5 reasons why traditional brainstorming sessions limit your creativity

1. Production blockages due to turn-taking

In a classic brainstorming session, one person gets to speak at a time while the rest listen. This seems like an orderly way to share ideas, but it can actually inhibit the group’s overall creativity. This phenomenon is also known as “production blockade”: while someone is speaking, others must wait to share their thoughts. In that waiting time, ideas can fade, focus is shifted to the current speaker, and participants can lose motivation to provide their own input.

In addition, participants may unconsciously adjust their ideas based on what has already been said. This can cause unique perspectives to be lost, as people unconsciously stay in the same mindset as the previous speaker. This often limits the output to a few dominant ideas, while other potential innovative solutions are never shared.

Alternative: Brainwriting

An effective way to get around these roadblocks is brainwriting. Instead of sharing ideas verbally, each participant writes his or her ideas individually on paper or in a digital document. This avoids waiting time and gives everyone a chance to structure their thoughts at their own pace.

A common variation is the 6-3-5 method:

• 6 participants
• 3 ideas per participant
• 5 minutes per round of writing

Each participant writes down three ideas within five minutes and passes the sheet to the next person, who adds to or expands on the ideas. This process is repeated several rounds, leading to a much greater variety of ideas than in a traditional brainstorming session.

2. Groupthink inhibits innovation

Another major problem with brainstorming is groupthink. This phenomenon occurs when people unconsciously conform to the opinion of the majority or to the ideas of a dominant voice within the group. As a result, teams often go for safe and conventional ideas rather than radical and innovative concepts.

This happens especially in hierarchical teams where certain members (such as managers) have more influence. When a manager or experienced colleague shares an idea, other participants may be reluctant to take a dissenting position. This leads to new or risky ideas often being underexposed.

Alternative: Rolestorming

One way to combat groupthink is rolestorming. This involves asking participants to think from a different perspective. This can be done by assuming a specific role, such as that of a customer, a competitor or even a fictional character.

By breaking out of their own thinking patterns, participants feel freer to explore creative and unconventional ideas. For example, a team member might ask, “What would Elon Musk do?” or “How would a child look at this problem?” This encourages diversity of ideas and prevents the group from clinging too quickly to the first best solution.

3. Fear of criticism hinders openness

Although many brainstorming rules emphasize that all ideas are welcome and that no criticism is allowed during the session, in practice this often feels different. People don’t want to appear stupid and may feel insecure about sharing radical or unconventional ideas, especially in groups with strong hierarchies.

Research shows that people are more likely to adapt to prevailing group culture and tend to filter ideas before sharing them. This can result in many of the most innovative, but perhaps odd-sounding, ideas never coming up for discussion.

Alternative: Anonymous idea submission

To lower this psychological threshold, anonymous idea submission can be a powerful alternative. This can be done in several ways:

• Digital platform: Allow participants to submit ideas anonymously in advance via an online form or brainstorming app.
• Write it down, throw it in a box: Have everyone write ideas on a piece of paper and collect them in a box. Then they are read out randomly without knowing who came up with them.

By adding anonymity, participants feel freer to share creative, bold or unusual ideas without fear of social rejection.

4. Limited diversity of perspectives.

A brainstorming session within a team with similar backgrounds and thinking patterns can result in a limited variety of ideas. This is because people often think within the confines of their own expertise and experience. As a result, solutions can be too one-sided and miss important perspectives.

A well-known example is how product developers sometimes fail to involve end users in the design process. This leads to products that work well technically but fail to meet the real needs of users.

Alternative: Engage external stakeholders

To enhance creativity, it is valuable to involve people with different perspectives. This can be done by:

• Invite customers or users to the session.
• Bring in experts from other fields.
• Create cross-functional teams with employees from different departments.

This mix of insights creates richer, more innovative and more realistic solutions.

5. Lack of structure leads to superficial ideas

In many brainstorming sessions, ideas are called out randomly without a clear structure. This can lead to the session being chaotic and many ideas not being developed further. Moreover, most brainstorms get stuck in the initial idea generation phase without analyzing or fleshing out the ideas.`

Alternative: Structured brainstorming techniques

One of the most effective ways to bring more depth to brainstorming sessions is to use structured methods such as the 5x Why technique.

This method involves asking “Why?” five times in a row in order to identify the root cause of a problem or need. As a result, ideas become sharper and more concrete, increasing the likelihood of actually useful solutions.

Conclusion: A good brainstorm creates better output

While brainstorming sessions can be valuable, it is important to be aware of their limitations. Production blockages, groupthink, fear of criticism, lack of diversity and lack of structure can seriously undermine the effectiveness of a brainstorming session.

By using alternative techniques such as brainwriting, rolestorming, anonymous idea submission, external stakeholder engagement and structured brainstorming methods, teams can maximize their creativity and arrive at more valuable insights.

Source

1. Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving. Scribner.
2. Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward More Creative and Innovative Group Idea Generation: A Cognitive-Social Motivational Perspective. Academy of Management Review.
3. Sawyer, K. (2012). Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. Basic Books.
4. Michalko, M. (2006). Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative-Thinking Techniques. Ten Speed Press.
5. Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming Groups in Context: Effectiveness in a Product Design Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly.