Out of the Box Blog

Out of the Box

Does brainstorming make our newspapers dumber?

25 July 2010 · By Kylie Davis

What is the best way to generate innovation inside newspaper companies?

What is the best way to generate innovation inside newspaper companies?

Putting a group of staff — or editors or executives — into a room and having them brainstorm a concept is the worst thing we could do, according to new research from Wharton, the executive business school attached to the University of Pennsylvania.

For newspapers the world over this is a pretty confronting revelation.

Newspapers are famous for the Editorial Conference, where many hundreds of thousands of dollars of senior editorial firepower gather daily to extol their views only to end up agreeing with (or at least executing without further ado) what the Editor wants. (Hey, he/she is the editor, after all!). Inter-departmental meetings put people in a room and ask them to solve problems and “think of something” that will revolutionise the business. The result? Incremental change at a snail's pace.

Hmmm, maybe the Wharton guys are onto something.

The paper, called “Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea” is by Karan Girotra, Christian Terwiesch and Karl T Ulrich. It argues that group dynamics are the anathema of businesses trying to develop genuinely out-of-the-box new ideas, unique ways to save money or distinctive marketing that give us an edge.

So this is why newspapers never invented the iPad!

The dangers of “group think” have been around in management circles for ages. But in an interview with the Australian School of Business online publication, Knowledge, Terwiesch takes it further because his research provides a quantitative analysis of just how ineffective group brainstorming is as a technique. How ineffective, I hear you ask? Well, 30% less effective. Ouch!

“Employees might censor themselves to go along with the status quo or to avoid angering a superior,” he says, arguing that generating a group conversation is not necessarily a sign of creativity because “if everyone contributes, there is less time for individuals to share all of their ideas.”

“We're fighting the American business model where everybody is creative, which is just not the case,” Terwiesch argues. “We find huge differences in people's levels of creativity and we just have to face it. We're not all good singers and we're not all good runners, so why should we expect that we are all good idea generators?”

The 30% more effective method of generating creative ideas is a hybrid method where staff are told to brainstorm on their own and then submit those ideas for discussion at a later date.

It's more effective at generating genuinely good ideas because valuable thoughts stay in the mix which would otherwise be killed early on because of group dynamics.

“When it comes to innovation, what really matters is not getting many good ideas, but getting one or two exceptional ideas,” he says. Put simply, group dynamics stifle good ideas because they are usually so radical, the group cannot cope. A quantity of OK ideas rules over quality in group meetings.

So getting back to the original question: What is the best way to generate innovation inside newspaper companies?

My last blog generated a vigorous debate with a colleague over the best way for newspaper companies to develop new business. Should departments be diverted from focusing on their core business by being asked to be creative, only for innovation to founder because everyone is too busy? Or is a flying squad model of sending a crack team experienced with getting new ventures up a better option, only to generate unhappiness and sabotage because “departmental experts” do not own the new idea? We agreed the issue required further discussion over several bottles of Pinot.

But if we're to follow the advice of the Wharton academics, we need to change some pretty fundamental practices in our businesses — or at least accept that what works as a way of getting a newspaper out each day is not necessarily the best method for idea generation across every part of what we're going to do for the future.

The Australian Business School has another fascinating paper on their website. It's about “How Lousy Results Become Optimal Outcomes” by Gavin Schwarz, looking at how organisational failure is often justified retrospectively as “change.” But I think I'll save that for another blog, another day.

In the meantime, I'm off to lock myself quietly in a room to contemplate the next big idea that will astonish and amaze and dazzle the industry. Or failing that, drink more red. Cheers.

print article send to friend


blog comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

Kylie Davis is the head of real estate solutions, Australia and New Zealand, at CoreLogic, the world’s largest provider of property data. She was previously the network editor of real estate at News Corp Australia, managing editor of business development at Fairfax, and founder of The Village Voice group of newspapers. Follow her @kyliecdavis.


Subscribe

RSS feed
E-newsletter


Blog archives

April 2015 ( 1 )
June 2014 ( 1 )
May 2014 ( 1 )
April 2014 ( 1 )
March 2014 ( 1 )
January 2014 ( 1 )
December 2013 ( 1 )
November 2013 ( 1 )
September 2013 ( 1 )
August 2013 ( 1 )
June 2013 ( 1 )
May 2013 ( 1 )
April 2013 ( 1 )
February 2013 ( 1 )
January 2013 ( 1 )
December 2012 ( 1 )
November 2012 ( 2 )
September 2012 ( 2 )
July 2012 ( 1 )
June 2012 ( 1 )


Blog roll

Facebook
Laurel Papworth
Mumbrella
PANPA
Trend Watching


Join INMA Today
 
Upcoming Events
Oct
03
INMA Business Strategies 2020 Conference
Chicago, United States
03-04 October 2016
Oct
17
INMA Silicon Valley Study Tour
San Francisco, United States
17-21 October 2016
Nov
04
INMA Ideas Day on Mobile Innovations
Zurich, Switzerland
04 November 2016
Nov
14
INMA Global Media Summit Africa
Cape Town, South Africa
14-15 November 2016
Jan
27
INMA Global Media Awards
Dallas, United States
27 January 2017
May
21
INMA World Congress of News Media
New York, United States
21-23 May 2017

More Events

Member Profiles

  • Inge Van Gaal
    Belgium


  • Gayle Moss
    Canada


  • Jorge Springmühl Samayoa
    Guatemala



  • Nikolay Malyarov
    Canada


  • Laurent Bainier
    France


  • Nickolas Monico
    United States



©2016 INMA | Home | About | Contact | RSS | Privacy