Reconsidering brainstorming

Group Facilitation, Winter 1999 by Mongeau, Paul A, Morr, Mary Claire

Abstract

Brainstorming is reviewed in face-to-face and electronic contexts. Comparing brainstorming as it was initially defined to how it has been studied reveals several important differences. The accumulated research evidence indicates that face-to-face brainstorming groups produce fewer ideas than nominal groups (i.e., individuals who generate ideas without interacting with other ideators). More recent research indicates that electronic brainstorming groups generate more ideas than do nominal groups. Increasing group size inhibits the performance of face-to-face brainstorming yet facilitates the performance of electronic brainstorming. Process blocking and evaluation apprehension appear to provide the fullest explanation of this phenomenon. Suggestions are made for facilitators who use brainstorming and for future research.

The term "brainstorming" is used in popular speech, as are trademarked brand names such as "Kleenex," "Band-Aid," and "Jello." Paul Mongeau and Mary Claire Morr remind us that "brainstorming" is also a "brand name" coined by Alex Osborn to refer to the approach he developed for idea generation. Although many people use the term generically, group facilitators should be aware of its specific meaning and the research which demonstrates, contrary to popular belief, that brainstorming is an inferior method of generating ideas! However, their criticism of the research alerts us to some of the more subtle aspects of Osborn's method and offers some pointed suggestions for facilitating idea generation.

Reconsidering Brainstorming

Decision-making groups frequently face the task of generating ideas (i.e., ideation). Whether these ideas represent solutions to a manufacturing problem or novel ways of selling toilet bowl cleaners, idea generation is an important group task (Gouran & Hirokawa, 1996). Brainstorming (i.e., using a group to generate a large number of ideas) is a preferred method of ideation.

Brainstorming is often used in a generic sense to describe groups who generate ideas. For example, Moran, Talbot, and Benson (1990) defined brainstorming as "a group process in which group members collectively contribute their ideas in a creative atmosphere" (p. 3). Although the term has come into popular use, facilitators should know its precise meaning and history. This paper reviews brainstorming theory and research in several sections. First, we consider the claims made by Osborn (1957; 1963), the father of brainstorming. This discussion includes a critical discussion of the evidence presented supporting brainstorming. Next, we consider Osborn's view and how it differs from the social science research on brainstorming. Third, we review the social science research on brainstorming in face-to-face, nominal, and electronic contexts. Discussion then centers on explanations for the interesting differences between individuals and brainstorming groups in face-to-face and electronic contexts. Finally, this paper provides considerations for group facilitators and suggestions for future research.

Brainstorming: The Procedure. Alex Osborn (founding partner of the Batten, Barton, Durstine, and Osborn advertising firm) expressed frustration at employees' lack of creativity in problem solving and idea generation. Osborn (1957) argued that the lack of creativity was a function of individuals' tendency to emphasize judgment (i.e., evaluation of ideas) over originality. Group members who are concerned with potential negative evaluation of their ideas will not achieve high levels of creativity.

In an effort to break mental blocks inhibiting creativity, Osborn (1957) developed an extensive set of procedures intended to free imagination. One central component of these procedures was the separation of judgmental from creative processes, or suspended judgment. Suspended judgment requires that creative processes be entirely separated from judgmental ones. Only when the "jamming" influence of judgmental thoughts are eliminated can creative juices flow optimally. Osborn says "When driving for ideas you can go further if you keep your foot off the brake" (1957).

The success of brainstorming as an ideation technique depends strongly on suspended judgment. According to Osborn (1957), in order to be maximally productive, brainstorming groups should follow four rules:

(1) Criticism is ruled out. Adverse judgment of ideas must be withheld until later.

(2) "Free-wheeling" is welcomed. The wilder the idea, the better; it is easier to tame down than to think up.

(3) Quantity is wanted. The greater the number of ideas, the more the likelihood of winners.

(4) Combination and improvement are sought. In addition to contributing ideas of their own, participants should suggest how ideas of others can be turned into better ideas; or how two or more ideas can be joined into still another idea. (p. 84)

These rules are designed to generate a large number of ideas (rule 3) by sparking creativity (rules 2 and 4) through suspended judgment (rule 1).

It is the fourth rule that leads to an expectation that groups should generate more ideas than individuals. First, at the group level, Osborn (1957) argues that the nature of group ideation allows for idea generation through the power of association (or what he calls "sparking" or "chain reactions"). Consider a scenario where Member A presents an idea to a group. The power of association implies that A's original idea might "spark" novel ideas both in Member A and in other group members. When presented to the group these new ideas can spark even more ideas in other group members, further stimulating the brainstorming cycle. Brainstorming, then, depends on the free expression of ideas. If ideas are not expressed orally, they cannot stimulate new ideas in other group members and the group's effectiveness will suffer.