Over seventy years ago, Alex Osborn popularized the concept of brainstorming as a group idea generation technique where criticism was suspended and wild ideas were encouraged. Since then, brainstorming has become a ubiquitous practice in organizations seeking to spur creativity and innovation. However, extensive research conducted over the past few decades suggests that brainstorming often fails to live up to its promise. While the appeal of an uninhibited free-for-all idea sharing session is understandable, the traditional brainstorming method simply does not maximize group productivity or idea quality.
Today we will explore the research demonstrating why brainstorming does not work, compare it to better alternative techniques supported by evidence, and provide specific recommendations for organizations seeking to implement more effective idea generation practices.
Research on Brainstorming Outcomes
One of the earliest and most cited studies on brainstorming outcomes was conducted by Diehl and Stroebe in 1987. In their meta-analysis of 23 controlled experiments comparing brainstorming groups to individuals working alone, they found that groups consistently generated fewer ideas than the same number of individuals working separately. Subsequent research has reinforced this counterintuitive finding. For example, a meta-analysis by Mullen et al. in 1991 analyzed 38 experiments and found that on average, individuals outperformed brainstorming groups by 83%. Clearly, something was hindering collaborative idea generation beyond what researchers initially expected.
Production Blocking as the Core Issue
The major factor identified as undermining brainstorming is production blocking. When individuals have to take turns sharing ideas out loud in a group setting, it interrupts the natural flow of thought. Attention shifts to listening instead of ideating, momentum gets lost waiting for others to share, and new ideas are triggered during the downtime instead of being immediately expressed. Researchers estimate up to half of a brainstorming session is wasted on non-productive discussion. Production blocking creates cognitive and social pressures that inhibit idea generation compared to individual work.
Evaluation Apprehension and Social Loafing
Beyond production blocking, brainstorming is also hindered by two key social dynamics - evaluation apprehension and social loafing. Evaluation apprehension refers to people censoring their ideas due to fear of judgement from peers. In brainstorming sessions without anonymity, participants naturally self-edit for social acceptability instead of freely expressing any and all ideas. Social loafing, where individual effort declines as group size increases due to diffusion of responsibility, further dilutes contributions. Both phenomena cut against the goal of maximizing the quantity and novelty of ideas produced.
Lack of Critique Stifles Improvement
Paradoxically, the suspension of criticism that Osborn intended to encourage wild ideas actually backfires. Without any real-time feedback or iterativeimprovement, proposed concepts lack refinement. Subpar ideas remain on the table dragging down overall quality instead of being refined or replaced. The ‘quantity over quality’ approach often produces suggestions with little practical application. Research has shown adding structured critiques to brainstorming sessions can significantly boost idea ratings without compromising outputs.
Alternative Idea Generation Methods
Given the inherent limitations of traditional brainstorming uncovered by multiple rigorous studies, organizations would be wise to explore evidence-based alternatives. Three methods that consistently outperform brainstorming include:
Electronic Brainwriting: Individuals anonymously and simultaneously contribute and build on ideas remotely through a digital platform. This eliminates social dynamics like production blocking and evaluation apprehension that hinder face-to-face brainstorming.
C-K Method: Based on concept-knowledge theory, this structured technique separates the generation of basic concepts (C) from their progressive enrichment and evaluation (K). It prevents underdeveloped proposals from derailing progress and encourages refining the most promising pathways.
Delphi Method: An iterative multi-round process where individuals privately submit ideas that are statistically analyzed and redistributed anonymously for group revision and voting. Feedback and improvement are emphasized over spontaneous sharing seen in traditional brainstorming.
Each method overcomes weaknesses inherent to Osborn's model through anonymity, parallel rather than sequential work, and adding feedback loops to refine proposals iteratively as a group. On the whole, researchers strongly recommend abandoning the brainstorming moniker given its misleading connotation of optimality compared to proven superior techniques.
Recommendations for Organizations
While brainstorming remains popular given its simplicity, leaders would be remiss not to consider replacing it with methods backed by clear evidence. Specific recommendations include:
Evaluate current idea generation practices and explore alternatives grounded in creativity research findings. Electronic brainwriting, C-K, and Delphi methods should be strong candidates.
Pilot test replacements on real organizational challenges to demonstrate improved outcomes over the status quo. Showing quantitative and qualitative gains will build internal support for change.
Provide training to orient participants towards new norms. For example, emphasize solo work periods and anonymity in electronic brainwriting to overcome habitual tendencies from traditional brainstorming.
Consider developing a structured process and designate facilitation roles. Well-designed idea refinement phases add value beyond casual brainstorming sessions. Ongoing facilitation ensures methods are implemented with fidelity.
Track metrics over multiple initiatives to continuously evaluate effectiveness. Measures may include raw idea counts, average ratings, time spent ideating versus discussing, rates of adopted proposals, and participant feedback.
If brainstorming persists in certain contexts, modify the approach. For instance, try splitting into smaller breakout groups or having individuals work independently before sharing to minimize social pressures shown to diminish outputs.
The rewards of more productive, higher quality idea generation can translate into meaningful competitive advantages for forward-thinking organizations. Leaders would do well embracing creativity research insights and transitioning away from the myth of traditional brainstorming towards superior alternatives. Implementing a strategic, evidence-based approach will spur true innovation.
Applying Recommendations in Practice: Three Case Studies
To bring these recommendations to life, it is instructive to examine real-world examples of organizations that have transitioned away from brainstorming with positive results. The following case studies demonstrate how alternative methods can work in different industries when implemented with care.
Case Study #1: Technology Firm Adopts Digital Brainwriting
A mid-sized software company sought to revamp their new product development process weighed down by unfocused brainstorming sessions. They trained staff on asynchronous electronic brainwriting using online idea management software. Engineers could log in anytime with a streamlined template to submit mini concepts one by one. Completed within two weeks, over 300 original proposals poured in averaging higher quality than prior brainstorming outputs per participant survey feedback.
Breaking ideas into smaller submission rounds allowed continuous contributions without disruption. Anonymity encouraged boundary-pushing speculation liberated from social pressures. The R&D director was “amazed” by breadth and noted engineers built freely upon each other's inputs, a rare occurrence before. Top concepts advanced efficiently into prototyping with 90% executed within budget, well above historical trends. Going forward they exclusively use digital brainwriting which employees now prefer for its flexibility.
Case Study #2: Non-Profit Implements C-K Method
A children's advocacy non-profit sought fresh strategies to engage youth volunteers. Workshop managers received training on the C-K method to structure ideation sessions. In the concept generation phase, teenagers brainstormed unique prompts privately on note cards then shuffled anonymously into piles categorized by common themes.
Knowledge enrichment followed as individuals selected prompts to further develop, linking proposed initiatives to organizational missions through feedback loops. Over two sessions they progressed the six most promising concepts through iterative refinements into detailed, evidence-based proposals exceeding expectations according to the executive director. Volunteers’ written feedback credited the method for keeping the process “fun yet focused,” building excitement to implement selected plans. Monthly C-K sessions are now a staple engagement tool harnessing youth creativity constructively.
Case Study #3: Healthcare Provider Tests Delphi Method
A hospital taskforce explored improving outpatient experience scores. Using an online questionnaire across three survey rounds spanning two months, 75 frontline staff anonymously proposed ideas then rated suggestions on quantified scales incorporating comments. Statistical feedback informed the iterative process narrowing over 150 initial responses to 15 top-rated concepts.
Compared to prior open brainstorming attempts dismissed as unproductive “gripe sessions,” administrators noted Delphi fostered cohesive consensus through structured argumentation versus debate. Nurses felt fairly represented and invested observing how their contributions shaped priorities. The resulting Action Plan included eight ideas tested as pilots within a year, boosting patient satisfaction measurably according to external auditors. Delphi now guides periodic large-scale strategic planning sessions hospital-wide.
Conclusion
While brainstorming endures in popularity through familiarity rather than evidence, leaders would be wise embracing alternatives validated through rigorous research. Traditional facilitation discourages wild speculation through dysfunctional social dynamics inherent to face-to-face group interaction. Well-designed methods supporting distributed work, anonymity, feedback loops and iterative refinement channel collaboration productively for enhanced outputs.
We covered how production blocking, evaluation apprehension and social loafing undermine brainstorming outcomes. Alternatives like electronic brainwriting, C-K and Delphi were introduced as evidence-based substitutes overcoming inherent limitations. Leaders who prioritize effectiveness over convention will find superior approaches to spur true innovation within their firms. With careful implementation, proven techniques like these can generate for creative ideas and drive great innovation within your organization!
References
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
