|
| |
Enhancing Creativity: Can Brainstorming Help?
From: Cambridge University Press
| By:
Jacob GoldenbergDavid Mazursky |
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION |
 What is the best way to manage the creative process? Brainstorming has been used for years as a way of developing ideas, but is it really effective? In this feature Jacob Goldenberg and David Mazursky look at the history of brainstorming, and present the pros and cons of the process. Through their years of research on creativity in product innovation, the authors introduce a new electronic version of brainstorming: EBS. In EBS participants brainstorm virtually by merging nominal groups and opening a new channel of idea-sharing and knowledge transference. Each organization member sits at his or her own desk, electronically connected to the others. Participants generate ideas on their own and send them to the general pool, while continuing to generate more ideas on the theme. |
 he knowledge underlying the concept of ''brainstorming,'' the relative ease of its operation and assimilation in organizational contexts and the social benefits incurred in brainstorming encounters have created a ubiquity of brainstorming group sessions for problem-solving discussions in large organizations. Advertising agencies' staff meet for brainstorming sessions to develop creative concepts or new advertising strategies. Engineers meet to find a solution to problems that ''arrest R&D progress'' and even chief executive officers (CEOs) initiate encounters with managers from various levels to review and identify new ideas for the advancement of the organization and its components. These sessions are either planned or improvised and, although sometimes guided by a professional facilitator or by one of the group participants, usually the sessions are unguided. The large variety in the nature and management of these discussions may contribute to the high acclaim received by the genre of brainstorming sessions in popularity polls relating to methods of group thinking. |
The originator of brainstorming is hardly uncontested. At the Disney Studios brainstorming was an accepted method of inspiring professional creativity by encouraging interactions and teamwork. In 1957, Osborne conceptualized the approach, setting down guidelines to create 'mental storming'. Underlying Osborne's approach were a number of assumptions: |
- People are naturally creative. Unfortunately, the ties that bind us to our routines and demanding pace of life inhibit us from flourishing creatively and generating innovative ideas. Confronted with analogies, we are released from our bonds--exposure to an analogy "disrupts" our routine reasoning and opens our minds to associations that lead to the production of original thought.
- Synergies. A group of people thinking together is superior to a single person thinking on his or her own. Osborne advocated that "individuals operating in a brainstorming group suggest twice as many ideas as individuals working on their own."
- Deferred judgment. If we eliminate the requirement to pass immediate judgment as ideas are spoken, we can gradually accumulate a pool of high quality and original ideas which are subsequently filtered. Related to this assumption is the adage "no line of inquiry should be ruled out."
- Quantity leads to quality. The more we increase the number of ideas, the greater the probability of achieving a more qualitative set of ideas after filtering. As Nobel Prize winner Jonas Pulling said, "The best way to get a good idea is to get a lot of ideas."
|
These assumptions (although formalized after the method came into practice) are the foundation on which the brainstorming method evolved in two major stages: |
1. Conceptual brainstorming
In this first stage, a group of individuals advance ideas in no particular order, and no criteria for judgment of their merits is applied. Every idea is deemed good, and the more diverse the ideas the better. The expression of even wild and seemingly illogical ideas is invited. When participants listen to the ideas of their fellow group members, they are stimulated to create new ideas in new directions. Osborne advocated that fragments of ideas or thoughts are also welcome, as they may produce a good idea in the mind of another participant. Beyond managing the discussion, the aim of the facilitator during this stage is to create a pleasant atmosphere of deferred criticism and to encourage diversity of thought. As Doug Floyd noted, "You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note." |
Concurrently with bouncing ideas to each other, group members also respond to the ideas and suggestions of their fellow members, thus refining ideas, building new perceptions based on other ideas, or connecting a number of ideas together to consolidate a new perception. |
2. Screening
In this stage, the tens (sometimes hundreds) of ideas are filtered to produce a reduced set that is subsequently examined and tested for economic feasibility and value. Underlying this stage are judgment and criticism, of the type deferred in the first stage. According to the classical approach to brainstorming, screening should be performed by persons other than the group members involved in the generation of the ideas. This ensures that the filtering team members are not captive to the perceptions or experiences of the first, conceptual stage. The importance of criticism at this stage is recognized, and its contribution is considered more significant after ideas have been generated during the first stage. |
Brainstorming captured the hearts of organizations, industries and business concerns, many of which proudly announced their adoption of the practice, although in practice strict application of its guidelines were not universal. As brainstorming became a conventional practice and it seemed that nothing could be added to the original formula, the academic world began to examine the essential quality of the phenomenon. In the 1980s and 1990s, the method's effectiveness and relevant success factors were the subject of an increasing number of research studies. Examples of questions highlighted in this body of research are the search for the optimal number of group members and the optimal duration of the brainstorming session. The central question was ''What is brainstorming's real contribution compared to results of a nominal group (a group of individuals who think alone, with no contact among members)?'' |
One of the prominent findings was the absence of a clear advantage of the brainstorming group relative to the results of individuals who worked alone. This finding appeared repeatedly until no doubt was left in the minds of investigators: a brainstorming session does not generate more ideas or greater creativity than groups of individuals working independently. Is this just another case of the detachment of academic research producing surprisingly precise results that bear no relation to the reality in the field? If this was a case of a big promise that turned into a disappointing fad, we have to face the intriguing fact that this so-called management fad has struck roots and thrived for more than 30 years. Admittedly very few management fads maintain a leading position in popularity polls for over two decades. Something is obviously going on here. The question is, who is wrong? |
Research indicates that most brainstorming groups did not generate more ideas than control groups in which individuals worked alone with no contact between them. As early as 1958 (the year of Osborne's publication), the first study on this topic, by Tyler, Berry and Block, empirically proved that solitary subjects produced almost twice the amount of ideas as subjects working in groups. Most of the numerous studies carried out over the years conclusively supported this conclusion and replicated results that stood in direct contrast to Osborne's claims. Groups were shown to be detrimental to individual productivity. |
1. The quality of the ideas themselves and their level of originality were inferior to the ideas generated by individuals working without any group effect.
2. The optimal number of group members for a brainstorming session was found to be three to four, inconsistent with the conventional perception of a larger group. |
These findings, which reveal that group processes have an adverse effect on creativity rather than contributing to its enrichment, created serious doubts regarding the brainstorming as an effective process. Explanations suggested by researchers for the lack of success of brainstorming in laboratory experiments range from targeting elements of individual behavior in groups to the impact of brainstorming on individual problem-solving processes. The following is a list of some of the relevant factors that have been proposed: |
- Production blocking. In the course of idea generation, one person speaks while the others listen. As at any single moment in time only a single person can contribute ideas to the group, the scope of the potential contribution of individual group members is limited. Moreover, listening to others express their ideas makes it harder for individuals to concentrate and develop ideas of their own. Even if they succeed in concentrating on their own ideas, recall ability is diminished.
- ''Free riding''. As in many groups in which individual efforts are combined, brainstorming groups are not immune to attempts at free riding. In a group situation, individuals contribute their ideas to a group pool, consequently granted recognition on a group level. An opportunity is created for some members to hang onto the coattails of other, more productive members, and bask in the recognition won by group efforts without contributing personally. These free riders, who may possibly function as creative individuals in a different setting, either repeat ideas already expressed or avoid participating in the discussion.
- Distractions. The flow of ideas spoken aloud overwhelms individuals straining to concentrate and develop their own innovative thought. Repeated interruptions compel them to withdraw into simpler ideas that are better able to withstand the ''external noise.'' Thus individuals are diverted to routine thoughts, mostly in an unconscious process. A related factor affecting the generation of ideas adversely in a group situation is the fact that each individual shares ''thinking time'' between his or her own thoughts and all the thoughts of other group members expressed aloud. Thus, group production declines relative to the sum of individual contributions in a nominal group.
- Deferred judgment creates a chaotic world. In a world with no judgment or criteria for assessment, individuals have no way of knowing if they are ''on the right path.'' Rather than promoting uninhibited thought, the absence of criteria for successful ideas blocks the flow of thought. This creates two phenomena. The first is a type of helplessness and lack of direction that is typical of soldiers who have lost their bearings on a navigational task. The second is related to the cognitive loss of bearing whereby random attempts to generate ideas unfounded on prior reasoning typically produce routine, well-rehearsed thoughts. These familiar ideas are more easily produced than elusive, less-developed notions.
- Fear of assessment. Apparently, despite instructions to the participants prior to a brainstorming session, a degree of apprehension of negative social feedback and criticism persists, inhibiting members from expressing all their original ideas.
|
This last proposed explanation of relatively inferior results by brainstorming seems counterintuitive at first glance. From our experience with brainstorming, the ideas generated are so wild and preposterous that they could not be reflecting a fear of criticism. A more careful examination has shown that the reality is more complex: it seems that participants have no consternation about expressing a wild idea when there is no chance of its practicability. The rules of the brainstorming game allow far-fetched ideas, and the worst that can happen is that an idea will be received as a joke and not taken seriously as an idea for implementation. But, in the case of an original idea that is genuinely directed at the solution of the problem, criticism may be expressed (and, most probably, not forgotten), as it threatens the consensus built on the solutions proposed up to that point. This creates a mechanism that filters out the most practical and dauntless of the original ideas, encouraging more banal ideas on the one hand and wilder, impractical ideas on the other. |
Does all the above lead to the conclusion that brainstorming is merely a storm in a teacup? Not necessarily. Despite the laboratory experiments that invalidate the supposed effectiveness of brainstorming, field results indicate widespread adoption of the method. If we assume that such a large number of people cannot be wrong, the widespread adoption and persistence of brainstorming as an organizational practice requires an attempt to reconcile this inconsistency. Some of the explanations for the contradiction between research findings and practice may lie in what is known as the ''illusion of group effectiveness.'' |
- Lack of distinction between process and outcomes. The participants' ability to distinguish between their satisfaction in the process and in its outcomes is distorted by the magic spell of their experience. In other words, the participants' reported satisfaction with the process is derived from their participation in the brainstorming process, leading them to overevaluate the results compared with individuals who worked on their own and generated the same ideas. Participants in a brainstorming process do indeed indicate a larger degree of satisfaction and enjoyment from the experience than nominal groups do.
- Group experience. Working in a group causes members to feel that something new was created in the course of the brainstorming session. In order to justify the efforts invested in the group process, individuals tend to believe that the group produced something in which all members had a part. In their evaluation of group outcomes, participating individuals do not distinguish between their ideas and the ideas of others. They are usually under the impression that they were the source of more ideas than was actually the situation. This misperception leads to the evaluation of brainstorming as an effective and satisfying process. In addition, due to the high attentiveness, group members internalize the ideas of their fellow members, creating a false belief that more ideas were generated than would have been generated if each worked alone.
|
Other factors contributing to the illusion of the effectiveness of the brainstorming process cannot be identified and manipulated under laboratory conditions. A major reason for the method's popularity is found in the organizational functions served by the process, and the resulting organizational benefits that are its result: |
- Support of common organizational memory. Brainstorming sessions help organization members acquire, store, retrieve, modify and combine knowledge of various solutions to the problems they face. The sessions create opportunities to add new knowledge and solutions to the organizational memory. Furthermore, the sessions serve as an efficient means of distributing knowledge among organization members, reinforcing the knowledge of older members and imparting organizational knowledge to new members, including solutions generated previously.
- Diversification of ability. Participants in brainstorming frequently define it as a pleasant and fun experience. Part of the enjoyment is related to the possibility of working with others in an unrestricted manner. For most participants, the session is a social encounter, an opportunity to share experiences and discharge everyday stress. In other words, brainstorming affords participants an opportunity to experience diversity and interest that is not always present in their everyday functions.
- Competition over status. Brainstorming is an important organizational arena in which competition over status takes place, based on competencies of group members, who meet for a predetermined session or sessions to concentrate on a specific problem. The rules of the brainstorming session are known to all: although bad ideas are not criticized, good ideas are praised, creating an opportunity to receive less threatening feedback from organization members.
- Impressing clients. Brainstorming is an opportunity for an organization to convey the competencies of its members. Frequently clients are impressed by creativity expressed in meetings and they love the positive atmosphere. Organizations use this process to show their client that they understand the problem, and that they rely on a wealth of experience to arrive at the best solution. Brainstorming is also an efficient forum for the client to present problems and gather ideas from a number of participants simultaneously.
|
Moreover, the statement ''everybody uses brainstorming'' is not necessarily entirely correct. First of all, a great deal of what is called brainstorming is no more than efficient teamwork. Let us recall an example we are all familiar with: students working together on a project. Not only are they not brainstorming or raising far-fetched ideas, the opposite actually occurs. They solve problems by focusing on each problem at hand. Imagine a Harvard Business School case analysis or solving a complex mathematical function: Do students raise random ideas? Do they raise ideas that are detached from each other? Do they defer judgment? Of course not. Even engineers who meet to solve problems do not conduct brainstorming sessions, though they may call it that. In practice, in most of their meetings they conduct efficient discussions, examining various alternatives and assisting each other in solving the problem. In such a process the group effect stems from focusing rather than brainstorming. |
The physicist Tom Hirschfeld once said that ''The second attack on the same problem should be from a completely different angle.'' Apparently, the group encounter does have a value that is not necessarily relevant to the mechanism of brainstorming. This can be illustrated by the story of the company that decided to eliminate its coffee corner. Exhibiting great efficiency, the company appointed an individual to bring coffee and cookies to anyone who sent a request through the company's intranet. The company executives thought that by eliminating the need for the engineers to leave their desks their efficiency would be improved, and that they could also convey the consideration that the company showed its employees by making it more convenient for them. After a number of months, the executives found that eliminating the random meetings at the coffee machine stopped the exchange of knowledge and opinions, which had a detrimental effect on the engineers and their productivity fell. |
This story indicates a possible means of reconciling our conflicting data. Perhaps the brainstorming method is not particularly effective for the generation of new ideas, but apparently it, or the encounter it creates, exposes previously untapped ideas of the organization's members. Imagine that you are facing a problem similar to one previously solved by a member of the same organization on the floor below. In an encounter such as brainstorming, he or she would be able to share the accumulated knowledge, the successful and failed tests that were conducted, and perhaps the directions that had been examined and found potentially beneficial. |
If so, how can we reap the benefits of brainstorming while avoiding its relative shortcomings, as found in laboratory experiments? In this context, we would like to present some new insights relating to brainstorming and suggest how a more advanced version of this approach may be used to the benefit of organizations. In EBS, a recently introduced electronic version of brainstorming, brainstorming sessions--rather than taking place aloud and in a single location--are conducted by virtually merging nominal groups and opening a new channel for idea-sharing and knowledge transference. Each organization member sits at his or her own desk, electronically connected to the others (sometimes from other firms or organizations). Participants generate ideas on their own and send them to the general pool, while continuing to develop their train of thought and generate more ideas on the theme. When they feel that they are ready to investigate the ideas of others, they download them from the pool. These inputs lead to new responses on their part or to further development or generation of ideas. This virtual neuron storm has a number of advantages, chiefly that individual members can control their retrieval of the ideas of other participants and choose the timing for reflection on these inputs, thus avoiding the distraction effect. Outside observers can add new instructions or guidelines. In a global brainstorming process that was conducted through the Internet at the initiation of a well-known food company, corporate executives observed the exchange of ideas in real time on a giant screen. They concurrently conducted a discussion to assess and filter the various ideas, and even made real-time decisions. |
Empirical findings reflect the success of EBS, both absolutely and relative to ''regular'' brainstorming. Large groups of participants generated more ideas than individuals working alone (in nominal groups). In addition, the quality of the EBS-generated ideas was rated as higher. The size of the EBS group enables the quick and sharp compilation of the conceptual capital in the organization. Apparently, the absence of inhibiting social phenomena that characterize group processes during brainstorming and the ability to concentrate and develop a train of thought without interruption, avoid the pitfalls of brainstorming while enhancing its benefits. Although it is too early to claim that advanced EBS has made significant inroads into managerial practice at the cost of traditional brainstorming, its superiority has been sufficiently demonstrated to allow us here to seriously recommend its integration in the problem-solving modes of organizations. Nevertheless, we should remember that, despite EBS's superiority in idea generation, it lacks the social encounter that has been found to be an important side-benefit of conventional brainstorming encounters. |
Other interesting findings related to recent creativity studies (not conducted in the context of group research) relate to the perception that the constraints of a problem encourage the production of more creative ideas. Constraints provide a focus for the brainstorming session and transform it into ''focused storming.'' Brainstorming synergies are not a result of distractions. They are based on a number of minds working under well-defined direction. In this context, we note that studies of group decisionmaking processes indicate that when a discussion is well managed according to a decisionmaking model, the group has a higher value than the sum of its members. Findings such as these lead us to hypothesize that when the problem is constrained and well defined, even subject to complete freedom of expression, anarchy is not a possible outcome. In our opinion, a brainstorming session should be conducted to generate solutions to well-defined problems, with a clear set of criteria for success. In this case, information exchange, conceptual capital and directing the storm of ideas to a target-focused channel contribute to organizational performance. Conversely, when problems are ambiguous and ill defined, such as problems relating to new product innovation, focused storming is preferred. |
In order to make the most of brainstorming it is imperative to define the problem at hand and the goals of the encounter in advance, and in a precise manner. Brainstorming is one of the easiest methods to implement, and although many different ways of doing this are available, these should be context-consistent and fit the situation. It is important to remember that brainstorming is not always the only or the preferred option. |
|
| |
