The Effects of Facilitation, Recording, and Pauses on Group Brainstorming

Abstract

Few brainstorming studies have attempted to provide motivation and structure to assist interacting brainstorming groups to maximize their performance. This study investigated the effect of afacilitator; use of aflip chart recorder and periodic pauses to overcome production blocking in interacting brainstorming groups. The results showed that interacting groups with a group facilitator outperformed groups without afacilitator and did about as well as nominal groups. Flip chart recording had no effect, possibly because it blocks production. Pauses had no important effect on brainstorming. The study and its results demonstrate how to bridge the gap between laboratory research and practice.

Category assignment and relatedness in the group ideation process

“…Face-to-face groups are also found to have some inherent problems such as consensus seeking (Janis, 1972), biased information sharing (Stasser & Titus, 1985), and social matching of low performance level (Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993). Many researchers have tried to improve the performance of face-to-face groups through training and facilitation (Anson, Bostrom & Wynne, 1995;Baruah & Paulus, 2008;Kramer, Fleming, & Mannis, 2001;Offner, Kramer, & Winter, 1996). These procedures have improved the process gains in groups.…”

A new dynamical model of brainstorming: Linear, nonlinear, continuous (simultaneous) and impulsive (sequential) cases

“…For example, forming interactive groups with low anxious members was found to close the production gap between interactive and nominal brainstormers (Camacho & Paulus, 1995). The presentation of the facilitators or rules designed to improve group interaction and participation were suggested to eliminate the potential free-riding tendencies (Offner, Kramer, & Winter, 1996;Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996). Electronic versions of group brainstorming where participants generate their ideas simultaneously without blocking each other but seeing their ideas at the top of the screen have been suggested for eliminating the production blocking (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991;Gallupe, Bastianutti, & Cooper, 1991;Nijstad et al, 2003;Nunamaker, Briggs, & Mittleman, 1995;Valacich, Dennis, & Conolly, 1994).…”

Quality, Conformity, and Conflict: Questioning the Assumptions of Osborn’s Brainstorming Technique

“…They also summarized previously suggested ideas. Offner, Kramer, and Winter (1996) found that groups with a facilitator generated more ideas than groups without a facilitator and the same number of ideas as nominal groups. However, because the researchers did not include measures of idea quality, it remains unknown how facilitator behaviors might have affected this aspect of performance.…”

“…In recent years, researchers have begun to explore and empirically test some more of these "forgotten" intuitions (Paulus & Brown, 2003). Offner, Kramer, and Winter (1996) investigated how the presence of a facilitator trained in participation encouragement and reinforcement of the brainstorming rules affects ideational productivity in interactive teams. Specifically, the facilitators were charged with keeping the group moving by making sure team members did not violate the four brainstorming rules suggested by Osborn, encouraging quiet members to participate, and making sure the participants stayed focused on the brainstorming task and avoided off-topic discussions.…”

“…Oxley, Dzindolet, and Paulus (1996) found that groups with a highly trained facilitator generated (a) as many ideas as nominal groups and (b) more ideas than interacting groups with trained and untrained facilitators. However, just as in the Offner, Kramer, and Winter (1996) study, quality was not assessed. It seems possible that some of the acts of the facilitators, such as minimizing off-task divergence and repeating the topic during silences, could have reduced the originality of generated ideas.…”