If you’re someone with ideas—products, services, research directions, strategies—one of the most common and most solvable source of mistakes isn’t whether the idea is good, it’s not knowing what kind of idea it is.
The problem starts with our use of the word “idea” (and “message,” for that matter!). More specifically, the problem is that we use the same word to describe two different kinds of ideas—at least!
Unfortunately, when we don’t know the difference, or aren’t clear about which kind of idea we mean, we’re setting ourselves—and our ideas—up to fail before they even really get a chance to succeed.
The two kinds of ideas we confuse most often
There are many ways to categorize ideas, but the distinction that matters most when you want people to act on your idea is this:
- Concept-ideas, which are primarily aimed at advancing understanding
- Action-ideas, which—you guessed it!—are primarily aimed at advancing action
They both describe “ideas,” but people’s brains process them very differently. As a result, the standards for acceptance—the rules people’s brains need those ideas to follow—are very different, as well.
Concept-ideas: what something is
A concept-idea is a premise. It answers questions like:
- What is this thing?
- How do I recognize it?
- How does it work?
In cause-and-effect or stimulus and response terms, concept-ideas mostly establish the cause side, though sometimes they name an effect.
Amy Edmondson’s Psychological Safety is a concept-idea.
Adam Grant’s “Givers and Takers” is a concept-idea.
Gravity is a concept-idea.
Einstein’s Relativity is a concept-idea.
Each of these “ideas” notices and names something that either wasn’t seen before or wasn’t named clearly enough to be studied and used to good effect.
That act of naming matters. Once something is named, we can study it, test it, refine it, and talk about it. That’s why concept-ideas carry a high standard of proof. We expect them to be:
- Clearly defined
- Distinct from what came before
- Supported by research or observation
- Internally coherent
While concept ideas help us see differently, seeing differently is not the same as acting differently.
Action ideas: claiming what to do
The moment you attach a concept-idea to an outcome or effect, you’ve crossed an invisible line between the two types, one past which a premise becomes a claim.
For example, once you say, “You need psychological safety if you want better team decision-making,” you’re no longer just naming something that exists (e.g., psychological safety), you’re making a claim that a relationship exists between cause and effect (or stimulus and response).
In this case, your actual idea is that “psychological safety leads to better decision-making.”
That’s a different kind of idea entirely, with entirely different rules that come along for the ride. That’s because even though that idea feels like a fact or truth to you, to others hearing it for the first time—or those inclined to be skeptical or resistant to it—your idea is only a hypothesis, a claim your audience needs to validate before they will act on it, or even consider it.
Action-ideas say:
- IF you want this outcome, THEN you should do this [concept-idea].
- WHEN you do [concept-idea], THEN you’ll get that outcome
- And even just: We need [concept-idea] or You should [concept idea]… because both of those imply taking an action to get a particular (but also implied) outcome.
The nanosecond someone hears or reads an action-idea, their brain switches gears. Understanding the concept is no longer enough, nor is agreeing with it. Now they’re evaluating whether your hypothesis even makes sense to them, based on what they already know to be true.
Which means the standards for your idea’s survival change. Radically.
Three beliefs required for action
Before anyone will take action on an idea—any idea—I (and science!) have found that it has to clear three distinct hurdles. Someone has to be able to say “yes” to each of the following three questions:
- Is it possible in principle?
Does this concept-idea make intuitive sense as a way to get the stated outcome?
Can I understand why it would work—without being convinced, pushed, or flooded with data? - Is it possible in practice?
Can I or we actually do this?
What does it look like in the real world?
Can I/we afford what it will cost—in time, money, effort, political capital, etc.? - Is it worth it?
Do I even care about the outcome this idea is attached to?
Is the “effort-to-outcome” ratio—the cost-benefit relationship—acceptable?
Miss any one of these, and the idea doesn’t just stall, it fails. Not because people are stubborn or resistant, but because—based on the available information, which is a combination of what you’ve offered and what they fill in on their own—their brains declare the idea “NOT VIABLE”…and discard it.
Where most ideas fail
Most ideas fail because of the difference in standards required by a premise (concept-idea) and those required by a claim (action-idea). I’ve seen colleagues in the messaging space confuse the two. Even Chris Anderson, the former head of TED, lumps both kinds together in the official TED guide.
But based on how people actually think about new ideas for action, that can be a potentially fatal-to-the-idea mistake.
I can’t stress this enough:
The standards of viability for a PREMISE are not enough to meet the standards of viability for a CLAIM.
Internally motivated action comes from the ability to justify the action, not just based on importance (so, no, your “why” or purpose is not enough), but on the likelihood of that action working. Someone else needs to be able to agree, on their own, without convincing, that your hypothesis is VALID: that your idea will deliver a desired outcome.
To do that, your concept must be part of a causal claim, which generally takes the form of: IF you want [outcome], THEN [act on concept-idea]). That claim must be supported by an intuitively acceptable case. Finally, that case must be:
- Attached to an outcome your audience actively agrees they want
- Inarguably logical, even to skeptics
- Warranted by beliefs or principles the audience already holds
In certain cases, that’s all your idea may need to meet the first belief, above: that the idea is possible in principle. Not more evidence that you’re right, or that others agree (that comes next). Not more explanation of how it works or what that looks like (also next). Certainly not harder pushes, persuasion tactics, psychologically manipulative scripts, or polarizing debate.
No, what your action-idea needs is a rationale that makes both intuitive and intellectual sense to another person, based on what they already know (believe!) to be true.
The idea–intention fit test
When an idea—yours or someone else’s—isn’t clicking, connecting, or compelling action, there’s a simple diagnostic question to ask:
What kind of idea IS this?
- If it’s meant to inform or name something new, treat it like a concept-idea. Define it well. Support it. Clarify how it works.
- If it’s meant to drive action, treat it like the (hypothetical!) claim that it is. It must be attached to an outcome and to an intuitively acceptable case.
That’s the only way I’ve found to make sure your idea inspires the first and most critical belief—that it could actually work.
Can you eventually get there by showing people how it’s possible in practice or that it’s worth it? Yes, but based on the 25+ years I’ve been doing this work, those approaches take a lot longer, leave far more up to inference (and thus chance), and are much more likely to devolve into disagreements and debates over “facts” and even values.
Good ideas deserve a better chance to succeed
Sometimes, yes, ideas fail because they’re not good or new enough, or because people don’t care about them, or because they push too hard against the way things have always been.
But worse, in my mind, is when good ideas fail simply because people didn’t get what they needed to understand why they were good or new, how they connected or delivered on something people care about, or even which time-honored traditions and principles you’ve built your idea on.
These are fixable problems. Don’t let your ideas fail because of them.