The best brainstorming doesn’t stop or wait for commentary or evaluation. It moves at a furious pace. The more ideas created in a brainstorm, the better. An expanded list of ideas increases the odds a great one will appear. Judging or commenting on ideas as they are shared puts a wrench in the gears of ideation.
I'm a fan of brainstorming so I'm glad to see this. The cardinal rule is no analysis until the all the ideas are in. One point I'd add is that once this has been firmly ingrained in a culture, people naturally follow it even when not formally brainstorming. I give an example in one of my posts where I defend brainstorming against evidence that it doesn't work. Cheers and thanks. (https://leadingmanagers.substack.com/p/is-brainstorming-its-own-bad-idea)
Way too often brainstorm sessions are allowed to be derailed by advocacy.
Many times one person around the table feels the need to act as the filter, being the voice of no, when that is the opposite of what a good contained brainstorm session should be.
Do you go to great lengths at the beginning of a session, Doug, to lay out the groundrules and keep them enforced? What do you consistently do in that communication?
Great question and yes, I have the same experience. I should say that I haven't facilitated since before Covid so my answer is what I "did" not what I "do". With that out of the way, the answer is yes absolutely - unless I was sure the people were already steeped in the practice (that's what my post is about). I challenged people to be safe, brief, and crazy. Then I had a quick story of a great idea generated by a daft idea which I nearly shut down. Finally, I gave two promises: to ruthlessly stifle analysis and debate; and to save plenty of time for analysis and debate. Knowing they would get their opportunity generally quieted people and gave me a shorthand way of shutting down those who weren't. I hope that helps.
I'm a fan of brainstorming so I'm glad to see this. The cardinal rule is no analysis until the all the ideas are in. One point I'd add is that once this has been firmly ingrained in a culture, people naturally follow it even when not formally brainstorming. I give an example in one of my posts where I defend brainstorming against evidence that it doesn't work. Cheers and thanks. (https://leadingmanagers.substack.com/p/is-brainstorming-its-own-bad-idea)
Way too often brainstorm sessions are allowed to be derailed by advocacy.
Many times one person around the table feels the need to act as the filter, being the voice of no, when that is the opposite of what a good contained brainstorm session should be.
Do you go to great lengths at the beginning of a session, Doug, to lay out the groundrules and keep them enforced? What do you consistently do in that communication?
Great question and yes, I have the same experience. I should say that I haven't facilitated since before Covid so my answer is what I "did" not what I "do". With that out of the way, the answer is yes absolutely - unless I was sure the people were already steeped in the practice (that's what my post is about). I challenged people to be safe, brief, and crazy. Then I had a quick story of a great idea generated by a daft idea which I nearly shut down. Finally, I gave two promises: to ruthlessly stifle analysis and debate; and to save plenty of time for analysis and debate. Knowing they would get their opportunity generally quieted people and gave me a shorthand way of shutting down those who weren't. I hope that helps.
Great example. Really appreciate you sharing, Doug.
Huge fan of this technique.... argue for and against a topic and see what falls out.... using the “yes and” game
You like to do your arguing during the brainstorming session, or do you keep that kind of advocacy for a different meeting?