Photo: Getty Images/Kateryna Onyshchuk
Is brainstorming better done electronically or in-person?
Through a special arrangement, presented here for discussion is an excerpt of a current article from the blog of Dave Wendland, VP, strategic relations at Hamacher Resource Group (HRG) and Forbes Council Member. The article first appeared on Forbes.com.
In today’s fast-paced and often remote workplace, the question typically asked is whether or not brainstorming is still an effective approach to ideation and innovation.
Brainstorming is commonly a free flow of ideas during which participants produce as many solutions or concepts as possible without criticism or judgment. The session fosters creativity and generates out-of-the-box thinking. When managed well, it encourages people to commit to the final slate of solutions because they played an active role in dreaming them up.
Whether in-person brainstorming is a requirement for quality results has become more hotly debated in the shift towards remote work.
A 1993 study conducted by Gallupe and Cooper revealed that electronically mediated brainstorming actually generated higher quality ideas than face-to-face brainstorming and removed many of the common obstacles of traditional brainstorming techniques, including those that come from “evaluation apprehension” (fear of suggesting ideas might make one look foolish) and “production blocking” (only one group member can suggest an idea at any moment).
In this research, people doing brainstorming typed their ideas into their computer, which also displayed other people’s ideas at the same time. Although not specifically cited as part of the research, I can only imagine that electronic brainstorming also removed bias and the risk of silencing some due to dominant participants or the hierarchy of an organization.
With new environments, remote workplaces and time-starved participants, the emergence of digital brainstorming apps should come as no surprise. And there are a multitude to consider, with advantages and shortcomings associated with each.
Brainstorming remains one of the most valuable techniques a company can use to unlock creativity. If the group is prepared and focused, brainstorming can be quite effective. The key is to keep ideas flowing and not follow one particular train of thought ad nauseum. The goal should be the generation of different ideas leading to the exploration of a handful that bubble to the top in more detail. But remember, brainstorming cannot work when the participants feel judged or if emotions run high. Choose wisely who will be a part of these sessions.
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: What do you see as the benefits and drawbacks of electronic versus in-person brainstorming? What tips do you have for making the most out of brainstorming sessions?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Brian Cluster
Director of Industry Strategy - CPG & Retail, Stibo Systems
Ian Percy
President, The Ian Percy Corporation
Personally, I tend to prefer live interaction because there’s nothing better than the energy generated by a whiteboard and a group of people thinking and collaborating together. Plus body language is often invaluable when facilitating these types of meetings. I was surprised that face-to-face brainstorming made people feel more fearful of being evaluated and that virtual brainstorming allowed for greater participation. Though I can understand the latter, I would have not guessed either as an obstacle. I think that the greatest benefit of virtual brainstorming sessions is that they can be done remotely and I’ve depended on many for exactly that reason. However regardless of the format, a successful brainstorming session requires a well-defined goal and a great facilitator to encourage ideation and include as many perspectives as possible.
As I write, know I am not a fan of brainstorming. Over my many, many decades in business in which I have been “invited” to participate, I have never found one session constructive.
Therefore, I would opt for the online version so I can be constructive with my time and ignore the activity of others online.
Electronic brainstorming, like any other type of electronic meeting, may have an edge in that participants may have have gotten extra sleep as a result of not commuting up to two hours in one direction, and may be fresher to tackle the day’s work. We will not mention that, additionally, if one is having a bad-hair day, one can hide by turning off one’s camera.
Attending in-person brainstorming sessions where people are engaged is invigorating. And fun. Sessions I have attended involved squirt guns when somebody got long winded, and applause and tossed candy when an idea was good. You can’t do those things virtually.
Still, I think a virtual brainstorming session could work, especially for those who are intimidated by the live process. But typing in ideas all at the same time sounds as exciting as watching paint dry. You miss out on tone of voice, passion, and nuance, and that’s where the magic happens in a brainstorming session.
I personally have found that there is an in-person brainstorming energy — where your intensity and ideation feeds mine — which is difficult to produce from virtual interactions. If well curated, this energy can lead to ideas and discussion that is truly greater than the sum of the components. One exception I have observed: leveraging ChatGPT’s ability to synthesize distantly related concepts in a “deep learning” structured chain of inquiry has led to some surprisingly potent results. However as previously noted elsewhere, the quality of ChatGPT’s output is highly dependent on the quality and form of questions presented to it — almost as if it were brainstorming with you!
Great idea to leverage technology (e.g., ChatGPT, etc.), Dion. Having used both in-person and virtual sessions, properly structured and ideas well captured, either can be effective.
Remote brainstorming is the way to go, and for a host of reasons. Some employees tend to feel that there is more freedom of speech. When the pandemic began, we in consulting had to figure out a different way to work. We adopted a portfolio of tools to ply our trade. We used a brainstorming tool coupled with Teams to facilitate these sessions. These included small sessions as well as large focus groups, and I was amazed by the success of the projects. The capability to capture the raw data, the video, and the audio, was just fantastic. Being able to show audio, video, and a transcription of a session makes this set of tools extraordinarily effective. Visualization is important. Brainstorming shouldn’t be limited to words only. Using whiteboards can help teams discover connections between concepts or issues, and that’s sometimes where the big breakthroughs happen.
Very few people would argue there isn’t a “magic” to meeting in person for brainstorming (you pick up on body language, energy, etc.). However an online session can be very effective. And consider this. It’s really what we’re used to. The younger Gen Zs and Millennials are used to the digital experience. The older workforce is used to traditional in-person meetings. In the pandemic, I met with executives (on Zoom or Teams) who were frustrated they couldn’t meet with their teams face-to-face. Within a short time they felt that the remote meetings were very effective.
Tips for brainstorming: Don’t have too many people. Everyone should be able to see each other. A facilitator should take charge and, if necessary, mute and unmute guests. A good formal way of brainstorming is to present the idea, go around the “room” for questions to clarify, and then go around the room asking for the teams’ ideas. Note: As you go around the room, you do it in order. The facilitator calls on the person. When someone has an idea, stay with it and give others a chance to comment before moving to the next person.
There is something to say about the synergy created by being together to solve problems. When people are in an environment together, their ideas draw suggestions from the others in the group. There is a dynamic of watching reactions of others to suggested solutions, and that usually creates a focus of stated issues and that focus then becomes clear, and the solutions rendered are spot on. This renders strategies that would rarely be thought of or considered.
I’ve seen brainstorming work in both an electronic version as well as in the physical space. Just like meetings, there are many purposes for brainstorming and it can cover everything from the mundane to corporate strategy. For large and complex issues, electronic brainstorming does not seem to fit the bill because it is hard to visualize all of the information in a virtual whiteboard while having multiple whiteboards in a conference room or offsite location. Electronic brainstorming sessions work well for specific items that can be tackled fairly quickly.
Some keys to success are to have a clear goal, invite the right people, and set up some ground rules. Also, it is important to have fun along the way to ensure that creativity flows from beginning to end.
Always have FUN … that’s critical, Brian. Well said.
I can say without hesitation that the brainstorming sessions I host have only improved since being forced to go virtual by the pandemic. Three years ago I would have said brainstorming must be done in person to be effective. Now, after learning how to take full advantage of virtual whiteboard tools, and spending a little more prep time on facilitation techniques and supporting virtual exercises, I am a strong advocate for the merits – and outcomes – of remote brainstorming.
Electronic meetings present the challenge of slowing down the conversation, really only allowing one person at a time to own the microphone and, of course, not providing the “body language” input that often goes with spontaneous conversation. On the positive side all those same characteristics can work for the good. I find often the difference is whether the team has worked together before. If not in person is a good start, and electronic a good next step.
This does not need to be an either/or question. Both methodologies have their pluses and minuses. I’ll always vote for in-person sessions, but those meetings can easily become hybrid meetings that allow time-starved or remote partners to participate. I can think of a lot of instances over the years where including partners in either Europe or Asia in earlier stage conversations would have saved a lot of time and headaches. Participation in real time, even if during off hours for some, can make the whole process much more efficient.
Both electronic and in-person sessions can be productive. Regardless of how one conducts sessions, it’s key to have a clear mandate, non-judgmental moderator and an effective way to capture all input.
Brainstorming can be very valuable, but it needs to be well-moderated. Electronic brainstorming, especially so. It’s difficult enough for people to keep their focus in live sessions. To make these sessions valuable, a good facilitator is essential. Someone who can keep the group focused, sense when the horse is dead and they need to move on, and who can draw out ideas from everyone (even us introverts) while keeping it fun and engaging.
Not impossible, but it is essential.
I live my life in the classroom. During the pandemic we had to run literally hundreds of virtual programs. Also attended dozens as well.
When someone says to me “a virtual session is a good as an in-person session,” it’s fairly obvious to me they’ve never attended a good in-person workshop.
There is no comparison to the synergy, engagement, connection and communication created in-person events.
Note: the study referenced is from 1993. That’s 30 years ago. Just sayin’.
I’ve facilitated hundreds of in-person brainstorming sessions and have conducted numerous online sessions. In my experience, both are good at generating the quantity and quality of ideas, but there are major drawbacks of online. First, the in-person experience is hard to replicate in a WebEx/Zoom. Second, in nearly all of my sessions we are standing up, working at the whiteboard drawing, noodling, writing, interacting. This kind of atmosphere is simply hard to replicate online. I know, I know there are brainstorming apps (I’ve used them), but it’s not the same. Replicating intensity, emotion, and in-the-moment excitement is a tough act. Finally, some of the best ideas are typically from a second, third, fourth or fifth build from an original wacky idea. I found it much easier to draw out and the connect dots about these with people in a room, working together at a whiteboard.
Electronic brainstorming levels the playing field for introverts who feel bulldozed by louder personalities. Everyone’s ideas are “heard” online.
To unleash creative solutions, encourage participants to come up with 20 ideas on a topic rather than run with the first one. Welcome different and unique ideas, ranging from abstract concepts to granular details.
I agree with Gene that “brainstorming” is rarely done well. WAY back in psych school I heard Marshall McLuhan say “You can’t preach the gospel over a microphone!” The medium is the message, he said. Perhaps you can’t brainstorm over Zoom either.
And I agree with those supporting the face-to-face approach. Whether it works or doesn’t work depends on the physics of subtle energy. If the energy is aligned and focused on revealing possibilities it can be an amazing experience as well as impactful. Everything from how people sit, to the physical environment, to how it’s facilitated, to participant attitudes and mindsets to the words spoken determines the energy of the outcome. That is, whether anything comes of it.
McLuhan was dead right about how each medium influences the ideas that can be expressed, Ian. (Nice to learn you are a fellow media ecologist.)
You certainly can brainstorm inside a digital conference (I’ve led such sessions), but the outcome will be affected — for better and/or for worse.
I favor in-person interaction where practical. Nothing like a half-day in a comfortable room with the team, away from the office, with no distractions and a great facilitator to bring forth game-changing ideas.
But let’s not make perfect be the enemy of good. Online meetings are less costly to put on, and they can be easily recorded and transcribed so no detail is missed in the follow-up report.
Importantly, participants have been gaining skill and familiarity with Zoom/Teams/Meet/GTM channels. The better we all get at using this medium and understanding how it affects our thinking, the more success we can expect.
As a professor, I do not find that video brainstorming is more effective. Certainly it allows a few people to increase their participation. But the disadvantages of the clunky and uncomfortable communication flow seem to take away that advantage.
More critical would be for us to accept a wider sense of brainstorming. Much of the value of a group brainstorm comes AFTER the session is over and as each individual processes what they heard. It is in these quiet times that the brilliant answers most often show up.
In-person brainstorming benefits from the energy created by human interaction, but it suffers from it as well. No doubt in-person teams can get on a roll, but they also tend to be hierarchical, easily dominated by aggressive folk, and overly prone from moving quickly from “blue sky thinking” to consensus paralysis. Electronic brainstorming on the other hand is inherently more democratic but can become overly dispassionate. As to tips, either way it’s critical to get the right talent, personalities, and facilitation in a session along with clear rules of the road and a focused agenda.
The future of work and team leadership is hybrid. Activities that don’t require much effort integration are a good fit for virtual coordination. However tasks that need a safe environment for difficult conversations (strategic offsite), integration of knowledge, or collaboration for breakthrough ideas and innovations are better suited for face-to-face coordination. In-person brainstorming sessions should be the preferred mode whenever possible.
Several of the commenters here have said, and I agree, that who is in the room — physical or virtual — makes the difference in the quality of ideas generated. That can also be a drawback, especially if it leads to groupthink or if the participants’ backgrounds and experiences are too similar. This discussion, as I scroll through the thumbnail photos, is pretty white and senior, for instance. So we aren’t getting the perspectives of folks who aren’t already in our filter, and who often don’t get heard in institutional decision-making.
One advantage of virtual approaches is that they can anonymize parts of the process and include a bigger or more diverse pool of participants. We have commented previously on when names are stripped from resumes, recruiting results change notably. We should be aware of the same principle in brainstorming practice.
Brainstorming is all about the interaction between colleagues, it should be in person where people can spark off each other and openly discuss the topics raised. Too easy on line to kill ideas, people hide behind a faceless voice and can be negative rather than getting involved.
In person is more fun if it’s intended to largely be lively, with food and celebration. But for best overall outcomes I’ve not seen either in-person or electronic have much advantage over the other, especially if biases are addressed so everyone has an even shot at contributing. Even good moderators have a hard time making this a reality.
Amazon meetings, although not all brainstorming, are a great example of effective outcomes by removing biases like constant/long talkers, fear of hierarchy, diversionary tactics, and people who haven’t prepared.