Brainstorming groups often underperform because they don’t have relevant goals or benchmarks. Information about other members’ activity levels may increase performance as long as the benchmark is not too discrepant.71 Providing brainstormers with high performance standards greatly increases the number of ideas generated.72 Even when members work independently and announce how many ideas they are generating every 5 minutes, the number of ideas generated by the team is enhanced.73 Similarly, a facilitator can periodically call brainstormers’ attention to a graph on a computer screen indicating how the team’s performance compares with that of other teams—this significantly enhances the number of ideas generated by the group.74 Forewarning teams that they will see a display of all ideas at the end of the session increases the number of unique ideas generated.75 Exposure to a high number of ideas increases creativity.76 It is desirable to set goals for quantity, but it is undesirable to set actual production goals. Some teams are focused on reaching certain desirable goals (promotion focused); whereas other teams are focused on preventing disastrous or disappointing outcomes (prevention focused). Teams who have a promotion focus are more innovative.77

Competition can occur on an individual level (between people in a given team) or a team level (between competing teams). People working on a task perform better when they are paired with a partner who is slightly better (versus slightly worse or the same).78 When power positions in the team are unstable and perhaps lead to competition for power, low-power individuals are more creative than high-power persons.79 Low-to-intermediate competition produces the greatest amount of creativity in groups that do not change members.80 InnoCentive company leverages competition as well as social networking, cloud computing, and crowdsourcing. Specifically, a problem from a real client is posted, such as NASA’s need for a more reliable solar-flare forecast, and the worldwide network of 267,000 registered problem solvers simultaneously researches and offer solutions. InnoCentive’s researchers verify the results of the solutions posted, and the client selects and awards a cash prize to the team whose solution best solves their problem.81

When groups generate creative ideas on a particular topic, they can consider many aspects of the problem. Because so many alternatives can be overwhelming, it is helpful to focus on specific categories of a given problem A key question is whether the group should focus on the same component categories at the same time or different members focus on different components. Groups that focus on a small set of categories at the outset of a brainstorming session generate more ideas and explore more categories than do groups whose members have their own category focus.82 Similarly, teams that use paradoxial frames—mental templates that encourage people to recognize and embrace contradictions—are more creative than those who don’t use frames.83

Companies that develop and use rules for the creative process report greater gains. Many companies use the original brainstorming rules suggested by Osborn 50 years ago. Teams that follow Osborn’s four rules of brainstorming are more effective than those that don’t.84 For example, at IDEO, seven rules govern every brainstorming session: defer judgment, encourage wild ideas, build on the ideas of others, stay focused on the topic, one conversation at a time, be visual, and go for quantity.85 At Continuum, three rules guide the approach to innovation: (1) managing creative friction (by sharing the experience of working through the ideation process, removing communication barriers that lead to frustration, and engaging in passionate debate); (2) bringing creativity to the center by putting project rooms in a visible location; and (3) designing teams to have stakeholders involved with the process from idea creation to implementation.86

Paulus and his colleagues scientifically examined the effects of four additional brainstorming rules:87

• Stay focused on the task

• Do not tell stories or explain ideas

• When no one is suggesting ideas, restate the problem and encourage each other to generate ideas

• Encourage those who are not talking to make a contribution

In one investigation, either a trained experimenter or someone selected from the group enforced the rules.88 There was a 40 percent increase in the number of ideas generated using the new rules. These groups generated ideas at a level comparable to that of nominal groups. Other research found clear benefits of the additional rules under a variety of conditions. The benefits of the additional rules also increase the efficiency of ideas, meaning that members are more parsimonious (i.e., use fewer words) to express a given idea.

Team members who feel individually accountable for their ideas are more productive than teams in which it is not possible to discern who contributed what. People who have high organizational commitment are less likely to breach psychological contracts (tacit expectations and norms), resulting in more innovation.89 Individual accountability decreases the free-rider (social loafing) effect discussed in Chapter 2.

Energizing moods, which often accompany positive affect, increase creativity. In contrast, deactivating moods decrease creativity. For example, the creativity of a large high-technology firm was studied before, during, and after a major downsizing.90 Obviously, downsizings engender negative mood and, in this case, were accompanied by decreases in project team creativity. In an investigation of 222 employees in seven companies, positive affect is associated with greater creativity.91 With regard to stress, there is a curvilinear relationship between evaluative stress and creativity, such that low-evaluative contexts increase creativity, but highly evaluative contexts decrease creativity.92

Analogical reasoning is the act of applying one concept or idea from a particular domain to another domain. Consider, for example, Kepler’s application of concepts from light to develop a theory of the orbital motion of planets.93 Similarly, chemist Friedrich Kekulé discovered the closed hexagonal structure of the benzene ring by imagining a snake biting its own tail. Teams at Apple visited a candy factory to study the nuances of jelly bean making and used the jelly bean idea as an analogy for the Apple iMac contained in a translucent blue shell.94

New ideas are often old ideas wrapped in new clothing. Finding innovative solutions by analogy requires (1) in-depth understanding of the problem and (2) searching for something else that has already solved the problem.95 In one demo, business executives were challenged to think about how to engage in their weight-training program while on business travel. It is not practical to travel with 50 pound dumbbells, but Markman suggests thinking about how water contains weight, such as a water mattress. Water weights are small and compact, and they can be filled with tap water from hotel bathrooms. Following is another analogy: When a team of NASA scientists needed to fix the distorted lenses in the Hubble telescope in orbit, one of the experts mentioned that small inversely distorted mirrors would adjust the images. However, they were impossible to fit into the hard-to-reach space inside the telescope. Engineer Jim Crocker noticed the European-style showerhead mounted on adjustable rods in a German hotel and thought to extend the mirrors into the telescope by mounting them on similar folding arms. The following is another use of analogy: A manufacturer of potato chips faced a frequently encountered problem—potato chips took up too much shelf space when they were packed loosely, but they crumbled when packed in smaller packages. The manufacturer found a solution by using a direct analogy: Dried leaves are highly similar to potato chips. They crumble very easily, and they are bulky. Pressed leaves are flat. Could potato chips be shipped flat? As it turned out, they could not. However, the team realized that leaves are not pressed when they are dry, but when they are moist. So they packed potato chips in stacks, moist enough not to crumble, but dry enough to be nearly flat. The result was Pringles.96 Speedo’s Fast Skin Shark Suit, a full body swimsuit with a fabric surface modeled after shark skin, used testing techniques reserved for Formula One race cars and jet planes.97

Analogical reasoning involves the application of diverse categories to a company’s present problem or challenge. When Dyson company founder James Dyson visited a local sawmill, he associated the mechanical analogy of an industrial funnel-shaped dust collector and invented one of the best-selling vacuums in the world.98

Hargadon calls the use of analogy in companies knowledge brokering and notes that the best innovators use old ideas as the raw material for new ideas.99 Moreover, the most dramatic impacts of new technologies often come from industries other than the ones in which they first emerged. For example, the steam engine, developed in the mining industry, revolutionized the railroad and shipping industries. Hargadon and Sutton outline four critical steps in the knowledge brokering cycle: (1) capturing good ideas, (2) keeping ideas alive, (3) imagining new uses for old ideas, and (4) putting promising concepts to the test.100

A trained facilitator can better follow rules of brainstorming (which are often unwittingly violated), help create an organizational memory, and keep teams on track. Indeed, trained facilitators can bring the level of team performance up to that of nominal groups.101 Furthermore, there are long-term benefits to this investment. Teams that are given several sessions in which they are guided by facilitators into productive idea generation patterns demonstrate high levels of productivity in subsequent sessions without the facilitators.102 Apparently, teams can become accustomed to sharing ideas without extensive social interaction or “filler” talk. The nonprofit arm of Rapid Results uses trained facilitators to spur development plans in underdeveloped countries. As a first step, the facilitator interacts with people in a business, organization, or village to decide what needs to be done. Then, they vote on the preferred outcomes, and the facilitator asks if a certain amount of money was provided by a governmental entity—thousands or tens of thousands—how it could be spent to accomplish the goal in 100 days? The village then decides how to get it done. A hard deadline, and lack of filler, gives incentive to plans. The process has resulted in successful development projects in villages in places like the Sudan and Ethiopia.103 As this case study illustrates, trained facilitators who successfully eliminate filler talk, achieve the highest levels of productivity when the most ideas are allowed to be shared.104

Brainwriting is not brainstorming. Brainwriting is the simultaneous generation of written ideas. Brainwriting works like this: At key intervals during a brainstorming session, group members cease all talking and all interaction and write their ideas silently and independently.105

Writing ideas instead of speaking them eliminates the problem of production blocking because group members do not have to “wait their turn” to generate ideas. It may also reduce conformity because the written format eliminates the need for public speaking and is typically more anonymous than verbal brainstorming. The written ideas can subsequently be shared by the group in a round-robin fashion and summarized on a blackboard or flip chart. Investigations of brainstorming groups of four people revealed that brainwriting, followed by round-robin exchange, eliminated production blocking and social loafing as compared with standard brainwriting.106

Many groups may not welcome the idea of brainwriting, claiming that it ruins the flow of the group process. But the data are incontrovertible: Brainwriting groups consistently generate more and better ideas than groups that follow their instincts. Alternating between team ideation and individual ideation is desirable because it allows teams to circumvent production blocking (coordination problems), and it also sets the stage for divergent thinking. This two-step technique requires a considerable number of conditions to be in place for optimal productivity in group brainstorming. Each member needs to take time out for solitary meditations. Similar benefits can be accomplished through preliminary writing sessions, quotas or deadlines, brief breaks, and the use of specific, simple, and subdivided problems. Thus, by working together, then alone, and then together, teams are more likely to achieve the best in creative thinking.107

Even if brainwriting is not used, at the very least, all talking should be stopped periodically to allow members to think silently; the more pauses and silences that occur during brainstorming, the higher the quality of the ideas. Giving members brief breaks, even if they don’t write anything down, can help.108 Indeed, periods of “incubation” in which group members reflect on ideas can generate additional ideas.109

Teams that take a short break (2 to 5 minutes in length) halfway through a 20- or 30-minute brainstorming session increase their productivity following the break compared to teams that brainstorm continuously without a break.110 Breaks also allow brainstorming groups to overcome mental blocks through the process of incubation. Breaks can stimulate a different approach to a problem. In one investigation, individuals and 3-person groups attempted to solve sets of rebus puzzles; following incubation (taking a break from the problem), groups improved.111

A moderate level of background noise improves creativity more than does silence. Why? Because background noise prompts people to focus. People who are exposed to moderate levels of noise need to work harder to process their thoughts, which increases focus and persistence.112

People who actively seek feedback are proactive. A study of 456 employees from four organizations revealed that people who sought feedback—either directly or by monitoring the environment—were considered to be more creative.113 Similarly, people who seek help from others in their teams and organization are more creative than those who don’t actively seek help.114 However, because help seekers became indebted to others after receiving help, they tended to give more help to others and this hindered their creativity.

One way of getting feedback is to observe and watch. For example, toy manufacturer Fisher-Price’s PlayLab gets feedback by spelunking, which in the toy world refers to simply watching children play. At PlayLab, infants and toddlers play with phone apps and other electronic toys. Observations about the play patterns and interest level of the kids regarding various products are passed along to toy designers and marketers.115

A much better method of group brainstorming is to prepare by having a prior session of solitary writing, known as the nominal group technique.116 The nominal group technique, or NGT, is a variation of the standard brainwriting technique117 and involves an initial session of brainwriting prior to interactive teamwork. Thus, NGT separates the idea generation phase from the idea evaluation phase. To use the NGT, it is useful to have a facilitator, but it is not necessary. The facilitator introduces a problem on the board or on a flip chart. Once members understand the topic or issue, they silently write ideas for 10 to 15 minutes. Members state their ideas in a round-robin fashion, and each idea is given an identification number. Once ideas are all listed, the team discusses each item, focusing on clarification. Following this, members privately rank the five solutions or ideas they most prefer. The leader-facilitator collects the cards and averages the rating to yield a group decision.

It is worth noting that the NGT was compared with an interactive brainstorming process and overwhelmingly outperformed the standard brainstorming group.118 Also, nominal groups that perform in the same room generate more ideas than those in separate rooms.119 The advantage of the NGT is that it maximizes information gain, ensures a democratic representation of all members’ ideas (i.e., avoids the lumpy participation effect), and avoids production blocking. Yet members still have an opportunity for face-to-face discussion of issues. Although it might seem that the NGT would run the risk of generating redundant ideas, they are no more common per number of total ideas than in real face-to-face groups. There are some disadvantages of the NGT; it is less spontaneous and may require a separate meeting for each topic.

One variant of the NGT is the anonymous nominal group technique. In the anonymous NGT, members write down their ideas on individual sheets of paper or note cards. The meeting facilitator (or a group member) collects the note cards, shuffles them, and redistributes them randomly to members, who read the cards aloud or discuss their contents in small groups. This variation creates greater acceptance of others’ ideas because the ideas are semi-anonymous; it also prevents individual members from championing only their own ideas.

Another variation, the rotating nominal group technique, requires members to write their ideas on individual sheets of paper or note cards. The meeting facilitator collects the note cards, shuffles them, and distributes them to individual group members, who read the cards aloud or discuss them in small groups. This variation creates greater acceptance of others’ ideas and prevents individual members from championing their own ideas.

Another variant of the NGT is the Delphi technique.120 In this technique, group members do not interact face-to-face at any point. This technique is ideally suited for groups whose members are geographically dispersed (making meetings difficult to attend) and for teams whose members experience such great conflict that it is difficult to meet about sensitive issues. This technique requires a leader or facilitator who is trusted by the team members. The entire process proceeds through questionnaires, followed by feedback that can be computerized. The leader distributes a topic or question to members and asks for responses from each team member. The leader then aggregates the responses, sends them back to the team, and solicits feedback. The process is repeated until there is resolution on the issue in question. The Delphi technique avoids production blocking. The technique is a good alternative for teams who are physically separated but nevertheless need to make decisions. Because members respond independently, conformity pressures and evaluation apprehension are limited. One problem associated with this technique, which is not associated with regular brainstorming or nominal brainstorming, is that it can be quite time consuming. Sessions can last several days, even weeks.

The stepladder technique, a variant of the membership change technique, is a decision-making approach in which members are added one by one to a team.121 The first step involves the creation of a two-person subgroup (the core), which begins preliminary discussion of the group’s task. After a fixed interval, another member joins the core group and presents his or her ideas concerning the task. The three-person group then discusses the task in a preliminary manner. The process continues until all members have systematically joined the core group. When this occurs, the group arrives at a final solution. Each member must have sufficient time to think about the problem before entering into the core group. More important, the entering members must present their preliminary solutions before hearing the core group’s preliminary solutions. A final decision cannot be reached until the group has formed in its entirety. Self-pacing stepladder groups (which proceed through the paces at a self-determined pace) produce significantly higher-quality group decisions than conventional groups.122 Members with the best individual decisions exert more influence in stepladder groups than in free interaction groups.

The benefits of diversity outlined in Chapter 5 extend to creativity. Indeed, teams in which members are diverse with regard to background and perspective outperform teams with homogeneous members on tasks requiring creative problem solving and innovation.123 This occurs when coworkers experience cognitive conflict (i.e., task conflict) in the absence of conformity pressures and respond by revising fundamental assumptions and generating novel insights.124 As a result, teams with heterogeneous members generate more arguments,125 apply a greater number of strategies,126 detect more novel solutions,127 and are better at integrating multiple perspectives128 than teams without conflicting perspectives. A field study of 39 research teams within a global Fortune 100 Science & Technology company revealed that diverse teams, containing a breadth of research and business unit experience, were more effective when there was a knowledge-sharing climate in the team and when the leader also had breadth.129 Another field study revealed that teams with greater cognitive diversity were more creative than teams with less cognitive diversity, but only when they had high self-efficacy—that is, when they believed in their ability to be creative.130

As we saw in Chapter 2, members enter and exit groups. Although maintaining consistent membership increases comfort and the perception of creativity, it does not lead to better creativity.131 Teams that experience membership change (i.e., an entry of a new member and an exit of an old member) generate not only more ideas (high fluency) but also more diverse ones (higher flexibility) than do groups who remain intact.132 Teams that stay together, without any change in membership, develop a sort of cognitive arthritis—they get stuck in a rut when it comes to idea generation. There is a negative relationship between repeat collaboration and creativity.133 In contrast, teams that experience a change in membership are naturally exposed to more ideas due to a greater diversity in task-relevant skills and information. When a group experiences a membership change, they are in a unique position to look at themselves more thoughtfully. The presence of a newcomer can motivate old-timers to revisit their task strategy and develop improved methods for performing group tasks.134 This effect is known as creative abrasion, wherein people who lack a previous collaboration are more likely to generate ideas.135 Successful new product development (NPD) teams have (1) higher project complexity; (2) cross-functionality; (3) temporary membership; (4) fluid team boundaries; and (5) embeddedness in organizational structures.136

The extent to which teams and their leaders have weak ties across organizational units and boundaries can positively promote creativity.137 In an investigation of product development in project teams, teams that had fluid team boundaries, allowing cross-team networking, were more creative than those with tight boundaries.138 When teams have fluid group boundaries, team members are forced to make new connections across traditional boundaries. In this way, team members trade the depth and intensity of “strong ties” for a larger number of “weak ties.” For example, at Ziba’s “Ambassador Program,” employees join different “tribes” in the company from other disciplines for 3-month stints.139

Networking also means spending time with customers and clients. A large meta-analysis of team-level antecedents of creativity revealed that organizational support for innovation, vision, task orientation, and external communication were associated with the highest levels of creativity.140

Teams that are empowered—particularly by their leaders—are more intrinsically motivated and more creatively engaged.141 Conversely, bureaucracy, particularly centralization and formalization, constrains creative expression.142 For example, when Toyota saw rival car companies catching up to them on quality, fuel efficiency, and styling, they empowered their internal teams. Toyota’s chief designer, Tokuo Fukuichi, realized the company’s design process had too many filters and too many people weighing in on the final design. The new framework for vehicle development encouraged parts sharing across vehicle designs during the simultaneous development of multiple models; costs were reduced by 30 percent.143

Parallel entry of ideas, like brainwriting, means that all members of the team can generate ideas simultaneously. Although it might seem desirable to have members listen attentively to others’ ideas, this in fact is highly inefficient. To be sure, EBS does not mean that members disregard or tune out the ideas of others; rather, it means that they can both contribute and listen in a much more interactive and efficient fashion. The result is that most members regard the entire process to be more egalitarian and satisfying than a traditional brainstorming session, which can be dominated by one person or a subset of members and consequently highly frustrating for others.

In addition to finessing the floor competition that can take place in traditional brainstorming sessions, EBS also has the attractive feature of reducing many people’s inhibitions and concerns about what others think of them. As we saw in Chapter  2, performance pressure can lead to choking, and as we saw in Chapter 7, conformity pressures are extremely strong in teams, even those whose members value independent thought. Because the ideas generated in EBS are anonymous, people can express themselves without having to worry about criticism, and the team, therefore, will be less conforming. This is especially true when teams are composed of members of differing status levels. In this sense, EBS can be a venue for the type of evaluations that we discussed in Chapter 3. That is, managers can get feedback on what others think of their ideas.

Traditional brainstorming groups suffer greatly from coordination and communication problems as the team grows. In contrast, EBS can easily handle large teams. This can be an advantage for the organization, putting more minds to work on the problem and involving several people in the creative process. It also has the potential for improving organizational memory.

An important way that EBS clearly dominates traditional brainstorming is that EBS groups can meet synchronously while being physically dispersed. The members do not have to be in the same place, or even in the same country, to interact.

As noted, the creation and use of organizational memory is greatly facilitated with EBS. The members, whether or not they attended the EBS, have the option of viewing the session via computer. The concept of the idea boneyard is to create a repository for all ideas that are brainstormed.

EBS allows the use of specialized software to help refine, organize, and evaluate ideas. Some software manufacturers have three types of components in their software: presession planning, in-session management, and postsession organization. Collectively, these tools finesse much of the task-management skills that are needed in meetings. Instead of a person being delegated to perform these activities, they are automated.

EBS places every participant on a level-playing field. Practically, this means that no individual can dominate the meeting through rank, status, or raised voice. Thus, EBS ensures equality of input. Equality has many virtues in this type of teamwork. When members feel more equal, there is often more participation, which can increase productivity. For example, one company used traditional brainstorming to develop 1-year and 5-year plans.147 The committee, composed of five members, spent 2 days trying to develop a mission statement. In the end, the statement was unacceptable to several key people in the company. When the same team used EBS, they developed a mission statement in 2 hours. Then they developed further objectives, goals, and strategies. This plan was accepted by the board, with no changes. The EBS session was more effective because each member of the team had input into the process.

Smaller EBS groups do not generate as many ideas as do larger groups. For example, an 18-person EBS group generated more ideas than a 3-person EBS group.149 This is not really a disadvantage, but rather an admonition to EBS managers that larger teams are more productive—something that is not true in traditional brainstorming. However, this in no way implies that EBS with small teams is less effective than face-to-face brainstorming. Quite the contrary!

Probably the most notable disadvantage is that EBS prevents members from interacting socially. Although we have seen that natural social interaction leads to inefficiencies in performance, social interaction does do other (positive) things for teams. Nonverbal communication, such as facial expressions, laughing, and intonation, is important for building feelings of rapport and trust between members. Furthermore, when people do not interact directly, greater misunderstanding and miscommunication can result. EBS may actually promote antisocial behavior; with people being more judgmental, pointed, and abrupt in their communications—something we discuss more in Chapter 13 on virtual teamwork. These drawbacks may leave team members less satisfied than when traditional brainstorming is used. There may be a dissociation between two measures of productivity: actual productivity (quantity and quality of ideas produced) and team satisfaction. The manager (and team) may have to make some hard choices about which objective to prioritize.

Paralleling the greater equality that EBS creates in the organizations that use it is a resultant loss of power for individuals higher in status. Anonymity and equality of input may very well be regarded to be a disadvantage for managers accustomed to having their own ideas implemented. Thus, there could be a backlash, with organizational members accustomed to greater power attempting to return to traditional status hierarchies.

The downside of the anonymity aspect of EBS is that members who generate ideas don’t receive credit for them. As we saw in Chapter 3, recognition is often the most powerful form of reward. Because EBS is anonymous, this means that members are not accountable for generating and evaluating ideas. This means that some members may work hard, and others may do nothing or free ride on the efforts of others.150 Furthermore, EBS participants may feel that their contribution to the team will not make a difference. In contrast, people in traditional brainstorming groups are keenly aware of the contributions of others, which may promote high levels of participation.

It is important to note that EBS has not proven to be more successful than the NGT. In summary, EBS is extraordinarily useful for managing the discussions of large, physically separated teams. EBS limits the demands of social synchronization—that is, coordination loss—and allows flexibility in accessing one’s own, or others’, ideas. It also creates a transactive memory system by using an external storage system that may limit the potentially debilitating effects of keeping track of ideas generated during the exchange of ideas.151