Page 284 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups 267

about the problem. They are encouraged to write as fast as they can without stopping
and, as with brainstorming, to piggyback on their own ideas. When the time is up,
members share their ideas, round-robin, and proceed as with regular brainstorming.
Brainwriting can overcome some drawbacks of traditional brainstorming, including
the inhibition of some participants, having one or two dominant speakers monopolize
the session, or the group’s fixating on just a few ideas. 9
Several scholars have compared traditional brainstorming groups whose mem-
bers interact with nominal groups whose members work in one another’s presence
but do not interact. Goldenberg, Larson, and Wiley compared such groups with two
different rules for brainstorming, the freewheeling rule (asking members to come up
with different ideas) and the building on rule (encouraging members to build on one
10
another’s ideas). They found that those rules seem to compete with one another.
They recommend staggering the rules, using freewheeling first, followed by building
on, to capture the full range of ideas. Henningsen and Henningsen, comparing inter-
acting brainstorming groups with nominal groups that don’t interact, found that inter-
acting groups are more cohesive and generate more ideas in the long run, although
the nominal groups at first generate more ideas. 11
Electronic brainstorming (EBS) is another variation; it capitalizes on the fact that Electronic
anonymity can remove inhibitions. Members sit at computer terminals and type in Brainstorming
their ideas, which are sent via computer to a large screen visible to all. No one knows Brainstorming on
who contributed which idea. EBS groups often generate more ideas, and more computers linked to a
high-quality ideas, than oral brainstorming groups or members working alone. large screen that
12
Members were less fearful of being evaluated and were more satisfied with EBS than displays all
with oral brainstorming. Anonymous EBS is an excellent method to use in a large responses, but no
group in particular. 13 one knows who
Interestingly, a facilitator can influence how group members use the technol- contributed which
14
ogy. When facilitators tried to stimulate creativity with comments such as items.
“Remember to be innovative when offering our views” and “Let’s understand each
other’s views,” the creativity was actually negatively affected. Apparently the com-
ments, even in anonymous EBS groups, introduced an element of judgment too
early in the process, which hurt the generation of ideas. Even though the comments
were offered in an effort to spur creativity, they were perceived as judgmental.
Leaders and facilitators must be carefully trained in how to use the technology so
that they don’t misuse it.
A facilitator or the group’s leader can help increase a group’s creativity in the
brainstorming process. Yagolkovskiy used common, rare, and absurd prompts—
examples of brainstorming ideas—to get groups started on their brainstorming tasks.
15
He found that using rare, but not ordinary or absurd prompts, stimulated original
thinking. Bushe and Paranjpey worked with employees to brainstorm ideas for an
employee recognition program. The groups that produced the most interesting and
16
practical ideas were those that, before jumping in to brainstorm ideas, shared their
own stories about when they received appreciation and recognition, and then focused
on those most compelling stories to identify what actually makes people feel rewarded
and appreciated. This then set the context for developing ideas for an employee
recognition program.

gal37018_ch10_259_290.indd 267 3/30/18 11:14 AM