One purpose for teams is the generation of new ideas. Since Alex Osborn wrote his book "Applied Imagination" in 1953, the use of brainstorming groups has become the technique of choice for idea generation.  The brainstorming group is guided by a facilitator whose job is to insure that ideas are not criticized, that ideas are not dismissed during the generation stage, that unusual ideas (however wacky) reach the table, and that team members can combine ideas and build on the ideas of others if they wish.
    Despite all the years of work that has gone into developing the rules of brainstorming, individuals still seem to generate more ideas when working individually than as a group. This result is surprising to many since team members generally go away from a brainstorming session feeling very positive about it. In other words, like many other aspects of team work, it does make people feel good to be working together towards a common goal. Actually, Osborn himself worked hard fine tuning the brainstorming process to try and make it as effective as a team activity as it is when applied individually.
    This is not to say that teams do not play a part in the innovation process, they do., and a vital one at that. But that role may not be at the idea generation stage. Why not?

The Group Affiliation Model of Creativity

Have you noticed that humans seem to be contrary kinds of animals? We are not only different from each other, we can be contrary within ourselves. One way in which this shows up is in how we relate to others, not just at the individual level but with others as a group. For instance, there is evidence that, since the dawn of time, individuals have needed other people around then. One of the cruellest punishments you can impose on someone is solitary confinement. We simply need the sense of being part of a group and to have contact with others. Even Ice Man probably lived within a community, some 5,300 years ago. The breakfast that he consumed 8 hours before his last fatal hike comprised cooked bread made from domesticated grains. Nonetheless, he was alone where he was discovered ...
    The contrary side of this is that we also need to feel different from others. Sometimes people go to extremes to be unique. Why else would you pay to have a star named after yourself or to have your name on a brick in a wall or sidewalk? Just as people become unhinged if they are prevented from contact with others for long, so they don't tend to fair too well if they are prevented from displaying individuality. The first thing you do when you capture someone in battle is to refer to them by number (rather than using their name) and make them dress them like all the other prisoners.
    What has this got to do with creativity? A lot, as it turns out. What we are trying to do when we are being creative is to look at things differently - from a new perspective. In other words, we are trying to be unique and different from others - different from our previous selves, even. However, when we are not trying to be creative, and just being part of the group, it is not our uniqueness that is in focus, it is our similarities with others. What this suggests is that these two opposing needs are opposite and cannot coexist (not at the same moment, anyway) and can be looked at as opposite ends of the same line:







What is also interesting is that there is evidence that when we are forced to one end of this line, say 'groupiness', then we have difficulty being at the other end, i.e. being creative. Similarly, if we want to be creative then we have to distance ourselves (conceptually at least) from our group. Sound familiar? Creative people seem to like periods of solitude don't they? (At least while they are doing their creative thing). There are also lots of ways in which we can be driven towards, say, the groupiness end of the line that are beyond our control. If we are scared or threatened then we tend to head for the company of others (at least conceptually). Ever tried to do anything creative when you are feeling threatened? It doesn't come easily does it? Threat doesn't have to destroy creativity, however, it can generate a high degree of motivation that can overcome other factors. We explore this phenomenon in our workshops.
    So, getting back to teams. Do you see the conflict? Teams are there for the purpose of generating the motivation and esprit de corps that comes from pursuing a shared goal. That's way over to the right hand end of the line shown above and at the opposite end to creativity. Perhaps we have hit upon why brainstorming does not live up to its initial promise?
As I said, though, teams have an vital role to play in the implementation of change, including the products of organizational creativity; their role is just not at the idea generation stage. What is needed, then, is a model of organizational creativity and a technique for brainstorming that employs teams without reducing individual creativeness. That unique model has been developed and is one of the things we use and discuss in our workshops.
     These ideas are explored further in “Embracing the New Era”

Teams and team-building have become an important part of contemporary management philosophy. Even by the early 1990's over 80% of businesses in the U.S. employed teams for idea generation and other purposes. Now it is hard to find an employee who is not part of a team or work group. But has this been good for creativity and innovativeness?
    Not necessarily. In fact, there is some evidence that it may have been counterproductive in this regard. Don't get me wrong, teams have an important role in organizations. They provide support for their members, they encourage communication and a horizontal corporate structure, and they tend make people feel good! But as far as creativity is concerned ...