+ All Categories
Home > Documents > 302 Brainstorm

302 Brainstorm

Date post: 04-Jun-2018
Category:
Upload: arparag
View: 226 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 28

Transcript
  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    1/28

    A Review of Brainstorming Research:Six Critical Issues for Inquiry

    Scott G. IsaksenCreativity Research Unit

    Creative Problem Solving Group - Buffalo

    Buffalo, New York

    Monograph #302

    J une, 1998

    Author Note:

    The aut hor w ould like to tha nk St a nley S . G ryskiewicz, Sidney J . P a rnes, Morris I .

    St ein a nd D ona ld J . Treffinger for helpful comments on a n ea rlier dra ft of this a rticle.

    Also, ma ny t ha nks to Eileen B eat on C olling w ho demonstra ted keen scholar ly interest

    a nd a ssista nce with t his research while a gra dua te student at t he Center for Studies

    in Cr eat ivity, B uffalo Sta te C ollege.

    Copyright 1998. Crea tive Problem Solving G roup - B uffalo. All right s reserved.

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    2/28

    Abstract

    B ra instorming is one of the most w ell-know n t ools for creat ive th inking. Many empirica l

    studies have been conducted regarding the effectiveness of this approach to group

    idea genera tion. Few previous review s ha ve considered more tha n one or tw o dozen

    studies and they ha ve ignored a few fundam enta l issues outlined by t he inventor of

    th e tool. This condit ion ha s led to some unfortuna te misconceptions a bout bra in-st orming. This a rt icle provides a r eview of 50 studies done from 1958 to 1988. They

    a re exa mined on the ba sis of six major issues an d int erpreted by considering 40 a ddi-

    tiona l studies conducted since 1988. The a im is to ta ke stock of wh a t w e know a nd

    point out productive pat hw a ys for futur e resea rch.

    2

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    3/28

    Introduction

    The purpose of this article is to critically review the empirical literature on brain-

    storming in light of six major issues wh ich, together w ith t heir implicat ions, cha llenge

    the prevailing pa ra digm a nd suggest entirely different pa thw a ys for improved research.

    B efore present ing th e results of the review, the term bra instorming w ill be defined an d

    a n a bbreviated summa ry of how Osborn a ctua lly presented this well-known groupa pproach t o idea genera tion is given. The Ya le stud y (Ta ylor, B erry & B lock, 1958)

    th a t formed th e founda tion for a g rea t dea l of the empirica l work will be summa rized

    and examined in light of Osborns suggestions and best-case application for brain-

    storming. The B eat on (1990) study results w ill be presented w ith a summa ry of more

    current brainstorming research organized around the six major issues. Finally, sug-

    gestions a nd r ecommenda tions for futu re bra instorming resea rch will be provided.

    Brainstorming is probably one of the most well-known tools of creative problem

    solving (Fern a ld & Nickolenko, 1993; Leclef, 1994; S t ein, 1975). It s popula rit y st ems

    from the long-sta nding a nd perva sive need to improve the productivity of groups. It is

    simple, easy to learn, and has potential to dramatically improve group idea generation

    a nd enjoyment w ith the a ct ivity i tself . B ra instormings widespread fa milia rity is also

    explained by the fact that it was introduced in 1939 by an advertising executive who

    ha d expert ise an d experience w ith th e process of selling ideas.

    In h is widely-distr ibuted book Applied Ima gina tion, Osborn (1953) outlined a va riety

    of tools an d a pproaches to crea tive problem solving (CP S). He ma de some bold a sser-

    tions regar ding bra instormings effectiveness. Osborn ba cked up his claim s by indi-

    cat ing th a t, in one study, a group using bra instorming produced 44%more worthw hile

    ideas t ha n individua ls thinking up suggestions w ithout t he benefit of group discussion.

    Man y were eager to try this new a pproach, a nd it quickly beca me a sensa t ion. Thisincreased popula rity created some misundersta nding a nd misuse of the t erm a nd t he

    tool. For those w ho jumped on th e ba ndw a gon, bra instorming ha d become the new

    panacea.

    The word brainst orming has ta ken on a va riety of popular mea nings. For some it

    means simply to get together a nd ha ve a casua l discussion in order to come up with a few

    idea s. Some believe tha t th e term bra instorming is the sa me thing as idea generation.

    For others, brainstorming is a universal treatment (the only way to be creative) or

    synonymous with the entire CPS process. For others, i t wa s used a s a deroga tory

    term implying a wa ste of t ime.

    Dur ing a recent conference, one Na tiona l Science Founda tion official indicat ed tha t

    .. .we all know that brainstorming is nothing more than executive entertainment.

    Current and popular organizat ional consultants and writers have often referred to

    bra instorming a s cerebral popcorn, nothing more tha n a crapshoot, or a s a lead ing

    interna tiona l a uthority on the direct tea ching of creat ive thinking indica ted:

    Those who wan t t o use deli ber ate cr eat i vi ty bel i eve th at t he (weak) pr ocesses of brai nstorm i ng ar e

    enough. Oth er s who mi ght be moti vated t o devel op creati ve th i nki ng skil l s ar e tu r ned off by th e scat-

    ter -gun appr oach of brai nstormi ng. The i dea that fr om a ferment of consi der ati on an id ea mi ght

    emer ge wh i ch m igh t be useful has value in th e adver ti si ng worl d (wher e bra in storm in g or igi nat ed) but

    much l ess value where novel ty i s not, by i tsel f, a suf fi cient value (de Bono, 1992).

    While the term brainstorming may be widely diffused, people hold various and

    3

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    4/28

    conflicting mea nings for th e term. For man y professiona ls who work with individua ls,

    groups, a nd organ izat ions to educa te a nd n urture creat ive abili t ies a nd skills , bra in-

    storming ha s a specific a nd more technical definition. It m a y be helpful to examine

    in more deta il how th e origina l proponent described bra instorming.

    Osborns Best-Case Description of Brainstorming

    Osborn (1942, 1948, 1952a & b, 1953, 1957, 1963, 1967) felt t ha t t he crea t ive pro-

    ductivity of groups was often hindered due to the primarily evaluative orientation of

    most meetings. His popular meta phor for th is condition wa s described as driving wit h

    th e bra kes on. He designed the bra instorming session a s a creat ive conference for th e

    sole purpose of producing a checklist of ideas w hich ca n subsequent ly be eva lua ted a nd

    furt her processed. B ra instorming w a s ident ified a s only one of a va riety of tools for

    genera t ing ideas, a nd idea genera t ion w a s outlined as only one aspect of the entire

    creat ive problem-solving process. G roup bra instorming w a s suggested as a supplement

    to individual ideation, not a replacement.

    Th e fou r basi c gu i del i nes:

    A cent ra l principle involved in bra instorming w a s described as d eferment of judg-

    ment, wh ich mean t t he postponement of judgment during genera t ing phases of CP S.

    Osborn (1953) included deferment of judgm ent a s only one of th e four cent ra l guidelines

    for brainstorming to respond to the over emphasis of judicial thinking that dominated

    most meetin gs a nd conferen ces. The four guidelines he developed w ere:

    1. Crit icism is ruled out . Adverse judgment of idea s must be withheld until la ter.

    The purpose of th e bra instorming session is t he genera tion of ma ny, va ried a ndunusua l options.

    2. Freewh eeling is w elcomed. The wilder the idea , the bett er; it is easier to ta me

    down t ha n to think up. Since criticism is tempora rily ruled out, it s accepta ble

    a nd desired tha t real ly w ild a nd unusual idea s a re shared.

    3. Quan tity is wa nted. The grea ter the number of ideas, the grea ter the likelihood

    of useful ideas.

    4. Combina tion a nd improvement a re sought . In ad dition to cont ributing idea s oftheir own, participants should suggest how the ideas of others can be turned

    into better idea s; or how t w o or more ideas ca n be joined into still an other idea.

    (p 300-301.)

    Although deferment of judgment w a s th e centr a l principle outlined by Osborn, he

    ma de it clea r th a t judgment h a d a n importa nt r ole to pla y in the tota l CP S process.

    Since the purpose of brainstorming was for group generation of options, sorting and

    evalua tion were postponed an d beca me the ma in a genda for an other separa te meeting.

    The four guidelines were central for successful brainstorming, but Osborn wasclear t ha t th ey were not sufficient. He outlined a nu mber of considera tions for ma n-

    a ging groups an d prepa ring for a productive session.

    4

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    5/28

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    6/28

    The bra instorming debat e wa s fueled by a n often-cited st udy (Ta ylor, Berr y &

    Block, 1958) from Yale which examined the issue of group participation in brain-

    storming a s ha ving either a fa cilita ting or inhibiting effect on crea tive thinking. The

    findings of the study indica ted tha t individuals opera t ing a lone a nd using th e brain-

    storming procedure generat ed more ideas t ha n groups using the sa me procedure.

    Although this study is often cited as evidence that brainstorming does not work,

    it is important to emphasize that this study did not actually test the brainstorming

    guidelines since both experimenta l condit ions used bra instorming. The fa ctor un der

    examina tion wa s group versus individua l use of bra instorming. The issue of group

    versus individual problem-solving performance was a core research interest of the

    a ut hors (Ta ylor & McNema r, 1955) a nd th ey cited t he st udies of Lorge a nd Solomon

    (1955; 1959) a s a nt ecendent s t o their st udy.

    The fact t ha t Osborn presented bra instorming a s a gr oup procedure did not appear

    to influence th e design or purpose of the st udy. Osborns cla im th a t a rea l group using

    bra instorming w ould outperform a n individual w orking a lone w a s not t ested.

    The Ta ylor, B erry, an d B lock (1958) stu dy h a s provided th e prima ry exa mple a nd

    established a pathway upon which dozens of studies and reviews of brainstorming

    resear ch have tra veled. The prima ry empha sis has been upon th e effects of group

    part icipa t ion during bra instorming. The deba te a nd surrounding research ha s most

    certainly enhanced our understanding of the inhibiting influence of groups on idea-

    genera ting beha vior, but w e need not premat urely aba ndon the productive a pplica tions

    of bra instorming. As a ma tt er of fa ct, th e receptive clima te esta blished in a bra in-

    storming session w a s a ctua lly designed to reduce nega tive influences of groups on a n

    individua ls idea -genera ting beha vior.

    The Ta ylor, B erry, an d B lock (1958) st udy compar ed ra ndomly a ssigned groups wh o

    w orked togeth er to genera te ideas on th ree ta sks to a r a ndomly-a ssigned collection of

    individuals wh ose results w ere pooled a fter w orking a lone on th e three ta sks. All

    part icipa nts in th e study w ere encoura ged to follow the guidelines for bra instorming.

    Thus, th e compa rison w a s between coa cting (individua ls int era cting in real time a nd

    space) and nominal groups (individuals working alone and then results pooled after

    th e fa ct). Working in nomina l groups removes most of th e modera tin g influences

    bra instorming wa s designed to overcome. Aga in, no a t t empt w a s ma de to test the

    actual guidelines for brainstorming because both experimental conditions followed

    th e same guidelines.

    The researchers did not attend to the suggestions and recommendations for the

    best-case applicat ion of bra instorming. The experimenters were familia r wit h the

    tool but ha d not been forma lly tra ined. The groups were not ca refully selected ba sed

    on th e ta sk. There w ere no lea dersh ip or recordin g roles w ith in the group. The

    groups were randomly put together and given the same instructions regarding the

    guidelines for bra instorming a s those in t he individual condition. There wa s no specia l

    orient a tion for t he group condition a s required by Osborn.

    The ta sks included th e Thum bs, Teachers, a nd Tourist s problems. U ndergr a dua tema le students a t Ya le were asked to spend 12 minutes genera ting ideas for t a sks like

    generating implications of waking up with an extra thumb, coming up with ideas for

    dealing wit h a shorta ge of teachers ten years in t he future, a nd enticing more Europea n

    6

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    7/28

    tourists t o visit America. The Ya le stud ents did not ha ve an y time to prepar e for the

    problems a s they were present ed as a pa rt of th e experiment. The problem sta tement s

    themselves were not specifically set up for idea generation as outlined by Osborn.

    Inst ead of being set up for creat ive at ta ck, the a uthors selected them because they invited

    logically correct solutions (Ta ylor & McNema r, 1955). The ta sks w ere presented to th e

    part icipa nts ra ther th a n defined with t heir pa rticipat ion a nd involvement.

    The Ya le study wa s embra ced by th ose who were skeptica l about bra instorming a nd

    w a s often misint erpreted as providing evidence of the fa ilure of the tool. The study w a s

    aimed at investigating group versus individual differences when brainstorming and

    found t ha t nomina l groups w ere superior t o rea l groups on qu a nt ity of options genera ted.

    Results w ere far less clear w hen th e qua lity of th ose options w a s considered. The Ya le

    study h a s provided the founda tion for ma ny of th e studies th a t follow ed. These a rt icles

    a re th e subject of th e review of litera tur e wh ich is described in t he next section.

    A Review of the Literature

    Most brainstorming research has been conducted within a relatively confined para-

    digm, and previous reviews ha ve exa mined only a h a ndful of studies. La mm a nd

    Trommsdorff (1973) reviewed sixteen st udies a nd found th a t most of th e bra instorming

    resea rch utilized a similar experimenta l pa ra digm an d sta tistical an a lyses. St ein (1975)

    provided a 116-page cha pter th a t comprehensively review ed the theory, guidelines, a nd

    outcomes of bra inst orming resea rch. J a blin & Seibold (1978) reviewed tw elve st udies

    in order to primar ily a ddress th e question of individual superiority over groups w hen

    bra instorming. Ruba ck, Da bbs, and H opper (1984) considered five studies a nd t wo

    previous reviews, but focused t heir a tt ention upon exa mining th e intera ction processof bra inst orming gr oups. D iehl an d St roebe (1987) cond ucted one of the most com-

    prehensive reviews by considering twenty-one previous articles, but focused their

    attention upon the riddle of production blocking.

    Although t hese previous reviews identified a nd r eport ed a few consistent findings,

    th ere were some conceptua l issues wh ich creat ed some confusion. Na mely, wh a t t he

    various reviewers meant by braintorming differed, the degree and kind of training

    varied widely, and what they appeared to be comparing was inconsistent with what

    Osborn cla imed.

    The ra tionale for conducting yet a nother review of litera tur e sta rt s wit h th e need for

    a wider an d more inclusive examina tion tha n previous reviews. Ra ther tha n use the

    Ya le study a s th e an tecedent ba sis, there is a n eed to conceptua lly reca librat e the review

    and identify issues and questions on the basis of what the original proponent claimed

    rega rding bra instorming. In fa ct, one purpose of th is review wa s to test t he degree to

    w hich the sh ort comings of the Ya le study a re reflected in th e empirical litera tur e.

    Research on CPS tools, including brainstorming, should reflect a thorough under-

    sta nding of their ra tiona le and follow th e directions for t heir best-case use. The results

    of this research should promote our understanding of their appropriate modificationsa nd a pplica tions.

    If a major purpose of brainstorming research is to shed light on ways to improve

    7

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    8/28

    group performance during idea genera tion, then much of the ava ilable resea rch litera ture

    did not appear t o be helpful. In order to obta in this kind of insight, an entirely new para -

    digm w ould need to be developed. This new a pproach must be based on a funda menta lly

    valid conception of what brainstorming is and what it was designed to accomplish.

    Thus, a fina l purpose for t his review is t o point out future r esea rch qu estions.

    Towa rd t his end, 50 empirica l studies represent ing t hirty yea rs of bra instorming

    resea rch (1958 - 1988) w ere a ssembled (see Ta ble 1). S tudies from a ll the previous reviews,

    additional studies from reviewing the results of numerous searches of the Dissertation

    Abstra cts, an d ERI C a nd P sych Scan da ta bases w ere included. The reference sections

    from a ll the studies and review s were a ssembled an d checked for a dditional studies.

    Author/Authors Year Number of StudiesB a yless 1967 1

    B oucha rd 1972 3

    B oucha rd, H a re 1970 1

    B oucha rd, B a ra sa loux, D ra uden 1974 1

    B r ilha r t , J ochem 1964 1

    B uyer 1988 1

    Ca mpell 1968 1

    Cohen, Whitmyre, Funk 1960 1

    Colla ros, Anderson 1969 1

    Coma dena 1984 1

    D iehl, S t roebe 1987 4

    D illon, G ra ha m, Aidells 1972 1

    D unnet t e, Ca mpbell, J a a st a d 1963 1

    Firest ien, McG ow a n 1988 1

    G erla ch, S chutz, B a ker, Ma zer 1964 1

    G ra ha m 1977 1

    G ra ha m, D illon 1974 1

    G urma n 1968 1

    H a ra r i, G ra ha m 1975 1

    H yma ns, G ra ha m 1984 1

    J a blin 1981 1

    J a blin , S eibold, S orenson 1977 1

    J a blin , S ussma n 1977 1

    Lingren, Lingren 1965 1

    Ma dsen, Finger 1978 1

    Ma ginn, H a rr is 1980 1

    Mea dow, P a rnes 1959 1

    Mea dow, P a rnes, Reese 1959 1Milt on 1965 1

    Necka 1984 1

    P a r loff, H a ndlon 1964 1

    P a rnes 1961 2

    P a rnes, Mea dow 1959 1

    P r ice 1985 1

    Renzulli, Ow en, Ca lla ha n 1974 1

    Ricka rds, Aldr idge, G a ston 1988 1

    Rot t er, P or tuga l 1969 1

    Ruba ck, Da bbs, H opper 1984 1

    S t reet 1974 1

    Ta ylor, B er ry, B lock 1958 1Torra nce 1970 2

    Turner, Ra ins 1965 1

    Weisskopf-J oelson, E liseo 1961 1

    Table 1. The 50 Stu di es Anal yzed

    8

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    9/28

    From our review of this literature as well as from small-group and leadership

    resea rch, and based on our experience with CP S a nd studying its impa ct in orga ni-

    zational and educational settings, we identified six major issues which, if addressed

    a nd better underst ood, might enha nce future bra instorming research. The fifty studies

    w ere then examined to see how th ey ha ndled t hese six issues (B eat on, 1990).

    Another 40 empirica l stud ies were ident ified by follow ing a similar procedure outlined

    a bove, to cover t he period from 1988 - 1998. These more recent st udies w ere a lso

    review ed on t he ba sis of th e six issues.

    There wa s sufficient heterogeneity of approa ches a nd results w ithin t his litera tur e,

    despite t he common use of th e bra instorming t erm, to hold off on using meta -a na lysis.

    Ind eed, one of th e issues exa mined w ithin t his review is the va riety of criteria utilized

    to assess the outcomes of brain storming resear ch. One of the ma jor rea sons for th is

    review is to assist w ith t he cha llenge of ident ifying appropria te modera tor var iables an d

    improve the definition of criteria for inclusion or exclusion of studies upon w hich m eta -

    a na lysis migh t be conducted (Rosenth a l, 1984; Wolf, 1986). B a sed on th is improved

    conceptual clarity, coding and analysis for future meta-analytic sytheses might beimproved.

    T h e i ssu es

    B a sed on the discrepa ncies betw een Osborns (1953) descriptions of bra inst orming

    a nd t he stu dy cond ucted by Ta ylor, B erry a nd B lock (1958), th e 50 st udies w ere

    assembled and carefully read, taking note of how each handled the following six

    issues. E a ch of the 50 studies were coded based on a scaling syst em designed a s a pa rt

    of a ma sters project (B eat on, 1990). A da ta base w a s crea ted w ith results included from

    each study for more efficient analysis using Microsoft Works (version 2.0 for the

    Ma cint osh SE computer). The dat a from the coding sheets wa s ana lyzed to a ddressthe following six issues.

    1. To wh a t extent did the litera ture treat brainstorming as a group tool for idea

    genera t ion? How ma ny studies a ctua lly compared brainst orming to a nother

    rea l group procedure or a rea l group working on its own? This issue w a s a cent ra l

    concern due to the appar ent a nd w idesprea d misuse of th e term bra instorming.

    Most of the litera tur e appeared t o compa re a group procedure wit h nomina l

    groups th a t n ever int era cted an d w ere assembled post fa cto (pooled individua l

    effort ). This, of course, w ould not sa tisfy t he requir ement s of a direct st udy of

    bra instormings usefulness or va lue.

    2. To wh a t extent did the empirica l invest iga t ion into bra instorming a ddress the

    issue of facilita tion? Osborn w a s very clea r a bout t he need a nd import a nce of

    th e leader s role in esta blishing a productive bra instorming session. How

    ma ny st udies actua lly used such a gr oup leader in a ccorda nce w ith Osborns

    origina l recommenda tions or current best pra ctice?

    3. To wha t extent did the empir ica l l itera ture fol low Osborns guidel ines a nd

    recommen da tions for tr a ining a nd prepar ing th e group for a productive session?

    Osborn clea rly outlined tha t t his prepara t ion w a s to include training in t he useof the tool and a n orienta tion to the ta sk. How ma ny studies provided appropriat e

    tra ining for part icipa nts a nd prepared them, in adva nce, with a memo a nd

    invitation to individually generate ideas and bring them to the group session?

    9

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    10/28

    4. To wh a t extent did the ta sks utilized in bra instorming resea rch meet the guidelines

    set forth by Osborn? The type a nd prepa ra t ion of the ta sk wa s an importa nt

    fa ctor for t he success of bra instorming a s outlined by Osborn. The ta sk should

    be prepa red so a s to promote idea tion. The problem should be sta ted clea rly

    a nd sh ould be support ed by enough key ba ckground to help th e pa rt icipant

    underst a nd th e need or desired outcome. Wha t kind of ta sks are a ctua lly utilized

    for brainstorming research?

    5. To wh a t extent did the subject sa mpling util ized in bra instorming resea rch

    rea ch the ta rget populat ion outlined by Osborn? Since Osborn developed

    brainstorming to be applied in real organizational contexts, it is important to

    know how ma ny st udies sa mpled th is populat ion. This effects t he overa ll

    genera lizabili ty a nd usefulness of the findings.

    6. On the ba s is of wh a t k ind o f mea sures or cr it er ia w ere the ou tcomes of

    bra inst orming resea rch evaluat ed? Osborn recommended tha t evaluat ion

    should be done sepa ra tely from idea genera tion. B est practice involves th e

    problem or t a sk owner in screening, selecting, a nd support ing t he selectedidea s. A group could a lso be employed to develop an d str engt hen a few selected

    idea s. How did the studies ha ndle the evalua t ion of the results?

    These six issues provided th e fra mew ork for t he review of the 50 st udies collected

    a nd inspected by B eat on (1990) a s w ell as t he a dditiona l 40 empirica l studies.

    Results from the Analysis and Current Trends in Literature

    The results for ea ch issue will be present ed in th is section. The results w ill

    include the analysis of the 50 studies as well as the additional, more current litera-

    tur e, exam ined by th is review.

    B r a i n st or m i n g a s a Tool f or G r o u p App l i ca t i on

    B ra instorming ha s been defined a s a group tool designed a s a supplement t o individual

    ideation and usually followed by another session designed to evaluate and develop

    options. The genera l finding th a t group par ticipa tion inhibits ideat ive productivity

    during bra instorming d oes not clearly t est th e usefulness of th e guidelines or t he tool

    itself. Ra th er, it reinforces the origina l intent ion of Osborn, wh o found th a t th eidea tive productivit y of groups wa s lacking. Ta ylor, B erry a nd B lock (1958), in summa -

    rizing their influential study, stated ...the present experiment includes no evaluation of

    th e basic rules of bra instorming - only a n examina tion of th e effects of group pa rticipa tion

    w hen u sing bra instorming (p. 47).

    Even t hough the a uthors ma de this point clea r, the results w ere often misinterpreted

    as if the study were an actual test of the brainstorming rules (Gryskiewicz, 1980b;

    P a rnes, 1963). Ma ny rea ders concluded tha t th is study proved the futility of bra in-

    storming rather than raising the important and pract ical quest ions regarding the

    improvement of the creat ive colla bora tion of groups. To test t he effectiven ess of agroup procedure, it w ould seem reasona ble to ma ke compa risons w ith groups a s th e

    common unit of analysis in brainstorming and non-brainstorming conditions, or

    brainstorming conditions against an alternative real-group procedure.

    10

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    11/28

    The broa der issue of individua l versus group decision ma king a nd problem solving

    is a n importa nt a rea of study (Ha re, 1976; J a nis & Ma nn, 1977; Lorge & Solomon,

    1960; Maier, 1970; Mann, 1959; Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1971; Vroom, 1974; Vroom &

    Ya go, 1988; Wa ts on, Micha elsen & Sh a rp, 1991). The fa ct th a t t he Ya le stud y formed

    the prevailing paradigm for brainstorming research by comparing individual with

    group performa nce w a s unfort una te. U sing the sam e tool of bra instorming for com-

    par ing both r eal a nd nomina l groups creat ed confusion. Ma ny perceived tha t th e Ya le

    study was a test of brainstorming, not just another aspect of the individual versus

    group question.

    The origin a l concern rega rdin g rea l-group productivit y, ad dressed by Osborn more

    th a n 50 yea rs a go, is proba bly even m ore pronounced toda y. Working a s tw o or more

    individua ls who influence each oth er through social int era ction is an importa nt orga -

    niza tiona l reality. Kn ow ledge a nd expertise are often specia lized an d diffused am ong

    a number of individua ls. Successful accomplishment of ta sks often requ ires effective

    utiliza tion of group resources. B road ening pa rt icipat ion in decision ma king often

    increases the acceptance of change and working in groups may encourage the cooper-

    a tive building of improved options a nd solutions (B ennis & B iederma n, 1997;G a legher, Kra ut & Eg ido, 1990; McLa ga n & Nel, 1995). Ma ny orga niza tions ha ve

    found highly effective work groups to be very profitable and are investing in team

    building and other strategies to improve the quality of interaction (Goodman, et. al.,

    1986; K a tzen ba ch, 1998; K a tz enba ch & Sm ith , 1992; McGovern, 1991; Za nder, 1985).

    A ma jor issue for bra instorming research is wha t a ctua lly constitut es a real group.

    Hackman & Morris (1975) have argued that the primary reason there is such a dis-

    parity between the real-life practice of using groups and the empirical literatures

    lack of support for using groups in decision m a king is th e a rt ificia l na tur e of th e group

    used in a great dea l of the research. Man y brainstorming studies which address theissue of group versus individua l par ticipa tion utilize nomina l groups, groups in na me

    only, in compar ison to rea l groups. G ry skiewicz (1984) a sked, ...to w ha t degr ee is a dis-

    service done to the understanding of creative problem-solving technology by referring

    to a cont rol condition w hose membership is determin ed ra ndomly, a fter t he fa ct, as a

    nominal group? (p. 5).

    In addition, it has been shown that the experience level, expertise, and competence

    of group members, group development level and kind of diversity w ithin th e group a re

    importa nt fa ctors in under st a nd ing group productivity (B ottg er & Yett on, 1987). For

    example, Watson, Michaelsen & Sharp (1991) found that newly formed groups werenot a s likely to process informa tion well enough t o ta ke adva nt a ge of the knowledge

    th a t members bring to a group decision ma king settin g. Furt her, th eir study calls

    into q uestion much of th e previous group decision-ma king r esea rch by support ing t he

    va lue of group-consensus d ecision m a king in ta sk forces a nd ongoing orga niza tiona l

    groups. The entire notion of ran domly pooling individual cont ributions a nd calling

    them nominal groups, runs contrary to a great deal of organizat ional reality and

    a voids dea ling w ith n ecessar y group development issues a nd concerns.

    The review of the 50 studies showed that 34 of them did not actually test the

    ground rules of brain storming. Most stud ies focused on individua l versus groupbra instorming ra ther tha n directly testing the bra instorming procedure. E ven th ough

    this emphasis does not offer a direct or appropriate test of brainstorming, it is often

    misinterpreted in the literature as evidence of its failure as a group procedure.

    11

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    12/28

    The 16 studies of the 50 th a t d id a ctua lly test t he guidelines a ll found su pport for

    bra instorming. Only tw o of th e 50 studies included a compa rison between bra in-

    st orming a nd a noth er group procedure (P a rn es & Mea dow, 1959; P rice, 1985). A few

    studies compared brainstorming against an entire process or method, illustrating

    some of the confusion r egar ding t he design a nd purpose of the a ctua l tool (B ouchar d,

    1972; Ma dsen & Fin ger, 1978; Neka , 1984; P rice, 1985).

    Some of the support ive studies w ere conducted by t hose who were clea rly proponent s

    of bra instorming a nd w ere w orking closely w ith its originat or. For exam ple, Mea dow

    and Parnes (1959) found that when they compared trained subjects working in real

    groups using bra instorming to a n a lterna tive group approa ch calling for citica l evalu-

    a tion, significa nt ly more good qua lity solutions were produced under the bra instorm-

    ing condition. These results h a ve been confirmed by other scholar s (G erlach, Sh ultz,

    B a ker & Ma zer, 1964; P a rloff & H a nd lon, 1964; P rice, 1985; Weisskopf-J oelson &

    E liseo, 1961). The results h a ve also been extended upon by oth er proponent s

    (Firestien & McCowan, 1988; Meadow, Parnes, & Reese, 1959; Parnes, 1961; Parnes

    & Mea dow, 1959).

    Other supportive studies focus on examining a particular guideline for brain-

    st orming. Torra nce (1970) exam ined both dya dic int era ction a nd subjects w ho

    w orked a lone, a nd provided a specific test of the h itch-hiking guideline (par ticipa nt s

    w ere explicitly encoura ged to combine th eir idea s w ith t he ideas of oth ers). He found

    that those who used the guideline demonstrated more orginality and flexibility as

    mea sured by th e Torra nce Tests for Cr eat ive Thinking. Others h a ve found t ha t w hen

    groups use deferred judgment, rather than other interactive or more critical

    a pproa ches, t hey produce more idea s (Bu yer, 1988; D iehl & St roebe, 1987).

    A more recent t rend in t he literat ure explores the rea sons for th e failure of bra in-st orming gr oups. These stud ies explore th e concept of productivit y loss in rea l bra in-

    st orming groups from t hr ee perspectives (Diehl & St roebe, 1987; Mullen, J ohnson, &

    Sa las, 1991). One ma in rea son for t he decrea se in group productivity is t he fear of

    crit ical evaluat ion and desire of the part icipants to go along with the dominant or

    esta blished pat tern of idea genera tion. This ha s been ca lled evalua tion apprehension

    or uniformity pressure (Camacho & Paulus, 1995; Collaros & Anderson, 1969;

    G ry skiewicz, 1984; Ma ginn & H a rr is, 1980).

    A second explan a tion for t he decrease in gr oup productivity is r elat ed to th e concepts

    of socia l loa fing a nd free riding w ithin th e broa d a rea of socia l facilita tion (Sh epperd,1993). Social loafing occurs when t here is a reduction in motiva tion an d effort w hen

    individua ls work collectively compa red w ith w hen t hey w ork individua lly or coa ctively

    (H a rkin s, 1987; H a rkin s, La ta n, & William s, 1980; H a rkins & P ett y, 1982; Ka ra u &

    William s, 1993; La ta n, William s, & H a rkins , 1979). The free-ridin g effect is r ela ted

    to social loafing in that individuals may reduce their efforts and contributions to the

    group when they perceive that their personal efforts are dispensable (Olson, 1965;

    Kerr & Bruun, 1983; Williams & Karau, 1991).

    Matching and the sucker effect are related to the concept of social loafing.

    Individuals working in groups may compare their performance with that of othersand be motivated to match their performance to others in their group (Goethals &

    Da rley, 1987; P a ulus, B rown & Ortega , 1995; P a ulus & Dzind olet, 1993; Set a , Set a ,

    & Dona ldson, 1991). Ind ividuals m a y a lso low er th eir effort s to a void being th e sucker

    12

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    13/28

    of the free ridin g of other member s of th e group (Kerr, 1983; Orbell & D a w es, 1981).

    The t hird ma jor explana tion for th e decrea se in gr oup productivity is production

    blocking (D iehl & S tr oebe, 1987; La mm & Tromm sdorff , 1973). P rodu ction blocking

    occurs in a brainstorming session when individuals need to wait to verbalize an idea

    because of some procedura l limita tion like only ha ving one person recordin g ea ch gen-

    era ted idea a t a flipcha rt (Mullen, J ohnson & Sa las, 1991). G roup members ma y be

    thinking of more ideas than they can actually produce because they are blocked by

    oth er peoples ta lking, a mong oth er reasons.

    A good r eason for exploring th ese productivity losses would be to improve the a ppli-

    ca tion of real-group bra instorming. A promising line of resea rch an d development ha s

    been th e ar ea of electronic bra inst orming (Nuna ma ker, Applega te & Konsy nski, 1987;

    G a llupe, B a stia nut ti a nd Cooper, 1991). They offered electronic bra instorming to

    enhance the creative capacity of brainstorming groups by overcoming the limitation

    of individua ls being una ble to express their ideas beca use oth ers ar e ta lking. This

    line of resea rch is increa sing in empirica l int erest a nd support (D ennis & Va la cich,

    1993; Dennis & Valacich, 1994; Gallupe & Cooper, 1993; Gallupe, Cooper, Gris &B a stia nni, 1994; G a llupe, Dennis, C ooper, Va la cich, B a stia nut ti & Nuna ma ker, 1992;

    P a ulus, La rey, P utn a m, Leggett & Rola nd, 1996).

    In genera l, however, most resea rchers concerned w ith productivity losses in bra in-

    storming groups are still utilizing the prevailing paradigm concluding that brain-

    storming is counterproductive. Most of th e resear ch on bra instorming ha s follow ed

    th e exam ple set by th e Ya le stud y in w hich the question wa s group versus individual

    productivity. Ma ny resear chers promulga te the false conclusion th a t th e stud ies ha ve

    examined the effica cy of bra instorming itself. For example, Mullen, J ohnson, a nd

    Salas (1991) indicated:

    I t appears to be parti cul arl y di ff i cul t t o justi fy brai nstorm in g techni ques in t erms of any per form ance

    outcomes, and the long-li ved popul ari ty of br ain storm in g techni ques is unequi vocall y and substant ively

    mi sgui ded...alth ough th e r esult s of t hese anal yses provide a dam ni ng i nd i ctm ent of the effi cacy of t he

    brai nstorm i ng t echn i que, at l east i t does not seem to be th e case th at people in brai nstorm i ng gr oups are

    un der-pr oducti ve on pur pose (p. 19-20).

    This genera l a tt itude is a lso found in D iehl a nd S tr oebe (1991) a s t hey claim over-

    whelming empirical evidence for brainstormings ineffectiveness and conclude that

    ...group sessions should not be used to genera te idea s (p. 402). Oth ers ha ve gone

    even further in explaining why groups have the illusion of productivity (Rowatt,Nesselroade, Beggan & Allison, 1997; Stroebe, Diehl & Abakoumkin, 1992).

    Fut ure bra instorming r esea rch ought t o focus on the gr oup a pplica tion of th e tool

    a nd w a ys to increase the productivity of individuals functioning w ithin t he group cont ext.

    More productive out comes for bra inst orming r esear ch ma y be found if t he focus could

    be turned toward the necessary qualities of effective groups (Bales, 1985; Larson &

    La Fa sto, 1989) a nd element s of effective w orking tea ms (Ha ckma n, 1990) instea d of

    a voiding groups. Working in real groups is fa r more often th e case ra th er tha n working

    in contr ived or ra ndomly-a ssign ed nomina l groups. The empha sis should be upon

    improving our understa nding of how rea l groups a nd t eam s can be helped to be moreproductive and h ow br a instorming migh t play a more helpful role.

    Some specific testa ble questions migh t be cent ered on furt her exam ina tion of th e

    13

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    14/28

    four guidelines for bra instorming. For exa mple, futur e resea rch could compa re the

    rela tive str engt h of effects for ea ch of the guidelines. Addit iona l studies could focus

    on comparing brainstroming to other specific tools for generating ideas, rather than

    meth ods or more complete procedures. Another key a rea for furt her resear ch is

    exploring th e modera ting effects of group diversity a nd size upon br a instorming pro-

    ductivity (qua ntity a nd qua lity).

    When using t he bra instorming procedure wit h groups, it is import a nt to remember

    tha t t he group may need a variety of mediat ing stra tegies to keep the energy high an d

    produce ma ny, va ried, a nd un usua l options (McFa dzean , 1997). It is the responsibility

    of th e facilita tor to provide these str a tegies to keep th e group productive. This a spect

    of group leadersh ip will be reviewed in th e next section.

    G r o u p L ea d er sh i p a n d F a c i l i t a t i on

    When a pplying most sm a ll-group problem-solving procedures t here is usua lly a t least

    one person w ho is fa milia r w ith t he a pproach a nd provides a special group-oriented ty pe

    of lea dersh ip (Kin la w, 1993 & 1996; Rees, 1991). A fa cilita tor is t ra ined in t he t ool, is

    responsible for t he process a nd procedures, str uctures a nd prepa res th e environment ,reinforces roles and ground rules for the session, focuses the resources of the group,

    a nd is sensit ive to a va riety of group dynam ics. During a typica l CP S session, a group

    is led by a fa cilita t or (Fir est ien & Treffin ger, 1983, 1989; Isa ksen , 1983, 1992; Isa ksen

    & D orva l, 1996; P a rn es, 1985; 1992; 1997; Treffin ger & Fir est ien, 1989).

    B ra instorming wa s designed with th e fa cilita tor as a n essent ial part of the procedure,

    yet th is need wa s not a lwa ys clearly reflected in the empirica l litera tur e. Wha t effect

    did facilitation, or lack thereof, have on group participation and the outcomes of

    brainstorming sessions?

    Another rea son for th e import a nce of the facilita tor role is tha t bra instorming w a s

    presented as only one tool for group idea generation (Osborn, 1953; Isaksen, Dorval

    & Treffinger, 1998). It w a s never designed t o funct ion a lone a s a n ent ire process.

    B ra instorming wa s presented as just one of many C P S tools . I t w a s apparent (even

    to Osborn) tha t br a instorming w ould be supplemented by oth er idea-genera ting tools

    a nd st ra tegies (Neka , 1985). It is the social role of the fa cilita tor to bring to bear a

    va riety of these tools a nd t echniq ues during t he session.

    Results showed t ha t only seven of the 50 studies utilized a fa cilita tor. Tw o of th ese

    seven studies (G urma n, 1968; Ta ylor, Berr y a nd B lock, 1958) ha d a designa ted personreinforce th e no judgment guideline. The rema ining five studies a ctua lly used a

    group leader and they found support for the productivity of brainstorming (Bayless,

    1967; B rilha rt & J ochem, 1964; Mea dow & P a rn es, 1959; Mea dow, Pa rn es & Reese,

    1959; Rickards, Aldridge, & Gaston, 1988).

    Since proper group leadership was not provided for the vast majority of studies,

    th e best possible a pplica tion of the tool wa s not often t ested. This is a significa nt

    issue in light of the current trend in the literature to explain why groups are not as

    effective a s individua ls during brainst orming . P erha ps, if more studies w ere

    designed to include th e role of facilita tor, a bet ter un dersta nding of methods an d pro-cedures for increa sing group effectiven ess would result. This recomm enda tion is sup-

    ported by at least three recent studies (Clawson, Bostrom & Anson, 1993; Oxley,

    Dzindolet & Paulus, 1996; Offner, Kramer & Winter, 1996).

    14

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    15/28

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    16/28

    w orking a lone or groups using other procedures. In m a ny ca ses no evidence wa s pro-

    vided about the qua lifica tion of the tra iner. When qua lificat ions were listed, often

    they w ere limited to the resea rcher ha ving read the rules of bra instorming.

    If we are really to understand how to improve group performance, it appears that

    the kind a nd a mount of tra ining should be an importa nt issue for future bra instorming

    resear ch. Researchers ought t o do more tha n simply read t he guidelines prior t o con-

    ducting studies. A thorough understa nding of the dyna mics an d nua nces of the tool

    should be sought . As S tein (1975) ha s indica ted:

    I t w ould seem t hat exper imenter s tak e too much for gr ant ed, or else th ey bel i eve in the magic of i nstr ucti ons

    i f they regard th ei r i nstr ucti ons as sett ing thei r subjects as good repr esentati ves of a problem-solvi ng tech-

    ni que. I t would seem t hat th e techn i que i s bett er r epr esent ed by subj ects who are pr acti ced and exper i -

    enced in u si ng it. Th i s hold s for brai nstorm i ng, cri ti cal pr oblem solvi ng, or what ever. (p.140)

    Fut ure inquiries need to include an empha sis on th e kind a nd dura tion of tra ining

    a nd th eir effects on brain storming productivity. For exam ple, do cert a in kinds of

    training and preparation for brainstorming groups provide significantly differentresults w ith simila r groups a nd t a sks?

    P repara tion for a productive session includes providing a n a ppropria te orient a tion

    for th e pa rticipa nts. It a lso includes ca refully selecting and preparing t he ta sk which is

    to be bra inst ormed. The follow ing section reviews th e kinds of problems a nd cha llenges

    used in bra instorming research.

    Types of Pr ob l em s

    In exam ining the bra instorming stud ies, th e kinds of ta sks upon which groups and

    individuals are asked to work may effect the quality and quantity of outcomes

    (Wa t son, Micha elsen & S ha rp, 1991; Za gona , Willis & Ma cKinnon, 1966). The va st

    ma jority of studies, in order to ma inta in a ppropria te compa risons, used the sa me few

    problems which were generally unreal, presented, and for which the group had no

    ownership. A challenge or ta sk ha s ow nership if it : is of interest, ca n be a cted upon

    or actually influenced by a member of the group, or if it engages the imagination of

    the problem solver because it demands a fresh new approach which is meaningful

    (Isa ksen & Treffinger, 1985; Isa ksen, D orva l & Treffinger, 1994). Our a na lysis found t ha t

    only eight of the 54 actua l ta sks used in t he 50 studies could be described as ha ving own -

    ership (see Table 2).

    The t humbs problem w a s used 19 times in th e 50 studies a nd involved ha ving subjectslist the benefits a nd dra wba cks of having a n extra opposing thumb. Ha ving subjects gen-

    Table 2. Problems and Tasks U ti l i zed

    Problem or Task Number of Times Used

    Thumbs 19Tin y people 13

    Tea cher 9H a nger 9

    Tourist 6E nergy 6B room 5

    B ra nd na mes 3

    16

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    17/28

    era te unusua l uses for a ha nger or broom w a s th e ta sk used 14 times in the 50 studies.

    The tiny people problem dealt with listing all the consequences of people waking up

    a nd suddenly finding t hemselves very tiny. This wa s used 13 times in the stud ies.

    The tourist problem involved genera ting idea s to lure Europea n t ourists t o the U nited

    St a tes a nd it w a s the ta sk used 11 times for th e 50 studies. Fina lly, the tea cher problem

    enta iled listing idea s in order to ensure t here would be enough tea chers to meet th e

    needs in the future an d w a s used nine t imes.

    Current approaches to CPS rarely approach brainstorming in the manner

    described in t he ma inst rea m of the empirica l resea rch (Isa ksen & Treffinger, 1991;

    Isa ksen & D orva l, 1993, Isa ksen, D orva l a nd Treffinger, 1994; Pa rn es, Noller &

    B iondi, 1977; Treffin ger & Is a ksen, 1992; Va nG undy, 1992). At best , cha llenges like the

    ones used in the resear ch would only be used to wa rm-up the group or t o intr oduce th em

    to bra instorming.

    A real problem-solving ta sk w ould not suddenly a ppear a s a well-defined (a nd a rtifi-

    cial) problem. P rior to genera ting idea s, some energy w ould be invested in preparin g

    a nd understa nding the problem. Follow ing idea genera tion some delibera te time a ndeffort would be spent developing and evaluating the selected ideas, and a plan for

    implement ing tenta tive solutions w ould be crea ted. Our an a lysis found only one

    study a llow ed th e problem t o be discovered, the other 49 studies used presented t a sks

    (Ma ginn & H a rr is, 1980).

    The kind of ta sk would be expected t o influence the result s of a br a inst orming session.

    G reen (1975) found t ha t w hen student s were asked to genera te problems ra th er tha n

    ideas on an environmental challenge, there were no significant differences between

    rea l an d nomina l group performa nce. This finding held for th e number of responses

    generated, the number of unique responses and the total quality of problem state-ment s genera ted. It should be noted th a t th ese findings were cont ra dictory to th ose

    of Gustofson, et. al. (1973) and Van de Ven and Delbecq (1974).

    It w ould appear t ha t most of the empirical litera tur e fa lls short w hen considering

    the reality of the tasks used to study bra instorming. I t a ppears tha t th is crit icism

    also applies to a great deal of research on individual versus group problem solving.

    Wa tson, Micha elsen a nd S ha rp (1991) found t ha t ma ny a spects of the ta sks in the

    research were very a rt ificia l. They sta ted:

    ...most stud ies requi r ed subjects to work on a t ask t hat was both tr ivi al in natur e and foreign to the sett in gi n w hi ch i t w as employed...and no stu di es provid ed an y signi fi cant outcome, posi ti ve or n egati ve, for

    eit her in di vid ual or gr oup perform ance. M ore important , from the stand poin t of the cur rent study, the

    vast m ajori ty of stu di es ut il i zed data fr om groups th at existed only for t he du r ati on of th e dat a col l ec-

    ti on...usual l y l ess th an one hour . (p.803-804)

    Future research should focus more on the kinds of challenges and opportunities

    upon which brainstorming was designed, rather than util iz ing contrived and pre-

    sented problems for w hich ow nership is lacking. Will th ose who enga ge in brain-

    storming produce more an d better idea s if th ey ar e genera ting upon a t a sk for w hich

    th ey ha ve ow nership? Will different individua ls be invited to join a bra instorming

    session by th e client ba sed on th e ta sk? Wha t kind of ta sk qua lities a ccount for mostof the varia nce w hen considering th e qua nt ity a nd qua lity of outcomes? Are there

    part icular methods for presenting t he a ctua l brainstorming ta sk which ma y improve

    group productivity?

    17

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    18/28

    Most existing bra instorming resear ch presents th e subjects w ith t he problem a nd

    th en asks them to genera te idea s. Thus, bra instorming is usually confined to a n idea-

    genera t ing a ct ivity. Contempora ry a pproa ches to CP S use the brainst orming guide-

    lines for genera ting m a ny, va ried, an d unusua l options t hroughout th e ent ire process

    (Isaksen, Dorval & Treffinger, 1994 & 1998; Isaksen & Treffinger, 1991; Treffinger &

    Isa ksen, 1992). For exa mple, th ese sa me guidelines work very w ell w hen genera ting

    problem sta tement s, evalua tion criteria, or a ction steps. Fut ure bra instorming

    resear ch should consider broadening t he type of ta sks to include th ose wh ich a re rea l

    as well as those focusing on problem defining, evaluating, implementing, or other

    a spects of the en tir e crea tive pr oblem-solving process (Isa ksen, 1988).

    The kinds of tasks, problems, and challenges utilized by most empirical studies of

    bra instorming a re art ificial. In a n effort t o conduct research tha t can be easily com-

    par ed, most studies ha ve used a ra th er confined set of ta sks. The ta sks were usua lly

    not present ed in a ma nner consistent w ith Osborns guidelines. We now t urn t o th e

    topic of the subjects used in most of the research.

    Th e Sam p l es U t i l i zed

    The kinds of sa mples utilized for bra instorming st udies ma y effect the results a nd

    a pplica bility of the findings. Although Osborn believed tha t bra instorming belonged

    in schools an d should be ta ught a nd used by students, he w a s a ddressing a perceived

    need for t he a dult professiona l world w hen h e developed t he tool a nd t he more general

    CP S process. Only four of th e 50 stud ies utilized adult s. College student s were used

    a s subjects in 45 of the 50 studies examin ed. Only ma les were utilized in 11 studies.

    One study used children.

    Although college student s a re convenient sa mples for most a cademic researchers,

    this finding offers a serious limitation for the current understanding and applicationof the brainst orming li tera ture. First , brainstorming would a ppear t o be as foreign to

    college stud ents a s it w ould t o most oth ers (including th ose conducting th e stud ies).

    Secondly, bra instorming w a s designed to be used by a dults w orking on real challenges

    with in orga nizat ions. To wh a t degree ca n results from undergra duat e students be

    genera lized t o the ta rget popula tion of professiona l a dults?

    U nless the consumers of bra instorming resea rch a re limited to th ose who deal pri-

    marily with college students, the type of samples for future research should include

    a dults working with in orga niza tions. There have been a few nota ble cont ributions in

    this regard (Basadur, Graen & Green, 1982; Basadur, Graen & Scandura, 1985;Basadur & Thompson, 1986; Ekvall, 1981; Ekvall & Parnes, 1989; Gryskiewicz,

    1980a; Paulus, Larey & Ortega, 1995), but more work needs to be accomplished.

    Future brainstorming research should utilize samples for which it was primarily

    designed, as w ell as a var iety of other a ge groups, so that importa nt developmenta l

    differences can be explored.

    Eva l u a t i on o f Ou t comes

    In order t o assess t he productivity of bra instorming, some explicit mea surement cri-

    teria a re necessar y. Although 21 different m easur es ha ve been used in t he 50 studies

    (see Ta ble 3), by fa r t he most perva sive criterion ha s been th e qua nt ity of ideas pro-duced. St udies ha ve often used qua nt ity a lone because of high correla tions betw een

    qua nt ity a nd qua lity (Diehl & St roebe, 1987; Ka iser-Lee & Dzind olet, 1994; P a rnes,

    1961). P a rn es a nd Mea dow (1959) report ed correla tions ra ngin g from .64 to .81

    18

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    19/28

    between tota l quant ity a nd the number of good idea s. G ood idea s were those tha t

    w ere unique (sta tist ica l infrequency: the degree to w hich the response deviat ed from

    the conventional use of the object) and of value (socially useful: the degree to which

    th e response w a s judged t o ha ve social, economic, aest het ic, or oth er usefulness). The

    interrater reliabilities were .74 and .91 on the two tasks.

    In only a few cases were real-life measurements attempted. Quantity of ideas

    a lone may not be very import a nt in rea l orga niza tiona l problem solving. U sua lly, rea l

    problem-solving ta sks call for t he selection a nd implement a tion of high-qua lity idea s.

    Individuals or groups are rarely rewarded based on their ability solely to generate a

    high qua ntity of ideas.

    There are many other important variables and factors upon which the productivity

    of group performa nce ca n be assessed. As G rys kiewicz (1984) st a ted, I believe a ddi-t iona l qualita t ive va riables are necessa ry to clea rly identify a nd evalua te the a ssets

    and liabilities of the CPS technologies (p. 7).

    Some research has focused on other variables such as subject satisfaction with the

    ideas genera ted. A recent st udy (Ga llupe, Ba stia nut ti & Cooper, 1991), not included in

    th e 50 studies reviewed, compa red sa tisfa ction of int era cting group members a nd n om-

    ina l group members. Int era cting members were more comforta ble w ith t he process, felt

    more motivat ed to genera te qua lity ideas, felt t hey ha d great er opportunity to express

    th eir ideas, an d felt they ha d more idea s tha n they a ctua lly expressed. These members

    were also more satisfied and confident in the quality of their ideas.

    Somet imes t he desired outcome for using group problem-solving tools is t he benefit

    of team building and involvement. In th e a dult professiona l w orld, brainst orming is

    Table 3. Eval uat i on M easur es U ti l i zed

    Evaluation of Outcomes Number of Times Used in the 50 Studies

    Quantity 32Quality 15

    Originality 10

    Uniqueness 5Enthusiasm 4

    Fluency 4Value 4

    Satisfaction 3

    Flexibility 3Usefulness 2

    Generali ty 2Pract ical i ty 2

    Interesting 1Appropriate 1

    Probability 1

    Hitchhiked 1Humorous 1

    Novelty 1Effectiveness 1

    Orientation 1Holistic 1

    19

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    20/28

    often a pplied to encourage pa rt icipa tion an d a ccepta nce of ideas. Some resea rch supports

    th e idea th a t t ra ining in crea tive problem solving effects sm a ll-group commun ica tion

    beha viors (Fir estien, 1990; Fir estien & McGow a n, 1988).

    Others have found that addit ional criteria are important within organizat ions.

    Sutton and Hargadon (1996) found that working in real brainstorming groups

    enha nces pa rt icipant s ability to do competent w ork in the future. They believe th a t

    the experience contributes to t he par t icipa nts growt h a nd persona l w ell-being.

    Surely, these findings are important when considering the utilization of groups within

    the organizat iona l set t ing.

    It is importa nt to look at qua lity a part from th e factor of qua ntity. Average qua lity

    of idea s from a group follow ing t he guidelines for bra inst ormin g w ould be expected t o

    be lower t ha n a non-bra instorming group. It might be more a ppropria te to exa mine the

    a ctua l number of better qua lity ideas rat her tha n a vera ge qua lity. The rea son for this

    is tha t individuals in bra instorming groups a re deferring their judgment unt il another

    pha se of problem solving. Since th ey are a sked to crea te ma ny, varied, an d unusua l

    ideas, th ere w ill be more idea s produced tha t ma y be very silly an d foolish. In rea lity,no group member w ould select a nd implement one of th ese options w ithout first sub-

    jecting it t o development a nd eva lua tion. If resear chers include th ese silly ideas in

    their overall measure of quality, the average quality would likely be lower for brain-

    storming groups.

    In addition, although most of the evaluation of outcomes from brainstorming

    research has been focused on the final quantity of ideas, a fruitful line of inquiry

    would be on understanding when, during the act ivity of brainstorming, the highly

    va lua ble ideas occur. Some research indica ted tha t more of the bett er idea s ca me

    la ter in a bra instorming session. This ha s been identified as t he extended effort principleof idea generation (Basadur & Thompson, 1986; Parnes, 1961; Paulus & Dzindolet,

    1993) and would add a new dimension for future brainstorming evaluation research.

    The evalua tion of brainst orming productivity provided the sixth ma jor issue exam-

    ined by th is review of resea rch. The follow ing section will identify implicat ions a nd

    discussion based on this review.

    Implications and Discussion

    I t a ppears t ha t the prevailing pa ra digm for bra instorming research focuses more

    on compa ring ind ividual a nd g roup productivity, ignoring th e origina l sta ted purpose,

    a nd design of the tool. On th e basis of this review of 50 empirica l studies and r elat ed

    litera tur e, Steins (1975) a ssessment th a t bra instorming ma y be the most resea rched

    a nd lea st understood creat ive thinking technique may be wa rra nted. Future brain-

    storming r esea rch should dea l more effectively w ith t he six ma jor issues an d num erous

    testable questions identified and examined through this review.

    At best, the preva iling par a digm for bra instorming research illustra tes the import a nceof dea ling wit h t he complexities of working w ith r eal groups in futu re studies. We

    simply must move beyond the nominal versus real group issue toward actual testing

    of the group tools and conditions or modifications which improve the productivity of

    20

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    21/28

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    22/28

    specific kinds of result s.

    B ra instorming w a s introduced more tha n 50 yea rs a go in a n effort to help groups

    genera te idea s. Osborns aim w a s not merely the genera tion of idea s, but to encoura ge

    everyone to better apply their imaginat ions to challenges and opportunties.

    B ra instorming must be kept in perspective. There ar e dozens of oth er CP S t ools

    w hich ha ve never been the subject of as much emprica l resea rch a s bra instorming.

    Other a reas l ike idea evalua t ion a s well as t he lea rning a nd use of various other

    CP S tools should be investiga ted. CP S itself ha s cont inued to be developed a nd

    improved since its origin by Osborn (Ba sa dur, 1994; Isa ksen & D orva l, 1993). These

    development efforts have been stimulated by research and scientific interests, as well

    a s practical a nd a pplied concerns for an swering t he deman d for improving the crea tive

    productivity of individua ls, groups, and orga niza tions.

    If we are to make any serious progress in developing the creative problem solving

    skills a nd a bilities so necessar y for the futur e, we w ill need to conduct a much broader

    kind of inquiry armed with an improved conceptual framework.

    References

    B a les, R. F. (1985). The new field theory in social psychology. Int erna tional J ourna l of Sm all Gr oupResear ch, 1, 1-18.

    B a sa dur, M. (1994). S implex : A flight to creat ivity. Buffa lo, NY: Creat ive Educat ion Foundat ion Press.

    B a sa dur, M., G ra en, G. B ., & G reen, S. G. (1982). Tra ining in creative problem solving: Effects on ideat ion

    an d problem finding and solving in an industria l research organ ization. Organiza tional Behavior andHuma n P erforma nce, 30, 41-70.

    B a sa dur, M., Gra en, G. B ., & Sca ndur a , T. A. (1985). Tra ining effects on at titu des towa rd divergent t hink-ing a mong ma nufa cturing engineers. J ourna l of Applied P sychology, 71 (4), 612-617.

    B a sa dur, M., & Thompson, R. (1986). U sefulness of th e idea tion principle of extended effort in real worldprofessional and man agerial creative problem solving. J ournal of Creative Beha vior, 20 (1), 23-34.

    B eaton, E. M. (1990). A crit ical review a nd ana lysis of empirical brainst orming resear ch. Unpublishedma sters project , C enter for S tudies in Creat ivity, St at e University College at B uffalo.

    B a yless, O. L. (1967). An a ltern a tive for problem solving discussion. J ourna l of Commun icat ion, 17, 188-197.

    B ennis, W. & B iederman , P. W. (1997). Orga nizing genius: The secrets of creative collabora tion. NY:

    Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

    B ott ger, P. C., & Yett on, P. W. (1987). Im proving gr oup perform a nce by tra ining in in dividu a l problem solv-ing. J ourna l of Applied P sychology, 72, 651-657.

    B oucha rd, T. J ., J r. (1972). Tra ining, motivat ion, a nd personality a s determina nts of the effectiveness ofbra instormin g groups a nd individuals. J ourna l of Applied P sychology, 56 (4), 324-331.

    B oucha rd, T. J ., J r., B a rsa loux, J ., & Dr au den, G. (1974). B ra instorming procedure, group size and sex asdetermina nts of the problem-solving effectiveness of groups a nd individua ls. J ourna l of Applied P sychology,59 (2), 135-138.

    B oucha rd, T. J ., J r., & Ha re, M. (1970). Size, performan ce, and potent ial in bra instormin g groups. J ourna lof Applied P sy chology, 54 (1), 51-55.

    B rilha rt , J . K., & J ochem, L. M. (1964). Effects of different pat terns on outcomes of problem-solving dis-cussion. J ourna l of Applied Ps ychology, 48 (3), 175-179.

    B uyer, L. S. (1988). Cr eat ive problem solving: a comparison of performan ce under different ins tru ctions.J ourna l of Creat ive Beha vior, 22 (1), 55-61.

    22

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    23/28

    Ca ma cho, L. M. & P a ulus, P. B . (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brains torming. J ourna l ofP ersonality an d S ocial P sychology, 68, 1071-1080.

    Ca mpbell, J . P. (1968). Individua l versus group problem solving in an ind ustr ial sa mple. J ourna l of AppliedPsychology, 52 (3), 205-210.

    Cla w son, V. K., B ostr om, R. P., & Anson, R. (1993). The role of the fa cilita tor in computer-support ed meet-ings. Sm all Gr oup Research, 24, 547-565.

    Cohen, D ., Whit myr e, J . W., & Fu nk, W. H. (1960). E ffect of group cohesivenes s a nd t ra inin g upon crea tiv ethin king. J ourna l of Applied P sychology, 44 (5), 319-322.

    Colla ros, P., A., & Anderson, L. R . (1969). E ffect of perceived expert ness upon crea tiv ity of memb ers of bra in-st ormin g groups. J ourna l of Applied Ps ychology, 53 (2), 159-163.

    Comadena, M. E. (1984). Brainstorming groups: Ambiguity tolerance, communication apprehension, taskat tra ction, and individual productivity. Sma ll G roup B ehavior, 15 (2), 251-264.

    de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creat ivity: Using the power of lat eral thinking to create new ideas. New York:Harper Business.

    Dennis, A. R., & Vala cich, J . S. (1993). Computer brains torms: More head s a re better tha n one. J ourna lof Applied P sychology, 78, 531-537.

    Dennis, A. R., & Va lacich, J . S. (1994). G roup, sub-group and n ominal group idea genera tion: New ru les for

    a new media? J ourna l of Mana gement, 20, 723-736.

    Dieh l, M., & St roebe, W. (1987). P roduct ivit y loss in brain st ormin g groups: Towa rd t he solution of a r iddle.J ourna l of Persona lity a nd S ocial P sychology, 53 (3), 497-509.

    Dieh l, M. & St roebe, W. (1991). P roduct ivity loss in idea -genera tin g groups: Tra cking down t he blockingeffect . J ourna l of P ersonality a nd Social P sychology, 61, 392-403.

    Dillon, P. C., Gr ah a m, W. K., & Aidells, A. L. (1972). B ra instormin g on a hot problem: Effects of tra ininga nd pra ctice on individua l a nd gr oup performan ce. J ourna l of Applied P sychology, 56 (6), 487-490.

    Dun nett e, M. D., Ca mpbell, J ., & J a a sta d, K. (1963). The effect of group pa rt icipat ion on brainst ormingeffectiveness for t wo indust ria l sa mples. J ourna l of Applied P sychology, 47 (1), 30-37.

    Ekva ll, G. (1981). Cr eat ive problem solving methods in product development - A compa ra tive study.

    Stockholm, S weden: The Sw edish Council for Ma na gement and Organiza tional B ehavior - Far det .

    Ekva ll, G. & P a rnes, S. J . (1989). Cr eat ive problem solving methods in product development - A secondexperiment. Cr eat ivity an d Innovat ion Year book, 2, 122-142.

    Fer na ld, L. W. & Nickolenko, P. (1993). The crea tiv e process: It s use an d extent of form a liza tion by corpo-ra tions. J ourna l of Creat ive B ehavior, 27(3), 214-220.

    Firest ien, R. L. (1990). Effects of creative problem solving tr a ining on commun ication behaviors in sma llgroups. Sm all G roup Research, 21, 507-521.

    Firest ien, R. L. & McGowa n, R. (1988). Cr eat ive problem solving and communicat ion behavior in sma llgroups. Cr eat ivity Resear ch J ourna l, 1, 106-114.

    Firest ien, R. L., & Treffinger, D. J . (1983). Cr eat ive problem solving: G uidelines and resources for effective

    facilita tion. Gift ed Child Today, 6, 2-10.

    Fir estien , R. L., & Treffing er, D. J . (1989). G uidelines for effective fa cilita tion of creat ive problem-solving(pa rt 3 of 3). G ifted Ch ild Toda y, 12 (6), 40-44.

    G a legher, J ., Kra ut, R. E., & Egido, C. (1990). Int ellectua l tea mw ork: Social and technological founda tionsof cooperative work. Hillsdale, NJ : Law rence Er lbaum Associat es.

    G a llupe, R. B., B a stia nutt i, L. M. & Cooper, W. H. (1991). U nblocking brainst orms. J ourna l of AppliedPsychology, 76, 137-142.

    G a llupe, R. B. & Cooper, W. H. (1993). B ra inst orming Electr onically. Sloa n Mana gement Review, 35, 27-36.

    G a llupe, R. B ., Cooper, W. H., G ris, M. L., & B a stia nut ti, L. M. (1994). B locking electr onic bra instorms .J ourna l of Applied P sychology, 79, 77-86.

    G a llupe, R. B., Denn is, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Va lacich, J . S., B a stia nutt i, L. M., Nuna ma ker, J . F. (1992).Electronic bra instormin g and group size. Academy of Ma na gement J ourna l, 35, 350-369.

    G erlach, V. S., S chutz, R. E ., B aker, R. L., & Ma zer, G . E. (1964). Effects of varia tions in test directions on

    23

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    24/28

    originalit y test response. J ourna l of Educa tional P sychology, 55 (2), 79-83.

    G oeth als, G. R. & Da rley, J . M. (1987). Social compar ison theory: Self-evalua tion a nd group life. In B.Mullen & G . R. G oetha ls (E ds.), Theories of group beha vior (pp. 21-48). NY: Spr inger-Verla g.

    G oodma n, P. S., and Associat es (1986). Designing effective work groups. Sa n Fr an cisco, CA: J ossey-B a ss.

    G ra ha m, W. K. (1977). Acceptan ce of ideas generat ed thr ough individua l and group bra instormin g. J ourna lof Social P sychology, 101, 231-234.

    G ra ha m, W. K., & Dillon, P. C. (1974). Cr eat ive supergroups: G roup performan ce a s a fun ction of individ-ual performa nce on bra instorming tasks. J ourna l of Social P sychology, 93, 101-105.

    G reen, T. B. (1975). An empirical an a lysis of nomina l and intera cting groups. Academy of Ma na gementJ ourna l, 18, 63-73.

    G ryskiew icz, S. S. (1980a ). A stud y of crea tive problem solving techniques in group sett ings. Un publisheddoctoral dissertation, University of London, London.

    G ryskiew icz, S. S. (1980b). Cr eat ive problem solving: Are individuals still superior to groups? Some cre-at ive thinking about brainstorming. P lanned Innovat ion, 3, 3-5.

    G ryskiew icz, S. S. (1984). Un iformit y pressure revisited: An evalua tion of three creative problem-solvingtechniques in an industrial sett ing. P aper presented at the ninety-second Annual Convention of theAmerican P sychological Association, Toronto, C a na da .

    G ryskiew icz, S. S. (1987). P redictable crea tivity. In S. G. Isa ksen, (Ed .), Fr onti ers in creativi ty resear ch,Beyond th e basics(pp. 305-313). B uffa lo, NY: B ea rly Lim ited.

    G urma n, E. (1968). Creat ivity as a fun ction of orienta tion and group pa rt icipat ion. P sychological Reports,22, 471-478.

    G usta fson, D. H., Ra mesh, K. S ., Delbecq, A., & Wa lster, G. W. (1973). A compa ra tive stud y of differencesin subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominalgroups. Organiza tional Behavior and H uma n P erforma nce, 9, 280-291.

    Ha ckman, J . R. (1990). G roups tha t work and those tha t dont: Cr eat ing conditions for effective tea mw ork.Sa n Francisco, CA: J ossey-B ass.

    Ha ckman, J . R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). G roup ta sks, group intera ction process, and group performan ce

    effectiveness: A review and proposed integr at ion. In L. Berkowit z (Ed .), Adva nces in experiment al socialpsychology (Volume 8 - pp. 45-99). NY: Acad emic P ress.

    Ha ra ri, O., & G ra ha m, W. K. (1975). Ta sks an d ta sk consequences as factors in individua l and gr oup bra in-storming . J ourna l of Social P sychology, 95, 61-65.

    Ha re, A. P. (1976). Ha ndbook of small group research (Second edition - Individua l versus group - Ch apt er14, pp. 307-329). NY: The Free P ress.

    Ha rkins, S. G . (1987). Social loafing a nd social fa cilitat ion. J ournal of Experimenta l Social P sychology, 23, 1-18.

    Ha rkins, S. G., La ta n, B ., & Williams, K. (1980). Social loafin g: Allocatin g effort or ta king it ea sy? J ourna lof Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 457-465.

    Ha rkins, S. G ., & P etty, R. E. (1982). Effects of tas k difficulty and ta sk uniqueness on social loa fing.

    J ourna l of P ersonalit y a nd S ocial P sychology, 43 (6), 1214-1229.

    Hy ma ns, N. B., & G ra ha m, W. K. (1984). Effects of goa l setting a nd initia tive on individua l brains torming.The J ourna l of Socia l P sychology, 123, 283-284.

    Isa ksen, S. G. (1983). Towa rd a m odel for the facilita tion of creat ive problem solving. J ourna l of Crea tiveB ehavior, 17, 18-30.

    Isa ksen, S. G . (1988). Inn ovative problem solving in groups: new methods an d research opport unities. InY. Ijiri & R. L. K uhn (Eds.), New directions in creative a nd innova tive ma na gement (pp. 145-168).Ca mbridge, MA: B allinger P ublishing.

    Isa ksen, S. G. (1992). Fa cilita ting creative problem solving groups. In S. S. Gr yskiewicz & D. A. Hills(Ed s.), Readin gs in innovat ion (pp. 99-135). G reensboro, North Ca rolina: Cent er for Cr eat ive Lead ership.

    Isa ksen, S. G. & Dorva l, K. B . (1993). Cha nging views of creat ive problem solving: Over 40 year s of con-tinuous improvement. Interna tional Creativity Network Newsletter, 3, 1-4.

    Isa ksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (1996). Fa cilitat ing creat ive problem solving. Sa ra sota, FL: Center forCreative Learning.

    24

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    25/28

    Isa ksen, S. G., Dorva l, K. B. & Treffinger, D. J . (1994). Cr eat ive a pproa ches to problem solving. Dubuq ue,IA: Kenda ll/Hun t Publishin g Co.

    Is a ksen, S. G ., Dorva l, K. B . & Treffing er, D. J . (1998). Toolbox for crea tiv e problem solving: B a sic toolsand resources. B uffalo, NY: Crea tive P roblem Solving G roup - B uffalo.

    Isa ksen, S. G. & Treffinger, D. J . (1985). Cr eat ive problem solving: The basic course. B uffalo, NY: B ear lyLimited.

    Isa ksen, S. G. & Treffinger, D. J . (1991). Cr eat ive learn ing and problem solving. In A. L. Costa (Ed .),Developing minds - P rogra ms for teachin g think ing: Volume Tw o (pp. 89-93). Alexa ndr ia , VA: Associa tionfor Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    J ablin, F. M. (1981). Cult ivat ing imagina tion: Fa ctors tha t enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorm-ing groups. Hum a n Communica tion Research, 7 (3), 245-258.

    J a blin, F. M., & Seibold, D . R. (1978). Im plicat ions for problem-solving gr oups of empirica l resea rch onbrainst orming: A crit ical review of the literat ure. The Southern Speech Communicat ion J ourna l, 43, 327-356.

    J ablin, F. M., Seibold, D. R ., & Sorenson, R. L. (1977). P otentia l inhibitory effects of group part icipat ion onbrainst orming performa nce. Centra l Sta tes Speech J ourna l, 28, 113-121.

    J ablin, F. M., & Sus sma n, L. (1978). An explorat ion of communicat ion a nd productivity in rea l brain-

    storming groups. Hu ma n Communica tion Research, 4 (4), 229-337.J an is, I. L., & Ma nn, L. (1977). Decision ma king: A psychological an a lysis of conflict, choice and commit-ment . NY: The Free P ress.

    Ka iser-Lee, P., & Dz indolet, M. T. (1994). The effect of cultu ra l heter ogeneity on perform a nce an d commu-nicat ion sat isfaction in small task groups. P oster presentat ion at t he 6th a nnua l American P sychologicalSociety convention, Was hingt on, DC .

    Ka ra u, S. J . & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta -an a lytic review and theoretical integra tion,J ourna l of Persona lity a nd S ocial P sychology, 65(4), 681-706.

    Ka tzenba ch, J . R. (1998). Teams a t the top: U nleashing the potentia l of both tea ms and individual leaders.Ca mbridge, MA: Ha rva rd Business School P ress.

    Ka tzenba ch, J . R. & Sm ith, D. K. (1992). The wisd om of tea ms: Cr eat ing the high-performa nce organ izat ion.Ca mbridge, MA: Ha rva rd Business School P ress.

    Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivat ion losses in sma ll groups: A social dilemma an a lysis. J ourna l of P ersonalityand Social Psychology, 45, 819-828.

    Kerr, N. L. & B ruun, S . E. (1983). Dispensa bility of member effort a nd group motivat ion losses: Free-ridereffects. J ourna l of P ersonalit y and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94.

    Kinla w, D. C. (1993). Team-mana ged facilita tion: Cr itical skills for developing self-sufficient teams . Sa nDiego, CA: P feiffer & Compa ny.

    Kinlaw, D. C. (1996). Fa cilitat ion skills: Creat e your own tra ining progra m. NY: McGra w-Hill.

    La mm, J . & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). G roup versus individua l performa nce on ta sks requiring ideationa l

    proficiency (bra instormin g): A review. Eur opean J ourna l of Social P sychology, 3, 361-388.Lar son, C. E. & LaF ast o, F. M. J . (1989). Teamw ork: What m ust go right - wha t can go wrong. NewburyP ar k, CA: SAGE P ublicat ions.

    La tt a n, B ., Williams, K., & Ha rkins, S. (1979). Man y hand s make light work: The causes and conse-quences of social loa fing. J ourna l of P ersonality a nd Social P sychology, 37, 822-832.

    Leclef, F. (1994). 132 man ag ers ta lk about crea tivity consult a ncy. In H . G eschka , S. Moger, & T. Rickards(Eds.), Creat ivity and Innovation: The power of synergy (pp. 45-49). Da rmsta dt , Germa ny: G eschka &P ar tner Unternhmensbera tung.

    Lingren, H . C. & Lingren, F. (1965). Cr eat ivity, bra instormin g, and orneriness: a cross-cultura l study. TheJ ourna l of Social P sychology, 67, 23-30.

    Lorge, I., & Solomon, H. (1955). Tw o models of groups beha vior in the solution of eur eka-type problems.P sychometrika, 20, 139-148.

    Lorge, I., & Solomon, H. (1959). Ind ividual performa nce and group performa nce in problem solving relat -ed to group size and previous exposure to the problem. J ourna l of P sychology, 48, 107-114.

    25

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    26/28

    Lorge, I., & Solomon, H . (1960). G roup and in dividua l performa nce in problem solving rela ted t o previousexposure to problem, level of aspira tion, an d group size. B ehaviora l Science, 5, 28-38.

    Ma dsen, D. B ., & Finger, J . R., J r. (1978). Compar ison of a w ritt en feedba ck procedure, group bra instorm-ing, and individual bra instormin g. J ourna l of Applied P sychology, 63 (1), 120-123.

    Ma ginn, B . K., & Ha rris, R. J . (1980). Effects of ant icipat ed eva lua tion on individua l brainst orming perfor-ma nce. J ourna l of Applied Ps ychology, 65 (2), 219-225.

    Ma ier, N. R. (1970). P roblem solving a nd crea tivity : In individuals an d groups. B elmont, CA: B rooks/Cole.

    Ma nn, R. D. (1959). A review of the relat ionships between personalit y and performa nce in small groups.P sychological B ulletin, 56, 241-270.

    McFad zean, E . (1997). Improving group productivity w ith gr oup support s ystems a nd creat ive problem solv-ing techniques. Crea tivity an d Innovation Mana gement, 6, 218-225,

    McG overn, F. (1991). Tea ming up. U SAir Maga zine, 13, 41-49.

    McLagan, P., & Nel, C. (1995). P ar t icipation: New governance for the workplace an d the world. Sa nFr an cisco, CA: B errett -Koehler P ublishers.

    Meadow, A., & P a rnes, S. J . (1959). Eva luat ion of tr ain ing in creative problem solving. J ourna l of AppliedP sy chology, 43 (3), 189-194.

    Meadow, A., P a rnes, S. J ., & Reese, H. (1959). Influences of bra instormin g instructions and problemsequ ence on a creat ive problem solving test . J ourna l of Applied Ps ychology, 43 (6), 413-416.

    Milton, G. A. (1965). En thus ias m vs. effectiveness in group and individua l problem solving. P sychologicalReports , 16, 1197-1201.

    Mullen, B ., J ohnson, C. & Sa las, E. (1991). P roductivity loss in bra instormin g groups: A meta -a na lytic inte-gration. Basic and Appl ied Psychology, 12, 3-23.

    Neka, E . (1984). The effectiveness of synectics an d bra inst ormin g as conditioned by socio-emotiona l cli-ma te a nd ty pe of problem. P olish P sychological B ulletin, 15 (1), 41-50.

    Neka, E . (1985). The use of an a logy in crea tive problem solving. P olish Psychologica l Bu lletin, 16 (4), 245-255.

    Nuna ma ker, J . F., Applega te, L. M. & Konsynski, B . R. (1987). Fa cilita ting group creat ivity: Experience

    with a group decision support syst em. J ourna l of Mana gement In forma tion Systems, 3, 6-19.

    Offner, A. K., K ra mer, T. J . & Wint er, J . P. (1996). The effects of fa cilita tion, recordin g, a nd pa uses on groupbra instormin g. Sm a ll G roup Resear ch, 27, 283-298.

    Olson, (1965). The logic of collective action: P ublic goods and th e theory of groups. Ca mbridge, MA:Ha rvard U niversi ty Press.

    Orbell, J ., & Da wes, R. (1981). Social dilemma s. In G . Stephenson & H. H . Da vis (Eds .), Pr ogress in appliedsocia l psy chology (Vol. 1, pp. 37-65). NY: Wiley.

    Osborn, A. F. (1942). How to thin k up. NY: McGra w-Hill.

    Osborn, A. F. (1948). Your creative power: How t o use ima gina tion. NY: Cha rles Scribner s Sons.

    Osborn, A. F. (1952a). Wake up your m ind: 101 wa ys t o develop creativeness. NY: Ch a rles Scribner s S ons.Osborn, A. F. (1952b). H ow t o become more crea tive: 101 rewa rding wa ys t o develop your potent ial ta lent.NY: Charles Scribners Sons.

    Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Ima gina tion: Pr inciples and procedures of crea tive thinking. NY: Cha rlesScribners Sons.

    Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied Im a gina tion: P rinciples an d procedures of crea tive t hinking (Revised edition).NY: Charles Scribners Sons.

    Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied Im a gina tion: P rinciples a nd pr ocedures of crea tive pr oblem solving (Third edition).NY: Charles Scribners Sons.

    Osborn, A. F. (1967). Applied Imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Thirdrevised edit ion). NY: Cha rles Scribners Sons.

    Oxley, N. L., Dzin dolet, M. T., & P a ulus, P. B . (1996). The effects of facilit a tors on th e perform a nce of bra in-storming groups. J ournal of Social B ehavior and P ersonality, 11, 633-646.

    P a rloff, M. B ., & Ha ndlon, J . H. (1964). The influence of critica lness on crea tive problem solving in dya ds.

    26

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    27/28

    Psychia t ry, 52, 117-122.

    P ar nes, S. J . (1961). Effects of extended effort in creat ive problem solving. J ourna l of Ed ucat iona lPsychology, 52 (3), 117-122.

    P ar nes, S. J . (1963). The deferment-judgment principle: A clarificat ion of the litera tur e. P sychologicalReports , 12, 521-522.

    P ar nes, S. J . (1985). A facilita t ing style of leadership. B uffalo, NY: B early Limited.

    P ar nes, S. J . (Ed.). (1992). Sourcebook for creat ive problem solving. B uffalo, NY: Crea tive Educat ion Pr ess.

    P ar nes, S. J . (1997). Optimize the magic of your mind. B uffalo, NY: B early Limited.

    P ar nes, S. J ., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of brains torming in str uctions on creat ive problem solving bytra ined and unt ra ined subjects. J ourna l of Educational Psychology, 50 (4), 171-176.

    P ar nes, S. J ., Noller, R. B. & B iondi, A. M. (1977). G uide to creat ive action. New York: Scribners.

    P au lus, P. B., Br own, V., & Ortega , A. H. (1995). G roup crea tivity. In R. E . P urser & A. Montu ori (Eds .),Socia l crea t ivity in organiza t ions. Cresskill , NJ : Ha mpton Press.

    P au lus, P. B., & Dzind olet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainst orming. J ourna l ofP ersonality an d Social P sychology, 64, 575- 586.

    P au lus, P. B., La rey, T. S., & Ortega , A. H. (1995). P erforman ce an d perceptions of bra instormers in a n orga-niza tional setting. B a sic a nd Applied Social P sychology, 17, 249-265.

    P au lus, P. B., La rey, T. S., P utn am , V. L., Leggett, K . L., & Roland, E . J . (1996). Social influence processesin computer bra instormin g. B as ic a nd Applied Social P sychology, 18, 3-14.

    P rice, K. H. (1985). P roblem-solving str a tegies: A compar ison by problem-solving phas es. G roup &Orga niza tion S tudies, 10 (3), 278-299.

    Rees, F. (1991). How to lead work tea ms: Fa cilita tion. Sa n Diego, CA: P feiffer & Compan y.

    Renzulli, J . S., Ow en, S. V., & Ca llaha n, C. M. (1974). Fluency, flexibility, an d originalit y a s a function ofgroup size. J ourna l of Crea tive B ehavior, 8 (2), 107-113.

    Rickard s, T., Aldridge, S . & G a ston, K. (1988). Fa ctors a ffecting bra instormin g: Towa rds the development

    of dia gnostic tools for a ssessment of creative performa nce. Resear ch and Development Ma na gement, 18 (4),309-320.

    Rosent ha l, R. (1984). Meta -a na lyt ic procedures for social resear ch (Volume 6 in the Applied Socia l Resear chMethods Series). B everly Hills, CA: SAGE P ublications.

    Rotter, G. S ., & P ortuga l, S. M. (1969). G roup and ind ividual effects in problem solving. J ourna l of AppliedP sychology, 53, 338-341.

    Rowa tt , W. C., Nesselroade, K. P. Begga n, J . K., & Allison, S. T. (1997). P erceptions of bra instormin g ingroups: The qua lity over qua ntit y hypothesis. J ourna l of Cr eat ive B ehavior, 31, 131-150.

    Ruba ck, R. B ., Da bbs, J . M., & Hopper, C. H. (1984). The process of bra instormin g: an a na lysis wit h indi-vidual and group vocal para meters. J ourna l of Personality and S ocial P sychology, 47 (3), 558-567.

    Seta , J . J ., Seta , C. E., & Dona ldson, S. (1991). The impact of compa rison processes on coactors frust ra tiona nd willingness to expend effort . P ersonality a nd Socia l Psychology Bu lletin, 17, 560-568.

    Sh epperd, J . A. (1993). P roductivity loss in performa nce groups: A motiva tion an a lysis. P sychologicalB ulletin, 113, 67-81.

    Sm ith, B . L. (1993). Int erpersona l beha viors tha t da ma ge th e productivity of crea tive problem-solvinggroups. J ournal of Creative B ehavior, 27 (3), 171-187.

    St ein, M. I. (1975). St imula ting crea tivity : G roup procedures (Volume tw o). NY: Academic P ress.

    St reet, W. R. (1974). B ra instorming by individua ls, coacting an d intera cting groups. J ourna l of AppliedPsychology, 59 (4), 433-436.

    St roebe, W. R., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin , G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivit y. P ersona lity a nd S ocia lP sychology B ulletin, 18, 643-650.

    Sut ton, R. I., & Ha rga don, A. (1996). B ra instormin g in cont ext: Effectiveness in a product design firm.Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685-718.

    Ta ylor, D. W. & McNema r, O. W. (1955). P roblem solvin g a nd t hin king . Annua l review of psychology, 6, 455-482.

    27

  • 8/13/2019 302 Brainstorm

    28/28

    Tay lor, D. W., B erry, P. C., & B lock, C. H . (1958). Does group part icipat ion w hen using bra instorming facil-ita te or inhibit crea tive thinking? Administ ra tive Science Qua rterly, 6, 22-47.

    Torra nce, E. P. (1970). Influence of dya dic intera ction on crea tivity fun ctioning. P sychological Reports , 26,391-394.

    Treffinger, D. J . (1994). P roductive thinking : Towa rd aut hentic instr uction a nd assessment . The J ourna lof Seconda ry G ifted Educa tion, 30, 30-37.

    Treffinger, D . J ., & Firest ien, R. L . (1989, J uly). Guidelines for effective fa cilita tion of creat ive problem s olv-ing (1st of 3 pa rt s). G ifted C hild Today, 12 (4), 35-39.

    Treffinger, D. J . & Isa ksen, S. G. (1992) Cr eat ive problem solving: An intr oduction. Sa ra sota, FL: Cent erfor C reative Learning, I n


Recommended