Check out this Fast Company article featuring an interview with members of Unlocking the Truth - a heavy metal band comprised of ambitious and creative 6th graders!
Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts
Monday, July 15, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
Charles Day, CEO of The Lookinglass, has written a good article for Fast Company about attracting top creative talent. He offers eight suggestions. I want to highlight several of them here.
First, he notes that mission-driven businesses are more likely to attract top creative talent. People want to make a difference. Second, people want to work for an organization that does not support underperformers forever. Nothing is more deflating than watching managers retain people who are not contributing. Third, you have to be transparent. Day writes:
"Transparency is essential to attracting and retaining great talent. We define transparency as this: telling what you can and explaining what you can’t. Sharing openly encourages your people to give you the benefit of the doubt. Critical to building loyalty."
I think it's critically important to note the point about explaining what you cannot share. At times, certain issues cannot be disclosed, or at least must wait to be shared. That does not mean managers should remain completely silent. They need to explain (repeatedly) that more information will be shared moving forward, and you have to describe why certain information cannot be shared. Employees will fill a vacuum of information with gossip, rumor, and lots of time-wasting water-cooler talk. Don't let that vacuum exist. Fill it with a steady stream of communication.
First, he notes that mission-driven businesses are more likely to attract top creative talent. People want to make a difference. Second, people want to work for an organization that does not support underperformers forever. Nothing is more deflating than watching managers retain people who are not contributing. Third, you have to be transparent. Day writes:
"Transparency is essential to attracting and retaining great talent. We define transparency as this: telling what you can and explaining what you can’t. Sharing openly encourages your people to give you the benefit of the doubt. Critical to building loyalty."
I think it's critically important to note the point about explaining what you cannot share. At times, certain issues cannot be disclosed, or at least must wait to be shared. That does not mean managers should remain completely silent. They need to explain (repeatedly) that more information will be shared moving forward, and you have to describe why certain information cannot be shared. Employees will fill a vacuum of information with gossip, rumor, and lots of time-wasting water-cooler talk. Don't let that vacuum exist. Fill it with a steady stream of communication.
Friday, February 1, 2013
My former graduate school classmate, Martine Haas (now a professor at Wharton), has written a new paper exploring how peripheral knowledge might impact breakthrough innovation. Haas describes peripheral knowledge as information and ideas that may not seem pertinent to a particular task, that are outside of that technical domain. Haas argues that that peripheral knowledge drives innovation through two mechanisms: transplantation and perspective shifting. Haas defines transplantation as "the direct transfer of artifacts, technologies or practices from peripheral domains into core domains, with or without some modification." Perspective shifting means that " expertise or experience in a peripheral domain leads work group members to see a problem in a core domain differently, thus revealing new solutions."
Haas and her co-author, Wendy Ham, go on to argue that having more one person exploring a peripheral knowledge domain can be helpful, but of course, that takes scarce attention away from the specific task at hand. In short, it's a balancing act: How much time should we spend focusing narrowly on the task at hand versus moving outside of that area to explore potentially, but perhaps not very useful, topics?
One last challenge: Which peripheral domain will be most useful? Well that's a tough one. It's difficult to know in advance. However, I do think groups can be purposeful about peripheral knowledge accumulation. At leading design firms, they think carefully about related domains that are worthy of exploration. They examine industries or products that might be in some way analogous to their current project, and then they explore those areas. Stepping back at the start of a project to think about potentially useful peripheral knowledge could be a key step in an innovation team's work.
Haas and her co-author, Wendy Ham, go on to argue that having more one person exploring a peripheral knowledge domain can be helpful, but of course, that takes scarce attention away from the specific task at hand. In short, it's a balancing act: How much time should we spend focusing narrowly on the task at hand versus moving outside of that area to explore potentially, but perhaps not very useful, topics?
One last challenge: Which peripheral domain will be most useful? Well that's a tough one. It's difficult to know in advance. However, I do think groups can be purposeful about peripheral knowledge accumulation. At leading design firms, they think carefully about related domains that are worthy of exploration. They examine industries or products that might be in some way analogous to their current project, and then they explore those areas. Stepping back at the start of a project to think about potentially useful peripheral knowledge could be a key step in an innovation team's work.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Over the past year, I have worked with an incredible group of people to create, plan, and execute Bryant IDEA: Innovation and Design Experience For All - a three day innovation immersion experience for all 746 first-year students. Students applied design thinking to tackle complex real world problems. They conducted anthropological research in the community, engaged in brainstorming sessions, and employed rapid prototyping techniques to develop creative solutions to these challenges. Faculty, staff, upperclassmen students, and alumni mentored these student teams. It was an exhausting and thrilling experience. I hope you enjoy this video.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Friday, December 14, 2012
Entreprenuer Kevon Saber has written a good column on creativity for Fast Company. He focuses on the notion that we should expose our people to ideas from different industries and disciplines to help stimulate creativity. Saber points that many new ideas come from "associational thinking" - the ability to draw unique connections among seemingly unrelated concepts from different fields. His column offers some ideas for stimulating associational thinking, drawing on the practices of various innovative companies. I liked this particular technique quite a bit:
The event website Eventbrite hosts “Brite Camps,” internal training events led by different team members. Held during company hours, team members lead how-to sessions on varied topics from photo editing to options trading to poker. These interactive sessions not only strengthen company culture, they also build dexterity in team members to better conceptualize new ideas. It’s another case of diverse stimuli boosting the creative potential of a team.
While I do love these types of activities, I think that they cannot replace the most important method for stimulating associational thinking - READING. Individuals can derive tremendous value from making a habit of reading voraciously about what is going on in other industries and disciplines. We should not trap ourselves by only reading in our own specialized domain.
The event website Eventbrite hosts “Brite Camps,” internal training events led by different team members. Held during company hours, team members lead how-to sessions on varied topics from photo editing to options trading to poker. These interactive sessions not only strengthen company culture, they also build dexterity in team members to better conceptualize new ideas. It’s another case of diverse stimuli boosting the creative potential of a team.
While I do love these types of activities, I think that they cannot replace the most important method for stimulating associational thinking - READING. Individuals can derive tremendous value from making a habit of reading voraciously about what is going on in other industries and disciplines. We should not trap ourselves by only reading in our own specialized domain.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Ben Weinlick has a terrific article over at The Creativity Post blog. The post is titled, "Defeating Rigid Habits to Spark Creativity." He has some good suggestions including:
- Defeat habits by being curious about interesting ideas and interesting people
- Defeat habits by engaging lots of interests and hobbies
- Defeat habits by consciously shaking up routines
- Defeat habits by asking the “dumb questions”
- Defeat habits by hanging out with weird
- Defeat habits by focusing on a problem and then letting go; do something totally different
- Defeat habits by including people in your projects who are from outside your domain
- Defeat habits by developing a culture of serious play.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Adam Bryant of the New York Times recently interviewed Jarrod Moses, chief executive of the marketing agency United Entertainment Group. Moses talked about a very unique aspect of his company's culture. Here's an excerpt:
One of the first things we bought was a tour bus. We use it instead of flying. We take it at least 25 times a year to different meetings throughout the country. There’s an amazing culture that develops on the bus. You learn so much about one another, and you develop this candor and trust that you don’t get in the office. The creative juices just flow, and they flow 24 hours. They could come from a joke; they could come because someone is just overtired. You never know. The point is that there’s no barrier to entry for the idea. People are wearing T-shirts and shorts. No one is the C.E.O. on the bus. It’s like a band. There’s a magic to it.
Now I know what many of you are thinking... this silly stuff is for creatives, but not for us. Well, the point really isn't about whether you should run out and buy a tour bus. Here's the major lesson from this story: Environment matters. When we think about creativity and innovation, we should think about more than just finding highly creative people. We should think about creating environments where many people can be candid, exhibit creativity, and drive innovation. Sometimes that means taking people out of their normal work routines. It means creating a situation where people can engage in divergent thinking and be more candid... where we are diminishing status differences and flattening the hierarchy.
One of the first things we bought was a tour bus. We use it instead of flying. We take it at least 25 times a year to different meetings throughout the country. There’s an amazing culture that develops on the bus. You learn so much about one another, and you develop this candor and trust that you don’t get in the office. The creative juices just flow, and they flow 24 hours. They could come from a joke; they could come because someone is just overtired. You never know. The point is that there’s no barrier to entry for the idea. People are wearing T-shirts and shorts. No one is the C.E.O. on the bus. It’s like a band. There’s a magic to it.
Now I know what many of you are thinking... this silly stuff is for creatives, but not for us. Well, the point really isn't about whether you should run out and buy a tour bus. Here's the major lesson from this story: Environment matters. When we think about creativity and innovation, we should think about more than just finding highly creative people. We should think about creating environments where many people can be candid, exhibit creativity, and drive innovation. Sometimes that means taking people out of their normal work routines. It means creating a situation where people can engage in divergent thinking and be more candid... where we are diminishing status differences and flattening the hierarchy.
Friday, October 12, 2012
The conventional wisdom suggests that we generate fewer breakthrough ideas as we grow older. An article in Psychology Today challenges that notion. In the short essay, Dr. Gary Small, Director of the UCLA Center on Aging, offers an interesting perspective. He says, "There are neuro-circuitry factors that can favor age in terms of innovation". Small emphasizes that empathy plays a major role in creativity, and we tend to become more empathetic later in life. I found that point quite fascinating, given that design thinking stresses the importance of observing users in their natural setting and then empathizing with users - their problems, struggles, and needs.
In addition, Dr. Small argues that we become better at pattern recognition as we age. That makes some sense too. After all, intuition does play a major role in the creative process. Intuition essentially is the ability to recognize patterns based on deep expertise in a particular domain. We refine our pattern recognition ability through a breadth and depth of experiences over time.
Having said all that, I have written previously on this blog about research showing that scholarly productivity in many fields does decline with age, though the peak performance differs based on the field of research. Thus, we want to take this particular article with a bit of grain of salt. The argument, though, that empathy and pattern recognition improve with age, makes a good deal of sense. It suggests that innovation teams may want a good balance of young and old members, rather than simply stacking the groups with "the best and brightest young minds."
In addition, Dr. Small argues that we become better at pattern recognition as we age. That makes some sense too. After all, intuition does play a major role in the creative process. Intuition essentially is the ability to recognize patterns based on deep expertise in a particular domain. We refine our pattern recognition ability through a breadth and depth of experiences over time.
Having said all that, I have written previously on this blog about research showing that scholarly productivity in many fields does decline with age, though the peak performance differs based on the field of research. Thus, we want to take this particular article with a bit of grain of salt. The argument, though, that empathy and pattern recognition improve with age, makes a good deal of sense. It suggests that innovation teams may want a good balance of young and old members, rather than simply stacking the groups with "the best and brightest young minds."
Friday, August 3, 2012
David Burkus, Professor at Oral Roberts University, has written a terrific blog post about some new research on creativity. Burkus describes the work of NYU's Evan Polman and Cornell's Kyle Emich. These scholars found that we tend to be more creative when we think of others facing a challenging situation, rather than thinking of ourselves caught in that predicament. In one experiment, Polman and Emich found that subjects could solve a tough riddle only 48% of the time when they imagined themselves facing that challenging situation. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the subjects actually solved the riddle when asked to imagine someone else facing the same predicament.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Fast Company has published an article by Gina Sclafani, Creative Director at Grey New York (an advertising, public relations, and branding agency). Sclafani describes a policy implemented by her boss, Tor Myhren, at the New York office. Myhren declared Thursday mornings the "No-Meeting Zone." Workers should use this time to think creatively, expand their minds, and work on new ideas that are not getting enough attention because of the day-to-day work.
Sclafani decided to use this time to "learn about something I am not interested in." She thought that going outside of her comfort zone would enable her to "find meaning and create connections." She also thought it would be lots of fun. She learned that moving outside of her comfort zone was not fun at all... in fact, it was painful at times. As she wrote, "I’m no neurologist but I am now certain that the synapses in your brain like the familiar path. It’s fast and easy. Diverting hurts."
She also found it rewarding though. Sclafani discovered that it did help expand her mind and make new connections. It took some persistence though. Sometimes it was not fun. On other occasions, she was too busy to actually devote the three hours on Thursday morning to working on something truly novel and outside of her day-to-day work. We might all try to follow her example though. Could we devote a few hours each week (even each month) to going outside our comfort zone, learning or exploring something new? Could it help us make a creative breakthrough?
Sclafani decided to use this time to "learn about something I am not interested in." She thought that going outside of her comfort zone would enable her to "find meaning and create connections." She also thought it would be lots of fun. She learned that moving outside of her comfort zone was not fun at all... in fact, it was painful at times. As she wrote, "I’m no neurologist but I am now certain that the synapses in your brain like the familiar path. It’s fast and easy. Diverting hurts."
She also found it rewarding though. Sclafani discovered that it did help expand her mind and make new connections. It took some persistence though. Sometimes it was not fun. On other occasions, she was too busy to actually devote the three hours on Thursday morning to working on something truly novel and outside of her day-to-day work. We might all try to follow her example though. Could we devote a few hours each week (even each month) to going outside our comfort zone, learning or exploring something new? Could it help us make a creative breakthrough?
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Rae Ann Fera has written a column for Fast Company about comedic actor John Cleese and his ideas regarding creativity. I found the article quite fascinating, particularly Cleese's point about the importance of play. Cleese tells the story of Sussex University Professor Brian Bates and his study of architects. Here is what Fera wrote about Bates' conclusions from his research:
The first thing he discovered is that the creative architects knew how to play. They could get immersed in a problem. It was almost childlike, like when a child gets utterly absorbed in a problem. The second thing was that they deferred making decisions as long as they could. This is surprising.
If you have a decision to make, what is the single most important question to ask yourself? I believe it’s ‘when does this decision have to be made’? When most of us have a problem that’s a little bit unresolved, we’re a little bit uncomfortable. We want to resolve it. The creative architects had this tolerance for this discomfort we all feel when we leave things unresolved. Why would those two things be importance? The playfulness is because in that moment of childlike play, you’re much more in touch with your unconscious. The second is that when you defer decisions as long as possible, it’s giving your unconscious the maximum amount of time to come up with something.
As a research on decision-making, I found this point about deferring decisions quite interesting. Often you hear people bemoaning the chronic indecision that they observe in their organizations. Here though, Bates' research shows that sometimes we have to give ourselves time to let thoughts and ideas percolate. I found it a bit hard to reconcile this advice with one of the key principles from design thinking...which is that we learn and improve very effectively through trial and error. In other words, take action, experiment, and learn and adapt from that trial. How does one reconcile that model of innovation with this advice to defer decisions at times? I think the idea here is that "deferring decisions" doesn't preclude trial and error. It simply means not setting things in concrete too soon. It means exploring options and waiting to commit fully to particular path. Trial and error, in fact, can help sort out those plausible options,and it can be part of the "play" process.
The first thing he discovered is that the creative architects knew how to play. They could get immersed in a problem. It was almost childlike, like when a child gets utterly absorbed in a problem. The second thing was that they deferred making decisions as long as they could. This is surprising.
If you have a decision to make, what is the single most important question to ask yourself? I believe it’s ‘when does this decision have to be made’? When most of us have a problem that’s a little bit unresolved, we’re a little bit uncomfortable. We want to resolve it. The creative architects had this tolerance for this discomfort we all feel when we leave things unresolved. Why would those two things be importance? The playfulness is because in that moment of childlike play, you’re much more in touch with your unconscious. The second is that when you defer decisions as long as possible, it’s giving your unconscious the maximum amount of time to come up with something.
As a research on decision-making, I found this point about deferring decisions quite interesting. Often you hear people bemoaning the chronic indecision that they observe in their organizations. Here though, Bates' research shows that sometimes we have to give ourselves time to let thoughts and ideas percolate. I found it a bit hard to reconcile this advice with one of the key principles from design thinking...which is that we learn and improve very effectively through trial and error. In other words, take action, experiment, and learn and adapt from that trial. How does one reconcile that model of innovation with this advice to defer decisions at times? I think the idea here is that "deferring decisions" doesn't preclude trial and error. It simply means not setting things in concrete too soon. It means exploring options and waiting to commit fully to particular path. Trial and error, in fact, can help sort out those plausible options,and it can be part of the "play" process.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
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 |
 |
| 15. Take action now and cure analysis paralysis |
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Marc Freedman, author of The Big Shift: Navigating the New Stage Beyond Midlife, has published an interesting blog post over at Harvard Business Review. The post is titled, "Why Older Entrepreneurs Have an Edge." The article cites research indicating that many entrepreneurs are older than we might think:
The findings reinforce consistent research from the Kauffman Foundation, which shows that for 11 of the 15 years between 1996 and 2010, Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 had the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity of any age group. The National Journal reports that 9 of the nation's 15 million small-business owners were born before 1965.
Freedman does acknowledge, though, that many of these new start-ups are sole proprietorships or very small businesses. Still, he points to research showing that certain kinds of creativity and innovation do increase later in life. Freedman points to the work of University of Chicago economist David Galenson. His research distinguishes between "conceptual geniuses" and "experimental geniuses." The former produce breakthrough insights, and they tend to do so early in life. The latter refine their ideas through trial and error over time, and they tend to come up with their innovations much later in life. Experimentation and refinement take time.
I like the blog post, but I really do think the focus on physical age is not critical. The most important factor driving whether you can be a successful entrepreneur is your mindset, not your age. Are you open to new ideas? Are you willing to take risks and try new things? Are you always learning? Do you engage in disciplined experimentation? These kinds of questions determine whether you have the mindset to be a successful entrepreneur, whether you are 25 or 65 years of age.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Building on yesterday's post regarding introverts and creativity, I thought that I would share news regarding an interesting study about creative cognition. Christopher Shea of the Wall Street Journal reported this weekend on a new research study by Ravi Mehta, Rui Zhu, and Amar Cheema - forthcoming in the Journal of Consumer Research. According to Shea,
"A moderate level of noise—the equivalent of the background buzz of conversation—prompts more-creative thought, according to a study. More than 300 people worked on mental exercises, solving word-association puzzles and pondering practical problems (say, improving a mattress). At the same time, researchers played ambient noise recorded in a cafeteria, roadside, and at a construction site softly, moderately, or loudly, with the moderate level being about what you'd hear in a bustling cafe. People in the moderate-noise groups scored higher on the objective word-association test, and their answers to the other problems were rated, subjectively by peers, as more creative. The study adds to research suggesting that small doses of distraction prompt the mind to work at a more abstract—and creative—level."
Naturally, we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from these types of simple experimental studies. However, the results do point to possible benefits for the type of collaborative spaces that Google, Pixar, and other firms have tried to create. These environments may be fertile not only because they bring people together, but perhaps because a bit of background noise might be stimulating.
"A moderate level of noise—the equivalent of the background buzz of conversation—prompts more-creative thought, according to a study. More than 300 people worked on mental exercises, solving word-association puzzles and pondering practical problems (say, improving a mattress). At the same time, researchers played ambient noise recorded in a cafeteria, roadside, and at a construction site softly, moderately, or loudly, with the moderate level being about what you'd hear in a bustling cafe. People in the moderate-noise groups scored higher on the objective word-association test, and their answers to the other problems were rated, subjectively by peers, as more creative. The study adds to research suggesting that small doses of distraction prompt the mind to work at a more abstract—and creative—level."
Naturally, we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from these types of simple experimental studies. However, the results do point to possible benefits for the type of collaborative spaces that Google, Pixar, and other firms have tried to create. These environments may be fertile not only because they bring people together, but perhaps because a bit of background noise might be stimulating.
Monday, February 27, 2012
I've begun reading Susan Cain's best-selling book, Quiet, about introverts and creativity. I also read her thought-provoking article in the New York Times several weeks ago. Cain argues that introverts are exceptionally creative, and yet the world has become so "noisy" and "collaborative" that we might inhibiting these folks' creativity. This weekend, I read an interesting, must-read rebuttal from Keith Sawyer, the outstanding creativity scholar who wrote a book titled Group Genius. Sawyer argues,
"Psychologists who study creativity know that it requires both solitude and collaboration. Exceptional creativity involves a lot of hard work, and that often happens in solitude. But Cain misses the big picture: Researchers have found that breakthrough ideas are largely due to exchange and interaction, and that’s because breakthrough ideas always involve combinations of very different ideas."
Sawyer also points out that most studies do not show a relationship between introversion and creativity. I find Sawyer's argument about exchange and interaction very compelling. It fits nicely with the argument put forth by Steven Johnson in his terrific book, Where Good Ideas Come From. Johnson argues that good ideas emerge from "fertile environments" that enable "adjacent" ideas to "connect, fuse, recombine." He argues that collaboration and communication are essential elements to breakthrough innovation. Innovators often take ideas from multiple disciplines and fields and recombine them in ways that lead to new insights and breakthroughs. They have to immerse themselves in a domain and connect with others to achieve that synthesis and integration.
"Psychologists who study creativity know that it requires both solitude and collaboration. Exceptional creativity involves a lot of hard work, and that often happens in solitude. But Cain misses the big picture: Researchers have found that breakthrough ideas are largely due to exchange and interaction, and that’s because breakthrough ideas always involve combinations of very different ideas."
Sawyer also points out that most studies do not show a relationship between introversion and creativity. I find Sawyer's argument about exchange and interaction very compelling. It fits nicely with the argument put forth by Steven Johnson in his terrific book, Where Good Ideas Come From. Johnson argues that good ideas emerge from "fertile environments" that enable "adjacent" ideas to "connect, fuse, recombine." He argues that collaboration and communication are essential elements to breakthrough innovation. Innovators often take ideas from multiple disciplines and fields and recombine them in ways that lead to new insights and breakthroughs. They have to immerse themselves in a domain and connect with others to achieve that synthesis and integration.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
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!
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!
Thursday, January 26, 2012
I am working on the research for my next book, and I am seeking my readers' assistance. I'm studying successful or unsuccessful duos, with a particular emphasis on innovators in a variety of fields. For instance, Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall would be an example of a very successful duo, as would Andy Grove and Gordon Moore at Intel. I'm looking for examples from the military, business, sports, etc. How can you help? Please send me ideas for successful or unsuccessful duos that I can analyze. In addition, if you know of individuals that I could interview for this research, please reach out to me. I appreciate your assistance and recommendations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
