Think about the last time your team faced a big decision—perhaps whether to invest in a costly new instrument or how to approach revamping some workflows. Did the meeting turn into a tug-of-war of opinions, or did one person’s view overshadow the others? The Six Thinking Hats method offers a different approach.

What is the Six Thinking Hats method?

Six Thinking Hats is a structured brainstorming and problem-solving framework for group decision-making created by psychologist and physician Edward de Bono, PhD, detailed in a book of the same name. The technique divides discussions into six distinct modes represented by colored “hats.” Each hat is a role that the group adopts in turn. By collectively putting on one hat after another, a team examines a problem from all angles in a coordinated way, rather than arguing from fixed positions.

Lab Management Certificate

The Lab Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.

Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.

The Six Thinking Hats method accomplishes this through parallel thinking. As de Bono writes, “Parallel thinking means that at any moment everyone is looking in the same direction” instead of at each other. In practical terms, the group all explore one perspective, one hat at a time, then all switch to the next. This approach has several advantages, according to de Bono:

• First, it neutralizes ego and bias—the discussion feels less like my idea vs. yours and more like a joint investigation.
• Second, it ensures that the team considers all sides of an issue in turn.
• Finally, it prevents people from getting stuck in one mindset—for example, only seeing drawbacks or benefits—by encouraging more expansive thinking.

Using Six Thinking Hats in a lab meeting: An example

Let’s define all six Hats with a hypothetical scenario. Suppose a lab must decide whether to adopt a new high-throughput sequencing platform. It’s a significant investment and a complex choice—exactly the kind of situation where Six Thinking Hats can help structure the discussion. Here’s how the meeting might unfold:

Blue Hat (session start): The Blue Hat manages the thinking process itself. This is the “conductor” or facilitator hat that keeps the team on track. As the meeting begins, the lab manager figuratively dons the Blue Hat and explains the Six Thinking Hats process to the team, setting the stage: “We need to decide on whether to buy a new sequencer.” This opening Blue Hat session defines the problem and outlines the plan for the discussion. The manager might say, “Our goal is to reach a decision everyone can support. Now, let’s all put on the White Hat next to gather information.”

White Hat: The White Hat calls for objective, factual thinking. When your team wears this hat, everyone focuses on the available data, information, and what is known. In this scenario, participants discuss the decision to buy a new sequencer. One scientist presents data: “The new sequencer processes 50 percent more samples per day. Our current one is six years old and increasingly unreliable.” Another adds, “It costs $70,000, and we only have $100,000 in the equipment budget this year, so that only leaves $30,000 left over for anything else we may need.” Someone else shares research they’ve done about the model’s accuracy compared to competing models. And finally, gaps in knowledge are identified: “We still need to confirm the maintenance costs and whether our pipeline can handle the data output.” The White Hat phase compiles all these facts and figures without veering into opinions or debate.

Red Hat: Next, everyone dons their Red Hats. “The Red Hat is about the emotional feelings,” says Scott Hanton, PhD, editorial director at Lab Manager. Under this hat, team members are encouraged to share their gut reactions or concerns openly, without needing to justify them with logic. One researcher admits, “Honestly, I feel excited; our competitors have this technology and I don’t want us left behind.” Another says, “I’m worried. I have a hunch that the learning curve for the new system will frustrate the team.” Acknowledging these sentiments is important for identifying possible pain points early, and lab staff will appreciate feeling that their voices have been heard.

Black Hat: Now wearing the Black Hat, rhe team brainstorms all the things that could go wrong. “Often in technical groups, there are some natural Black Hats,” Hanton remarks. One Black Hat participant might ask, “What if the new sequencer’s throughput isn’t actually needed and it sits idle?” Another warns, “If we overspend, we won’t have the budget for a new centrifuge, which we also need.” The lab safety officer chimes in, “There’s a potential electrical upgrade required for this machine—can our facility support that?” By wearing the Black Hat, the group creates a comprehensive risk list: hidden costs, technical challenges, time for staff training, possible downtime, vendor reliability issues, and so on. This might feel negative, but it’s a vital step. The Black Hat is valuable because it can save you from costly mistakes.

Yellow Hat: After airing the negatives, the team deliberately shifts to an optimistic view with the Yellow Hat.Researchers might highlight potential benefits: “We’d sequence samples in-house instead of outsourcing, saving money in the long run.” “Faster data generation could speed up our publications.” “It could open up new revenue streams.” The team also brainstorms ways to make the purchase work: “Perhaps we could negotiate a discount with the vendor since we’ve bought several instruments from them before,” someone suggests. Under the Yellow Hat, even problems raised earlier are reframed as opportunities: A member might counter a Black Hat concern by saying, “True, it’s expensive, but could we collaborate with another department to share the instrument and costs?” The Yellow Hat acts as a counterbalance to the Black Hat.

Green Hat: Now the group really gets creative. Building on priorideas, they wear the Green Hat to explore alternatives and inventive solutions. “If buying outright is risky, what if we lease the machine for a year to evaluate it?” one scientist offers. Another suggests an unconventional idea: “Could we upgrade our current sequencer’s components instead of buying a whole new system?” or “Is there a completely different technology on the horizon we should consider?” In this phase, no suggestion is criticized. This is where innovative workarounds may emerge—perhaps a creative scheduling plan to maximize instrument use or cross-training staff so the transition is smoother. Green Hat thinking taps the natural problem-solving of scientists, and it’s a reminder that constraints can inspire innovation rather than just limit it.

Blue Hat (conclusion): Finally, the team returns to the Blue Hat to wrap up. The facilitator reviews the key points from each hat: “Let’s summarize. Fact-wise, the new sequencer is faster and would meet our needs, but we have a budget shortfall and some unknown maintenance costs. Some of you are excited but also anxious about training. We identified risks like cost, installation requirements, and idle time if underutilized. On the positive side, it could boost productivity and reputation, especially if we find partners to share the cost. We’ve brainstormed options like leasing or sharing the instrument.” With everything laid out, the Blue Hat discussion leads the group to a decision or at least a clear next step. In our scenario, perhaps the consensus is, “We will not purchase it outright now; instead, let’s arrange a six-month pilot program with a loaner unit, and explore a cost-sharing agreement with another lab.” The Blue Hat moderator makes sure there is agreement on this conclusion and assigns follow-up actions (who will talk to the vendor, draft the budget, etc.). The session ends with everyone on the same page: a decision born from all inputs, not just the loudest voice in the room.

This example shows how Six Thinking Hats can transform a potentially chaotic meeting into a structured, inclusive process. Each hat created a space for a different type of contribution: data, emotions, criticisms, enthusiasm, creativity, and coordination. By rotating through all six modes of thinking, the lab team covered bases that a free-form debate might miss. Notice that there was little arguing; the format turned the discussion into a team effort to explore the problem from all sides. One immediate benefit is better listening: when the rule is “we’re all in Black Hat mode now,” even the optimists will listen to the naysayers because that’s the task at hand. Likewise, the skeptics will later listen to the positive thinkers during Yellow Hat time. This prevents the meeting from splitting into factions or devolving into repetitive arguments. Instead, it builds a 360-degree analysis.

The Six Thinking Hats method offers lab leaders a structured, inclusive way to guide complex decisions. By rotating through each hat, teams avoid groupthink, uncover assumptions, and explore risks and opportunities with equal rigor. And as Hanton says, the Six Hats can be used to reach consensus, creating alignment strong enough to move forward. With a clear process and psychological safety, even the most technical or contentious lab decisions can become opportunities for collaboration and clarity.