“Beyond Brainstorming:
5 reasons brainstorming doesn’t work and what to do instead”
by Annette Dubrouillet
Copyright, 2003

In the movie Traffic the character played by Michael Douglas is a wealthy businessman who has just been appointed the new Federal Drug Enforcement “Czar”. He got the appointment because of his private sector record as an innovative leader. He knows that the US drug problem is serious, that there have been a lot of strategies tried to remedy the situation, most unsuccessfully, and he is going to have to rattle some cages if this problem is going to be solved.

Traveling with his team of federal bureaucrats on a private jet, he tells them that he wants them to brainstorm how to solve this problem. He tells them there are no holds barred – if they could do anything at all regardless of cost, policies, protocol – what would they do? Just come up with any idea at all. There is dead silence - no response from any of his staff. And a very quiet Michael Douglas.

Of course, this scene emphasizes the complexity of the drug problem within the US, but it does more. It shows many of the problems inherent in the ever-present process that we called brainstorming. There are many reasons brainstorming doesn’t work but here are the top five:

1.People see brainstorming as a solution to problems. It isn’t. It’s a tool in a problem-solving process. Alan Osborne came up the technique of brainstorming about 50 years ago as part of his problem-solving model. Brainstorming itself was never meant to solve problems, just provide people an opportunity to discover possible solutions. When groups hold “brainstorming sessions” to solve problems they are doing the same as a family who sits down to a Thanksgiving Day dinner of only turkey, no stuffing, no sweet potatoes, no cranberry sauce. Yes, you can say they had a “turkey dinner,” but it really doesn’t fit the bill. Real problem solving is a multi-faceted process.

2. Many office environments, particularly in the public sector, are governed by polices, rules, regulations, statutes and even laws. The people in those offices feel they have to stay within the lines of all that guidance to get their job done properly. This results in very linear thinking.

But brainstorming is very non-linear. Actually it is highly divergent. In brainstorming sessions, we often expect people to leave their “stay-within-the-lines” environment and move immediately to looking at things in new ways. The human brain doesn’t do that very easily. It needs time and help in switching gears. It is like driving a manual transmission without stepping on the clutch. Almost impossible to get into second gear.

3. People expect ideas to pop up like mushrooms. While that might happen for the geniuses in our midst, most of us have to do some work to provide fertile ground for idea generation. Even mushrooms grow out of something!

4. Bosses can influence meetings even when they don’t mean to. Telling participants to “Just pretend I’m not here,” may not work. Fact is, unless the boss has worked hard to create an environment of open communication where ideas from anyone are always respected and appreciated, then the minute the boss enters the brainstorming venue, the entire tenor of the session changes.

5. The people in the session try to run the session. People have difficulty generating ideas (a divergent activity) while also monitoring what is happening in the session (a linear activity). This split responsibility is more than just a challenge, it causes basic brainstorming tenets to be overlooked:

a. “Everything’s game --- we don’t judge the ideas.” We hear it at the beginning of the sessions, right? But then things get rolling and at some point, we hear someone say, “That’ll never work,” or “We’ve already tried something like that.” Those judging statements send loud messages to everyone in the room, “Don’t even bother coming up with something different.” Ideas are squelched.

b. “We need to hear from everyone.” But often we don’t hear from the quiet ones. Some people are more reserved or timid than others. That doesn’t mean the quality of their ideas is any less, but it can mean we don’t ever hear those ideas, especially if other people in the session are more vocal.

c. “This is not a competition. We are all here for the same reason.” Particularly in competitive work environments, brainstorming session can turn into “who-can-get-the-glory” sessions.

Okay, so if these are the problems, what are the solutions?

1.People need to have an understanding of a problem solving process. There are five basic steps. They are:

a.They need to carefully define the problem they are addressing, understanding all the nuances that can affect finding the right solution.

b.They need to generate multiple potential solutions. The more the better.

c. They need to be able to combine or converge unique ideas into potential solutions.

d. They need to be able to evaluate alternatives and select the best solution.

e. And most importantly they need to formulate a viable, accountable action plan to ensure the selected solution is implemented. (This last step is actually the most obvious and yet the most overlooked. Group after group complain about the fact that they met, they generated ideas and yet nothing happened.)
Problem-solving sessions have to include all of the five steps, otherwise they may not reach actual problem resolution.

2. There need to be planned activities that help participants’ brains switch gears from linear to divergent. As crazy as it sounds, a few minutes spent in a simple word games or figure-ground puzzles can be lubricant needed for the big gear switch in the brain. Some people few this step as frivolous but a few minutes spent in on this type of activity will result in much more productive problem solving sessions.

3. Before they actually need to solve problems, people need to do some groundwork to be sure their brains are fertile and ready when they need them. You can spend a few minutes in a staff meeting or send out a daily or weekly email that causes people to stop and look at things differently. The more participants get their minds used to switching gears and looking at things differently, the easier it will be to do so in a formal problem-solving session.

4. There must be concrete acitivties that help people look at things differently. The natural path for the brain is to do what it has done before, see things the same way, It is how we have been taught to “learn” by rote repetition. Obviously the

4. The matter of the boss sitting in on problem-solving sessions and potentially stifling creativity is twofold and a bit more complicated. If a boss is willing to ensure a culture of openness and acceptance, then his or her presence in the problem-solving session will have minimal impact. If however there is a culture of authoritarian or punitive communication, it will be more challenging for a problem-solving group to accomplish their goals. Learning and implementing a structured problem-solving process will give participants a format to focus on. That focus can decrease the team’s awareness and susceptibility to “boss presence.” (Solution five can also help – see next item.)

5.It is vital that there be an external “free agent” to facilitate the meeting. There needs to be someone who moves the group through all the required steps (listed in solution number 1) ensuring that there is no judging, that everyone is heard from, and that any competition is oriented toward accomplishing the goal of solving the problem. If there is a problem with a boss-oriented organization, they can also help the group maintain the focus on the problem-solving process.

The facilitator doesn’t have to be a totally external person. They can be part of the same team, but during the problem-solving session they must mentally separate themselves. They guide the process, they don’t solve the problem.

With some simple changes in the process based on an understanding of basic problem-solving, groups can ensure that their meetings become effective, efficient sessions that guarantee they fix problems in the best way possible.

Back to Top