The case against brainstorming

Everyone’s prone to groupthink, even the boss, but there are better ways to get the best out of people – true innovation often emerges from moments of quiet

If you want your team to solve a problem, lock them in a room with a whiteboard and a pizza and don’t let them out until they have something. Or that’s the conventional wisdom at least.

Brainstorming remains a go-to method for inspiring innovative thinking, and it sounds great, which is why pretty much everyone does it – by creating a relaxed environment, people can throw ideas around and see what sticks. Except there’s a problem: brainstorming isn’t actually all that effective. 

It’s a blow to companies that see themselves as a dynamic operation where everyone’s always available, but there’s a myriad of research on this topic that argues for the opposite approach – give people some quiet, and only then, after some alone time, put them together to share their ideas. 

The problem with brainstorming is ‘groupthink’ – people tend to fall into behavioural patterns in groups that have more to do with social dynamics than with innovation. It also doesn’t help that we’re drawn to people who sound confident, and there’s no evidence that the loudest person in the room is necessarily also the smartest.

The groupthink phenomenon can happen at any level of an organisation, including at the top, where you may think people would know better than to fall in line without merit.

“In terms of a company board, groupthink means disparate ideas are less likely because people start to think of things in the same way,” says Richard Sheath, Partner at Independent Audit, a corporate governance consultancy that focuses on the effectiveness of boards. 

“They see things through the same lens, and over time they start thinking in the same way – rather than what they should be doing, which is bringing their different experience and skills to the table.” 

This conundrum holds a clue as to why brainstorming, or group decision-making, remains so popular – it makes people feel connected. In her book Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking, Susan Cain cites research studies where participants in brainstorming sessions often believe their group performed much better than it actually did. “Group brainstorming makes people feel attached – a worthy goal, as long as we understand that social glue, as opposed to creativity, is the principal benefit,” writes Cain.

Add to this the tendency of some people to do most of the talking while others sit quietly, and the appeal of brainstorming meetings to drive innovation starts to lose its lustre. Cain refers to studies that show how we perceive talkers as smarter than quiet types: “We see talkers as leaders. The more a person talks, the more other group members direct their attention to him, which means that he becomes increasingly powerful as the meeting goes on.”

The importance of leadership  

In order to ensure no one railroads a meeting, you have to understand the dynamic of the group and be well prepared, says Ian Churchill, CEO of digital workflow software specialist BigHand. “When you get to know a group of people, you recognise their strengths and weaknesses. You have to make sure you engage the people who have a depth of knowledge over those who just have a strong view.”

Churchill, who’s responsible for about 150 people, thinks large groups aren’t actually very efficient when it comes to solving problems. “I don’t particularly like big meetings. You get more done with four people than with eight,” he says. 

A gathering of a few people will be strongly motivated to solve a problem, says Churchill, but that’s less likely as the number grows. “Plus, the bigger the group, the more challenges you have with strong personalities,” he adds.

Having good ideas isn’t solely reserved for those with the gift of the gab, so a key task for the person leading a meeting is to encourage participation from people who are naturally more quiet. “There are some really smart people out there who are quite shy, or who get intimidated by loud people,” says Mike Thorpe, a Director at the Janders Dean consultancy in Jersey. 

The most important person in the meeting is the one who’s leading it, says Thorpe. He recalls ITV newscaster Alastair Stewart moderating an event at the Institute of Directors. “You could tell he has years of experience. He was authoritative, knowing when to let people talk and when to shut them up.” 

The smartest employees are sometimes the quietest, says Thorpe – the people who just get on with their work. “Where companies have good moderators, or good leaders who allow them to speak, that’s when you get the most out of them.”

The power of quiet

Richard Sheath adds: “You need an awareness of what each individual is able to contribute to the discussion, and give them space to do so – particularly with different nationalities round the table.” Some cultures value assertiveness more than others, he says. The same can be said for gender. 

But it’s important not to be dogmatic about how meetings are run, says Sheath. “With time constraints, and a sense of needing to give everyone a chance to comment, it can become a bit of a go-around-the-table – a collection of disconnected comments – rather than a discussion of a theme.”

Different personalities have varying approaches to discussions, so leaders need to be aware in order to get the best out of people. Susan Cain writes: ‘Extroverts think out loud and on their feet, they prefer talking to listening, rarely find themselves at a loss for words, and occasionally blurt out things they never meant to say. Introverts, in contrast… listen more than they talk, think before they speak, and often feel as if they express themselves better in writing than in conversation.’

Each type brings different strengths. Perhaps the best example of how powerful this combination can be is that it took extroverted Steve Jobs working with introverted Steve Wozniak to create Apple. 

To maximise the chances of hearing from quieter members of staff, it helps to prepare them, says Mike Thorpe: “If you want to get something specific out of a meeting, and you know the person you want to [speak] is a quiet person, you give them a heads up. Tell them: ‘I’m going to lead you into it’.” 

He emphasises setting an agenda for meetings. That includes taking a moment to wrap up at the end to make sure you got what you wanted out of the meeting. A far cry from brainstorming sessions, which end up with pizza-smeared Post-its all over the wall. And the research backs it up – the best ideas come when everyone has a chance to contribute, not just the loudmouths.