In this terrific interview at Google, Tina Fey explains one of the basic rules of improv (starting at around 2:46). Fey describes how actors and actresses use the "yes, and" rule in improv comedy. In other words, you are trained to build on others' ideas. Accept what they have said, and take the idea further. Do not reject what someone has said. Eliminate the "yes, but" mentality that can derail a sketch. The "yes, and" rule is instrumental for teams in the workplace too. It can help make brainstorming sessions more effective, and it keep debates constructive.
Jon Bell has a good post about brainstorming this week. He outlines his "McDonald's Theory" of how to improve team brainstorming. According to Bell, he has used an effective technique whenever folks at work are trying to decide where to go to lunch. He will throw out the idea of going to McDonald's. Everyone immediately recoils at the idea, and then they begin trying to come up with better ideas. Bell argues that teams should approach brainstorming the same way. Be willing to throw out some crazy ideas in the early going. Get the creative juices flowing. If nothing else, you have given the group a notion of what they don't want to do. In some cases, the seemingly ridiculous idea will trigger some other quite interesting and useful notions.
The McDonald's Theory is quite consistent with one of the mantras espoused by leading product design firm IDEO. They argue that leaders must, "Encourage wild ideas" - particularly during the early stages of brainstorming. I would simply add one key point to Bell's thoughts. In his lunch example, people often reject the McDonald's suggestion outright. In a good team brainstorming session, people should resist rejecting those crazy early ideas. Instead, they ought to adopt a key rule from improv comedy. They ought to employ the "yes, and" approach to building on that idea. Accept the idea, as crazy as it may be, but build on it. Find some kernel in there that's useful and take the discussion from there.
Check out this terrific debate about brainstorming, facilitated by Fast Company and published in the new issue of the magazine. The discussion includes Bob Sutton, Charlan Nemeth, Keith Sawyer, and Gerard Puccio.
This morning, I read this interview with Blake Anderson, Adam DeVine, and Anders Holm - the creators of the show Workaholics on Comedy Central. They describe how they brainstorm together to come up with ideas for the show. To me, the most fascinating portion of the interview addresses the issue of how they "put the brakes on an idea." Anders Holm explains that you don't want the same person always being the individual who is reining the group in or pruning ideas:
Adam: I don’t think any of us have a real problem, being like, “Naaaah,” to an idea. Because it’s not hurting our feelings, it’s just an idea and we’ll come up with a new one. We try not to be too precious with any of these ideas. And we’ve worked together now--like really, really worked hard together--for the last six, seven years. So we’re really comfortable knowing whether the guys are gonna love this one. Or the guys aren’t gonna love this one but I’m gonna keep pitching it anyway. Anders: You gotta juggle that role around or else all of a sudden somebody becomes the cop. Then as soon as that person speaks it’s like, “Uhhhhggg, here comes the cop.” For us everybody puts on the badge every once in awhile.
I'm in agreement about avoiding the conversation cop phenomenon. In working with executives, I often talk about the value of assigning someone to play the role of devil's advocate to enhance the quality of high-stakes decisions. However, I argue that a group should rotate the responsibility for playing the devil's advocate. Otherwise, that person can become a broken record, and other group members can begin to downplay the arguments put forth by the constant critic.
The Gentle Art of Smart Stealing blog has a terrific post titled "15 Illustrated Brainstorming Tips." I highly recommend it. Here are two that I really enjoyed:
14. Look for inspiration in other industries: cross industry innovation
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article about doodling in today's paper - yes, doodling. The article actually features how some firms have created workspaces with lots of whiteboards and chalkboards so people can display ideas visually. They also describe how some firms hire graphic facilitators to help teams display their ideas during brainstorming meetings.
I love the concept. I've worked with graphic facilitators on numerous occasions, and they really do help a team capture their ideas, and they help team members build on each others' ideas very effectively. If we want teams to be creative, then we need to recognize that capturing elements of the conversation visually can be critical. If we want people to learn from one another, then whiteboards and chalkboards can be very helpful. After all, consider a classroom without a chalkboard or whiteboard... could we learn as effectively in that environment. Finally, we have to remember that some people process information more effectively if data and concepts are visually displayed. Not everyone learns or thinks best if they are simply listening to conversation or looking at spreadsheets.
Jonah Lehrer recently wrote a fascinating New Yorker column in which he argued that brainstorming doesn't work. In some ways, he's right on the money. Academic studies often have demonstrated that individuals could perform better at a creative task than a group engaged in brainstorming. For instance, Lehrer cites one of the early studies at Yale:
The first empirical test of Osborn’s brainstorming technique was performed at Yale University, in 1958. Forty-eight male undergraduates were divided into twelve groups and given a series of creative puzzles. The groups were instructed to follow Osborn’s guidelines. As a control sample, the scientists gave the same puzzles to forty-eight students working by themselves. The results were a sobering refutation of Osborn. The solo students came up with roughly twice as many solutions as the brainstorming groups, and a panel of judges deemed their solutions more “feasible” and “effective.” Brainstorming didn’t unleash the potential of the group, but rather made each individual less creative.
Unfortunately, Lehrer's column draws some misleading conclusions as well. Scott Berkun, author of Mindfire: Big Ideas For Curious Minds, has written a strong rebuttal to Lehrer's essay. Berkun offers four key criticisms of Lehrer's conclusions:
1. Nothing matters if the room is filled with morons or strangers (or both).
2. Brainstorming is designed for idea volume, not depth or quality.
3. The person leading an idea generation session matters.
4. Generating ideas is a small part of the process.
Berkun takes particular issue with the conclusions that Lehrer draws from a study by Charlan Nemeth. Brainstorming typically involves a shared norm called "deferred judgment." Under that norm, participants do not criticize each others' ideas during the idea generation process. Berkun explains Nemeth's study:
The primary thrust of Lehrer’s critique is based on a 2003 study by Nemeth, where students were divided into groups and given 3 different sets of instructions. In one group, no instruction was given (‘Minimal’). In the second group, basic brainstorming rules were given (‘Brainstorming’). In the last, brainstorming rules were given, plus students were allowed to critique each others ideas (‘Debate’).... The results do show that the group that could critique generated more ideas... [However] The debate groups was given brainstorming instructions, as well as an instruction to debate. It should be labeled “Brainstorming with debate“. If the only instruction they were given was to debate, it’d be a fair comparison. But it isn’t.
Lehrer concludes from this Nemeth study that stimulating dissent and debate works much more effectively than brainstorming. I'm with Berkun - that conclusion is a step too far. My work over the past fifteen years has focused a great deal on the importance of debate and dissent. I'm glad that Lehrer has chosen to emphasize its importance. However, an effective group process doesn't employ either deferred judgment or dissent and debate. It involves both! In the idea generation phase, deferred judgment makes sense as a norm employed to encourage the generation of many different ideas and options. Later, dissent and debate become critical as a means of comparing and contrasting those options, and perhaps facilitating the development and generation of more ideas and alternatives.
One final point - Later in the article, Lehrer describes the many innovations that emerged from Building 20 at MIT over the years. He concludes, "The lesson of Building 20 is that when the composition of the group is right—enough people with different perspectives running into one another in unpredictable ways—the group dynamic will take care of itself." In other words, if you get the team composition right, you will automatically get lots of constructive dissent and debate. I disagree wholeheartedly with this conclusion. It's just not right. You do not guarantee constructive dissent and debate simply by building a diverse team and giving them a forum for dialogue. In many settings, people simply don't speak up. Groupthink occurs even in diverse teams at times. Yes, you have to get the composition right, but group dynamics do not take care of themselves. They take hard work on the part of a leader. Leadership matters! Process matters!
Susan Cain wrote a very provocative article for the New York Times this weekend. It was titled, "The Rise of the New Groupthink." Cain explains that, "Most of us now work in teams, in offices without walls, for managers who prize people skills above all. Lone geniuses are out. Collaboration is in." However, Cain argues that many creative people are quite introverted, and they enjoy working independently and privately. Some creative individuals thrive as "lone geniuses." Privacy and solitude makes them productive, while constant interruptions can be very problematic. Cain cites the work of K. Anders Ericsson, a scholar who has examined how people become world class experts in particular fields through deliberate practice. Cain concludes from his research that, "The best way to master a field is to work on the task that’s most demanding for you personally. And often the best way to do this is alone."
Cain also argues that teams often do not achieve their potential; they do not outperform the results that could be achieved by best individual members working alone. Indeed, much research has shown that teams often experience "process losses" - i.e. 1+1 should equal more than 2, but somehow those synergies often don't materialize in teams. 1+1 might even add up to less than 2 at times. She points specifically to the process of group brainstorming, whose results often do not meet expectations according to many studies.
Cain acknowledges that many of our toughest technical and scientific problems no longer can be solved by the "lone inventor" working in their garage. Collaboration has become necessary to make progress on many complex challenges of our time. However, she argues that we have to strike a balance in the way we organize ourselves in workplaces, schools, and other institutions. We need to provide the space for collaboration to occur, but not inundate people with meetings. We have to give people, particularly creative introverts, the opportunity and the venue to work privately and without interruption at times. At the same time, we want to provide the opportunity for the mixing of ideas to occur and the sharing of knowledge. It's a delicate balance, but I believe Cain is right in arguing that we must strive to achieve it.
My friend and co-author Lynne Levesque pointed me to a great blog post by Kevin Eikenberry on how to improve brainstorming. I agree with Kevin when he says, "The problem is that we try to brainstorm without a clear problem statement, in the middle of a long meeting, when people are already tired, and they are sitting in a relatively (or totally) sterile, uncreative space." He goes on to offer ten useful tenets for improving how teams brainstorm.
I would add one crucial element to his recommended process. I believe that groups need to do some detective work after they craft a problem statement and before they begin to brainstorm. They need to out into the field, use their powers of observation, and collect data about the phenomenon. That means interacting with, observing, and questioning customers and other constituencies. Once you have gathered some of that fuel for the creative fire, then you can brainstorm effectively. Starting with an absolutely blank slate, in my view, doesn't yield the best results.
