listening to music. That's the subconscious helping along the creative process, working away in the background without feeling constrained by the same assumptions as your conscious mind.
It is one thing to have the idea, quite another to understand its possibilities and implications. Some lightning bolt inspirations are indeed junk, but some of them really strike at something valuable. It's just not always clear what that value is.
Solution Comes Before Understanding
This is where post-rationalization comes in. Post-rationalization is simply working out if and why something is valuable after you've already come up with the solution. It's a much-maligned approach, as it can be an excuse for laziness or sloppy technique. For example, a research study can be skewed to confirm a pre-existing hypothesis, cherry-picking the data to make it fit a desired outcome. When we read a horoscope, we rationalize its banal description to make it fit our current life (and ignore the parts of the reading that don't fit.) This is the dark side of post-rationalization. And logic-minded people tend to look down on it, as it puts the cart (solution) before the horse (evidence).
But, don't let that deter you from being open to the benefits of post-rationalization!
At frog we use workshops (called frogThinks) with clients a lot, which involve various activities to stimulate non-linear thinking, and to provoke breakthrough thinking on solutions. Sometimes people get hung up in the workshops because they can't trace a linear process from how they got from one of the stimuli or provocations to the resulting idea. You know what? That's OK. It doesn't matter where the idea comes from, the point is to have the idea. Once the idea is out in the wild, you can start to work on and evaluate it.
If it Worked for Einstein...
Post-rationalization is not as alien as it may appear at first. It's like a looser version of the scientific method, which sets out to test hypotheses through iterative experimentation. You have some data, you develop a hypothesis which may or may not conform exactly to the data, then you test to see if the hypothesis holds up or not. If not, you either modify the hypothesis, or if you believe strongly enough in the hypothesis, you see if there's some other data to help explain it. This is how Einstein arrived at E=MC². He believed strongly in the counter-intuitive idea that energy and mass were interchangeable, so strongly that he spent a decade trying to find the mathematical rationale for it, with E=MC² being the result. Science is replete with anecdotes about intuition leading to empirical breakthroughs.
Post-rationalization is not a replacement for the deduction-based approach - they are complementary. But if you're feeling stuck, or finding that relying on deduction is leading only to incremental, me-too, familiar ideas, post-rationalization may be just the ticket for helping find that next breakthrough. If you're idea really is good, you'll find the rationale to justify it to others.
AVP of Marketing Strategy Adam Richardson is the author of Innovation X: Why a Company’s Toughest Problems are its Greatest Advantage. His book is the manual for leaders looking for clarity about the emerging challenges facing their businesses. You can follow Adam on Twitter @richardsona.