The facilitator, a woman with unnervingly bright eyes, clapped once. “There are no bad ideas!” she chirped, the enthusiasm bouncing off the sterile whiteboard. A low hum of polite agreement. Then Mark, bless his earnest heart, suggested something about “synergizing cloud-based snack distribution.” The most senior person in the room, Mr. Harrison, a man whose patience was clearly wearing thin around the 49-minute mark of this charade, cleared his throat. “Let’s not get too crazy, Mark,” he drawled, his gaze fixed on the ceiling tiles. And just like that, the session was over, leaving behind a faint scent of recycled air and unspoken despair. Another hour, another whiteboard filled with mediocrity. Another ninety-nine minutes of performative thinking.
We lie to ourselves, don’t we? About brainstorming.
We trot out the well-worn clichés: “think outside the box,” “quantity over quality,” “defer judgment.” We imagine a vibrant explosion of disruptive concepts, a rapid-fire exchange where every voice contributes equally. What we often get instead is a carefully choreographed performance, a dance around the HiPPO-the Highest Paid Person’s Opinion-where genuinely wild ideas are silently culled before they even fully form, replaced by the safest, most socially acceptable alternatives. It’s not about innovation; it’s about consensus, and consensus rarely breeds genius.
The Illusion of Shared Creativity
I’ve been there, leading sessions, convinced that if I just applied the right technique, the dam of brilliance would burst. I’ve structured, prompted, encouraged, even tried the “no talking” silent ideation.