In a recent New Yorker story, Jonah Lehrer wrote: "Brainstorming seems like an ideal technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is a problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work." After I read the story, it came up at work twice: first, from a skeptical editor; second, among my team, emailed around as a conversation starter. It was a good chance to put thoughts down. Copying and re-editing (it was an early AM) below.

Have been thinking about this one some the past few days, ever since a high-ranking editor last week initially turned down an offer to help brainstorm a complicated issue, saying, "I read in The New Yorker that brainstorming doesn't work." I argued back with the following case.

I'm a big fan of Jonah Lehrer's work. And The New Yorker. And of killing groupthink. And of stories debunking myths. And creative workspaces.

But Lehrer's arguments here don't work for me. As well-meaning as he is, pushing for more creative work, I think he conflates brainstorming and groupthink in a way that's dangerous to work creativity at large.

In the brainstorm research he cites, the metric upon which he hinges his argument is number of results. As brainstorms are supposed to go for "quantity over quality," that appears to be a fair comparison. But then he makes the jump to groupthink, which bothers me. He's taking a quantitative measure, where no qualitative or organizational results are known and jumps to the qualitative and organizational concept of groupthink. If he made real connections between the two, I missed it.

Then he takes another leap into creative workspaces. That's great. It would be fun as can be to tear down walls and install crazy equipment on hefty research budgets and, every time one leaves one's desk, find the juggler using marbles to make a breakthrough in particle physics.

But again, I don't get the jump. MIT geniuses may suffer from perilous groupthink just as much as the rest of us, but I don't think anyone is forcing them into Post-It Note brainstorms. And those of us who might consider Post-It Note brainstorms aren't anywhere close to MIT. That's what Lehrer loses track of here: how the rest of us work every day.

The problem the rest of us have — and why I think brainstorms matter — is that the day-to-day work experience, lacking geniuses and crazy buildings, *is* groupthink. Our groupthink is heads-down, do-what-I-do-every-day, sit-at-my-desk, breakfast-commute-desk-home routine.

When a brainstorm is done right, you leave your space. You leave your chair and daily work behind. You are exposed to different people — or at least the same people away from their desks and the daily grind. No matter how many ideas you generate, you are getting away from your daily-work mentality, a mindset that owns us now more than ever, and getting far closer to a crazy MIT building that you ever could otherwise.

I told Lehrer-reading editor some of this. He came around on letting us help brainstorm the issues we were discussing. When newsrooms get to where brainstorms hold us back from transformative ideas, instead of being the rare times for them, I would be happy to change my mind.

In subsequent talk at work, we discussed Lehrer's want for more debate around generated ideas. I agree with that desire. But there's a right way and wrong way to go about the debate. Unless your participants practice intellectual combat by trade (like, again, MIT scientists), you need to get people first talking and comfortable with expressing ideas, then introduce debate and other selection mechanisms. Otherwise, the loud, as always, rule the earth. It boggles my mind that some experts argue brainstorms put introverts at a disadvantage. Bad brainstorms put introverts at a big disadvantage. Good brainstorms give introverts, like me (INFJ or INFP, I think I'm on the line), fair, encouraging shots to contribute. If done right, brainstorms and idea approaches give introverts tactics to use every day.

For more reading on this issue, check out blog responses one and two by Stanford prof and IDEO fellow Bob Sutton. He makes similar points, but in different words and undoubtedly more cogent form. My IDEO love is here.

trackback / comment rss feed