Skip to main content

Quien es Mas Creative, You or Your Team?

You’ve got a big pitch coming up, so it’s time to get the team together for a brainstorming session. Here, then, is a softball of a question: Who will come up with more innovative ideas? 1). A team of individuals. 2). The people from the team working individually.

Most of us probably answered number 1. And most of us are wrong.

I learned this in a March 2013 from Professor Leigh Thompson of the Kellogg School at Northwestern University in the in-flight magazine for Southwest Airlines. That's Professor Thompson on the left.

“Individuals who brainstormed alone,” she writes, “generated 21 percent more ideas, and their ideas were 42 percent more original than those that generated from groups.” Although how they determined that the ideas were more original she doesn’t say.

Thompson’s insights come from her new book Creative Conspiracy: The New Rules for Breakthrough Collaboration.

If you think about it for a minute you can guess why this is so. Who hasn’t been in a creative meeting that was dominated not by the people with the best ideas, but by the ones with the strongest personalities? Likewise, there’s those creative sessions where half or more of the attendees use the time to catch up on email, or daydream, or nosh on the food. My boss at Children’s Miracle Network was known to have told people in creative sessions that their idea was the “dumbest thing I ever heard.” That’ll put a damper on expressing one’s ideas in a group.

Group dynamics work against real creativity in brainstorming sessions, Thompson finds. The answer is to use mechanisms that help disrupt those dynamics.

For inhibited or intimidated groups, Thompson suggests “brainwriting,” which means asking individuals to independently write down ideas.

Breaking up groups into pairs that “speedstorm” is another approach. You pair people up for 3-5 minutes of brainstorming, then have everyone switch partners. This seems to work in part because groups tend to get more creative when new individuals are mixed in.

Thompson also suggests that when we’re a little discomfited we tend to be more creative. She sites a study that she and a grad student did wherein they put headphones on two sets of subjects. One listened to favorite music the other to boring political speeches. Then both groups were given tests of creativity. Those who listened to the speeches tested as being more creative.

“Why,” asks Thompson? “They were annoyed, edgy, and mentally agitated—which, as it turns out, is a near-perfect recipe for thinking differently.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cause Marketing: The All Packaging Edition

One way to activate a cause marketing campaign when the sponsor sells a physical product is on the packaging. I started my career in cause marketing on the charity side and I can tell you that back in the day we were thrilled to get a logo on pack of a consumer packaged good (CPG) or even just a mention. Since then, there’s been a welcome evolution of what sponsors are willing and able to do with their packaging in order to activate their cause sponsorships. That said, even today some sponsors don’t seem to have gotten the memo that when it comes to explaining your cause campaign, more really is more, even on something as small as a can or bottle. The savviest sponsors realize that their only guaranteed means of reaching actual customers with a cause marketing message is by putting it on packaging. And the reach and frequency of the media on packaging for certain high-volume CPG items is almost certainly greater than radio, print or outdoor advertising, and, in many cases, TV. More to

Why Even Absurd Cause-Related Marketing Has its Place

Buy a Bikini, Help Cure Cancer New York City (small-d) fashion designer Shoshonna Lonstein Gruss may have one of the more absurd cause-related marketing campaigns I’ve come across lately. When you buy the bikini or girls one-piece swimsuit at Bergdorf-Goodman in New York shown at the left all sales “proceeds” benefit Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center . Look past the weak ‘ proceeds ’ language, which I always decry, and think for a moment about the incongruities of the sales of swimsuits benefiting the legendary Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Cancer has nothing to do swimming or swimsuits or summering in The Hamptons for that matter. And it’s not clear from her website why Shoshanna, the comely lass who once adorned the arm of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, has chosen the esteemed cancer center to bestow her gifts, although a web search shows that she’s supported its events for years. Lesser critics would say that the ridiculousness of it all is a sign that cause-related marketing is

A Clever Cause Marketing Campaign from Snickers and Feeding America

Back in August I bought this cause-marketed Snickers bar during my fourth trip of the day to Home Depot. (Is it even possible to do home repairs and take care of all your needs with just one trip to Home Depot / Lowes ?) Here’s how it works: Snickers is donating the cost of 2.5 million meals to Feeding America, the nation’s leading hunger-relief charity. On the inside of the wrapper is a code. Text that code to 45495… or enter it at snickers.com… and Snickers will donate the cost of one meal to Feeding America, up to one million additional meals. The Feeding America website says that each dollar you donate provides seven meals. So Snickers donation might be something like $500,000. But I like that Snickers quantified its donations in terms of meals made available, rather than dollars. That’s much more concrete. It doesn’t hurt that 3.5 million is a much bigger number than $500,000. I also like the way they structured the donation. By guaranteeing 2.5 million meals, the risk of a poor