The "Rules" of Brainstorming: An Impediment to Creativity?

The “rules” of brainstorming: an impediment to creativity? Matthew Feinberg and Charlan J. Nemeth* University of California, Berkeley One of the most popular techniques for enhancing the number of ideas or solutions to a problem is that of brainstorming. Developed by Osborn (1957), it is specifically designed to foster idea idea generation by the usage of four rules: (1) Come up with as many ideas as you can (2) Do not criticize one another’s ideas (3) Free-wheel and share wild ideas (4) Expand and elaborate on existing ideas. (Osborn, 1957) Most research has shown that these rules of brainstorming tends to improve group performance relative to a control group given no specific rules (Parnes & Meadow, 1959; Paulus & Brown, 2003, but see also Dunnette, Campbell, & Jaastad, 1963). The main reasons for this improvement are believed to lie in their ability to combat, problems such as social loafing and evaluation apprehension (Karau & Williams, 1993). The rule “not to criticize”, for example, is believed to lower people’s concerns about how they re being evaluated. In contrast to such literature, there is some theoretical reasons and recent evidence to suggest that these rules and, in particular, the rule “not to criticize” may actually inhibit creativity. Rather, there is evidence of the value of debate even criticism in the stimulation of creative thought. A variety of studies demonstrates that exposure to a persistent minority dissenter sparks more flexible, open-minded, and multi-perspective thinking which, in turn, produces less conformist and more creative outcomes (e.g., Peterson & Nemeth, 1996; Nemeth & Chiles, 1988; Nemeth & Kwan, 1985). This line of research maintains that the benefits of dissent stem from the cognitive conflict it generates; the dissent compels those in the majority to search for possible explanations as to why the dissenter is willing to openly disagree and suffer the rejection that often accompanies such disagreement. This search for explanations then fosters thinking on all sides of the issue (Nemeth, 2003). People search for information on all sides of the issue, use multiple strategies in problem solving and detect solutions that otherwise would have gone undetected (Nemeth, 1995). Other research more directly examines the role that conflict plays in enhancing group performance (e.g., Jehn, 1995; Jenn & Mannix, 2001; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). This body of literature points to conflict regarding the task at hand as an impetus for improved group performance. One recent study examines the role of the rule “not to criticize” directly in a brainstorming setting. Conducted in both the United States and in France, Nemeth et al (2004) gave participants in the condition the typical brainstorming rules including the admonishment “not to criticize” or the latter rule was changed to one that emphasized that they should debate, even criticize, one another’s ideas. While many would have hypothesized that such an instruction would have lowered the number and