A product team has rejected its first onboarding proposal, and the next meeting is becoming a defense of the same idea. More time in the same discussion may not produce more options. A change in how the team generates ideas could help, but it should not replace evaluation.
If walking is comfortable and accessible to you, try it while exploring a question. Return to the evidence before choosing an answer. Research on creative ideation is not proof that walking produces better business strategy, safer architecture, or sounder approvals.
The research distinguishes generating from solving
In four experiments, Marily Oppezzo and Daniel Schwartz examined walking and creative thinking. They used tasks including proposing alternative uses for objects, finding a single connecting answer, and generating analogies. Walking benefited divergent idea generation. The convergent task, which required a particular correct answer, did not show the same benefit.
The distinction matters. Producing several plausible onboarding options is different from determining which option meets a security requirement. Read the 2014 research paper, particularly its abstract, Experiment 1, and General Discussion, for the tasks and conditions actually studied.
The study did not test whether a product team made better strategic choices after a walking session. Nor does it validate every activity that changes someone's surroundings. Treat the workplace process below as an editorial application of a limited finding, not a research-tested method.
Generate options without quietly approving them
Illustrative scenario: Mei and Arjun are considering how customers should choose between a guided setup and a self-service path. Their first proposal adds several questions before a customer can start. Support worries that another form will create more abandoned attempts.
Before leaving the workspace, they write one question: “How could a customer find a suitable starting path without completing a long questionnaire?” They choose an optional walk on the office-campus route. Neither brings a laptop. Their job is to produce possibilities, not argue for the first design.
They discuss a short example-based choice, a default path with an easy switch, and a welcome call for customers with complex requirements. They also note an awkward idea: allowing the customer to start before classifying the account. Awkward does not mean useless. It exposes an assumption worth checking.
Back at the desk, they evaluate these options against accessibility, support capacity, security requirements, and implementation effort. Arjun owns the support-capacity check. Mei drafts the interaction comparison. The product owner retains approval authority. A lively conversation has created candidates, not permission to release a new flow.
A seated idea session or another accessible change of setting may suit a colleague better. Offer it without apology. Do not claim that these alternatives have research-proven effects equivalent to walking. They can be useful personal or team experiments on their own terms.
Use a record that keeps both phases visible
| Record | Example |
|---|---|
| Question before generating | Help customers find a starting path without a long questionnaire. |
| Raw options, without ranking | Example-based choice, switchable default, targeted welcome call, start before classifying. |
| Evaluation criteria | Accessible interaction, support capacity, required controls, delivery effort. |
| Evidence still missing | Recent support cases and the minimum account information required. |
| Next owner and review | Arjun checks cases; Mei compares flows; product owner reviews on Thursday. |
Keep the question narrow enough to work on. “Invent our next strategy” offers little structure. “Find another way to explain this setup choice” gives the session a recognizable task. Capture ideas afterwards if writing while moving would be inconvenient or unsafe.
Do not rank every suggestion while it is being offered. Evaluation belongs in the next phase, where the evidence and criteria are available. That does not require pretending every idea is feasible. It means delaying the decision long enough to see the options.
Keep the format optional and the claims modest
Walking is not suitable for everyone or every occasion. Access, weather, privacy, comfort, and individual advice matter. Stop if moving causes pain, dizziness, or discomfort. Choose an appropriate alternative rather than forcing the experiment.
Do not take confidential client information onto a public path. Avoid turning a break into mandatory work or deciding an important matter without colleagues who were not present. Leaders should protect participation and bring proposals back to the correct decision process.
Most importantly, do not use the study to bypass evaluation. A novel answer can still be costly, inaccessible, or wrong. Creativity research does not remove those obligations.
Take one question out, bring options back
Choose a low-stakes question that needs alternatives. Use a comfortable, optional format, then return to a record with explicit criteria and missing evidence. Review whether you produced genuinely different options and whether someone now owns the evaluation.
If the session only rehearsed the existing proposal, narrow or reframe the question next time. If it generated useful alternatives, preserve them before choosing. For deciding whether a conversation itself fits this format, see Walking Meetings: Useful for Some Conversations, Wrong for Others.