A common behavior that I have observed that can kill a group's brainstorming efforts is a lack of strategy before the brainstorming begins. Most of the time, when people jump into brainstorming sessions without a plan or strategy, they end up spending a lot of time but achieving very little. So, a lack of strategy is a big impediment to effective brainstorming.
I have encountered group members censoring their ideas during brainstorming sessions because they are afraid the idea will not be accepted or do not want to go against another member’s idea. Often you see people that just nod and agree with one or two group leaders. This can lead to fewer ideas and ineffective brainstorming. Ensuring that each member gives one idea and input on the others can be helpful in group brainstorming sessions.
I completely agree with you, and I think this ties back to Dammy's original point. The better the expectations are coming into a brainstorming meeting as far as what each individual member should be bringing into this meeting, the easier it might be to mitigate some of these behaviors.
Like Erin, I've often found brainstorming ineffective if group members think that their ideas will not be accepted or devalued by their peers. During my professional career, I've experienced this problem to be especially important if the boss or leader of the team is perceived as a very authoritarian person. I often found that those leaders are not necessarily more or less open-minded towards new and unorthodox ideas but their perceived leadership style has had a significant influence on the creativity of the group.
I have seen that when there is not a process for brainstorming, the session is usually unproductive. Without a process, a brainstorming session can end too early because of discussion of the ideas instead of focusing on idea creation/generation. When there is a set time for idea generation where idea discussion is not allowed, then people can read ideas/think about ideas without fear of their ideas being immediately struck down. While it can be true that setting a certain time for the brainstorming session may cut short the time for idea generation, it doesn’t prevent future idea generation, but rather encourage others to participate in the process.
Like Dammy, I think that a lack of strategy can impede a group's brainstorming efforts. Often a group can go off on multiple tangents if they can't agree on at least some parameters for the task at hand. Although a group may generate many different ideas, it may not achieve the goal if the group's focus and goals are not initially clearly defined.
I think one of the most common is when you don´t have focus and the rules of the brainstorm process aren't good specified.
Also is very common when there are participants that are constantly rejecting other comments and they think their ideas are the good ones.
Finally, if you are working in a company and you are asked for participating in a brainstorm process, sometimes the thing that can kill the brainstorming is that participants aren't interested or motivated in think again in good ideas because they know after the process everything will be the same. It means that company has the idea of brainstorming but they don´t know how to use that information.
I've recognized that brainstorming in a group can be "killed" when people are too guarded with sharing their ideas, most notably the more outlandish ideas that could very well be innovative and developed into a feasible solution had they been expressed and discussed. People generally aim to be socially acceptable and color within the lines, but sometimes the really great brainstorming takes place when you think outside of your element and you are willing to share your ideas and thought process.
I have seen groups suffer from allowing the incessant naysayer to take control of the process. It seems there is one in every group, the person who finds something wrong with each and every idea that is brought to the table. I have seen such naysayers dismiss so many ideas that they bring the creative process to a complete halt. Group members' thresholds for having their ideas shot down one after the other are fairly low, as no one wants to be made to feel inadequate in front of their peers. Allowing a strong pessimistic personality to maintain a dominating voice at the brainstorming table is a creativity killer.
Similar to Courtney's post above, a person who shoots down every idea that is mentioned can definitely kill a brainstorming session. However I want to take it one step further and make it relevant to my past experiences. When a certain constraint is brought up (in this case cost) before a brainstorming session, it is very difficult for the group (or one person) to get this constraint out of their mind, leading to every idea being analyzed through a cost lens. This can lead to a very unproductive brainstorming session and potentially create an environment where ideas are no longer shared for fear of being denied by their peers.
A behavior that I have observed that can kill a group’s brainstorming efforts is introducing an irrelevant and distracting topic that leads the group to redirect its focus. Groups are made up of people with interests beyond just the topic the brainstorming is focused on and all it takes is one person to redirect the group’s attention and focus it on something considered “easier” or more “fun” to discuss. Furthermore, if the new topic is more enjoyable to discuss, other team members might not feel like going back to the original brainstorming topic.
Brian addressed it above, but I think a process is important. It may seem counter-intuitive when trying to get the creative juices flowing, but I have experienced a higher level of engagement by all group members when there is a specified brainstorming time. In Nancy Hyer's MIP class, our unit on meeting planning and effectiveness exposed a process whereby each member committed a set amount of time to identifying problems and scribbling on to post-it notes. By doing this in privacy before reviewing as a group, there seemed to be a broad array of thoughts generated and no one's ideas were judged or dismissed at that juncture. This is similar to generating ideas about the uses of a paper clip, there is a lot that can come out of some quiet time.
Another inhibitor to brainstorming can be practicality. Some of us are armed with more than we'd like (me!) and have a hard time "wasting time" on useless idea generation when we see a practical solution so clearly. Admittedly, the more you know about the inner-workings of a project or organization, you fall victim to doing things within the constraints of the organization and the same boring remedies. If you do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. If you want to change the result, you must change the way you do things.
I agree with a point that Caitlin made in the above post. I think that groups focus too much on efficiency and practicality when formulating ideas and making decisions. Typically there are time constraints to brainstorming sessions, and groups want to come up with an actionable idea within the allotted time. I also think that once the ideas start flowing, the practicality and feasibility of each idea is one of the top considerations, as group members want to ensure the success of an idea, thereby minimizing risk. “Groupthink” seems to also play a significant role in killing the group’s brainstorming efforts, in that people have a tendency to agree with one another about a certain idea and focus too much on attaining group agreement versus generating quality novel ideas.
I have observed that brainstorming has been curtailed by people who are unnecessarily negative. This can be compounded when the negative people do not contribute alternative ideas. The energy and creativity levels can start to be badly affected when everything on the brainstorming list is "shot down" or criticized.
One behavior I’ve observed in a group that killed the brainstorming efforts was when the person valued their ideas over the rest of the group. The person barely listened to the ideas tossed out by their group members, and instead pushed their ideas, kept coming back to their ideas, and continued coming up with other reasons for why their idea was “the best.” This ultimately belittled the ideas of our other group members, was distracting, and limited the total number of ideas generated. It is OK to want to stand up for your idea and provide rationale for why it is a strong idea; however it is not OK to do so during a brainstorm when the objective is to determine as many ideas as possible.
Similar to Ashley's post I've also noticed this behavior within groups. When one person in a group becomes the natural leader and values his or her own ideas over others, brainstorming efforts are destroyed. This isn't a practice that I've seen at Owen but in my old job this was prevalent among managers within audit groups. Listening to other people's opinions and ideas within a brainstorming session can lead the group to a better outcome and strong plans and ideas. In real life, as Ashley mentioned, this is belittling to the other group members and hinders work in general.
My fellow merchandising interns at Lowe's held an informal weekly meeting to bounce ideas off each other, talk about what people we're meeting, and get a general feel for how everyone's experience was going. The objective was basically to relax with peers for an hour and brainstorm ideas for our individual projects.
One member of the team had a superiority complex. She felt that her business background and education made her the de facto expert in the group, but she failed to realize that there was no need (or desire) for an expert in these sessions. The goal was to get feedback on ideas, not determine which ones are good and bad immediately.
I’ve experienced a fellow group member become so convinced that his idea was the correct/best idea for the group that it effectively killed the brainstorming efforts of the group. After reaching his conclusion, the group member began ignoring other possible ideas or solutions and continuously tried to move forward with his solution. The problem, however, was that not everyone in the group agreed that his idea was the best. Focusing too much on one given idea, especially without a consensus of the group’s support, can greatly hinder brainstorming efforts. All group members should strive to maintain an open mind throughout the brainstorming process. If one member feels strongly about their position, instead of simply shutting down all other potential ideas, that group member should rationally and logically reason with those who disagree to come to a better consensus. Time and effort spent on reasonable discussion is much more effective.
One thing that I've seen kill a teams brainstorming is when the manager or leader says "don't bring up a problem unless you have a solution in mind". I think that this behavior kills the whole brainstorming process since people are afraid to even bring up the problem at all before they have an idea in mind. And by that point, they will have convinced themselves (likely alone) that this is the best way to solve a problem so there is no opportunity for brainstorming with others. This isolation can really hurt the company and their prospects for innovation.
I think Caitlin might have touched on this a bit in her response, but one of the things that I think can be a barrier to effective brainstorming is the group's attitude toward brainstorming, in general. If the group (or certain group members) do not buy in to the value behind the exercise, they are more likely to view it as a chore to be completed, rather than a worthwhile way to come up with new ideas for solving the problem (i.e. "The boss want's us to "brainstorm," so let's throw out a few ideas so we can get this over with, even though we already know what we're going to do...")
There are two big things for me that kill brainstorming: 1. Lack of an agreed-upon process or structure around group brainstorming efforts, especially if it means that different group members are coming into the meeting having done different amounts of preparation. 2. Domination of a group brainstorming effort by one or two of the group members, which can cause other members to not share as many of their ideas.
Additionally, it so often happens that there are so many competing priorities for group members' time and attention (like other MBA classes) that it can be tough to get all group members' full effort before, during, and after a session.
There's a behavior I've witnesses time and again in different groups that kills the productivity of a brainstorming session. A couple other people have touched on this subject, and it's definitely prevalent, particularly in the business environment. This behavior is the tendency for individuals to start analyzing brainstorm ideas before the brainstorm session has ended. They’ll challenge the feasibility of an idea, or challenge whether it would work. This behavior not only changes the focus of the session from generating ideas to defending them, it can also provide members with a reason not to contribute an idea if they feel their suggestion may also be shot down during the session.
I agree with Brett that lack of predetermined process and structure knee-caps brainstorming efforts. When members of the group fail to recognize brainstorming for what it is--throwing a load of good and bad ideas on the table--they often jump to the idea analysis phase and shoot down ideas they see as unrealistic. The result is often unnecessary group friction.
Brainstorming is supposed to represent true freedom of expression... whether the idea is brilliant, far-fetched, ludicrous, or practical. I have seen many times when people comment on each idea in either a positive or negative way and suddenly the brainstorming dies down as people feel that they will judged on each input they suggest. You never know when an idea that appeared unrealistic may end up being used in a modified version. "Brainstorming knows no bounds" - Taylor Forman
I've seen situations where a person or group of people come into a brainstorming session already set on a solution/answer. In these cases, the brainstorming session turns into a discussion of which idea is better, rather than a productive meeting to generate new ideas.
From my work experience, if mostly there is someone with a higher authority in the meeting, he or she ideas is likely to be the results of the meeting because he or she can kill the ideas that did not make sense to them. In the end, other team members will end up generate only the ideas that the higher authority person will agree with since any ideas that outside the scope will be trash anyway. So there will be many ideas that were left out.
A problem that I've seen when brainstorming in teams is when one person is dominating the brainstorming and not giving everyone a chance to express their ideas just because they can't be heard or because they're afraid the domineering person might criticize their idea. Making sure everyone has a chance to speak and feels comfortable in the discussion is important.
I have seen team members that were so dominant that they efficiently blocked any ideas from others. They basically had two effects: on one hand, they were quick in voicing their own opinion, automatically directing the teams innovation effort into one direction. On the other hand, they discouraged other team members from voicing their own opinions, because of his way to ridicule and belittle other ideas. While his ideas were supposed to be the best - others didn't seem to have any value to him.
The problem that I see in group brainstorming is that people comment on others' idea. If this happens, the group will easily divert from brainstorming to focusing on judging existing ideas.
The problem that I see in group brainstorming is that people comment on others' idea. If this happens, the group will easily divert from brainstorming to focusing on judging existing ideas.
I often find that people hang on to their own ideas for too long. They want to bring value, and that's good, but they try to force their idea outright or force parts of it into another concept. In the end it has a bad effect on morale and also can cause confusion in the later stages of innovation. These people need to know when a better idea is present and start finding ways to help that process along.
The behavior that for me shuts things down faster than anything else is when someone is being a devil's advocate on steriods. The individual will shoot down each and every idea basically as they come out of their teammates mouths, rarely acknowledging the good in the idea and completely focusing on why it won't work. This behavior makes other less than enthusiastic to speak up with their ideas.
The factor that seems to be most detrimental to group brainstorming efforts in my opinion is structure itself. I take the opposite opinion in that most great ideas never see the light of day because groups often take a structured approach to everything from documentation to speaking order to time limitations. The best brainstorming sessions I have been a part of are the ones where there is no clock and no one is concerned about writing anything down or trying to fit the ideas into a checklist. Most great ideas are things that exist in our brains and when we try to pitch them to a group, the goal is generally to find the holes in these idea as opposed to the strengths that can be used to create far superior ideas. I think brainstorming sessions are helpful only if you have individuals who are optimists. I also agree with Bryan in that people who like to "play devil's advocate" don't belong in the brainstorming session in the first place.
There are instances in which the conversation is dominated by just a few group members, and as a result, others become less willing to share their ideas. This situation can become worse when the group starts to evaluate ideas too early in the brainstorming process instead of gathering ideas from all members. Awareness is needed among the group in order to make sure that each participant has opportunities to contribute.
I think the role of a "devil's advocate" can be potentially harmful to a group's brainstorming efforts. This is especially true if the group is at the "idea generation" step of the innovation process. The devil's advocate is actually introducing constraints to the brainstorming. That being said, as the group moves toward idea assessment, this sort of challenging / push-back may be helpful when eliminating ideas.
One of the things that that I have noticed to have a disturbing effect on a brainstorming session is a tendency on part of the group members (and even the discussion facilitator) to evaluate each idea as it comes out from someone's mouth. This not only puts the thought process of all involved in an analytical mode, but also has the effect of making other group members more cautious about their ideas (and this less open to different ideas).
A common behavior that I have observed that can kill a group's brainstorming efforts is a lack of strategy before the brainstorming begins. Most of the time, when people jump into brainstorming sessions without a plan or strategy, they end up spending a lot of time but achieving very little. So, a lack of strategy is a big impediment to effective brainstorming.
ReplyDeleteI have encountered group members censoring their ideas during brainstorming sessions because they are afraid the idea will not be accepted or do not want to go against another member’s idea. Often you see people that just nod and agree with one or two group leaders. This can lead to fewer ideas and ineffective brainstorming. Ensuring that each member gives one idea and input on the others can be helpful in group brainstorming sessions.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, and I think this ties back to Dammy's original point. The better the expectations are coming into a brainstorming meeting as far as what each individual member should be bringing into this meeting, the easier it might be to mitigate some of these behaviors.
DeleteLike Erin, I've often found brainstorming ineffective if group members think that their ideas will not be accepted or devalued by their peers. During my professional career, I've experienced this problem to be especially important if the boss or leader of the team is perceived as a very authoritarian person. I often found that those leaders are not necessarily more or less open-minded towards new and unorthodox ideas but their perceived leadership style has had a significant influence on the creativity of the group.
ReplyDeleteI have seen that when there is not a process for brainstorming, the session is usually unproductive. Without a process, a brainstorming session can end too early because of discussion of the ideas instead of focusing on idea creation/generation. When there is a set time for idea generation where idea discussion is not allowed, then people can read ideas/think about ideas without fear of their ideas being immediately struck down. While it can be true that setting a certain time for the brainstorming session may cut short the time for idea generation, it doesn’t prevent future idea generation, but rather encourage others to participate in the process.
ReplyDeleteLike Dammy, I think that a lack of strategy can impede a group's brainstorming efforts. Often a group can go off on multiple tangents if they can't agree on at least some parameters for the task at hand. Although a group may generate many different ideas, it may not achieve the goal if the group's focus and goals are not initially clearly defined.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the most common is when you don´t have focus and the rules of the brainstorm process aren't good specified.
ReplyDeleteAlso is very common when there are participants that are constantly rejecting other comments and they think their ideas are the good ones.
Finally, if you are working in a company and you are asked for participating in a brainstorm process, sometimes the thing that can kill the brainstorming is that participants aren't interested or motivated in think again in good ideas because they know after the process everything will be the same. It means that company has the idea of brainstorming but they don´t know how to use that information.
I've recognized that brainstorming in a group can be "killed" when people are too guarded with sharing their ideas, most notably the more outlandish ideas that could very well be innovative and developed into a feasible solution had they been expressed and discussed. People generally aim to be socially acceptable and color within the lines, but sometimes the really great brainstorming takes place when you think outside of your element and you are willing to share your ideas and thought process.
ReplyDeleteI have seen groups suffer from allowing the incessant naysayer to take control of the process. It seems there is one in every group, the person who finds something wrong with each and every idea that is brought to the table. I have seen such naysayers dismiss so many ideas that they bring the creative process to a complete halt. Group members' thresholds for having their ideas shot down one after the other are fairly low, as no one wants to be made to feel inadequate in front of their peers. Allowing a strong pessimistic personality to maintain a dominating voice at the brainstorming table is a creativity killer.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Courtney's post above, a person who shoots down every idea that is mentioned can definitely kill a brainstorming session. However I want to take it one step further and make it relevant to my past experiences. When a certain constraint is brought up (in this case cost) before a brainstorming session, it is very difficult for the group (or one person) to get this constraint out of their mind, leading to every idea being analyzed through a cost lens. This can lead to a very unproductive brainstorming session and potentially create an environment where ideas are no longer shared for fear of being denied by their peers.
DeleteA behavior that I have observed that can kill a group’s brainstorming efforts is introducing an irrelevant and distracting topic that leads the group to redirect its focus. Groups are made up of people with interests beyond just the topic the brainstorming is focused on and all it takes is one person to redirect the group’s attention and focus it on something considered “easier” or more “fun” to discuss. Furthermore, if the new topic is more enjoyable to discuss, other team members might not feel like going back to the original brainstorming topic.
ReplyDeleteBrian addressed it above, but I think a process is important. It may seem counter-intuitive when trying to get the creative juices flowing, but I have experienced a higher level of engagement by all group members when there is a specified brainstorming time. In Nancy Hyer's MIP class, our unit on meeting planning and effectiveness exposed a process whereby each member committed a set amount of time to identifying problems and scribbling on to post-it notes. By doing this in privacy before reviewing as a group, there seemed to be a broad array of thoughts generated and no one's ideas were judged or dismissed at that juncture. This is similar to generating ideas about the uses of a paper clip, there is a lot that can come out of some quiet time.
ReplyDeleteAnother inhibitor to brainstorming can be practicality. Some of us are armed with more than we'd like (me!) and have a hard time "wasting time" on useless idea generation when we see a practical solution so clearly. Admittedly, the more you know about the inner-workings of a project or organization, you fall victim to doing things within the constraints of the organization and the same boring remedies. If you do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. If you want to change the result, you must change the way you do things.
I just read the title of Chapter 3 'Why a brainstorm meeting can be worse than no meeting at all'...maybe my comment above is now void :)
DeleteI agree with a point that Caitlin made in the above post. I think that groups focus too much on efficiency and practicality when formulating ideas and making decisions. Typically there are time constraints to brainstorming sessions, and groups want to come up with an actionable idea within the allotted time. I also think that once the ideas start flowing, the practicality and feasibility of each idea is one of the top considerations, as group members want to ensure the success of an idea, thereby minimizing risk. “Groupthink” seems to also play a significant role in killing the group’s brainstorming efforts, in that people have a tendency to agree with one another about a certain idea and focus too much on attaining group agreement versus generating quality novel ideas.
ReplyDeleteI have observed that brainstorming has been curtailed by people who are unnecessarily negative. This can be compounded when the negative people do not contribute alternative ideas. The energy and creativity levels can start to be badly affected when everything on the brainstorming list is "shot down" or criticized.
ReplyDeleteOne behavior I’ve observed in a group that killed the brainstorming efforts was when the person valued their ideas over the rest of the group. The person barely listened to the ideas tossed out by their group members, and instead pushed their ideas, kept coming back to their ideas, and continued coming up with other reasons for why their idea was “the best.” This ultimately belittled the ideas of our other group members, was distracting, and limited the total number of ideas generated. It is OK to want to stand up for your idea and provide rationale for why it is a strong idea; however it is not OK to do so during a brainstorm when the objective is to determine as many ideas as possible.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Ashley's post I've also noticed this behavior within groups. When one person in a group becomes the natural leader and values his or her own ideas over others, brainstorming efforts are destroyed. This isn't a practice that I've seen at Owen but in my old job this was prevalent among managers within audit groups. Listening to other people's opinions and ideas within a brainstorming session can lead the group to a better outcome and strong plans and ideas. In real life, as Ashley mentioned, this is belittling to the other group members and hinders work in general.
DeleteMy fellow merchandising interns at Lowe's held an informal weekly meeting to bounce ideas off each other, talk about what people we're meeting, and get a general feel for how everyone's experience was going. The objective was basically to relax with peers for an hour and brainstorm ideas for our individual projects.
ReplyDeleteOne member of the team had a superiority complex. She felt that her business background and education made her the de facto expert in the group, but she failed to realize that there was no need (or desire) for an expert in these sessions. The goal was to get feedback on ideas, not determine which ones are good and bad immediately.
Clearly, she was a 10A.
I’ve experienced a fellow group member become so convinced that his idea was the correct/best idea for the group that it effectively killed the brainstorming efforts of the group. After reaching his conclusion, the group member began ignoring other possible ideas or solutions and continuously tried to move forward with his solution. The problem, however, was that not everyone in the group agreed that his idea was the best. Focusing too much on one given idea, especially without a consensus of the group’s support, can greatly hinder brainstorming efforts. All group members should strive to maintain an open mind throughout the brainstorming process. If one member feels strongly about their position, instead of simply shutting down all other potential ideas, that group member should rationally and logically reason with those who disagree to come to a better consensus. Time and effort spent on reasonable discussion is much more effective.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I've seen kill a teams brainstorming is when the manager or leader says "don't bring up a problem unless you have a solution in mind". I think that this behavior kills the whole brainstorming process since people are afraid to even bring up the problem at all before they have an idea in mind. And by that point, they will have convinced themselves (likely alone) that this is the best way to solve a problem so there is no opportunity for brainstorming with others. This isolation can really hurt the company and their prospects for innovation.
ReplyDeleteI think Caitlin might have touched on this a bit in her response, but one of the things that I think can be a barrier to effective brainstorming is the group's attitude toward brainstorming, in general. If the group (or certain group members) do not buy in to the value behind the exercise, they are more likely to view it as a chore to be completed, rather than a worthwhile way to come up with new ideas for solving the problem (i.e. "The boss want's us to "brainstorm," so let's throw out a few ideas so we can get this over with, even though we already know what we're going to do...")
ReplyDeleteThere are two big things for me that kill brainstorming: 1. Lack of an agreed-upon process or structure around group brainstorming efforts, especially if it means that different group members are coming into the meeting having done different amounts of preparation. 2. Domination of a group brainstorming effort by one or two of the group members, which can cause other members to not share as many of their ideas.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, it so often happens that there are so many competing priorities for group members' time and attention (like other MBA classes) that it can be tough to get all group members' full effort before, during, and after a session.
There's a behavior I've witnesses time and again in different groups that kills the productivity of a brainstorming session. A couple other people have touched on this subject, and it's definitely prevalent, particularly in the business environment. This behavior is the tendency for individuals to start analyzing brainstorm ideas before the brainstorm session has ended. They’ll challenge the feasibility of an idea, or challenge whether it would work. This behavior not only changes the focus of the session from generating ideas to defending them, it can also provide members with a reason not to contribute an idea if they feel their suggestion may also be shot down during the session.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brett that lack of predetermined process and structure knee-caps brainstorming efforts. When members of the group fail to recognize brainstorming for what it is--throwing a load of good and bad ideas on the table--they often jump to the idea analysis phase and shoot down ideas they see as unrealistic. The result is often unnecessary group friction.
ReplyDeleteBrainstorming is supposed to represent true freedom of expression... whether the idea is brilliant, far-fetched, ludicrous, or practical. I have seen many times when people comment on each idea in either a positive or negative way and suddenly the brainstorming dies down as people feel that they will judged on each input they suggest. You never know when an idea that appeared unrealistic may end up being used in a modified version. "Brainstorming knows no bounds" - Taylor Forman
ReplyDeleteI've seen situations where a person or group of people come into a brainstorming session already set on a solution/answer. In these cases, the brainstorming session turns into a discussion of which idea is better, rather than a productive meeting to generate new ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe two behaviors that kill a group's brainstorming efforts are result orientation and being bounded by time.
ReplyDeleteFrom my work experience, if mostly there is someone with a higher authority in the meeting, he or she ideas is likely to be the results of the meeting because he or she can kill the ideas that did not make sense to them. In the end, other team members will end up generate only the ideas that the higher authority person will agree with since any ideas that outside the scope will be trash anyway. So there will be many ideas that were left out.
ReplyDeleteA problem that I've seen when brainstorming in teams is when one person is dominating the brainstorming and not giving everyone a chance to express their ideas just because they can't be heard or because they're afraid the domineering person might criticize their idea. Making sure everyone has a chance to speak and feels comfortable in the discussion is important.
ReplyDeleteI have seen team members that were so dominant that they efficiently blocked any ideas from others. They basically had two effects: on one hand, they were quick in voicing their own opinion, automatically directing the teams innovation effort into one direction. On the other hand, they discouraged other team members from voicing their own opinions, because of his way to ridicule and belittle other ideas. While his ideas were supposed to be the best - others didn't seem to have any value to him.
ReplyDeleteThe problem that I see in group brainstorming is that people comment on others' idea. If this happens, the group will easily divert from brainstorming to focusing on judging existing ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe problem that I see in group brainstorming is that people comment on others' idea. If this happens, the group will easily divert from brainstorming to focusing on judging existing ideas.
ReplyDeleteI often find that people hang on to their own ideas for too long. They want to bring value, and that's good, but they try to force their idea outright or force parts of it into another concept. In the end it has a bad effect on morale and also can cause confusion in the later stages of innovation. These people need to know when a better idea is present and start finding ways to help that process along.
ReplyDeleteThe behavior that for me shuts things down faster than anything else is when someone is being a devil's advocate on steriods. The individual will shoot down each and every idea basically as they come out of their teammates mouths, rarely acknowledging the good in the idea and completely focusing on why it won't work. This behavior makes other less than enthusiastic to speak up with their ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe factor that seems to be most detrimental to group brainstorming efforts in my opinion is structure itself. I take the opposite opinion in that most great ideas never see the light of day because groups often take a structured approach to everything from documentation to speaking order to time limitations. The best brainstorming sessions I have been a part of are the ones where there is no clock and no one is concerned about writing anything down or trying to fit the ideas into a checklist. Most great ideas are things that exist in our brains and when we try to pitch them to a group, the goal is generally to find the holes in these idea as opposed to the strengths that can be used to create far superior ideas. I think brainstorming sessions are helpful only if you have individuals who are optimists. I also agree with Bryan in that people who like to "play devil's advocate" don't belong in the brainstorming session in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThere are instances in which the conversation is dominated by just a few group members, and as a result, others become less willing to share their ideas. This situation can become worse when the group starts to evaluate ideas too early in the brainstorming process instead of gathering ideas from all members. Awareness is needed among the group in order to make sure that each participant has opportunities to contribute.
ReplyDeleteI think the role of a "devil's advocate" can be potentially harmful to a group's brainstorming efforts. This is especially true if the group is at the "idea generation" step of the innovation process. The devil's advocate is actually introducing constraints to the brainstorming. That being said, as the group moves toward idea assessment, this sort of challenging / push-back may be helpful when eliminating ideas.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that that I have noticed to have a disturbing effect on a brainstorming session is a tendency on part of the group members (and even the discussion facilitator) to evaluate each idea as it comes out from someone's mouth. This not only puts the thought process of all involved in an analytical mode, but also has the effect of making other group members more cautious about their ideas (and this less open to different ideas).
ReplyDelete