Brainstorming

The basic premise of Brainstorming is that participants’ ideas will stimulate other ideas to create a snowball effect of ideas generated (Proctor, 2010). It is also rooted in the belief in the superiority of group thinking over individual thinking (Sawyer, 2012).

The four rules of Brainstorming are as follows (Proctor, 2010): 1. All criticism is banned.

3. Quantity of ideas is needed – more is better.

4. Combining and building on the ideas of others is welcomed.

Presently, brainstorming is renowned as the most popular creativity technique in history (Lehrer, 2012). So much so, that in popular culture the word is synonymous with creative idea generation with many a manager uttering words such as ‘We’ll just brainstorm some ideas’ without referring to the documented procedure developed by the late Alex Osborn in 1936. It could be hypothesized that this is a result of the most well-known principles of the method, namely that criticism is not allowed, and that freewheeling is encouraged. These two tenets give the impression of a method without structure and as a result that any creative ideation by a group constitutes brainstorming in the minds of the public. As alluded to above, Brainstorming is often misunderstood and consequently incorrectly executed by many who have not received training or studied its process (Proctor, 2010).

Brainstorming consists of the following steps (Hicks, 2004; Michalko, 2006; Proctor, 2010):

1. Prepare for the brainstorming session by choosing the participants (10-12 people including a leader and a scribe), location (with comfortable chairs, flipcharts, marker pens, etc.) and sending a memo to all participants explaining the basic process and the problem to be brainstormed. 2. At the start of the session, the facilitator states the problem as specifically as possible and

clarifies any confusion the group raises. For example, seeking new product ideas may be problem as given.

3. The participants verbally offer redefinitions of the problem in ‘How to’ form. The redefinitions could be limited to a sub-problem (e.g. How to identify profitable new products) or use a metaphorical approach (e.g. How to be the early bird that catches the worm, referring to gaining entry to a new market via this new product) or view the problem from different angle (How to satisfy the wants and needs of customers). These restatements are recorded along with the original problem.

4. Once these redefinitions are on the flip chart, the facilitator selects the most relevant of these statements and the redefinition process is repeated, often building on or combining the relevant redefinitions chosen.

5. Finally, the facilitator identifies one or more of the redefinitions, which the group must use for idea generation.

6. After the brainstorming session, the facilitator should select the most promising ideas and send these to an evaluation panel (other than the brainstorming group) for final evaluation.

Proponents of brainstorming suggest that the method creates a stimulating atmosphere of constructive rivalry with participants competing to generate more and wilder ideas (Hicks, 2004). However, a myriad of criticisms against brainstorming casts doubt on such claims.

Sawyer (2012) noted that the body of research accumulated over the course of decades has demonstrated that brainstorming groups think of fewer ideas than an equal number of individuals. It has even been suggested that even though the no criticism rule exists, brainstorming elicits an unspoken air of criticism and never becomes playful enough to produce a free flow of ideas (Brown, 2009).

Another problem with brainstorming is that its reliance on random association may not lead to original solutions (Proctor, 2010). Participants may only be connecting known ideas or notions and not searching beyond their first ideas that come to mind.

The other major drawbacks of brainstorming include its susceptibility to social loafing, production blocking, groupthink, and evaluation apprehension as discussed in Chapter 1 (Heslin, 2009). Social loafing may occur due to rapid-fire, freewheeling idea generating that other participants may exhibit when the process is in full swing. Michalko (2006) noted that brainstorming represents serial processing of information as only one idea can be suggested at a time, which leaves the process open to production blocking due to brainstorming’s turn-based nature. Due to the verbal nature of the submission of ideas, groupthink may become a problem as the loudest voices tend to dominate discussions while evaluation apprehension may occur as the ideas are offered verbally within the group. A further disadvantage of brainstorming is the occurrence of downward comparisons (also known as downward performance matching or downward production matching), where participants match the amount and type of ideas of the lowest performers within the brainstorming group (Roy, Gauvin, & Limayem, 1996). Finally, brainstorming tends to encourage cognitive narrowing, which entails ideas becoming more focused in one direction or train of thought as the group discussion limits the number of alternate directions that are accepted (Wood & Pickerd, 2011). This is consistent with research by Kohn and Smith (2010), who found that exposure to the ideas of others, as is the case in brainstorming, reduced the novelty of subsequent ideas generated and increased conformity to the ideas of others. This narrowing does not affect the quantity of ideas, but reduces the number of semantic categories in which ideas can be grouped (Goldenberg & Wiley, 2011). For example, if five participants have mentioned ideas from two categories, there may be a tendency for the rest of the group to generate ideas in those same two

categories. These findings suggest that the assumption of ‘idea quantity necessarily leads to quality’ is flawed.