We all “brainstorm” individually or in small groups to toss ideas around and talk through various challenges. Ad hoc idea generation is helpful and a great way to “throw around” ideas (free association) and warm-up prior to using creative thinking tools. This warm-up is often a great way to pull “top-of-mind” information from coworkers and then dig deeper to develop new ideas, options, or alternatives. However, formal brainstorming is not very effective to generate new ideas. Sorry to burst your bubble, but brainstorming is not one of the tools in this section for developing new ideas.
Most research on idea generation has shown that brainstorming typically does not result in valuable ideas (Schirr, 2012). Most brainstorms are just a group of people haphazardly sharing ideas and rarely solving real problems (Jones, 1995). Yet even with all the research on the flaws of brainstorming, it is still widely used in most organizations (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996).
The majority of research has shown that brainstorming is not effective in generating quality ideas and, furthermore, that group brainstorming typically inhibits creative thinking (Mullen et al., 1991). Research has confirmed that individuals develop a higher quantity of quality ideas individually than in a group, leading to the conclusion that brainstorming is less effective than individual ideation (Mullen et al., 1991).
Most inefficiencies during a brainstorming session arise due to individuals dominating the discussion (the loudest voice wins), redundant ideas, cognitive uniformity where individuals feel pressure to support other ideas, members giving up on the group, and fear of having ideas evaluated or judged (the fear of looking stupid) (Isaksen & Gaulin, 2005). Early ideas also tend to have a disproportionate influence on the rest of the discussion (Greenfield, 2014). Groupthink, where participants believe something just because others support it, is another negative (Sawyer, 2017).
Brainstorming also results in high levels of productivity loss and impediments to ideation. These issues arise when members wait to speak or listen to others (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996). Unfortunately, brainstorms often end in a list of ideas with no closure (Furnham, 2000). Unlike other methods of creative ideation, brainstorming was developed where the idea itself was the solution (e.g., advertising headline), requiring minimal further creativity to develop the idea (Nolan, 2003).
Most brainstorms are a “one and done” without any follow-up or continued refinement and implementation of ideas. To develop optimal solutions, you typically cannot move through the creative process in a single meeting (Cho, 2013). Avoid haphazard or hit-and-miss approaches to idea generation; use proven, deliberate, and systematic ideation methods (Sinfield et al., 2014).
Another negative to brainstorms is one person trying to push their ideas or agendas deceptively through the group exercise (Isaksen & Gaulin, 2005). Finally, the main negative of brainstorms is the cost. The cost of brainstorming regarding time spent and individual dollars per hour can be the same as throwing money in the trash. There are much better ways to develop new, creative ideas.
So why do so many business leaders still rely on brainstorming? An easy answer is “it just feels right.” Intuitively, it makes sense that a group of people sharing ideas should generate high quality, original, diverse ideas; unfortunately, this is not the case (Kohn & Smith, 2010). Many of us feel that “two heads are better than one” and that collaboration allows you to bounce ideas off each other — that brainstorming is a fair way to allow everyone to contribute ideas and leverage buy-in of decisions (Bailis, 2014). Unfortunately, this attempt at building consensus wastes valuable time and resources. It is much better to allow everyone to ideate individually using proven tools and techniques (divergent thinking) and then meet as a group to evaluate and refine the best ideas (convergent thinking). Collaboration is more effective than individualism at evaluating and expanding ideas into innovative solutions (Sawyer, 2017). So, the next time somebody recommends a brainstorming meeting, suggest using one of the tools in this section and taking some “alone time” to build initial ideas.
References
Schirr, G. (2012). Flawed tools: The efficacy of group research methods to generate customer ideas. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(3), 473-488
Jones, M. (1995). The thinker’s toolkit. Crown Business.
Sutton, R. & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 685-718
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytical integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3-23.
Isaksen, S., & Gaulin, J. (2005). A reexamination of brainstorming research: Implications for research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 315-329
Greenfield, R. (2014, July 29). Brainstorming doesn’t work; Try this technique instead. Fast Company online. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany. com/3033567/brainstorming-doesnt-work-try-this-technique-instead
Sawyer, K. (2017). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Basic Books
Furnham, A. (2000). The brainstorming myth. Business Strategy Review, 11(4), 21-28
Nolan, V. (2003, March). Whatever happened to Synectics?. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(1), 24-27.
Kohn, N. & Smith, S. (2010). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359-371.
Bailis, R. (2014, October 8). Brainstorming doesn’t work — Do this instead. Forbes online. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/rochellebailis/2014/10/08/ brainstorming-doesnt-work-do-this-instead/#6847375b6522