When it comes to ideas for the best strategy, we need to take our shoes off.
If you’ve followed me for a while, you’ll know I’m a bit addicted to studying. I’m currently ‘walking the walk’ and working towards my own Senior Leader qualification. But the reason why I’m addicted is because when you embrace learning it can make a real difference to how you think and feel. And a spark of inspiration recently ignited a new concept I’ve been working on.
I call it “shoes off thinking”. Originally a term I came across in connection to psychological safety (Webb, 2022), where breaking down barriers led to more open conversations. That feeling we have when we’re “shoes off” just hits different. It conjures up a space where I feel less restricted. I’m more open to my surroundings. When I’m “shoes on” I’m ready for action, but if I’m “shoes off” I’m embracing a sense of freedom.
And that word is no mistake – it’s a “sense” of freedom. And senses play an important role in creative thinking for me. I’ve been a long-term advocate of Ideation walks where new sights, smells and sounds trigger new solutions. I believe a “sense” of being “shoes off” might pay similar dividends, especially in creative and strategic settings.
But there’s a catch. Despite being aware of all of this, and even despite actually enjoying the chance to think more holistically about opportunities, what happens? Even when I have time to ideate, I find myself quickly moving on to the steps needed to realise the solutions. I’m a former project manager, and I suspect I have a default switch that highlights the importance of a plan, a budget, resource mapping, timelines etc etc. And if I’m being honest, I would also say I’m more comfortable in this stage as I feel back in control.
But why is it important to spend time ideating? Well despite there being comfort in having a plan, it’s a false comfort. Opting for the wrong solution can see resources, both people and financial, become a wasted investment into projects that don’t truly meet the needs of individuals or businesses. Without time to really explore options, how do we know we’ve picked the right one? This is a huge issue for businesses with 85% of CEOs stating that they were “bad” at ideation and 87% agreeing that this came at significant costs to the company according to Wedell-Weddellsborg (2013) author of “Ideation as usual”.
And as humans we all default to what we know. It’s a process known as “cognitive fixation” – we become fixed in repetitive, unproductive thought patterns that prevent us exploring innovative solutions. The tale of Blockbuster turning down the opportunity to buy Netflix has become almost folklore. But at the time Blockbuster felt they were investing their resources appropriately into a retail, rental market strategy. The benefits of hindsight tell us this wasn’t the right step, but how many of us can truly say we have practices that encourage appropriate ideation to prevent this happening to us too?
The double diamond (Design Council, 2015), is an approach that can be explored to overcome some of these barriers to ideation. In essence this framework couples the approach of divergent and convergent thinking and in many ways, this mirrors being “shoes off” (divergent) and “shoes on” (convergent). But I found the model limiting in that it didn’t overcome the main hurdle of how do we actually get into a divergent thinking mindset? Without this, you might gather people into a creative session, and yet still fail to truly generate meaningful creative solutions. I felt it just wasn’t holistic enough to make enough of difference on its own.
So how does “shoes off thinking” help? It establishes a stage for ideation in a strategic process – and in doing so that signals that it’s important. For those who might not label themselves as creative thinkers, they are still aware that this is an important part of the process for them to embrace and take their time over. It also shifts the mindset. With technology advances people are responsible for more work than ever, but a period of “shoes off” thinking prompts a different pace. It indicates the importance of not simply finding a solution, but finding the right solution, and gives value to the time spent generating ideas.
But how does this work in practice? I’ve created a guide to introducing “Shoes off” thinking to a strategic process. It can help create some structure whilst still maintaining the qualities of free and open thinking. This includes:
· Setting appropriate timeframes for both “shoes off” and “shoes on” thinking. This has twofold benefits. It reassures those that are impatient to move forward that there is time allocated to the planning stage next, whilst simultaneously creating a space for ideation. And whilst there’s no hard and fast rules to exactly how long each stage should take, too tight a deadline will restrict the process. Working to a deadline that’s getting ever closer increases stress levels and shifts our brain to “inside the box thinking” (Wall Street Journal, 2014) – put simply we’re in survival mode and will stick to ideas we know and are familiar with.
· Being clear on the brief. During my time in Creative Advertising, I saw direct correlation between the briefs we won and the quality of our understanding of the brief. It seems a clear point, but in practice it’s easy to assume or misinterpret language – and this is more prevalent when we’re working at speed. Seek to understand audiences who will be on the receiving end of your ideas – create empathy maps or invest in quality research to truly understand their needs and design around human behavioural principles.
This also includes grounding your ideas in business intelligence. The 4sight model (Cranfield University, ND) was initially created to support organisational resilience, but this can be expanded to creative thinking for strategic change.
1. It starts with us asking what we have foresight on? Ahead of creative sessions businesses should investing in horizon scanning and constantly surveying the external environment for changes.
2. Insight allows us to make good use of the date we have – what do we know about our current market and ways of operating. Investing in good quality data is only part of the picture here though. The data needs to be made available and data storytelling experts used to ensure that data insights are truly accessible.
3. The third stage lends itself to the ‘shoes on’ thinking stage: oversight. This is where you monitor an idea’s progress to ensure its meeting business needs. But it could have a place in ideation if mini experiments can be set up and monitored for learnings.
4. Hindsight allows space for us to learn from our experiences. This is not quite the same as “we tried that before, it didn’t work” but does ensure a forum for discussing what we know from past actions.
I believe the 4sight model creates a shared consensus to act as a foundation at the very start of ideation.
Connected to this, be clear on what you’re looking for in the process. Are we adjusting what we do, or looking to totally reinvent? This decision is vital for leaders to understand and factor into onward change management (Balogun et al, 2008) but different approaches call for different boundaries on our thinking so it’s good to be up front about this at the start of the process. I like to ask: “Are we looking to play the game better, or are we playing new games?”.
· Structuring sessions with known approaches that support creative thinking. One I’m familiar with is 6 hats thinking – a concept by Edward DeBono (2016). Working through different ‘hats’ allows for all areas to be discussed – positives, negatives, facts, feelings, creative ideas and processes. Even if you’re feeling negative about a concept, you can still contribute to all stages and weigh up the idea’s merit at the end. It’s a simple way to get started.
A technique that was new to me was James Webb-Young’s 5 step technique (2009):
1. Gather new material. Of course, related to the task but also encouraging a fascination with multiple concepts across all those participating in the process.
2. Digest the material. Seek to gain a thorough understanding by examining data from different angles.
3. Step away. This might sound counter intuitive but take some time out to trigger unconscious processing. Our brain unconsciously processes more information than it does consciously! Even when you’ve stepped away from a problem it’s still seeking solutions. A good ‘hack’ to make this even more effective is to use the Zeigarnik effect (MacLeod, 2020) – this works on the principle that our brains hate unfinished tasks. Aim to end the early stages of ideation processes with deliberately unanswered questions, allowing the brain to seek closure with solutions.
4. The A-HA! Moment. If the above steps have been followed, science shows that there will be a flash of inspiration – an idea will come to you often accompanied by a renewed energy.
5. Shape your idea. Working with others inputs too, aim to refine your idea and create a practical solution that will work in reality.
Similar is the Creative process developed by Wallas back in 1929. He suggested that ideas come from 4 stages: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. Whilst simple than Webb-Young, that can be the key to its success. Structuring an ideation day into these 4 sections is easy for everyone to follow and understand.
· Creating an environment that signals it’s time to ideate – both in terms of physicality and mood. When it comes to the space we’re working in, this should feel tangibly different to where we do our regular work. Often people conjure up images of sofas and bean bags – and there’s certainly a place for this more relaxed way of working, but there’s more to it than that. The space should be practical for collaboration and idea generation. Ensuring there’s space for both large scale discussion and ‘sub-brainstorms’ is key. Dunbar’s number (Dunbar, 2024) proposes ‘layers’ of social groups with different functions. A group of 5 allows for free sharing and reaching a consensus, whereas a group of 15 will have more idea generation with less in-depth assessment. I propose creating an environment for both: beginning with space for 15 people to contribute but also disbanding into smaller sub-groups to expand on work before coming back together again.
Don’t feel the space needs to be physical. Digital tools are an obvious choice, especially if they utilise breakout rooms. They can allow for more diversity across geographies and fewer restrictions to participation, both of which have key advantages in creating the environment for ideation. But using outdoor space can be a game changer. I mentioned Ideation walks earlier – ironically an ideal example of ‘shoes off’ thinking. Why not set the brief, sharing the key details, and then allow people the chance to walk outside, either alone or in small groups, to support the illumination stage of ideation? Failing that, literally add illumination to the space! The psychology of light is an increasing field in architectural workplace design with good, natural light significantly impacting our creative thinking (Rattner, 2017).
I also think the leader of the ideation session needs to consider how they set the stage. Their choice of tone, dress and even language can also act as powerful signals that the participants can relax into a new way of working. I recommend the use of a relaxed outline for the day instead of a strict agenda – making the role focus on facilitating the process not delivering the output -and the importance of a healthy process should be stressed. Ironically not leading with output language will lead to a healthier result, linking to Osborn’s theory (1942) that focusing on a volume of ideas, unjudged, is an important part of the process. His quote “It’s easier to tone down a wild idea than think of a new one” highlights the importance of embracing ideation without moving onto assessing implementation too quickly. Steps should also be made to avoid company jargon, or ‘c-suite fancy language’ in favour of language that conjures up visual stories. Controversially, I’m an advocate of mild swearing in ideation spaces. Certainly not aggressive language, but enough to let people know they’re not standing on ceremony and can speak freely about their feelings to encourage a psychological safety that is powerful for ideation practices (Stephens, 2015).
· Viewing creativity as a product of the organisation’s culture. Businesses that operate in hierarchical, highly controlled environments where decisions often happen ‘top down’ don’t lend themselves to having strong innovative practices. Nor do businesses that lack diversity – including where there’s a lack of role-based seniority levels in decision making forums. Whilst evolving the culture might be worth considering long-term, for many this is a slow process and often above our pay grades! But we can take steps to acknowledge the culture and encourage a new way of working. Be more deliberate about setting up “shoes off” thinking as an opportunity to be involved and propose solutions. If you’re the HIPPO in the room (Highest paid person’s opinion) deliberately step back and allow others to share their thoughts first, without jumping in with your views too soon. Invest in a wider culture day-in-day-out where you show trust through allowing as much autonomy as possible in tasks.
· Involving the right people in the process. Connected to the above point, this isn’t always the most senior people! To paraphrase Simon Sinek (2019) the CEO hasn’t spoken to a customer directly in years! You need to find the people who can provide the most meaningful insights and together create a strong sense of collective intelligence.
Tools like DISC, Myer-Briggs and colours insights are often popular here too. Based on the theories of Carl Jung (Simply psychology, 2025), they work on the principle that we all have a preferred way of working. Taking colours insights as an example:
o Blue preference are generally focused on facts and data – although it might be easy to think they’ll struggle with ideating, actually these individuals can ground ideas in strong foundations – but you need to bear their preference in mind, especially if thinking very outside the box!
o On the other hand, Yellow preference love being outside the box. They are natural creatives. These people can power ideation sessions forward so use them to create momentum and energy but be wary that they can also quickly go off brief!
o Red preference are direct and succinct. They don’t want to go into great depth or read large bodies of text, even if there’s insights. They want a process that’s quick, but also frank and open which can be useful in driving momentum.
o Green preferences like to create harmony. These people will champion the quieter voices, ensuring a fair share of voice among extroverts and introverts alike. They also often have the most finely tuned behavioural insights into customers – which is a valuable insight for human centred design.
All 4 preferences should have a place at the table, and designing ideation teams around these principles can create a powerful dynamic.
This list is not exhaustive but does provide some practical tools to create a new way of thinking to support creativity, innovation, and strategy. I believe rushing ideation leads to weaker solutions, which in the long run takes more time to deliver or recover from. In an increasingly technology-driven era, it may be more timely than ever to embrace “shoes off” thinking and celebrate the human skill of creativity.
Although this article focuses on “shoes off” thinking, it’s important to note that attention should still be given to the “shoes on” stage. Project and change management principles will be key here, and a future article will explore best practice for these steps.
I’ll likely be expanding on this concept, so please do reach out if you have any thoughts on this concept.
References
Balogun et al (2008) “Exploring Strategic change”, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London
Cranfield University (ND), “Beyond plan-do-check-act: 4sight”, Available at: https://blog.som.cranfield.ac.uk/execdev/beyond-plan-do-check-act-4sight (Accessed 06 May 2026)
DeBono, E (2016), “Six Thinking Hats: Run better meetings, make faster decisions”, Penguin Life, London
Design Council (2015), “The double diamond”, Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/the-double-diamond/ (Accessed 11 May 2026)
Dunbar, R et al (2024) “The social brain: the psychology of successful groups”, Penguin, London
MacLeod (2020) “Zeigarnik and von Restorff: The memory effects and the stories behind them”, PubMed, Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32291585/ (Accessed 06 May 2026)
Osborn, A (1942) “How to think up”, McGraw-Hill, New York
Rattner, D (2017), “How to Use the Psychology of Light and Lighting to Boost Your Creativity” Available at: https://medium.com/s/how-to-design-creative-workspaces/how-to-use-the-psychology-of-light-and-lighting-to-boost-your-creativity-b61a574b5751 (Accessed 06 May 2026)
Simply Psychology (2025) “Carl Jung’s theory of personality” Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-jung.html (Accessed 06 May 2026)
Sinek, S (2019) “Leader versus manager” YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUJwmPQEyg (Accessed 06 May 2026)
Stephens, R (2015) “Black sheep: the hidden benefits of being bad”, John Murray Learning, London
Wall Street Journal (2014) “The inner workings of the executive brain” Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-inner-workings-of-the-executive-brain-1398388537?tesla=y (Accessed 06 May 2026)
Wallas, G (1929, republished 2018) “The art of thought”, Solis Press, London
Webb, C (2022), “How To Have a Good Day With Caroline Webb, Behavioural Science Expert”, MBS Works YouTube, Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUR28lW1DwU (Accessed: 10 April 2026)
Webb-Young, J (2009) “A Technique for Producing Ideas: The simple, five-step formula anyone can use to be more creative in business and in life!”, Waking Lion Press, Utah
Wedell-Wedellsborg, T (2013) “Innovation as usual”, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston
Bibliography
Chase group (2024) “Analysis of the common causes behind failed business cases” Available at: https://chasegroup.com.au/Analysis-of-the-Common-Causes-Behind-Failed-Business-Cases (Accessed 05 May 2026)
Northeastern University (2017) “Ideation techniques impact on business” Available at: https://graduate.northeastern.edu/knowledge-hub/ideation-techniques-impact-on-business/ (Accessed 05 May 2026)
