Does brainstorming really work?
Scientist's research sheds light on the effectiveness of group creativity
Brainstorming—a technique to get the creative juices flowing—may not be as effective as many people think. According to College of Science Dean Paul Paulus, group brainstorming tends to be unproductive.
Advertising executive Alex Osborn studied group idea generating in the 1940s and coined the term "brainstorming." He proposed that group brainstorming is more likely to generate a higher number of good ideas than will individual brainstorming.
Contemporary research, however, suggests otherwise. Most current literature asserts that group brainstorming is half as effective as individual brainstorming.
But that hasn't stopped the practice.
"It is widely used in creative industries like design, advertising and film, although it takes different forms," said Robert Sutton, co-director of the Center for Work, Technology and Organization at Stanford University. "And the question of whether it is effective is, in my view, completely unanswered by rigorous research."
Dr. Paulus has dedicated the past 15 years to researching group brainstorming and making it more effective. He has conducted dozens of experiments in an effort to demonstrate the presumed benefits of group creativity.
For up to two hours, subjects, predominantly university students, were placed in groups of four and told to generate ideas on a topic of interest. They typically interacted face to face but sometimes were asked to attempt computer-based idea exchange.
Paulus' findings were consistent with other studies. Group brainstorming did produce a number of ideas, but few were any good. He compares group brainstorming to a thunderstorm.
"There's plenty of rain in the storm, that is, plenty of ideas falling from the sky. But there's not much lightning—the exceptional ideas that have the potential to set things on fire."
Group brainstorming becomes ineffective when "blocking" occurs—when group interaction inhibits an individual's flow of good ideas or limits the ability to contribute. Thus, groups provide the perfect environment for some people to do nothing while others do the work.
Paulus says these kinds of barriers are especially detrimental for professional groups like those in the lab-based sciences. "If we care about staying ahead in the innovation race in this world, it would seem important that we use the most effective means of tapping our creative potential."
Most people apparently are not even aware of the factors that sabotage their group brainstorming. Ironically, many groups deem their sessions productive. They have become accustomed to unproductive brainstorming sessions producing few quality ideas. Bad group brainstorming is the norm, so participants have the illusion of being more productive than they actually are.
Paulus and researcher Vince Brown (who now works at Hofstra University) developed a cognitive model of group brainstorming that predicts positive effects.
The model is based on the idea that creative group interaction consists of both cognitive and social dynamics. The collaborative exchange of ideas between members introduces them to new ideas and allows them to discover connections in their "knowledge network" that they may not have been able to create on their own. For productive group brainstorming, the benefits of cognitive stimulation should be heightened and the negative social forces limited.
To "get the most out of group brains," as Paulus puts it, participating members should be able to process as many of the shared ideas as possible. One way is to eliminate the blocking effects of face-to-face interaction. He has found that two techniques alleviate the problem.
"Brainwriting" and "electronic brainstorming" enable people to share their ideas via pieces of paper or on a computer network, respectively. A high number of ideas can be generated because members don't have to wait their turn in the discussion process. But there's a drawback: People can become so wrapped up in producing their own ideas that they don't take time to process those produced by others. They must fully pay attention to the ideas being shared if they want a quality brainstorming session.
Face-to-face interaction is usually more feasible than brainwriting and electronic networking, though, and Paulus has also identified what enhances this more traditional approach. People tend to perform better with enhanced motivation, like providing group members competitive feedback about each other's performances.
The same can be said for the cognitive process, such as asking group members to focus on the quantity and not quality of their ideas. Facilitators are also useful in maintaining productivity. They can guide a group away from negative behaviors like individual domination, criticism or getting off track by telling stories.
Another way that face-to-face brainstorming can enhance group productivity is to alternate between group and individual brainstorming. Ideas may be stimulated during group interaction, but a subsequent period of solitary brainstorming may enable an individual to effectively build on those ideas.
The attitudes of the group members also come into play. People who have a positive attitude toward working in a group tend to perform better than those who do not.
Recently Paulus helped organize a National Science Foundation workshop that focused on summarizing the implications of the group creativity literature for innovation in science and industry. Already this year he has presented his work at a conference sponsored by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that focuses on improving analytical processes.
His findings are being incorporated into textbooks and applied by practitioners. He hopes to do studies in professional organizations that demonstrate the efficacy of various techniques for enhancing group innovation.
— Camille Rogers