Nine Brainstorming Demotivators: II

An important technique for elevating the quality of the output of brainstorming sessions is to stop doing the things that degrade quality. That's good news, because not doing something rarely costs much. In Part I of this series, we looked at changes to make before the session starts. In this Part II, we examine changes in the conduct of the session itself.

Maintain psychological safety

If we want people to contribute fresh, potentially radical ideas, they need to feel psychologically safe. Safety is the degree to which group members, as a whole, believe that personal risk-taking will not lead to harsh judgment of the risk-taker by the group. The brainstorm structure provides safety by prohibiting evaluation of contributions during the session.

Evaluation If we want people to contribute
fresh, potentially radical ideas,
they need to feel safecan come in many forms: ridicule, derisive laughter, incidental comments prefatory to making contributions, and so on. Ruthlessly enforce the nonevaluation rule.

Ensure that scribing is fair

The scribe's duty is to capture honestly the contributions of participants. Honest mistakes do happen, but a pattern of biasing the record of contributions eventually causes some to object. If biased scribing continues, some will simply stop contributing.

Intervening when this happens is the facilitator's duty. The matter can be so delicate that recessing for a private chat with the scribe might be advisable. If interventions don't work, replace the scribe. If the facilitator fails to intervene when a scribe intervention is needed, have a private chat with the facilitator.

Have enough scribe capacity

When some scribes cannot keep up with the pace of contributions, they compensate by omitting some contributions, condensing them, or combining them with others. When this happens, contributors can feel devalued, and some will stop contributing.

If the scribe is slow, and can't speed up, replace the scribe. If the contribution pace is too rapid (a wonderful problem to have), add an additional scribe.

Name contributions descriptively

When we name contributions to refer to them in conversation, using the contributor's name risks interfering with psychological safety when others contribute alternative ideas, or when someone credits the wrong contributor.

To refer to a prior contribution by a name, use something descriptive of the contribution, rather than the name of the contributor.

Allocate airtime fairly

In some brainstorming sessions, a few individuals dominate. Reticence on the part of others can result.

The few individuals who are dominating might be simply uninhibited, eager, well-meaning souls. If so, try a polling technique. Go around the group repeatedly, restricting each person to either making just one contribution, or passing. The more difficult situations relate to individuals whose intent is to prevent others from contributing, or who insist on evaluating the contributions of others: "I already said that," or "We tried that," or "That will never work." Address these difficult situations proactively by establishing behavioral norms at the outset, and by intervening, perhaps privately, in the case of repeated norm violations.

None of these practices guarantees better brainstorming results. People can be very creative about finding ways to stifle creativity.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Commitment Makes It Easier

When you face obstacles, sometimes the path around or through them is difficult. Committing yourself to the path lets you focus all your energy on the path you've chosen.

Piling Change Upon Change: Management Credibility

When leaders want to change organizational directions, processes, or structures, some questions arise: How much change is too much change? Here's a look at one constraint: the risk to management credibility.

Extrasensory Deception: II

In negotiating agreements, the partners who do the drafting have an ethical obligation not to exploit the advantages of the drafting role. Some drafters don't meet that standard.

Unintended Condescension: II

Intentionally making condescending remarks is something most of us do only when we lose control. But anyone at any time can inadvertently make a remark that someone else experiences as condescending. We explored two patterns to avoid last time. Here are two more.

Way Over Their Heads

For organizations in crisis, some but not all their people understand the situation. Toxic conflict can erupt between those who grasp the problem's severity and those who don't. Trying to resolve the conflict by educating one's opponents rarely works. There are alternatives.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info