The Brainstorm Conundrum

Conundrum

In her book, Think Bigger, Sheena Iyengar hints at a conundrum. Brainstorming in groups, she suspects, may actually go against our nature. It’s a suspicion backed up by studies carried out by Michael Diehl and Wolfgang Stroebe. These revealed that individuals brainstorming alone can outperform their group counterparts. All of which raises the question: Are we really more creative in groups? Or is solitude the secret ingredient to innovation?

Professor Jun Rekimoto, of the University of Tokyo, adds a further twist. He believes traditional brainstorming sessions might make us feel creative, yet not necessarily result in high-quality ideas. For him, the classic brainstorming image—colourful post-it notes scattered across a wall—is often misleading. Yes, it might very well display a multitude of ideas generated by a group. But just because there are a lot of them, and they come from a group session, they don’t automatically signify creativity. 

For Rekimoto, what’s often at play in a traditional barnstorming session is a group's desire to conform - otherwise known as the ‘bandwagon effect’. This is a phenomenon described in Het Bromvliegeffect, by Eva van den Broek and Tim den Heijer. They argue that individuals, once gathered into groups, often tend to avoid risks and go with the flow, agreeing with others rather than challenging them with what could - potentially – be a genuine innovation. 

In short, groups may end up stifling the very creativity they’re looking for.

Inside the box

For Iyengar, a brainstorming session should ideally result in a collaboration that leads to more than the sum of its parts. She notes that even a group of experts is limited to its collective knowledge— what she refers to as 'inside the box' thinking. What’s needed is something extra: outside knowledge and experience that adds to the ‘inside’ knowledge and experience of the experts. 

She cites the example of manufacturer Henry Ford, who didn’t just want to build a better automobile, but who also wanted to change the way automobiles were made. So he looked outside his engineers' expertise in creating vehicles to the manufacturing world at large. It was a move that led not just to the creation of the Model T Ford, but to the assembly line on which it was built; an assembly line that reduced manufacturing costs significantly, and so made owning a car – for the first time – affordable for millions.

Hurdles

So, how can we tackle these challenges inherent to brainstorming? Let’s consider the three main hurdles:

·      Group sessions can be less than productive

·      Risk aversion leads to conformity rather than creativity

·      Brainstorming can become limited to 'inside the box' thinking.

The answer could lie in a blended approach. Diehl and Stroebe suggest combining solitary and group sessions. This would enable ideas generated by individuals to be enriched and refined through further, collaborative, discussion.

In practice, this means inviting participants to a group session to work first by themselves. To come up with their own ideas before joining the group that would then critique and build upon all the concepts generated. Such a method would leverage the benefits of solitary reflection and collective wisdom, but without falling prey to the drawbacks of traditional brainstorming. It’s a strategy that acknowledges our cognitive biases and strives to create an environment where creativity can be truly unleashed.

Innovate innovation

Innovation shouldn’t stand still. What was new and revolutionary in 1939 should be a springboard, not a cage. As designers looking for inspiration and new, fresh ideas, we should commit ourselves wholeheartedly to new ways of finding them. Our goal should be to find new ways to innovate how we innovate. Because brainstorming is not just about generating ideas; it's about cultivating the conditions in which ideas can flourish. 

Where 1+1 can indeed become much more than just 2.