The death of brainstorming. Newsweek got it wrong.
Last week’s Newsweek (July 19) had a very compelling cover -- Creativity in America with a graphic of red, white and blue crayons forming the image of the U.S. flag.
The article by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman was called “The Creativity Crisis” with the provocative lead in was “For the first time, research shows that American Creativity is declining, what went wrong -- and how we can fix it.
The key study that frames the article is by Kyung Hee Kim at the College of William and Mary. Kim analyzed 300,000 Torrance Scores (Torrance was a professor who designed a creativity assessment test -- the creativity equivalent of the IQ test.
What Kim discovered was that creativity scores had been rising consistently until 1990 and since then, scores have declined dramatically.
Bronson and Merryman say it’s too early to determine the reasons, but the culprits appear to be the hours children spend in front of the TV and playing video games (passive) and the lack of creativity development in elementary education.
So far, so good.
But then, I read page 50 with the provocative headline FORGET BRAINSTORMING. What you think you know about creativity is wrong. A look at really works.
Here is the opening paragraph of the article.
“Brainstorming in a group became popular in 1953 with the publication of a business book, Applied Imagination. But it’s proven not to work since 1958, when Yale researchers found that the technique actually reduced the team’s output; the same number of people generate more and better ideas separately than together.”
In fact, according to University of Oklahoma professor Michael Mumford, half of the commonly used techniques intended to spur creativity don’t work, or even have a negative impact. As for most commercially available creativity training, Mumford doesn’t mince words: it’s “garbage.”
I feel like the forensics expert watching and laughing at CSI shows -- fully aware that DNA doesn’t come back in a few hours -- it takes weeks.
Page 50 is a manifestation of what’s wrong with media summaries. It is a titillating and provocative side bar that readers will remember without context so its damning in not what it says, but what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say what Mumford identifies as commercially available creativity training. It does not give particulars about the Yale study back in 1958 -- over a half a century ago.
I don’t know if Bronson (who I like) Merryman or Mumford have ever been to IDEO, one of the leading creativity and design companies in the world, SolutionPeople in Chicago, Seriously Creative in Puerto Rico, or the BrainStore in Switzerland.
While Brainstorming is the universal term for group ideation -- and it has evolved over the years.
And it does work and produces more ideas in less time than individual brainstorming. My company Inotivity led a session for a large Midwestern company to name a new product -- developing 800 ideas in just 45 minutes.
Sorry Po and Ashley, you got this wrong.
The problem of traditional brainstorming is 1) it’s typically not facilitated well 2) the participants aren’t taught the key ways to play off of each other’s ideas 3) the problem or challenge to be solved isn’t well defined or explained.
People talk about Osborn’s book, Applied Imagination but few have read it. He began using the technique in 1932 because group sessions we’re getting bogged down with evaluating the ideas as they came up.
So, the major premise was to defer evaluation in favor of quantity. The other motivation was Osborn’s profession. He was the O in BBDO -- a successful advertising agency in New York.
The typical method in those days was for the copywriter to write the copy independently of the art director and then give it to the art director or comp artist to “do up.”
It was linear. What people like Osborn and Bill Bernbach (DDB -- Volkswagen) was doing were creating was a more interactive approach. Since then, creative teams of writers and art directors are the standard.
Done well and combined with other techniques -- group brainstorming or ideation is remarkably effective. The problem with page 50 is that it presents an either/or scenario. Research shows that individual ideation is more effective than group. But it doesn’t recognize that today’s brainstorming is a powerful mix of both individual and group techniques.
The key is providing the right stimulus and new perspectives to a problem or challenge. That right stimulus just be sitting in a group in a conference room or a facilitator who understands that brainstorming isn’t your grandfather’s brainstorming.
Rip out the top of page 50. The bottom is very good. The top? Well, to quote Professor Mumford, it's garbage.
Creativity Central
A great response by Jonathan Vehar in Innovation Tools.
Don't forget: Brainstorming works!
By Jonathan Vehar
A rebuttal to the article “Forget Brainstorming,” which appeared in the July 19, 2010 issue of Newsweek magazine
Thanks, Newsweek magazine, for perpetrating one of the biggest research myths since the Loch Ness Monster. Years of research and practice shows that brainstorming works – like any tool – when used properly.
We appreciate that the author's main article, "The Creativity Crisis" may well have lit a spark under the collective butt of America and may indeed reignite imagination in the spirit of Alex Osborn who coined the term brainstorming and democratized creativity around the world.
Unfortunately, the article also gives a false impression about brainstorming. A cursory reading of the 1958 Yale study shows that it does not disprove the effectiveness of brainstorming since the question of the research was, “does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking.”
In other words, is it better to brainstorm in a very small group or to brainstorm alone? Either way, they were testing brainstorming, and they found that brainstorming works to generate a high number of useful ideas.
The research concluded that for some things brainstorming alone works better, and by other measures (e.g. uniqueness of ideas) brainstorming in a small group works better. However, contrary to the Newsweek article, the study absolutely does not say “Forget Brainstorming,” nor does it say that “brainstorming doesn’t work” or that “the technique reduces a team’s creative output!”
While we know from subsequent correspondence with the authors that they take their research seriously, it unfortunately does not show up in their treatment of brainstorming in Newsweek. This is unfortunate, since their article in the same issue, "The Creativity Crisis" was an eloquent call-t0-arms for those of us who know that creativity is important to the future success of our children and our nation.
As Alex Osborn, the father of brainstorming said in his 1953 book, Applied Imagination, "group brainstorming is recommended solely as a SUPPLEMENT to individual ideation" (p. 142, emphasis mine). In his book he spoke of the value of generating ideas as an individual, in pairs and in small groups of up to 12 people. By contrast, the Yale study only evaluates individuals and groups of four people, while acknowledging that “Osborn suggests that the optimum size for a brainstorming group is between five and ten.” (p. 47)
Certainly the Yale research was flawed because it didn’t test group brainstorming using Osborn’s description of Brainstorming (e.g. use of a trained facilitator, providing additional concepts to stimulate new ideas, working with appropriate group size, enforcement of all guidelines, etc.). Regardless of methodology, the study concluded that brainstorming works better when working alone. So why would you forget it based on one flawed and widely misrepresented study? Use research wisely.
According to research by Brian Hartman, there have been over 250 studies that evaluate the effectiveness of brainstorming. Unfortunately, several of them use the same misguided approach that the Yale study did, which is to say that they don’t use a trained facilitator to direct the group. Brainstorming is a specific tool with specific guidelines (defer judgment, etc.) that are enforced by a facilitator who guides the group's thinking.
What many people mistakenly call “brainstorming” is in fact just “a bunch of people sitting around firing off and shooting down ideas.” Let’s call that “skeet-shooting.” And on that we can agree: working individually will work better than skeet-shooting in a group.
Since the authors were quick to disprove half of the techniques used to spur creativity, the appropriate question should not be, "are they good?" but rather, "when are they good?" Is a hammer a good tool? It is when it is used to drive nails, but not when it is used to change channels of your television or to change a diaper.
The leading academic institution that has been studying what works and when is the International Center for Studies in Creativity at the State University of New York College at Buffalo. One of their faculty found that groups that were TRAINED in the guidelines of brainstorming generated two-and-a-half times more ideas than untrained groups, which resulted in (and this is the important part) two-and-a-half times more GOOD ideas, as well as a similar proportion of bad ideas. This is but one of a stack of research studies proving that when properly used, like a hammer, Brainstorming works. Exceedingly well.
However, when people get together and skeet-shoot, blamestorm, or clobberate, they are not brainstorming, and accordingly, their results will suffer. Perhaps common incorrect usage of the term “brainstorming” has confused the issue, but just because I call my hammer a “diaper changer,” doesn’t mean I should say it doesn’t work. It just means I’m using it incorrectly. Words mean something. Let’s use them properly.
Jonathan Vehar is the president and cofounder of New & Improved, LLC where he works with organizations to create teams who can work together productively to create innovation.
References:
Osborn, A.F. (1963). Applied Imagination (3rd ed.). Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.
Firestien, R.L. & McCowan, R.J. (1988). Creative Problem Solving and Communication Behaviors in Small Groups. Creativity Research Journal, 1 (1). 106-114.
Firestien, R.L. (1990). Effects of Creative Problem Solving on Communication Behaviors in Small Groups. Small Group Research, 21 (4). 507-521.
Taylor, D.W., Berry, P.C., & Block, C.H. (1958). Does Group Participation When using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(1), 23-47.
Related Web site: http://www.newandimproved.com/
Published on 7/14/2010
10 Comments
Reader Comments (10)
Hey Martin,
Your tone is perhaps tit for tat, revenge for Newsweek's strongly worded title on our sidebar. To say our article doesn't go into what works to develop creativity is bizarre - the main bar and sidebar at length go into what creativity is and how to develop it. Regarding brainstorming, individual experience is not science, it's anecdote. We checked multiple dictionaries and business dictionaries the definition of brainstorming, and it's basically people get in a room and come up with stuff, attempting to withhold judgment until later. Not just the Yale study, but dozens of studies since then have shown this prevailing notion of brainstorming produces fewer ideas, of less quality, than the same number of people generating ideas on their own. Now, what you do in your practice and consulting is materially different - you're an expert facilitator, no doubt. You probably adhere to what Osborn desired as optimal conditions for brainstorming to work. But those conditions are not the lay understanding of brainstorming. Scholar after scholar has told us that we have the science behind brainstorming correct. Now, it could be that expertly-facilitated brainstorming is better, but there's scant science on that. People who sell brainstorming expertise obviously have a vested interest here, but I'd suggest that our article is not undermining your business, it's driving businesspeople who do unfaciliated, everyday bad brainstorming (under the illusion it works) to get in touch with expert facilitators who can improve the result.
Po
Mr. Bronson:
Dictionaries? C'mon! You guys are better researchers than that! Relying on the dictionary to explain a tool/technique is hardly a compelling rationale. To define something, perhaps use a dictionary, but not to explain how it should be used. Personally, I’d go with the definition from the original source ("Applied Imagination, which you cited in the first sentence -- not Webster's or the Oxford OED).
The one sentence description in a dictionary can’t cover the intricacies of how to use a tool/technique. My nearby Webster’s says a hammer is, "A hand tool consisting of a solid head set crosswise on a handle and used for pounding." (plus many other definitions).
However, Websters does not tell the reader -- in any of the multiple definitions -- how to properly use a hammer or even that it’s frequently used to drive nails.
So let’s avoid using the dictionary to tell us how to use a tool/technique, shall we? Let’s let the process experts who know how to use the tool (like Osborn, Parnes, IDEO/Kelly, Baker, et al.) be our guides.
For the record, I'd also suggest you and Ms. Merryman check with some of your experts (e.g. Treffinger) and the faculty at SUNY's International Center for Studies in Creativity, or UC's Hargadon or Stanford's Sutton to further explore the research that supports the fact that brainstorming works, and there is lots of research that supports it. Just because you didn't hear it from your experts (who may or may not have their own creativity agenda) doesn't mean it's not out there.
Marty,
Thanks so much for your insightful critique of the “Forget Brainstorming” article. As one attempting to convince individuals and organizations that they have this hidden, undeveloped capacity called creativity, I sometimes feel like a lone voice in the wilderness. I have experienced great success with my group ideation approaches over the years and appreciated your thoughts on the value of effective collaboration. Much of what Bronson and Merryman have to say has merit, nevertheless, they indulged in a sweeping generalization, I suppose for the sake of drama. I find that it’s difficult for people to believe that creativity can serve many problem-solving purposes across many fields, in part, due to an educational system that pays it little attention. As you know, creativity training can encompass a wide range of topics, theories and approaches, making it difficult to settle on one definitive description and, perhaps, adding to the confusion and resistance regarding the subject. My little e-book on creativity does not qualify as any great academic treatise (find it on my website); it represents my attempt to get as many so-called “non-creatives” to accept the value of developing the creative side of their thinking. I may serve more as cheerleader than coach, but at this point, I’m happy with that role. If interested, you can watch me leading a cheer of two on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MByu2R-qQU
Hank M. Olguin
I must say - I am stymied by the snarky and cavalier assessments and personal attacks being made about Po's and my work.
Mr. Baker, we respect that you may be very successful in your programs - same with the companies you've referenced - but personal anecdotes aren't in and of themselves evidence, nor are they proof that we didn't report the science accurately.
In the main piece, we specifically said that creativity training based on the creativity science can work. We did not call out anyone's company or organization on purpose. We didn't say any specific program is "garbage." Because we don't believe that personal attacks are productive. But you feel free to say that our work is garbage. Forgive me - but I take offense to that.
Mr. Vehar, your comment regarding Po's reference to the dictionary definition is not well taken. There is nothing in his comment to suggest dictionaries are the only references we used. We have said repeatedly that we are writing for a lay audience - an audience that functions under the assumption that group brainstorming is a bunch of guys in a room talking. And Po's only point on that was that this lay understanding is prevalent.
Really - it seems to me that those of you who are professional trainers of creativity programs and are objecting to our work for Newsweek are making the same points.
First, you support the main piece we wrote - and you find that we did thorough research to do so.
Second, you seem to agree that brainstorming, in the lay understanding, is not effective. Some of you go as far as acknowledging that the ad hoc shall we say "civilian" implementation of group brainstorming may actually have negative effects. As such, you acknowledge (even if reluctantly) that if you are reading the piece as the lay audience knowing nothing about a more technical use of the term -- our reporting was accurate.
Third, you acknowledge that there is at best a mixed record of scientific support for the facilitator-lead types of training. And that what scientific support there is would suggest it really depends on exactly what goes on in the session, who leads it, etc. But again, even for that, the evidence is inconclusive at best. That you could point to studies that say it works, but you are aware there are studies that would dispute those claims as well. And you understand that we have scholars who assured us that our reporting is correct; you just disagree with them.
So in sum, our piece is entirely accurate for the lay reader, and arguably correct even for some - perhaps even most - facilitated training.
Yet a number of you, including in this very blog post, have felt free to publicly disparage our work and attack us personally.
We have done nothing whatsoever that showed a lack of respect to any of you or your colleagues. On the contrary, I believe we have shown your community the utmost respect, since we taken the time to respond personally to a number of those of you working in the field - both in public and in private.
So I would respectfully ask that you show us at least a modicum of respect and end the meanspirited hyperbole.
And I also would like to say that, I am deeply surprised at surprised at your reaction. So many of you are aware that people don't understand your processes and, for decades, people have changed the definition of brainstorming into something that is wholly different than what you want. And then you castigate people like me as being uninformed.
But this seems to me to be a Quixotic errand.
Sincerely - if your community's mission is to inspire creativity in companies and so many of them about finding new ways to express innovation - why aren't you using that same creativity to simply create a new term for the process you are advocating? Why don't you all get in a conference room - pick the best facilitator - follow all of your steps - and come up a new name for this process that you are advocating is so effective?
Rather than cling to a marketing problem you've had for 50 years now, why not innovate? Why must you insist on spending so much energy on disparaging us, and waste the opportunity you have been given?
Ms. Merryman: With respect, Mr. Bronson's rebuttal cited the dictionary as defining what is brainstorming, which is why I addressed it.
My point continues to be that if you intended to dismiss brainstorming as understood by the lay person or as defined in the dictionary, you should have cited Webster's in the first sentence of your piece titled "Forget Brainstorming." Instead, you cited Osborn's seminal work where he defined -- for the first time -- the technique very differently than the dictionary. That is my main objection. It is not personal. I do not disrespect you or Mr. Bronson.
Many of us objected to the title and the dismissal of the process described in "Applied Imagination" because we practice it as originally described and as proven in numerous academic studies. If you hadn't cited "Applied Imagination," I doubt there would be so many people objecting to your claim, and we would be embracing your endorsement of your message as testament to the need and value of our work.
Like "gay" as in "the Gay Nineties" and "gay" as in "gay marriage," "catholic" and "Catholic," "christian" and "Christian," "conservative" and "Conservative," words have different meanings depending upon the audience and the source. If you meant, "brainstorming as defined by the dictionary," or "brainstorming as commonly practiced," then in my humble opinion you should not have cited "Applied Imagination."
Ashley,
Good idea. Let’s call it something else. I call my idea-generating process “Braindiving”, simply because I get people playing around more on the right side of the brain as a kind of experiment. I’m sure my approach would hardly be considered scientific or as the final answer in this lively debate, but I keep trying wacky ideas that have met with some success. Maybe we need more experimentation at this point, since, as you pointed out in your original article, we ain’t doing so great in the general creativity arena. All I care about is what works, and what works doesn’t always get into some study. I trust we’re all in the process of developing the art, and, I not only welcome the debate, I find it edifying. Maybe what we’re doing here is brainwhateverizing. Please keep it up. I think we are all striving for the same result.
Hank M. Olguin
Ms. Merryman, thank you for your spirited and well considered response to the blog entry.
I can’t speak for everyone in the creative facilitation community, but many of us had a visceral reaction to your side bar article. Your thesis that brainstorming is not effective is counter to my 30 years of experience as a facilitator and the experience of my colleagues in the U.S. and around the world.
Let me respond to your comments.
Response #1:
“We have said repeatedly that we are writing for a lay audience -- an audience that functions under the assumption that group brainstorming is a bunch of guys in a room talking.”
A careful reading of Forget Brainstorming (Page 50) does not indicate this view of brainstorming.
Here are your words:
“Brainstorming in a group became popular in 1953 with the publication of a business book, Applied Imagination. But it’s been proven not to work since 1958, when Yale researchers found that the technique actually reduced a team’s creative output: the same number of people generate more and better ideas separately than together. In fact, according to University of Oklahoma professor Michael Mumford, half of the commonly used techniques intended to spur creativity don’t work, or even have a negative impact.”
You do not say in this article that you are talking about the layperson’s perspective. And that is precisely our problem. You do not make the important distinction between brainstorming as developed by Osborn and brainstorming as practiced my many companies.
I have read Osborn’s book many times -- and even he said that he was concerned that the technique was becoming watered down my misuse.
My core problem with your article was that you and Po lumped professional brainstorming with what passes for lay brainstorming. Tarnishing both with same brush. I am only responding to what you actually wrote in your piece, not what you may have said afterword or in previous articles.
One limit test in law is “what would a reasonable person conclude or do…” A reasonable person would conclude that brainstorming doesn’t word. Period. Not that brainstorming as currently and incorrectly practiced.
Response 2:
The lead in the top of portion of your article is “Forget Brainstorming.” “What you think you know about fostering creativity is wrong . A look at really works.”
I have corresponded with Po privately and he told me that was an editorial decision by Newsweek. He added “that putting words like “Crisis” and “Forget” into the headlines to generate controversy often goes too far.”
I can not fault you for Newsweek editorial decision -- but “Forget Brainstorming” is the kind of headline that is more sensational than it is good science. Again, I can only react to what was on the page, not what you and Po may have written in earlier and perhaps more in-depth drafts.
Response 3:
To make the case that “brainstorming” doesn’t work or isn’t effective you site the Yale study -- a study from 1958. In your excellent cover article, you site current studies. In your response you say that “scholars” back up your premise but you make absolutely no reference to those in your article except for professor Mumford and you selected the one quote that was sensational. “Half the commonly-used techniques intended to spur creativity don’t work on even have a negative impact.” Then comes the infamous garbage line.
Now I realize that you are quoting not necessarily agreeing. But which half of these techniques don’t work? You an argue lack of space, but within that space you selected one desperately needed some modicum of proof. My guess is that professor Mumford has some good data and the he was interviewed in the context of how creativity is fostered and not brainstorming in particular.
Response 4:
You say that brainstorming professionals should get in a room and create a new name. We have. At Solution People and at my company it’s called Accelerated Innovation. Most of these companies have proprietary names for their process but many of them echo closely the process you mentioned in your main cover article.
You do have some very salient points in your response -- and the ball is in our court for making a better case for smarter ideation.
As I mentioned in my original blog -- brainstorming has evolved over the years. It is one tool we use among many -- including brain writing and Synetics. Arthur Van Gundy is one expert I highly recommend you read or interview. But classic brainstorming is still a tool we use effectively.
You are right -- my evidence for the effectiveness of brainstorming is anecdotal. But that’s 30 years of anecdotal experience. Combine that with the collective experience of professional facilitators. One of my colleagues, Gerald Haman has worked most of the Fortune 500 companies and has even done brainstorming for the President’s cabinet.
In summing up, I stand by my original blog in which I said I was more concerned about the things you didn’t say. What was omitted was a clear stated sentence that brainstorming as currently practiced isn’t what Osborn had in mind.
Wow! Very interesting exchanges by very smart people. My own 2 cents:
As is acknowledge by many commentators and noted by Bronson and Meeryman the overall article "The Creative Crisis" is excellent and real brings home the importance of creating a new generation of independent thinking and creative "creators" to lead our national competitiveness. But Creativity Central got it right when it comes to the sidebar "Forget Brainstorming."
Yes, 'brainstorming' as traditionally practiced has very underwhelming results and it is probably quite true that most creativity trainings are, as Oklahoma professor Mumford is quoted in the intro, "garbage." But, as presented in the sidebar, readers are lead to believe that any group idea creation session (we call them SolutionSessions at my company) lacks value and that what you should concentrate on is improving your own personal creative ability by moving about, taking breaks and exploring other cultures.
This is where the authors commit the big "oops." All their suggestions are fine and founded. But innovation (the business product of creativity and what we are really talking about when we start talking about China and India producing more engineers and scientist) is a product of collaboration and cross-pollination of insights and ideas. A more valuable sidebar might include how to make group 'ideation' work - better locations, better rules, processes like SolutionPeople's AcceleratedInnovation (disclosure: this is what we use at SeriouslyCreative), better techniques, the importance of written recording, the role of facilitation, the rules that lead to full contribution of everyone and more diversity of ideas and the importance of problem framing and question creation to start sessions.
These things are no secret, they are not hard to find and I would imagine the authors came by the numerous articles related to these common denominators of group ideation success. But I would imagine, as could happen to any of us, in the pursuit of the perfect article the sidebar story got less attention.
For those of us practitioners of innovation we have a visceral reaction to the sidebar - especially after getting our hopes raised the by the high quality article. Many of you probably feel as if you will now need swim harder against the current of 'innovation ignorance.' But don't worry. If you are like me or Marty Baker at Inotivity you have clients who have felt the positive results of your sessions and who can put into dollars and cents the value it has created for their bottom line. This kind of success gets around virally and is what drives our businesses.
So congratulations to Bronson and Merryman on their overall work. I wish they wouldn't feel attacked by our comments or feel it is a tit for tat discussion of point vs counterpoint debate. Instead take it as some constructive criticism on an area of your work that might get turned into another great article in the future. And a great hand of applause to Creativity Central for raising the debate.
Very interesting topic indeed. Brainstorming has always been an effective tool for sharing of ideas and squeezing each others creative juices.I don't think it will ever fade. New ideas for sharing will be invented but this will always be a necessity for creative input sharing.
Having recently graduated from the Leadership & Organizational Studies Graduate Program (University of Southern Maine), my thinking is that trying to define “creativity” is a lot like trying to define “leadership.” They are both slippery characters. I’ve learned to identify and discuss the traits of weak leadership when I see it, and I believe I know what constitutes strong leadership. I have, however, realized that as I continue to question it, my conclusions change. I might also say the same about creativity. I know what it isn’t, but when attempting to define what it is—especially when it is brought into the public eye through mainstream media—realize that it is an ongoing challenge to attempt to define what it is. What’s most important, I think, is to continue the discussion, encourage the exploration, and perhaps realize that there may never be one answer when it comes to defining creativity.