During my career, I’ve participated in numerous group brainstorming sessions and experimented with various brainstorming techniques while facilitating group work. Unfortunately, the results were often disappointing. The sessions frequently resulted in mediocre ideas or solutions, a few individuals hijacked the discussion, and team motivation and engagement remained low. 

Many of a company’s most important tasks require group efforts. When we meet for a brainstorming session, we all expect that magic to happen when a diverse group combines their individual strengths to create something greater than the sum of its parts. Since my experiences showed that this “magic” is a rare phenomenon, I began to wonder why this happens. What goes wrong in group settings that limits our creativity and productivity? 

The Surprising Discovery: 

The first surprising discovery I made was that, despite the Brainstorming technique being in use since the 1950s, there is little evidence that it actually increases group creativity. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor of business psychology at University College London and Columbia University, asserts in his HBR article “Why Group Brainstorming is a Waste of Time” that there is compelling evidence showing group brainstorming often leads to a loss in productivity. 

Uncovering the Dynamics of Group Brainstorming: 

To understand why traditional brainstorming often fails, we need to explore the research on group dynamics and identify the factors that impact the efficiency of group brainstorming. Let’s start by examining production blocking and its effects. 

Production Blocking: 

Production blocking is a significant obstacle in traditional group brainstorming sessions. It refers to the limitation that only one person can speak at a time, leading to various issues that hinder creativity and productivity. 

Issues Caused by Production Blocking: 

1. Turn-Taking Delays: When individuals have to wait for their turn to speak, it interrupts the flow of idea generation, causing people to forget their ideas or become less enthusiastic about sharing them. 
2. Cognitive Overload: As participants wait for their turn, they might focus on remembering their ideas rather than generating new ones, reducing overall creativity and spontaneity. 
3. Dominance of Certain Individuals: Production blocking is exacerbated when dominant individuals overshadow others, taking more time to express their ideas and leaving less time for quieter participants, leading to a narrower range of ideas. 
4. Reduced Participation: When group members perceive that their chances to contribute are limited or that their contributions are not valued, they may become disengaged, further reducing the diversity and quality of ideas generated. 
5. Fragmented Discussion: The necessity of turn-taking can lead to fragmented discussions, where ideas are not fully developed or explored, preventing the group from effectively building on each other’s thoughts. 
6. Impact of Group Size: Studies have found that the number of suggestions plateaus with more than six or seven group members, and the number of ideas per person declines as group size increases. 

Anchoring Bias: 

Daniel Kahneman, in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” describes anchoring bias as the cognitive bias where individuals rely too heavily on an initial piece of information (the “anchor”) when making decisions. This initial information can significantly influence subsequent thoughts and decisions. In the context of brainstorming, the first idea presented often sets a precedent that can disproportionately steer the direction and quality of the discussion. This anchoring effect can lead team members to become mentally lazy or give up on generating more ideas, as they might unconsciously align their thinking with the initial suggestion rather than exploring alternative possibilities. This limits the overall creativity and effectiveness of the brainstorming session. 

Social Loafing: 

Social loafing describes the tendency of individuals to put forth less effort when they are part of a group compared to when they are working alone. This phenomenon, also known as free riding, occurs because individuals feel less accountable and believe their efforts are less critical when shared with others. This can be attributed to a diffusion of responsibility, where people assume others will pick up the slack, leading to reduced motivation and effort from each member. Studies have shown that social loafing can be mitigated in smaller groups and when tasks are clearly defined, ensuring individual accountability (Wikipedia)  (Verywell Mind). 

Social Anxiety: 

Social anxiety in group settings, also known as evaluation apprehension, occurs when individuals worry about how their ideas will be judged by their peers. This concern is particularly pronounced in introverted or less confident participants, who may hold back their contributions to avoid negative evaluation. Additionally, when team members perceive others in the group as having more expertise, their performance may decline due to intimidation or self-doubt. This fear of judgment can stifle creativity and reduce the overall effectiveness of brainstorming sessions (Verywell Mind). 

Conclusion 

Traditional brainstorming sessions frequently fall short due to various psychological and social dynamics. For me, researching and recognizing the reasons behind these shortcomings was like giving a name to a demon—acknowledging the problem is half the battle. In our next blog post, we will explore how online collaboration tools can overcome these challenges, offering practical solutions to enhance team creativity and efficiency.