Slashdot Mirror
'Brainstorming Doesn't Work' (fastcompany.com)
People aren't necessarily more creative in groups than alone, or vice versa, according to numerous studies. An anonymous reader shares an article: In fact, creativity needs both conditions; our performance peaks when we alternate -- first working alone, then coming together to share our ideas, then going off by ourselves again to mull over what we heard. It's a process. This is because our brains' creative engines are fueled both by quiet mind-wandering, allowing novel and unexpected connections to form, and by encountering new information, which often comes from other people. The typical brainstorm over-delivers on the latter and under-delivers on the former, which means that for lots of people, brainstorming is an utter nightmare. Introverts just feel alienated, and extroverts aren't pushed to reflect more deeply on the ideas they've batted around amongst themselves.
When a manager holds a brainstorming session, my experience is that they use the result to make themselves looks better, while keeping notes to later blame an attendee in case the ideas don't work. Win-win for management. Only meetings of peers sharing ideas seem to make any sense.
Well, the headline escalated quickly from "People aren't necessarily more creative in groups than alone" to "Brainstorming Doesn't Work".
Ever heard of Duck Debugging? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The idea is that if you're stuck in a code, only by explaining line by line your reasoning to someone (or even a rubber duck), it'll help you to find the solution yourself.
But you know what's even more efficient? Talking to another person.
The number of time I got stuck for like half an hour, quickly poked a coworker to talk about it only to find the solution 5 min later.
Expert to Expert brainstorming work. It's useless corporate meeting that doesn't : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Elok
I'm glad someone is publishing information that confirms what I've found to be true for years. Force-fitting people together and making them build something in rapid-fire fashion with half-thought out ideas doesn't make for a good experience. Anyone who's ever worked with me knows that my approach to a problem is to identify what's wrong, go have a think on it, do some research and present a semi-formed opinion/argument for discussion. Most of my job these days is reading and writing...and my backlog of reading is extremely long. But, coming to the table with a little knowledge on the subject is better than having people blurt out the first thing that comes to their mind. At best it's not fully thought out, and at worst people are just saying whatever they can think of to avoid not saying something.
Now, can we please fund some studies on how bad "open workspace" offices are for productivity? They may work great for salespeople, marketing folks or 25 year olds pulling all nighters and shooting Nerf guns at each other...but a real workplace needs a mix of environments. You need a quiet personal space to make phone calls, read or work on things. You also need the ability to host a small group in something less formal than a meeting room. I hate to use the word "stand up" or "scrum" because there's all sorts of negative connotations around that. But, having something where people are just human to each other instead of being project management robots is a good way to exchange ideas. I can't tell you how many multi-hour meetings I've sat in with project managers who are using the exact same phrases from their PMP training manuals. I've never taken the coursework for PMP, but I seriously think all PMs are told "this is the exact language you must use when coming to Stage 2.3.5.22 of your Generic Software Project Plan."
It's the uncensored moments that make brainstorming work; that's why it tends NOT to work in most corporate environments, where failure to self-censor may be career-limiting at best, and career-ending at worst.
Edward de Bono observes the same in his writings on "Lateral thinking" - lateral thinking in his definition is the quintessential uncensored, creative thinking were one (or the group) generates as many ideas as possible, no matter how whacky or impractical. Only after this process has finished, one applies "linear" (critical, rational) thinking to select the workable out of the rest.
According to him, doing the former in group sessions (brainstorming) has the benefit that one person's whacky, playful, and not-serious idea may trigger an association with another person that may very well lead to the needed solution. But he suggests a fairly rigid methodology of conducting such brainstorming sessions, in which critical, judgmental "linear" thinking is verboten.
Unfortunately many orgs do something (e.g. brainstorming, or agile) because they've heard the name and benefits somewhere, but have no idea about the critical workings under the hood - and what they do is that thing only in name. And THEN there are organizations where the vast majority of us work, where creativity is frowned upon...
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.