The value of divergent thinking before convergence
Launch library · evergreen read
Divergent thinking generates many possible directions for a piece of work without judging any of them prematurely, deliberately resisting the instinct to settle on the first workable idea before quieter, less obvious possibilities have had a genuine chance to properly surface and be heard by the team.
Convergence, narrowing that wide field back down to the single strongest option available, works far better once genuine range actually exists to choose from, rather than being forced to select among only two or three ideas produced hastily under early pressure to decide something quickly.
Teams that skip the divergent stage entirely and rush toward a decision often mistake the first reasonable idea they encounter for the best available idea, simply because no real alternative was ever properly generated to test it honestly against, long after the meeting that produced it has ended.
Holding judgement back, even briefly, feels genuinely inefficient in the moment, when everyone wants a decision made quickly, but it consistently produces a stronger final choice than jumping straight to evaluation before there was anything substantial worth evaluating, even when the organisation would rather not revisit the question.