Creativityyour Team Isbrainstorming All Wrongby Art Markmanmay 18 ✓ Solved

CREATIVITY Your Team Is Brainstorming All Wrong by Art Markman MAY 18, 2017 Jennifer Maravillas for HBR When your team is tasked with generating ideas to solve a problem, suggesting a brainstorming session is a natural reaction. But does that approach actually work? Although the term “brainstorming†is now used as a generic term for having groups develop ideas, it began as the name of a specific technique proposed by advertising executive Alex Osborn in the 1950s. He codified the basic rules that many of us follow when getting people together to generate ideas: Toss out as many ideas as possible. Don’t worry if they’re too crazy.

Build on the ideas people generate. Don’t criticize initially. These rules seem so obvious and clear that it’s hard to believe they don’t work. However, decades of studies demonstrate that groups that use Osborn’s rules of brainstorming come up with fewer ideas (and fewer good ideas) than the individuals would have developed alone. VIDEO BRAINSWARMING: BECAUSE BRAINSTORMING DOESN'T WORK TO VIEW, PLEASE VISIT THIS ARTICLE AT HBR.ORG There are several reasons for this productivity loss, as academics call it.

For one, when people work together, their ideas tend to converge. As soon as one person throws out an idea, it affects the memory of everyone in the group and makes them think a bit more similarly about the problem than they did before. In contrast, when people work alone, they tend to diverge in their thinking, because everyone takes a slightly different path to thinking about the problem. You can harness the power of divergence and convergence to fix brainstorming, and several studies demonstrate that this works effectively. Here are some of the lessons from this research.

Let Individuals Work Alone First Early in creative acts it’s important to diverge, that is, to think about what you are doing in as many ways as possible. Later, you want to converge on a small number of paths to follow in more detail. Many techniques use a structure like this. For example, in the 6-3-5 method, six people sit around a table and write down three ideas. They pass their stack of ideas to the person on their right, who builds on them.

This passing is done five times, until everyone has had the chance to build on each of the ideas. Afterward, the group can get together to evaluate the ideas generated. There are many variations of techniques like this. What they have in common is that they allow individual work during divergent phases of creativity and group work during convergent phases. Techniques like this can be used in multiple rounds.

For example, it is often important to spend time agreeing on the problem to be solved. A whole round of divergence and convergence on the problem statement can be done before giving people a chance to suggest solutions. Take Your Time Another difficulty with brainstorming is that there are often some people in the group who don’t like uncertainty. They want to finish the process quickly and get on with implementing the new solution. These people are high in a personality characteristic called need for closure.

It’s important that groups have time to explore enough ideas that they can consider more than just the first few possibilities that people generate. One reason why techniques like 6-3-5 are successful is that they slow the creative process down. They alert everyone in the group up front that evaluation isn’t going to happen until everyone has generated ideas and has had a chance to build on them. As a result, even people high in need for closure are forced to wait until the ideas are developed. Let People Draw Many brainstorming sessions involve people talking about solutions.

That biases people toward solutions that are easy to talk about. It may also lead to solutions that are abstract and may never work in practice. As a result, many techniques (such as C-Sketching) require people to draw pictures rather than writing. Our studies suggest that a combination of drawing and writing is ideal for generating creative solutions to problems. There are several reasons why drawing is helpful.

First, it’s hard for people to describe spatial relationships, so any solution that requires a spatial layout is better described with pictures than with words. Second, a large amount of the brain is devoted to visual processing, so sketching and interpreting drawings increases the involvement of those brain regions in idea generation. Third, it is often difficult to describe processes purely in words, so diagrams are helpful. One caution about drawing: People tend to sketch quickly, in ways that make their sketches hard to interpret, so it’s useful to have words in the diagrams to help with the interpretation of these sketches. But haste may not be all bad.

The same studies I referenced above also demonstrate that when other people look at crudely drawn sketches, they may misinterpret elements of the drawings in ways that serendipitously lead to new ideas. One of the joys of the brainstorming session is you, as the group leader, don’t need to spend that much time facilitating or preparing. You just get people in a room and go. But while this makes things easier for you, it’s not good for the group. To develop stronger ideas, you need to manage the conversation so that the team doesn’t converge on a solution before everyone hears what others are thinking.

Until you develop some expertise in helping groups to develop ideas, use a technique like 6-3-5. It’s often easier to follow a process and watch how it unfolds than to try to manage a group dynamically and sense when the group is ready to start working together. Art Markman, PhD, is the Annabel Irion Worsham Centennial Professor of Psychology and Marketing at the University of Texas at Austin and founding director of the program in the Human Dimensions of Organizations. He has written over 150 scholarly papers on topics including reasoning, decision making, and motivation. He is the author of several books including Smart Thinking, Smart Change, and Habits of Leadership. may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material.

Please consult your institution's librarian about any restrictions that might apply under the license with your institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations please visit hbsp.harvard.edu.

Paper for above instructions

Title: Rethinking Brainstorming: Optimizing Creative Processes in Team Settings
Introduction
The practice of brainstorming is a typical response to creative challenges faced by teams in varied sectors. The conventional notion around brainstorming sessions is that bringing multiple minds together will lead to an explosion of ideas that can be transformed into innovative solutions. However, researcher Art Markman (2017) argues against the effectiveness of traditional brainstorming techniques, stating that they often lead to less productive outcomes compared to individual idea generation. This paper explores the inefficiencies associated with classical brainstorming methods and presents alternative approaches that could enhance creativity in team settings based on Markman's insights.
Limitations of Traditional Brainstorming
1. Convergence Bias: Markman highlights that one of the primary drawbacks of conventional brainstorming is convergence bias. Once a participant shares an idea, it can influence others’ thoughts, leading the group to converge toward a limited concept spectrum. This narrowing of focus can stifle originality, as group members may suppress unique thoughts to align with the emerging group consensus (Markman, 2017).
2. Individual Productivity: Research cited by Markman indicates that when individuals brainstorm alone, they generate a greater number of quality ideas than when working collaboratively. This suggests that while collaboration has its merits, early stages of creativity benefit from individual divergence, where unique perspectives can flourish without external influence (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987).
3. Need for Closure: Certain personalities, particularly those high in the need for closure, may impose an urgency to finalize ideas rather than allowing for a thorough exploration of possibilities. This pressure can inhibit open-ended thinking and restrict comprehensive idea development (Markman, 2017).
4. Communication Constraints: Traditional brainstorming often involves verbal communication, which can present challenges in conveying complex ideas. When abstract solutions are discussed, participants may focus on the verbal element rather than engaging with the underlying concepts, leading to vague and impractical outcomes (Markman, 2017).
Alternative Strategies for Enhanced Creativity
To address the limitations of traditional brainstorming and foster more productive idea generation in teams, Markman (2017) suggests various innovative techniques aimed at promoting divergence followed by convergence.
1. Pre-Brainstorming Individual Work: One effective method is to encourage team members to generate ideas independently before coming together as a group. Techniques like the 6-3-5 method, where six individuals each write three ideas and then share them with others for further development, allow for initial idea exploration without the constraints of group dynamics. This individual preliminary phase capitalizes on divergent thinking (Markman, 2017).
2. Segmentation of Creative Phases: Creating distinct phases for idea generation and evaluation can minimize bias and enhance creativity. Teams can first spend time agreeing on the problem before generating solutions, ensuring focus on the core issue before diving into potential fixes (Markman, 2017). This structure allows time for exploring various aspects of a problem without the pressure of immediate solution-seeking.
3. Encouraging Visual Thinking: One effective approach that Markman advocates is drawing as a tool for idea generation. By incorporating visual elements, such as sketches and diagrams, teams can better communicate complex ideas and spatial relationships that may be difficult to articulate verbally. Visual thinking has been shown to engage different cognitive processes, leading to more robust solutions (Cox, 2010). Furthermore, the unique interpretations of crude sketches can spark unexpected ideas—often engendering creativity through misinterpretation (Markman, 2017).
4. Structured Facilitation: Effective facilitation can guide teams through the creative process without imposing premature conclusions. Using structured techniques like 6-3-5 not only allows for clearer communication and progression through idea development but helps even inexperienced facilitators maintain a balanced environment where all voices are heard (Markman, 2017).
Case Studies Supporting Alternative Methods
Numerous organizations have adopted variations of these techniques with notable success. For instance, IDEO, a design and consulting firm, employs a human-centered approach to design thinking, which emphasizes empathy and ideation through collaborative and individual contributions. Their approach is grounded in the belief that effective creativity emerges from both convergence and divergence (Brown, 2009).
Another case is Google’s design sprints, which integrate methodologies that encourage individual idea exploration followed by collective evaluation. This structured approach has led to rapid innovations across various projects (Knapp et al., 2016).
Conclusion
The conventional brainstorming session is often perceived as an easy solution for generating ideas in team contexts. However, research suggests that it may inhibit creativity due to convergence biases and pressures toward closure. To enhance the creative processes within teams, it is essential to incorporate techniques that allow for initial individual divergence followed by collective convergence. By fostering environments that encourage drawing, structured facilitation, and segmented phases for idea generation and evaluation, teams can benefit from richer, more innovative suggestions. As organizations continue to seek creative solutions, redefining brainstorming practices may be crucial for unlocking true potential in collaborative environments.
References
1. Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New Alternatives for Business and Society. HarperBusiness.
2. Cox, M. (2010). The Role of Visual Thinking in Design Education. In Design and Technology Education: An International Journal.
3. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497.
4. Hargadon, A., & Bechara, J. (2004). When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at IDEO. Organization Science, 15(2), 125-142.
5. Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. Simon & Schuster.
6. Markman, A. (2017). Creativity: Your Team is Brainstorming All Wrong. Harvard Business Review.
7. Mehta, R., & Zhu, R. (2009). Blue or Red? Exploring the Effect of Color on Cognitive Task Performances. Science, 323, 1226-1229.
8. Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2003). Productive Conflict in Brainstorming Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 877-895.
9. Richey, J. E., & Thomas, W. (2015). Organizational culture, structure, and process: Impacts on innovation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(3).
10. Van Osch, Y., & Vos, J. F. (2018). Strengthening the Leave of the Brainstorming Effect: The Role of Individual and Group Characteristics. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3).