Waiting to speak can limit the ideas a team produces
When a meeting produces few ideas for a new service or promotion, it is tempting to blame creativity or preparation. Yet the format itself can interfere: while one person speaks, everyone else waits. A brainstorming session can therefore benefit from a period when everyone develops and records ideas independently.
Researchers call the interference associated with waiting to express an idea production blocking. Diehl and Stroebe experimentally imposed turn taking and found reduced idea output, giving facilitators a reason to examine the process too. (Diehl and Stroebe’s experiments)
The practical approach proposed here gives independent generation and joint review their own time and records. Evaluate whether the group produced more candidates and selected something worth testing, alongside how much conversation occurred.
How researchers tested the effect of turn taking
In Experiment 4 of their 1987 paper, Diehl and Stroebe studied 60 psychology students at the University of Tübingen in West Germany. Participants proposed ways to reduce unemployment. Some worked in separate rooms with signals preventing speech while another person spoke. Output was the number of nonredundant ideas pooled across four people. Groups subject to blocking produced fewer ideas than those allowed to speak freely. (Diehl and Stroebe’s fourth experiment)
This establishes that the contribution mechanism can affect output. Diagnosing your own meeting still requires examining knowledge of the question, thinking time, and contribution methods. A student ideation task provides no conversion into your company’s revenue or project success rate.
A practical response is to let participants record ideas in their own notes whenever they occur. Recording can continue while people wait to explain an idea aloud, so the candidate list can include thoughts that never entered the conversation. This is an operational proposal informed by the research.
Give people time before they see other ideas
Independent thinking allows everyone to work simultaneously. A shared board also permits simultaneous contributions, but reading a stream of posts mixes personal generation with reviewing other people’s work. One approach to test is private notes released at an agreed time.
Girotra and colleagues’ 2010 study involved 44 product-design students at the University of Pennsylvania. Four-person groups either worked together for 30 minutes or worked independently for 10 minutes and jointly for 20, followed by five minutes of selection in both formats. The latter produced more ideas. Ten minutes was an experimental allocation, rather than an established optimum for every task. (Girotra and colleagues’ study)
For a workplace trial, define one question. If the goal is to reduce cancellations after an initial consultation is booked, share the current booking process and recorded cancellation reasons as common inputs. Label assumptions where the material provides no answer, so conjecture remains distinguishable from evidence.
Each note should identify the proposed change and the problem it addresses. A change to a booking confirmation email might address confusion about the appointment time or difficulty finding the location. Even when two proposals name the same feature, different problems require different scrutiny.
Evaluate generation and selection separately
The number of candidates generated and the value of the selected ideas are different outcomes. In Girotra and colleagues’ study, the five ideas participants selected scored better under the hybrid format on purchase intent, while business-value ratings showed no significant difference. These ratings also differ from actual sales. (Girotra and colleagues’ selection results)
Record candidate counts and results after implementation when evaluating the meeting. More proposals still require investigation if the user and problem remain vague. Automatically adopting the most discussed idea leaves the task of translating a better generation process into business results unfinished.
| What to record | What the record helps assess |
|---|
| Number of nonredundant ideas | Whether additional candidates go beyond rewording the same idea |
| The specific problem each idea addresses | Whether the problem is sufficiently identified |
| Selection reasons and missing evidence | Whether to run a trial or investigate further |
| User behavior after the trial | Whether the intended problem was reduced |
For count comparisons, record attendance, working time, the question, and the rule for identifying duplicates. An increase across meetings with different questions cannot establish that the new format caused the difference. Even with equal attendance, different durations require comparing the labor time invested alongside total output.
The following allocation is a workplace trial proposal, rather than a reproduction of the research protocol. It assumes four people have 35 minutes to consider reducing booking cancellations. Share the question and supporting material beforehand.
| Time | Activity | Record to retain |
|---|
| 10 minutes | Write ideas independently in personal notes | Everyone’s original proposals |
| 10 minutes | Release and read proposals and clarify questions | Explanations needed to understand the ideas |
| 10 minutes | Compare problems addressed and implementation costs and choose a trial | Selection reasons and unresolved questions |
| 5 minutes | Assign the trial owner and define the behavior to measure | Ownership and measurement method |
When joint review generates a new idea, retain it as an additional proposal instead of only editing the original. Distinguishing original proposals from subsequent additions shows when candidates entered the process.
For a booking-information trial, choose a measure that matches the goal, such as attended consultations relative to bookings. Increased email opens and fewer cancellations are different outcomes. If the trial falls short, reconsider the selection reasons and missing evidence.
Track the ideas retained and the results tested
When brainstorming produces few ideas, supplement invitations to speak with time for everyone to generate candidates simultaneously. Retain independent proposals, additions from joint work, and selection reasons to identify which part of the meeting needs to change.
When an adopted idea changes service information, publish the steps, times, locations, or other details users need on your website. Keep internal trial notes distinct from confirmed public information when updating the site.
SpreadSite is a no-code website builder that lets you create, publish, and update a website from Google Sheets using ready-made templates.
To create a website explaining the service steps or booking information agreed in your planning meeting, give SpreadSite a try!
Build a website with SpreadSite →
