\u201c(Osborn\u2019s) book\u00a0\u2018Your Creative Power\u2019<\/em>\u00a0was published in 1948. An amalgam of pop science, and business anecdote, it became a surprise best seller. Osborn promised that, by following his advice, the typical reader could double his creative output. Such a mental boost would spur career success.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYour Creative Power,\u201d Leher\u2019s article continues, \u201cwas filled with tricks, and strategies, such as always carrying a notebook, to be ready when inspiration struck. But Osborn\u2019s most celebrated idea was the one discussed in Chapter 33, ‘How to Organize a Squad to Create Ideas.’ “When a group works together, he wrote, the members should engage in a ‘brainstorm,” which means \u201cusing the brain to storm a creative problem\u2014and doing so in commando fashion, with each stormer attacking the same objective.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFor Osborn, brainstorming was central to B.B.D.O.\u2019s success. Osborn described, for instance, how the technique inspired a group of ten admen to come up with eighty-seven ideas for a new drugstore in ninety minutes, or nearly an idea per minute. The brainstorm had turned his employees into imagination machines.\u201d<\/p>\n Lehrer includes Osborn\u2019s belief that, \u201cthe thing that distinguishes brainstorming from other types of group activity\u2014was the absence of criticism, and negative feedback. If people were worried that their ideas might be ridiculed by the group, the process would fail.\u201d<\/p>\n Lehrer also adds, \u201cbrainstorming was an immediate hit, and Osborn became an influential business guru, writing such best sellers as,\u00a0\u2018Wake Up Your Mind\u2019<\/em>\u00a0and ‘The Gold Mine Between Your Ears.’\u00a0<\/em>Brainstorming provided companies with an easy way to structure their group interactions, and it became the most widely used creativity technique in the world. It is still popular in advertising offices, and design firms, classrooms, and boardrooms.\u00a0\u2018Your Creative Power\u2019<\/em>\u00a0has even inspired academic institutes, such as the International Center for Studies in Creativity, at Buffalo State College, near where Osborn lived, and it has given rise to detailed pedagogical doctrines, such as the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process, which is frequently employed by business consultants.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen people want to extract the best ideas from a group, they still obey Osborn\u2019s cardinal rule, censoring criticism, and encouraging the most ‘freewheeling’ associations. At the design firm IDEO, famous for developing the first Apple mouse, brainstorming is ‘practically a religion,’ according to the company\u2019s general manager. Employees are instructed to ‘defer judgment,’ and go for quantity.\u201d<\/p>\n So, why does Lehrer, among other critics, think brainstorming in a group is bad? As an example he includes the following:<\/p>\n \u201cThe first empirical test of Osborn\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019t unleash the potential of the group, but rather made each individual less creative.\u201d<\/p>\n He also looks to Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, and adds that: \u201c(Sawyer) has summarized the science: Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone, and later pool their ideas.\u201d<\/p>\n Lehrer points to a 2003 study by Charlan Nemeth, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley. Nemeth suggests that:<\/p>\n \u201cthe ineffectiveness of brainstorming stems from the very thing that Osborn thought was most important.\u201d As Nemeth puts it, \u201cWhile the instruction \u2018do not criticize\u2019 is often cited as the important instruction in brainstorming, this appears to be a counterproductive strategy. Our findings show that debate, and criticism do not inhibit ideas but, rather, stimulate them relative to every other condition.\u201d<\/p>\n Lehrer continues:<\/p>\n \u201cOsborn thought that imagination is inhibited by the merest hint of criticism, but Nemeth\u2019s work, and a number of other studies have demonstrated that it can thrive on conflict.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAccording to Nemeth,\u201d Lehrer writes, \u201cdissent stimulates new ideas because it encourages us to engage more fully with the work of others, and to reassess our viewpoints. There\u2019s this Pollyannaish notion that the most important thing to do when working together is stay positive, and get along, to not hurt anyone\u2019s feelings,\u201d she says. \u201cWell, that\u2019s just wrong. Maybe debate is going to be less pleasant, but it will always be more productive. True creativity requires some trade-offs.\u201d<\/p>\n Bob Sutton<\/a>, a Professor of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford, studies innovation, the links between knowledge, and organizational action, and who has many other impressive credentials dealing with business, writes in his\u00a0blog<\/a>\u00a0that he does NOT agree with Lehrer\u2019s New Yorker article (or just about every bit of the research, and statements made by researchers on why brainstorming doesn\u2019t work): \u201cBrainstorming may have numerous other positive benefits in real organizations where creative work is done \u2013 none of which have not been examined in those simple experiments. If so, those findings about pure efficiency may well be beside the point when it comes to evaluating brainstorming in organizations that use it routinely.\u201d<\/p>\n While Lehrer\u2019s examples may have worked with control groups, working on puzzles, and examples that do not deal with the ethereal qualities of ideas and creativity in design, creatives have an aversion to criticism. \u201cDesign-by-committee\u201d is a vile concept to any creative, especially when critics are not creative themselves. In these situations, it is also not an even playing field \u2013 creatives are at the bottom of the food chain in a corporate situation with marketing, sales, project management, and janitorial services set above, speaking down to creatives, often being commidiots, saying something purely to legitimize their presence in\u00a0committees<\/a>\u00a0to judge creative output they don\u2019t, and never could truly understand.<\/p>\n Mr. Lehrer adds an interesting twist to his article, somewhat negating his entire premise on brainstorming:<\/p>\n \u201cOne fanatical believer in the power of space to enhance the work of groups was Steve Jobs. Walter Isaacson\u2019s recent biography of Jobs records that when Jobs was planning Pixar\u2019s headquarters, in 1999, he had the building arranged around a central atrium, so that Pixar\u2019s diverse staff of artists, writers, and computer scientists would run into each other more often. \u201cWe used to joke that the building was Steve\u2019s movie,\u201d Ed Catmull, the president of both Disney Animation, and Pixar Animation, says. \u201cHe really oversaw everything.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cJobs soon realized that it wasn\u2019t enough simply to create an airy atrium; he needed to force people to go there. He began with the mailboxes, which he shifted to the lobby. Then he moved the meeting rooms to the center of the building, followed by the cafeteria, the coffee bar, and the gift shop. Finally, he decided that the atrium should contain the only set of bathrooms in the entire building. (He was later forced to compromise and install a second pair of bathrooms.)\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAt first, I thought this was the most ridiculous idea,\u201d Darla Anderson, a producer on several Pixar films, told me. \u201cI didn\u2019t want to have to walk all the way to the atrium every time I needed to do something. That\u2019s just a waste of time. But Steve said, \u2018Everybody has to run into each other.\u2019 He really believed that the best meetings happened by accident, in the hallway or parking lot, a. And you know what? He was right. I get more done having a cup of coffee, and striking up a conversation, or walking to the bathroom, and running into unexpected people than I do sitting at my desk.\u201d Brad Bird, the director of \u201cThe Incredibles,\u201d and \u201cRatatouille,\u201d says that Jobs \u201cmade it impossible for you not to run into the rest of the company.\u201d<\/p>\n Steve Jobs, who many consider one of the great innovators of the 21st century, said;<\/p>\n \u201chere\u2019s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble makers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They\u2019re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. About the only thing you can\u2019t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world \u2013 are the ones who DO!\u201d<\/p>\n Hold all the studies you wish. Test, poke, and prod people in groups to find out if groupthink works but in the end, results are the proof of what works. If you use Steve Jobs, or Pixar as examples of how well brainstorming works, you will be hard-pressed to prove brainstorming doesn\u2019t work, due to their utter success. In fact, it\u2019s impossible, at least in my wide experience, to prove brainstorming with a group of talented, dedicated, and creative individuals, brought together to freely share their minds, and thoughts, won\u2019t be able to push the human race forward. You have to love the \u201cnormal\u201d ones, who work as university professors, and researchers, as they keep telling us what we can\u2019t do, and why it won\u2019t work. That\u2019s when the \u201ccrazy\u201d ones go out and do it!<\/p>\n Images \u00a9GL Stock Images<\/p>\n![\"Writing](\"https:\/\/webhostinggeeks.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/brainstorming.2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nCould Osborn Be Wrong?<\/h2>\n
![\"brainstorming.3\"](\"https:\/\/webhostinggeeks.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/brainstorming.3.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIs Creation the Key, or is it Dissection?<\/h2>\n
![\"Light](\"https:\/\/webhostinggeeks.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/brainstorming.1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nChatting Employees are Brainstorming<\/h2>\n
Let Success Be the Judge<\/h2>\n
![\"whg.bannerad.1.prelim\"](\"https:\/\/webhostinggeeks.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/11\/whg.bannerad.1.prelim.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"