The best help and insight I’ve ever had for brainstorming was a
senior course in discussion and conference leadership at the University
of Colorado, years ago. Although there was a lot of research and theory
presented, it was primarily a hands-on course, with the prof as
facilitator, using issues that were of importance to all of us. In
other words, we worked on a project together and she intervened when
necessary. Talk about learning!! It was just superb. She gave us insight
and feedback like mad, and we had five weeks to get used to it all. By
the end of that time, we were a well oiled, productive team, willing and
capable to take on the subjects of mutual importance.
Yet, as a recent McKinsey article by Kevin and Shawn Coyne points
out, most attempts at brainstorming are doomed from the start. Still,
companies run on good ideas. As a result, teams and groups are
inevitably probing for new, time-saving and productive process
So how can you get better brainstorming out of a team? There are a
lot of things that won’t work: teams chosen for political reasons,
telling people to “get creative” or “think outside the box,” working
with a lot of group exercises, reminding people that there are “no bad
ideas,” or even using outsiders that are unfamiliar with your business,
etc., etc., etc.
Effective brainstorming requires a fair amount of preparation.
Indeed, when I’m asked to facilitate a team, I’m quick to refuse unless I
understand the business, its problems and needs. That means that I’ll
do a fair amount of information gathering before the team meetings (note
Furthermore, when facilitating it’s important for me to keep checking my
information with the team in order to keep myself and them on target.
Structure for the sessions is terrifically important, even imperative.
So, here are seven steps for brainstorming, adapted from the Coynes, that really will work:
- Shape the decision criteria. For example, dwelling
on products or IT changes that the company won’t fund is a waste of
time. Talking to senior managers to gain the criteria BEFORE the team
meetings is an excellent use of time. It’ll make the team far more
focused and productive.
- Focus on the right questions. Decades of research
on questions for your team to explore have been found to be an
imperative. And that’s not easy. The trick is to get the right
questions. As the Coynes suggest, questions should force the
participants to new, unfamiliar perspectives. The second trick is to
limit the topics for the team to explore, without being so restrictive
that it forces the answers. For example, my architectural clients worked
with a question such as “What are the key client mental models, that if
diffused, will provide us with the most opportunities?” (We found that
there were only five recurring models held by a base of more than 25
different clients, making it possible to create change conversations
that brought architectural success.)
- Pick the right people. In other words, the only
people of value are those that can answer the questions you’ve
structured. You want “in-the-trenches” team members. Putting people on
that architectural team that didn’t relate regularly with clients and
construction people would be farcical. They wouldn’t understand what was
- Small groups are an absolute necessity. The old
research was that once a group got beyond 13 people, you were done for.
We’ve found that 5 or 6 in a team is maximum. That way everyone has to
talk and weigh in on ideas. They’re forced to speak up and the team is
not so large that any would be fearful or hide. Although usually bosses
get in the way, I’ve coached them so that they became peers and
colleagues, rather than bosses. It can work, but it’ll take some time.
Big mouths get shut down pretty quickly in a structured group.
- It’s not fast and furious. In structured
brainstorming you may work with no more than two or three ideas over a
period of an hour and a half. Although the first few minutes may
generate a lot of talk, it quickly settles into just a few issues. In
fact, you may find yourself coming back to those issues at the next
meeting, largely because participants have spent time on them between
sessions. And you’ll find a couple members attacking ideas. That, too,
is very useful.
- Narrow the ideas generated. Suppose you’ve gotten a
lot of ideas. It’s important to let participants know that execs may
have info they don’t. That means nothing is in concrete until there is
exec feedback on them.
- Follow through—quickly. With the groups that I’ve
worked with, it’s important to try on the ideas, review and adjust.
Sometimes the success of an ideas means that we enlarge it. Other times,
its failure means that we have to replace it. That’s all normal stuff.