BRAINSTORMING MYTHS

Why Brainstorming Sucks (And How to Fix It)
By Mark Henricks | April 15, 2011

http://www.bnet.com/blog/business-myths/why-brainstorming-sucks-and-how-to-fix-it/947?promo=713&tag=nl.e713

The typical business brainstorming session consists of a bunch of people thrown together in a room and exhorted to “Think outside the box!” and “Rule nothing out!” Why this remains standard procedure is a mystery, since few brainstorming exercises of this sort yield much of value, and the problems with the conventional approach are well known.

If you want to do brainstorming right, discard the widely believed myths and go with the proven approaches. For instance:

Myth: The more ideas, the better. A superior approach is to think: “The more better ideas, the better.” When brainstorming is too open to any and all ideas, and every idea is at least initially treated as equal, too many proposals are completely useless because they lie outside the organization’s capabilities or limits. McKinsey & Co. describes a process called “brainsteering” in which some pre-set parameters — ideas have to cost less than $5,000, say, or generate quick payback — help idea-generators come up with feasible proposals, rather than concepts that are so far outside the box that they’re useless.

Myth: A group of people working together can come up with better ideas than one person. Numerous studies support the opposite contention. A 2010 article in The Journal of Creative Behavior reports a typical finding: “Groups of individuals generating ideas in isolation (nominal groups) generated more ideas and more original ideas and were more likely to select original ideas during the group decision phase than interactive group brainstormers.” One way to do nominal group brainstorming is to have participants come up with ideas on their own before the group session. Alternately, give each person in the session a piece of paper on which to write down ideas, without input from others, before subjecting them to discussion.

Myth: The best ideas naturally float to the top when discussion and evaluation is open, free-ranging, and unrestricted. Wide-open brainstorming sessions have many problems, beginning with the fact that talkative, dominating people tend to drown out quieter ones, whether or not the wallflowers’ ideas are better. Get around this with round-robin brainstorming. This approach poses a question to the group, after which each member has a chance to bring up his or her suggestions without comment or interruption from the others. A scribe is assigned to write down each person’s thoughts. Only after everyone has been heard from is the floor thrown open to talk generally about each idea.

In some respects, a business is like a machine that takes ideas dumped into the top and turns them into money that comes out the bottom. To the extent that’s valid, how well your business does is a function of how good your ideas are. Discarding myths about brainstorming and doing this venerable creative process right will go far to improve the raw material you’re using to create profit.

Mark Henricks has reported on business, technology and other topics for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur, and other leading publications long enough to lay somewhat legitimate claim to being The Article Authority. Follow him on Twitter @bizmyths.

Image courtesy of Flickr user Reckless Dream Photography, CC2.0

MY THOUGHTS

It's always a good idea to listen to people. However, I agree that a disccussion that is too free-wheeling may probably not produce valuable results. I've learned that no-holds barred brainstorming is useful only as an exercise in workshops where you try to develop the communication skills of participants. In reality, companies do not have time to spare for brainstorming dicussions that have no boundaries. If you have the right people in your brainstorming team, then a well-guided (and led) brainstorming session may be well worth the time, energy and money. Be sure to have these people on board:

• people who know how to listen and speak when it's necessary and proper to do so

• people who will not shot down ideas simply because it's not their own

• people who value time and will not waste it by coming up with hare-brained ideas that are too way off

• people who respect other people and are flexible enough to change their own opinion for a better one

FIX COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN

How to Fix a Communication Breakdown
By Daniel L. Shapiro
O, The Oprah Magazine | From the January 2010 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine

Daniel L. Shapiro, PhD, is a renowned negotiation expert who works to solve international conflicts using the psychology of emotions. Your problems may not threaten world peace, but he has some ideas for you, too.


Help! After a fight, you and your spouse are no longer speaking. First, ask yourself: "What's my purpose here? To feel empowered? To get respect? To let "that moron" know I'm angry?" Then ask, "Is the silent treatment really going to get me there?" Once you're ready to talk, be respectful; instead of "I'm ready, let's talk," try "I'd like to understand you better; let me know when you're ready to talk." The best advice, though, is to do what nations do—establish rules of engagement in advance. Over a glass of wine, take 20 minutes to set some parameters: What does a good fight look like? How can you work to understand, not defend? Just keep in mind that you're supposed to be collaborating. No point in fighting about how to fight.

Help! A colleague leaves you off an important e-mail at work. Then your boss wants an update on a project you never heard of. How do you get in the loop? People often worry about things happening behind their back at work. But instead of giving in to paranoia, start a conversation about roles. Ask your boss, "What are my responsibilities? What decisions should I be involved in? How do I ensure that I get the information I need to do what I'm expected to?" These are questions you can ask in a neutral and safe way. Also ask, "Is there any advice you can give that would prevent this from happening again?" If anyone is out to sabotage you, this will make clear that you're not willing to go along with that dynamic.

Help! Your friend loves complaining to you but never asks how you're doing. How do you stop being the designated Dumpster? Chances are, you pick up the phone and—boom!—she talks, you listen. So at the beginning of your next chat, establish a new structure. Say, "Hey, it's great to hear from you. I have about 30 minutes, and there's a lot I'd like to catch you up on. Maybe we can each take 15 minutes to tell each other what's going on." You can also raise the issue directly: "I value our relationship, and I want to be there to listen. I just sometimes feel that it's harder for me to share with you. Do you have suggestions about how to do that?" This way, you're not accusing; you're inviting help.

This story is part of O's Live Your Best Year Toolkit

MY THOUGHTS

so, if you're having problems communicating with anyone, fix it. and fix it fast. problems like this have a way of escalating. sometimes ever so slowly you don't even notice. until it becomes too difficult to fix.

FIXING YOUR GRAMMAR

How to Fix Your Grammar
By Barbara Wallraff
O, The Oprah Magazine | From the January 2010 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine

Good English sounds smart, and every one of us could stand to sound a bit smarter.

Just ask the president. A year ago he had trouble with I and me, saying things like "President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I...." But someone clarified this point of language for him: Whichever word you'd use if you were the only person involved (as in "President Bush graciously invited me") is the word you should use when someone else is, too. More tips:

"It's" So Easy

On paper many people are tripped up by it's versus its. The apostrophe in it's ("it is"), just like the one in we're ("we are") or I'm ("I am"), is standing in for a missing letter, in this case the i in is. That is its role. As opposed to: "That is it's role." Which would mean "That is it is role." Which in fact means nothing.

Beware the "Literal" Agenda

A literal-minded person lacks imagination. So does a "literal" expression: It means exactly what it says. So if you tell someone, "I'd kill to have your job—literally," watch out! You've just made a death threat.

That's Repetitive. And Redundant!

A sentence that starts with "The reason is" shouldn't continue with "because." "The reason" has already done all the work, leaving nothing for "because" to do. Other notorious wastes of words: "I thought to myself" (who else would you think to?), "advance reservations" (yep, that's when they're made), and "I am busy at this time" (but not so busy that you didn't have time for three useless words).

This story is part of O's Live Your Best Year Toolkit


MY THOUGHTS

some articles make me laugh - literally! hey, i'm not making fun of people who need to go back to school for grammar lessons. sometimes, i feel i need to take those lessons myself.

i'm not a good writer. sure i know how to 'dot the i's' and 'cross the t's". but i get so confused with "to","at", "in", "on". you know what i mean.

i didn't even know i have this problem. until one fine day. i took an online english test (no, not the jobstreet test - i'm still not confident enough to take that one!). so, going back online, there i was, armed with nothing but my 'pride'. i started taking the awful test! the first question wasn't that bad. the second, even the third - no sweat! when i got to the 4th test item, that's when i started thinking - "i am no better "than a third grader'!!!

but i wanted to pass the test. so, i went to my third grade teacher. nope, she wasn't online. she's from the 'typewriter generation' and looks at a computer with pure dismay. and she's my mom. she (my mom) passed the test with flying colors!!! in my name, of course! if you don't call that cheating, then i don't know what is.

i thought it was funny. for a while. then i realized i have to do something. i may not be a good writer but writing is part and parcel of my life- at work and at home. i decided to brush up and get over my grammar issues.

so, i went back to reading. (advice of my third grade teacher). not speed reading. pure unadulterated (had to check with collins for this one) reading- really taking note of how sentences are constructed, how words are spelled, how conjunctions are used. and i got reacquainted with the dictionary - looking up words i cannot understand, checking spelling and how certain words are pronounced. i'm still learning. it's a process. i suppose, it's a process that should never end. or i would really need to go back to third grade.

dear reader, don't get me wrong. i'm not advising you to do the same (although i'm hoping you would). i made the mistake of giving this unsolicited advice years ago - to an idiot (sorry - venting!venting!). the issue got so blown out of proportion it reached the office of the CEO. i could have killed the &*^%$# girl!!! (venting again). the nerve!!! and she didn't even know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'. (sorry again - bitching this time!)

i so wanted to slap her - with the dictionary (and the thesaurus - which she cannot even pronounce!!!- forgive me! the memory makes may blood boil). fortunately, only a bible was at hand. i was reminded - i'm a Christian. a work in progress. but a Christian, nevertheless.

HOW TO BREAK THE ICE

How to Break the Ice
By Daniel Menaker
O, The Oprah Magazine | From the January 2010 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine

Hello, how are you, my name is...then what? From Daniel Menaker— editor, writer, conversationalist extraordinaire—a few words on how to talk the talk.

I think it was a famous city planner who said that if you build a statue or a sculpture or some similar object and put it on the sidewalk, you will often find several people looking at it and talking to each other about it, even if they don't know each other. The object is a perfect conversation starter. So I have developed a theory—the theory of the third—which says that neither person should start a conversation by talking about himself or the other person directly. Instead, you have to find a third subject, a third person, or an object to begin the conversation around.

I had a perfect example the other night. I was doing a crossword puzzle while waiting in line for a movie, and this guy next to me, whom I didn't know, said, "Well, you're four days late," because it was the Sunday crossword and this was a Thursday. And of course, even though he was commenting on something I was doing, it wasn't a question about me. It wasn't invasive—"What do you do?" "Who are you?" "What's your name?" It was something in between that we could converse about. At the same time, this guy was a little impudent—he was looking over my shoulder—and I liked that, too, but the fact is, he wasn't commenting on what I was wearing or really on anything about me. And because he just talked about the puzzle, it led to a conversation.

The theory of the third explains why the weather is such a common resort. Unfortunately, it's so common as to be clichéd, but at least it's an attempt at neutrality—like commenting on the interesting color of the wall you're standing next to. And that's the best way to start a conversation, with an attempt at neutrality. This sounds like lame advice, but it's not. What you're saying is "I'm not going to invade your privacy, and you're not going to invade mine. We'll test each other out by talking about something that seems inconsequential and see if we want to deepen this a bit."

Now, in terms of ending a conversation, I had an aunt who was a Quaker, and she and my uncle used to have people over for dinner, and sometimes when the guests got up to leave, they would trail on and on and on and just keep talking—until my aunt, who was a terrifically nice, cherubic person, would finally say, "Thee may go, or thee may stay, but don't ooze."

And by the way, the guy from the movie line? We're going to have lunch.

This story is part of O's Live Your Best Year Toolkit

MY THOUGHTS

small talk! it's hard enough to do with acquaintances. it's so much easier to do with stRangers. i like this "theory of the third". but there's still an issue of 'chemistry'. you can babble all you can about every imaginable topic. if there's no chemistry, you won't get beyond that first encounter.

JUST SAY WHAT YOU WANT

JUST SAY WHAT YOU WANT
from the article "Just Say What You Want, Dammit!"
How to Speak Up
By Ellen Tien
O, The Oprah Magazine | From the September 2008 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine

Hanging back, dropping hints, and generally mousing around gets you nowhere and drives other people nuts. Here's what you should do instead.

"I want my husband to have more sex with me," a girlfriend remarks at lunch. "I feel like he rarely initiates it, and I want to do it more often."

"Did you tell him how you feel?" I ask, after the waiters have administered strong smelling salts and propped me back in my chair. "Don't you think that the first step might be saying that to him instead of me?"

"Honestly, I could never," she responds. "He would assume I was dissatisfied or accuse me of being a nag. But I've been buying lots of silk lingerie and sheer little nighties and making sure I look my best at bedtime, hoping to pique his interest. Besides, it's not like I necessarily want to have more sex per se, I just want him to want me to."

Right. So, she wants sex, but she doesn't want it. She merely wants her husband to want it so she can get what she wants—which, perversely, is something she doesn't particularly want. Wouldn't it cost less, both in mental and actual currency, if she were to sit out the dance, look him plain in the eye, and speak her mind? Why can't she say what she wants?

She's afraid that people will label her needy, bitchy, clingy, whiny. In other words, wanty. Wanty (known in Italy as volere, on New York's shrink-saturated Upper West Side as the id) is the hobgoblin who scrambles the signals so that wanting becomes a bad thing instead of a way to move forward. His cohorts are guilt and denial; his ace up the sleeve is fear of rejection.

What if I look stupid?

What if the answer is no?

What if, what if? So goes Wanty's refrain.

Wanty should not be confused with pure Want. Pure Want is the essence of living. It's the human condition, the slender quill that pricks the sectors of the soul, stimulating yearning or envy, desire or desperation. Nor should Wanty be mistaken for his cousin, Wishy, who pines for a more unattainable horizon and subsists on fountains glutted with coins, birthday candles, and the sternum bones of most poultry. Incidentally—spoiler alert—whoever grasps the wishbone higher up toward the joint will always win.

Wanty looks daggers at Wish and Want and shames them into silence. He flicks open the refrigerator door and slams it shut, thumbs through your credit card statements reproachfully, reaches out and shakes up your mind, juddering friendly old desires into unrecognizable enemies.

Do we even allow ourselves to know what we want?

"Where should we go for dinner?" I ask my husband.

"Wherever you want," he says.

I suggest a nice barbecue place around the corner. No, he says, he doesn't feel like barbecue. Chinese? No, he had Chinese food for lunch. Italian? No, too heavy. Thai? Too much like Chinese. Where, then, I repeat, does he want to go for dinner?

"I dunno. Wherever you want."

Kill me now.

Ellen Tien writes for the Styles section of The New York Times.

MY THOUGHTS

don't you just hate it when you get into conversations like this one? it get's tiring to be asked often - 'what do you want to eat", "where do you want to go?, "what movie do you want to see?", "what gift do you want me to get you?". hello?

i like being asked. but i prefer "would you like to see 'king's speech?".or "you want to eat pasta?"

KNOW WHEN TO SHUT UP

When to Speak Up...and When to Shut Up
By Dr. Peter D. Kramer
O, The Oprah Magazine | From the December 2002 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine

Of all the advice that has drifted from psychotherapists' offices into couples' daily lives, the most overworked—and, I suspect, the most destructive—is the injunction to communicate. Be open, be honest, speak your mind, demand to be heard...well, yes, sometimes, maybe—if simple misunderstandings are at the root of your frustrations.

But how often, really, does one partner have no notion what's on the other's mind? When I evaluate a couple, it's not at all unusual for them to cite "communication" as a problem: "He'll say anything—he has no notion how he undermines me."

Rarely is the impasse caused by lack of information. Think how hard it is to keep a secret in an intimate relationship. But it is common for thoughtless speech to stir up discord. There may even be instances where silence is, as advertised, golden.

I am thinking of a story a husband told me in praise of his wife. He had come home on a Friday griping about his job. The managers were ratcheting up the pressure, and now an immediate supervisor was hinting that a promised promotion might not come through. His wife looked annoyed, but instead of speaking her mind, she puttered and listened and offered vague encouragement. On Saturday, she said, "About that supervisor—" And the husband interrupted: "I know. I'm going to have to confront him or go over his head."

"She could have laid it out for me the night before," the man told me. "She may have been thinking that I'm timid and insecure. Other women have said as much. But she was patient. She let me vent, let me spend a night mulling it over."

I asked him what his wife's silence meant. He said, "She has faith in me. She knows I'll do the right thing."

I like this story because it indicates where communication lies.

Communication is not just putting ideas into words. It's getting ideas across, preferably in a way that allows them to be used. Timing is crucial.

But what of spontaneity? Many people believe intimacy means being able to say what you think: "I'm through repressing my feelings. What good is a relationship if I can't express myself?"

I see the point in this objection. Women have been forced for too long to control their responses. We may admire Jane Austen's shrewd heroines, but we wouldn't want to live in a world that demands such extremes of social calculation. No one should have to weigh every syllable.

All the same, self-expression often benefits from forethought. That's why writers revise. Sometimes I think therapists have done great harm by overemphasizing immediacy in communication, as if the ideal marriage were like psychoanalysis from the patient's position, where you say whatever comes to mind without censorship.


MY THOUGHTS

of course! if we know when to speak, we should also know when to zip it. i hate it when i 'put my foot in my mouth". a minute, 5 minutes, maybe an hour of silence can save us a lot of misery. you should be tuned in to how your partner is feeling and know when it is best not to say anything -yet. the article did not say cut your tongue. it's suggesting we hold it until it's time to speak.

COMMUNICATING WITH YOUR PARTNER

The Most Useful Communication Technique of All Time
By Darby Saxbe
O, The Oprah Magazine | From the March 2009 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine

Communication isn't about how much you say but whether each person grasps the other's perspective. If your partner is a reluctant talker, you may be unwittingly fueling his reticence. When he states his case, do you launch a counterattack? Criticize his reasoning? Get upset? If so, he may keep quiet for a reason.

The Most Useful Communication Technique of All Time is deceptively simple, but it works like magic. Next time your partner makes a point, take a moment to digest whatever he is saying. Then say it back to him. Maybe not word for word, but you have to get the gist—and you can't stop trying until your partner agrees you've nailed it. Switch roles and repeat. Once you're not so busy explaining yourself to someone who just doesn't get it, you can look for compromise.

Before I started grad school and officially drank the psychotherapy Kool-Aid, I used to mock this technique as a way to wrap gauze around discord: "I'm hearing that you're a pathetic jerk." "Well, I'm hearing that you're a total loser." But once I tried it, I realized that "I'm hearing..." isn't just psychobabble. It telegraphs the message "I'm listening to you because what you have to tell me is important." And that's the single most important thing couples can say to each other.

MY THOUGHTS

if you have a partner that you can talk to, someone who listens and talks back to you, congratulations! a common complaint i hear from women is that they have to guess what their partner is thinking or feeling. well, i think some guessing and mystery can put some spice in relationships but it shouldn't be the dominant communication style between partners. i know, men in general are just not as upfront as women but there are a few out there. believe me. someone you can talk to about anything.