There is quite a bandwagon rolling right now about Creativity.
5 years ago it seemed that Creativity was a bad word. You could never say it aloud at a corporation because what it meant wasn’t new ideas, it was interpreted as “lack of control” or, even worse, those touchy-feely things that have nothing to do with business. Alright, you could say the word, IF, you coupled it with “…and Innovation.” This is still something you nearly always have to do. When you think about it, it’s kind of silly. Creativity is a bigger concept than innovation, in fact, innovation is a subset. So, saying Creativity AND Innovation is a bit like say, I like Music AND Raggae.
Now, every few days there’s another major article in the press about the importance of creativity. Newsweek kicked it off a few weeks ago with Creativity Crisis. Newsweek also published the unfortunately titled, and factually inaccurate, Forget Brainstorming. Now the Huffington Post has jumped on the bandwagon. They’ve published an article by Shelly Carson, Phd, out of Harvard.
Kudos to Professor Carson, she’s written a solid piece — Creativity in the 21st Century — and, it looks like it’s just a start, she promises follow-ups with on-going creativity tips. Looks like Huffington Post is going with a real column on Creativity, which again, is surprising. I’d suggest to the Huff Post that it do a better job in supporting the effort. Following Carson’s article are a series of links to various creativity resources. One link goes to a site not refreshed since 1998 (Introduction to Creative Thinking), and another with internal links that don’t work at all (Creative Thinking, by Free Management Library). Perhaps one link to Alltop Innovation would be better and more current (interestingly, Alltop doesn’t have a Creativity category…).
Why all the fresh attention to creativity? One word: Emergency.
People, and organizations, turn to creativity when there is a panic, an emergency, an urgent problem. There is global interest in creativity, now, because we really need it to dig ourselves out of the economic crisis we’ve created.
This is nothing new, you see it time and again. When a big company is in trouble, that’s when they ramp up an “innovation initiative.” Otherwise, well, the status quo is good enough. It’s the rare organization that has the vision to solve a problem before it happens. And that’s why it’s so rare to see an organization consistently Innovate. Without formal on-going efforts in place, and a corporate culture with a tendency to be creative All The Time, innovation is reduced to silver-bullet type efforts. Silver bullet innovation efforts nearly always miss the mark.
It’s good news that there is more popping, more interest, in creativity. However, the bad news is creativity is not a capacity that can be turned on like a water faucet. You can try, but like an unused outdoor valve, it gets rusty, and the creative flow starts with a dribble.
Creativity, creative thinking, is a skill that requires practice. Brainstorming does not work when you don’t learn the fundamentals, and practice. If your organization is not in an emergency situation, the tendency is to not practice a skill like group brainstorming, because it’s not needed Right Now. The suggestion is, about every six weeks, get the team together and do a mini-session on a very specific challenge. Hone the skill when the barbarians are not at the gate. Athletes train Before a competition right?
So, please, Hop on the Creativity Bandwagon, but find ways to practice the skill — or your ride will be as useless as a bikini on a boar hog.
23 responses to “When Creativity is Like a Bikini on a Boar Hog”
Nice piece Gregg.
When I was a doctoral student one of the independent study courses I created with Dr. Torrance as my professor of record was a survey of interest in creativity through looking at numbers of books and articles published about creativity, creative thinking, creative thinking training using the archaic library search systems of 1980: card catalgos, Readers Guide to Perioidic Literature and other similar catalogs
the time period was 1900 to 1980
The results a undelating sine-like curve with peaks and valleys
I then compared it to a chart of the economy/stock market prices over the same period.
When overlaid they were basically opposite.
My interpretation equals yours from your experience and study.
When times are good creativity is either pushed aside or treated as a novelty: fun to have but not taken seriously.
When times get extremely bad (just plain suck) the interest in creativity rises to high levels.
Just like you said in your blog message above
Why all the fresh attention to creativity? One word: Emergency.
People, and organizations, turn to creativity when there is a panic, an emergency, an urgent problem. There is global interest in creativity, now, because we really need it to dig ourselves out of the economic crisis we’ve created
Dear Mr. Fraley:
I had seen that you had previously been critical about Po Bronson’s and my Forget Brainstorming piece (perhaps on Twitter?), and I didn’t say anything, but since you’ve now repeated the charge.
Your claim that our piece is factually inaccurate is without merit, and you have no evidence to suggest the contrary.
You are free not to like it – but every line is supported by creativity science, and we have heard from many authorities in the field who are thrilled with it.
My presumption is that your objections to the piece come from two specific points. First, that we said there is no scientific support for the efficacy of brainstorming, and two, that Mumford said commercially available programs are by and large ineffective.
First, we were clear in the main piece, that science-based creativity training can be effective. And in the sidebar, yes, we said that 50% of training techniques don’t work – but that also means that 50% do work.
As for brainstorming, there is no good science that supports its efficacy. Since publication of our piece, we have been told by scientists that we are the first since anyone can remember to report on brainstorming accurately.
If your complaint is that the term brainstorming is misused, and that effective brainstorming requires trained supervisors and the like – I call your attention to the Cambridge American Dictionary and many others that simply define brainstorming as a group of people exchanging ideas. There is absolutely nothing in the lay understanding of the term to suggest that there are specific requirements, without which, it could backfire. But the evidence is clear that at best it doesn’t work; at worse, it can reduce creativity.
Moreover, I am told by the creativity scientists that there is still no support in the literature that trainer lead brainstorming is effective either.
Of course you can disagree – but please acknowledge it is your personal belief that it works. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
But that is not the same as saying that we got our facts wrong. We did not.
Ashely, while I do respect the effort you and Po Bronson made in writing your article, I must respectfully disagree with your findings. Before I get into that however, I want to thank you, and Po, for the much better article, Creativity Crisis. I found that article to be incredibly helpful in promoting a wider respect for the power of creativity, and indeed the crisis of falling levels — it was, is, a wonderful, important, and amazing treatment of the subject. So, please, I’m coming from a place of respect when I say the following.
My statement regarding inaccuracy is not about like or dislike. As they said in the Godfather “nothing personal, just business.”
I do indeed have evidence of factual inaccuracy, but I grant that your interpretation of the facts you had in hand when writing was sincerely done. I assume you are an academic and/or journalist. I would say, again, with respect, that you’ve been selective in the research you’ve presented. You are ignoring a whole body of work that proves that brainstorming, as defined by Osborn, is an incredibly effective technique.
I am not a journalist in the classic sense, I’m a blogger, and mostly, a creativity and innovation practitioner and lead “brainstorming” sessions on a frequent basis.
I do it for a living. People don’t hire me if what I do doesn’t work. And they hire me. It works.
I know, based on many years of experience, that Brainstorming should not be forgotten, because it is a powerful technique that works. This isn’t about personal belief versus science. It’s about test tubes versus reality. And, it works best when people have training, have proper facilitation, practice the skill, and are motivated about what they are up to. Four untrained people sitting around a room throwing ideas around is Not Brainstorming.
My essential objection, and the reason for my “factually inaccurate” statement, is that beyond the profoundly awful and harmful-to-the-field title, is that the research you cite does not actually say that brainstorming is ineffective. My colleague Jonathan Vehar has summed up my feelings on this in an excellent blog post, so I’m not going to bother with a tit for tat. For those who care to read Jon’s piece on the subject, you can get all the detail you like, but essentially the research you cite does not define brainstorming the same way Osborn, who invented it, did. According to Osborn, brainstorming requires a skilled/trained facilitator, who stimulates ideas, enforces the rules of brainstorming, in a group of an appropriate size for the technique.
If Osborn invented it, doesn’t he get to say what it is?
The Cambridge Dictionary does not define the technique of brainstorming known to professional practitioners, it provides a generalized definition of something that is in fact much more precisely defined elsewhere. Here we get into the world of details, and yet, details matter a great deal, especially when it comes to the wonder and workings of the human mind. Why would I use the “lay” definition of the term? Just because Cambridge has made generic what brainstorming is, doesn’t mean I have to. And while I get where you are coming from, what you’ve done is perpetuated a myth of what brainstorming is, instead of getting the detail right and setting the record straight.
In my work with corporations (mostly) I find that everyone thinks they know how to brainstorm (they sometimes go by the mythological/common definition). Most of the time, what people call brainstorming, is simply not. It’s random bull-crapping. They have an intention to generate ideas, but don’t follow even the simplest of guidelines related to proper execution of the technique. And, as the research you cite points out, there is also the phenomena of social loafing layered on top. Motivation matters, and that was not measured in the research you cite as definitive. Calling these crap sessions brainstorming is a bit like calling a group of 10 fifth graders tossing a ball at a hoop NBA basketball. It ain’t the same thing.
I’m not sure which scientists you are talking to, and God bless them all, but the literature is filled with examples of the effectiveness of brainstorming. So, in the end, while I give you all the credit in the world for the good work you’ve done, I stand by my statement, your article while well intentioned, is factually inaccurate. I suspect that if you were to do a more exhaustive review of the literature — or conduct your own tests — you’d find that while you made best efforts to present the facts as you know them, your perspective was a bit too narrow. Magazines like Newsweek thrive on controversy — all the media does — and “Forget Brainstorming” as a title, was designed to be provocative. It did work on that level, but sadly, it’s not quite able to back up it’s claim.
Warmest regards,
Gregg
Actually, the science is not filled with studies that support the evidence that brainstorming is ineffective; that’s just not an accurate portrayal of the research that’s been done.
If your argument is that the science is is even mixed – that still doesn’t mean my piece is inaccurate: it means you wish I’d written something differently than I had.
While I respect you believe you have had success in your own programs, and I am not suggesting that’s true, such anecdotal experiences like that do not negate the scholarship. I haven’t said a single word about the efficacy of your specific work – or anyone’s for that matter.
But I would hope that you consider that could be that if you are seeing success, it may come from something else you are doing, not a part of the brainstorming process. But that you’re not able to assess your program in a controlled, throughout environment.
Perhaps you should invite scholars to study your program to see if it works.
Regarding Mr. Vehar, he actually agreed with me that the lay understanding / use of brainstorming was ineffective.
No, the dictionary definition rules the day. I’m an attorney, and I can tell you that I have no shortage of industry shortage jargon in my head. But I do not for any minute pretend that those in the field are simply wrong if they don’t understand a term in the way I can.
So rather than state that the common definition is wrong, well – that ship sailed years ago from what I can tell. Rather than dismiss that popular understanding as important, I would suggest that you come up with a new term that more accurately describe the services that you are advocating.
My bad – terribly sorry!!!! I hate typing on these things – I always leave out words.
I left out a word.
I meant to say that your program may or may not be effective – it could be true that it works. I’m not one to judge. I’m simply saying that your own assessment isn’t necessarily accurate on what does or does not work, since you see it working as a whole – not individual pieces.
Very sorry about the above typo.
You’re a lawyer? I would never have guessed!
We can agree on several things. Like Mr. Vehar I grant you that the lay understanding and use of brainstorming can be ineffective. This is essentially what we are arguing about, semantics.
We can also agree that my own assessment of my own programs is not scientific evidence; I never claimed it was. It is indeed anecdotal, and never mind that anecdotal is good enough for my customers. They are more focused on results than semantics.
I actually think your article has a lot of good thoughts, I agree with many of the contentions in it. A lot of creative training is indeed crap. We agree on that! We also agree on Passion, on Breaks, on the value of diverse experiences, etc. These are all ways to improve creative effectiveness.
To me, to be honest, the most harmful thing about the article is the title. It is a sweeping claim to say Forget Brainstorming. After your article was published Twitter was full of messages about Forgetting Brainstorming. In 140 characters nobody is going to define what is meant by brainstorming, and a lot of babies are going to be thrown out with the bath water. It is fair to say that some brainstorming is ineffective, but some is effective, and its sad to think people would stop practicing an important skill. Newsweek is a highly credible source and if they say Forget Brainstorming. I fear people will indeed forget it, and that would be a shame.
Yes, it is my contention that the science is indeed mixed, and, one must be careful not to make sweeping statements like “forget brainstorming” if that is true. Here we simply disagree. I’ve read much of this literature and my assessment is that what they (the scholars you cite) were studying was not brainstorming as I know it, and as Osborn, who coined the term, defined it. It’s good work and I don’t dispute it, but it would be more useful/meaningful if it measured proper brainstorming.
There is a significant body of work that proves the efficacy of brainstorming — as Osborn defines it. Check the work of Firestien, Puccio, Coyle, and Masucci. Also, Sid Parnes, Ruth Noller, Scott Isaksen, and Donald Treffinger. Jon Vehar has also contributed to the literature. Yale does not have an exclusive on valid research. Because your article ignores this other body of work, and because of the title, I think your article is inaccurate. Maybe it would be fair to say incomplete, or, not considering all the science, rather than inaccurate, I’ll concede that. If I could re-title your article “Forget Unstructured Brainstorming” we’d be half way home.
In my practice I actually avoid the word brainstorming and instead use “ideation” or “idea generation” as a substitute. I also sometimes use the term CPS which is the acronym for the Osborn-Parnes creative problem solving model. CPS in particular brings in the structured context that the word brainstorming, in its common definition, no longer holds for the general public. In the parts of the corporate world that buy those services, those terms (ideation, idea generation, or CPS) essentially mean more structured and properly done brainstorming.
I agree that brainstorming is not effective by those not trained in it. It’s a skill like anything else and is best done with practice.
I also agree what organizations need is Creative Problem Solving. Again this is a methodology that requires training and commitment. Thank goodness the business community is FINALLY having this conversation so we who know the difference can finally be heard and educate the rest! In the current state of our society we need to teach everyone, starting with kids, to be good Creative Problem Solvers. Check out the literature on that! Education is in crisis, along with US businesses. Here is a methodology that can benefit both. And yes, it often leads to innovation. Another buzz word that is often misused or misunderstood. Thanks for the debate you two and keep up the good work!
Thanks for your comment Marianne, agree wholeheartedly. I’m sorry I got off on the wrong foot with Ashley, as she’s doing great work! I’ve already ordered her book, Nurture Shock, which I was unaware of until now. And yes, the debate has me re-thinking my own assumptions, never a bad thing.
Diverge to Converge Gregg! : )
This debate has been going on for a long time.
It arises simply because the word “brainstorming” means different things to different people.
Originally, brainstorming just meant a group of people in a room calling out ideas as they came to them. Sometimes, a facilitator would write down the ideas on a flip chart as they arose. That is still very often what happens in practice today.
Nowadays, however, the meaning of the term has broadend; in fact some people use the term to describe any ideation technique in which participants call out their ideas (as opposed to methods where they write the ideas down, which is then referred to as “Brainwriting”.)
If by “brainstorming” you mean the former (as I suspect most people do), then I definitely agree: “Forget Brainstorming!”
If however, you refer to sophisticated, structured, targeted ideation techniques as “brainstorming”, then the advice to “forget brainstorming” is indeed inaccurate and counterproductive.
We agree on almost everything Graham. However, brainstorming, as originally defined by Osborn, was not simply idea listing as a group. It was more structured than that, it had more rules and guidelines. What happened is the word, over time, came to mean any kind of slap dash idea listing. And that formless technique is in fact pretty worthless. Thanks for your comment.
Thanks Gregg for another excellent blog post. And for dragging me into the conversation 🙂
As you cited in one of your replies, there are many solid, academically-sound research studies that validate Brainstorming as Osborn described it (not the commonly-held “bull-crapping” sessions you mention). One of the more notable ones was conducted by Sutton and Hargadon. In a 2006 NEWSWEEK piece, Sutton argued that most of the academic studies that argue to forget brainstorming are “irrelevant” and many of them are “fake.” Here’s the link to the article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_39/b4002410.htm
In Sutton and Hargadon’s 2006 research, they took a look at the well-known product design firm IDEO to see why they have been so successful churning out creative ideas for so long. Key finding: they use Brainstorming (as defined by Osborn).
Tom Kelly, General Manager of IDEO, wrote an entire chapter on the value of brainstorming in his excellent book, “The Art of Innovation.” At IDEO, he says, “Brainstorming is practically a religion at IDEO…brainstorming as a tool — as a skill — is taken quite seriously.”
Apparently, we take brainstorming as a tool (rather than the commonly held understanding of it) seriously as well. Why? Because it works, and because like Gregg’s clients, our clients hire us over and over and over again to use structured brainstorming (and other tools) to help them get creative results.
Thanks Jon for your comment. I’d simply add that the Tom Kelly book also reinforces the idea of Practice. They brainstorm often at IDEO, not just once a year for a day, but once a week for a couple hours. Practice increases fluidity. It’s so easy to observe that a group that brainstorms often brainstorms better. Has anyone documented that from the Buffalo group?
Wow, I am extremely impressed and humbled by the dialog here. I am learning so much by simply reading the comments thread.
I can read the passion that all of you have for this and it makes me want to grow as a facilitator.
Please keep up the great work!
Thanks,
Aaron
Great question Gregg…I don’t know the answer to that one, however Firestien’s research shows that training in brainstorming produces more than twice as many good ideas as “bull-crapping” sessions.
Newsweek’s other article on running effective Brainstorming sessions:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_39/b4002412.htm
Gregg –
Thank you for clarifying and extending this discussion through your comments!
You have reinforced the importance of operational definitions. When searching for information/research on brainstorming, we must ask what the practitioners & researchers mean when they say brainstorming.
I am an ardent advocate of brainstorming in the Obsorn tradition and enjoy capturing the
ideas in MindManager.
The kind of brainstorming I’d like to see forgotten is this:
~ Small brainstorming groups are formed with for the purpose of providing everyone with an opportunity for input
~ The collective ignorance of participants (with little relevant prior knowledge or experience on the topic/question)is recorded on flip chart newsprint by a facilitator chosen for legible writing
~ At some point the newsprint compilation is moved to the wall, at which point what has been written becomes sanctified
~ Shortly thereafter, what was brainstormed appears as policy.
Has anyone else had this in-the-name-of-brainstorming experience?
Thanks for your comments Mark. Yes, definitions are important. Brainstorming is poorly defined in the dictionary, but as others have said that ship has sailed. Still, as you say, best to ask what is meant if in doubt. If we’re talking definitions we might also re-examine creativity as well. It is widely mis-characterized as artistic capability or self-expression, leaving out the more important problem solving. Ad agencies call their artistic people “creatives” as if nobody else in the business was!
Yes, have seen your scenario play out a few times. Have also seen a similar one happen where ideas are recorded, everybody is juiced, and they disappear — no action. It is hard to imagine a more negative message to send employees than to collect ideas and then do nothing with them.
Hi Greg, what a wonderful discussion and attempt at clarification by all.
I wanted to respond to Mark’s experience. Yes, I have had this experience as I am sure Gregg, Jonathan and others in the creativity field have.
I do my “creativity and innovation” work predominantly in the federal government in Canada. I have often seen the format you describe used as what the government likes to refer to as “consultation” and it does a poor job of informing policy and truly getting at the “engagement” managers say they want of staff in decision-making and change processes.
Thankfully there are a growing number of more enlightened federal managers who truly want to effect change and recognize the benefits of forgetting unstructured brainstorming and hiring creativity professionals such as myself to help them produce better results.
Relying on the dictionary to explain a tool/technique is naive. To define it, perhaps, but not to explain how it should be used.
Personally, I’d go with the definition from the original source.
The one sentence description in a dictionary can’t cover the intricacies of how to use a tool/technique. My nearby Webster’s says a hammer is, “a hand tool consisting of a solid head set crosswise on a handle and used for pounding” (plus many other definitions).
However, Websters does not tell the reader in any of the multiple definitions how to properly use a hammer or even that it’s frequently used with nails.
So let’s avoid using the dictionary to tell us how to use a tool/technique, shall we? Let’s let the process experts who know how to use the tool (like Osborn, Parnes, Fraley, et al.) be our guides.
Gregg
Nice article. As an ICSC graduate, I certainly understand the difference between the real brainstorming and the popular notion of it. It is quite obvious that the brainstorming guidelines help generate more ideas, which in turn results in better ideas. However, what the literature seems to suggest is that, individual brainstorming (nominal group) outperform group brainstorming. I am not sure that there is research against this observation. So the real question, which is still baffling me, is whether interactive group beats nominal group. With facilitator or not, I don’t think there is strong evidence supporting interactive group. Please let me know if you have evidence either way.
Thank you!
Thanks for your comment Kai. To be honest, I’d have to do a study of what’s in the literature to answer your question. My opinion is that a group will do better than an individual, IF they are trained, are facilitated, and follow guidelines.
[…] Those of you who read this blog often know I got caught in something of a flame war last summer with regard to the claim that Brainstorming Doesn’t Work. […]