The notion of group brainstorming, so beloved in creative workshops and corporate meetings has long been seen as a primary method for generating innovative ideas and problem solutions. The picture that comes to mind is of a group of individuals gathered around a whiteboard, facing a problem, and urging forth the suggested thoughts that if one were to take them seriously and literally, would constitute an act of collective communion for the cause of creativity.

Tossing around ideas freely and saying "yes" to the build-ons and near-build-ons that follow, this group promises to deliver a breakthrough at any moment. What, indeed, is more alluring? And yet, this attempted act of creativity in communion and the promise it carries rarely holds up to scientific scrutiny when put to the test.

The core concept behind brainstorming, which is the suspension of judgment, is intended to encourage a free-flowing exchange of ideas. Yet, this principle can create hurdles. For many people, the act of generating unconventional ideas is inhibited by a fear of being judged, which often is not recognised until after the brainstorming session is over.

In contrast to "conformity," which is what psychologists used to think was the main barrier to producing a diversity of ideas, the pressure to be different and not to be judged can work contrary to the intention of creating a brainstorm. Then, if you manage to get some ideas out, just how well can you speak to an audience that elicits ideas and converse back with you? Listening itself is an act that can also create barriers. Finally, there's the issue of volume itself in terms of the number of ideas produced.

The idea that group interaction is the source of synergy is mistaken, says John D. D. Anthonie Verweij, a Navy commander with a doctorate in organisational behaviour. He contends that when individuals come together in groups, they don't automatically create something greater than their individual performances. He cites two reasons for this phenomenon.

First, people are not efficient together unless they're truly working at a high level of cognitive interdependence. That means much more than working in tandem, which, as we all know, can lead to some individuals floundering along when they're not bettering the group's effort.

Research conducted in the realm of science has yielded a consistent and clear finding: individuals working solo produce not only a larger number of ideas but also a greater overall quality of ideas compared to groups engaged in standard brainstorming sessions.

The uninterrupted and individual-focused cognitive flow that comes with working alone allows for a much deeper and more nuanced exploration of actual problem-solving. Without the almost unavoidable social pressures of group work, the idea-generators in these studies worked with a greater freedom that made for an even more productive and "creative" experience.

The shortcomings of conventional group brainstorming do not make it completely ineffectual. When used for some specific and well-defined purposes, like trying to get a team to cohere or to come up with a nice spread of initial ideas, or when different perspectives are wanted, conventional brainstorming can be a useful tool. It is only when teams use it as the main method for trying to generate ideas that it becomes a counterproductive tool.

Alternative techniques that attempt to overcome the limits of conventional brainstorming have led to modified approaches. Two of these are brainwriting and electronic brainstorming. In brainwriting, team members write down ideas before sharing them. In electronic brainstorming, software is used to submit ideas (without first naming the submitters) to get around the domination and retribution problems that come with even the best traditional teams. Both of these serve to collectively (and relatively efficiently) produce a greater and better number of ideas.

To conclude, although group brainstorming appears to be a satisfying process on the surface, it has limitations that we must acknowledge. There is scientific evidence to suggest that we need a better understanding of the not-so-good dynamics of group interaction if we are to get a better handle on what makes for good group idea generation.

Brainstorming is poor in scientific terms, but it can play a role in a satisfactory process of group interaction and creative problem-solving.

On the whole, we seem to have better luck finding innovative ideas when we use individual techniques or when we modify the kind of group techniques we've just discussed in problematic terms.