“Reasoning is biased in favor of the reasoner.”

David McRaney dropped that gem in How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion, and it’s one of those lines that just won’t leave me alone. It’s clever, sure. But it also nails something fundamentally true about how humans think—and why we’re better off thinking together.

When we reason on our own, our brains aren’t wired for objectivity. They’re wired for advocacy. We argue for our own perspectives with built-in bias and barely notice we’re doing it. 

Our brains are also lazy. Or, to be more charitable, efficient. Reasoning takes effort. So we delegate that cognitive load to others. It’s why the best thinking happens in groups—especially diverse groups—where we can distribute the mental workload, challenge each other’s assumptions, and sharpen each other’s thinking.

Have you ever been in a meeting where every voice seemed to clash, ideas spiraled in circles, and no clear decisions emerged? Frustrating, isn’t it? I’ve been in more of those than I care to remember.

Dr. Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats method is here to save the day. Developed in 1985, this simple yet powerful framework transforms chaotic discussions into structured, focused collaboration. By guiding teams to explore every angle of a problem systematically, it fosters open dialogue, minimizes defensiveness, and ensures every perspective is heard—without letting egos derail the process. Doesn’t that sound nice?

Leadership has traditionally been about calling the shots from the top—a vision set by the leaders, a plan laid out, and the team expected to follow. But recent insights into how humans work best are turning this model on its head. Science says that when we co-create, we boost both engagement and outcomes in a way that top-down management can’t touch.

Let’s be clear: co-creation isn’t just another trendy term. It is a powerful way to improve strategic outcomes that adds both value and loyalty to any plan. When people play a part in creating a strategy, they’re way more likely to support it. And the reason why is rooted in some fascinating science – a mix of psychology, neuroscience, and even economics – that shows why shared creation sticks.

I’ve seen a lot of strategies and “solutions” fail over the years primarily because the solution was crafted before the problem addressed was thoroughly understood.

Many times, the strategy or solution was the result of a brainstorming session filled with type A personalities (me included) ready to make things happen. You may be familiar with the type of session I’m referencing. Usually, there’s a guru consultant leading the charge.

Those types of session frustrate me. I’m concerned there’s too much action, too many unspoken assumptions, and not nearly enough serious thinking.

Over the years, I’ve developed a problem solving technique that I’ve found to work a lot better. I call it the Monkey Cage Sessions.