Dear Manager… (#2) We Need to Talk About Brainstorming

 

Image created with AI

“Don’t expect brainstorming to accomplish much — other than making your team feel good.”

— Harvard Business Review

 

In this second installment of my Dear Manager series, I want to address a tool that every manager is eager to use whenever the chance arises: the brainstorming meeting. 

It wasn’t until about twelve or fifteen years ago that I became increasingly familiar with brainstorming meetings. Over time, I’ve participated in many of them and well, based on these experiences, I can’t say I’m a big fan.

Do these meetings categorically fail? Not necessarily, but I’ve observed that brainstorming sessions often produce more harm than good, frequently revealing significant management flaws rather than fostering positive outcomes.

And before you start throwing objections my way, let me elaborate and explain why I’m not particularly inclined toward these types of meetings.

So, WTF is a Brainstorm Meeting Anyway?

According to Collins Dictionary, a brainstorming session is:

“A meeting held for the purpose of intensive discussion to solve problems or generate ideas.”

The idea of brainstorming was coined by Alex Osborn in 1948 when, in his book Your Creative Power, he wrote:

“Properly organized and run, a group can be a gold mine of ideas... The early participants dubbed our efforts ‘Brainstorm Sessions,’ and quite aptly so because ‘brainstorm’ means using the brain to storm a creative problem.”

 

The claimed benefits? Encouraging creativity, fostering collaboration, and generating innovative ideas.

Sounds great, right?

In theory, it is. But in practice? Meh. Most sessions I’ve attended ended up generating a cloud of half-baked ideas with no landing gear, a lot of noise, very little signal.

 

So… What’s the Problem with brainstorm Meetings?

Well, in my view, several. One core issue lies within the definition itself. I’ve seen folks in commando mode, throwing ideas at the wall like spaghetti at a food fight. What we usually end up with is an abstract painting, not a solution.

Another major flaw is, in my view, the lack of direction or clarity. Often, these meetings are thrown together reactively, without clearly defining the problem, context, or constraints.

Without preparation, what we call creative freedom ends up being chaotic rambling. And chaos doesn't lead to innovation; it leads to confusion.

But to be more specific, allow me to go through some other important ones:

 

Brainstorming on the Rush

Sometimes, the problem with brainstorming sessions begins before the session even starts.

Picture this: Your boss drops a vague problem on your desk. You schedule a brainstorm session with the team, thinking the collective mind will magically solve it. But here’s the catch, if you haven’t taken time to define the problem, outline its scope, assess potential risks or opportunities, you’re just inviting the team to do your homework for you. That is naughty, and irresponsible.

This isn’t empowerment, its bad delegation disguised as collaboration.

So, why, instead, we take the time to do a proper discovery. Understand the issue. Set a frame. This preparation often reveals that maybe you don’t need a brainstorming session at all, just a couple of targeted working sessions with the right people and the right context.

 

Quantity Over Quality… Really?

One of the sacred cows of brainstorming is quantity over quality. Supposedly, the more ideas you generate, the more likely you are to find a great one!?

But here’s the thing, that assumes all ideas are created equal and that your team has infinite time and cognitive energy to sift through noise.

Reality check: You end up with a lot of noise. And then silence. And then decision fatigue. I’ve witnessed countless of follow-up episodes of an original brainstorm meeting without a final resolution on sight.

Quantity only works when quality is also part of the equation. Without proper framing and follow-up, most brainstorming outputs become digital graveyards of Post-it Notes, Miro boards, or Slack threads no one ever revisits.

Instead of chasing sheer volume, consider a more focused approach like curated idea incubation. Start by assigning a small, cross-functional group to research and explore the problem independently, then have each person bring one or two well-thought-out proposals to a working session.

This not only reduces noise but ensures that every idea presented has been filtered through some level of individual reflection and relevance. The result? Fewer, better ideas, grounded in context, and far more actionable.

Quality-first collaboration beats quantity-driven chaos every time.

 

Self-serving in Disguise

Some brainstorming meetings are less about solving a problem and more about performing creativity. You know the type, the ones called because someone thinks we should be collaborative or needs to signal inclusion and team spirit to the higher-ups.

It's creativity theater. The facilitator gets to play the innovative leader, participants get to feel heard and engaged, and everyone walks away with that warm fuzzy feeling of having "collaborated." Meanwhile, the actual problem sits there, unchanged and unresolved.

I've sat through sessions where the real agenda was painfully obvious: "We need to show we're being inclusive before making the decision we already made." Or worse, "Leadership wants to see we're being innovative, so let's schedule something that looks innovative."

Here's the brutal truth: if your primary goal is to tick the "collaboration" box rather than actually move the needle on a real issue, just send a morale-boosting meme on Slack and save everyone's calendar. At least memes are honest about being meaningless.

The giveaway? When the session ends with vague next steps like "we'll circle back on this" or "let's keep these ideas in our back pocket." That's code for "this was performative, and we all know it."

 

The Loudest Voice Wins

Here's another ugly truth about group brainstorming: it often becomes a stage for the most vocal personalities to dominate the conversation.

You know the type. The person who treats every silence as their cue to fill the void, who rephrases their ideas three different ways until everyone nods in exhausted agreement. Meanwhile, the thoughtful introverts, the detail-oriented analysts, the quiet innovators, they sit there watching their insights get bulldozed by someone who confuses volume with value.

This isn't collaboration; it's conversational colonization.

The irony? The best ideas often come from the people who need time to process, who think before they speak, who consider implications before they jump into solutions. But in the rapid-fire environment of most brainstorms, these voices get drowned out by whoever has the fastest mouth and the thickest skin.

Instead of letting the meeting become a performance stage, try structured approaches like silent idea generation first, round-robin sharing, or even asynchronous contribution where people can develop thoughts at their own pace.

You'll be amazed what emerges when everyone gets equal, or better yet, equitable airtime.

 

The False Democracy Problem

Brainstorming sessions often masquerade as democratic decision-making, but they're anything but. They create an illusion of equal participation while actually reinforcing existing power dynamics and biases.

Think about it: when was the last time a junior team member's wild idea actually got implemented over the senior executive's "practical" suggestion? When did the shy team member successfully challenge the charismatic presenter's half-baked concept?

We like to pretend everyone's voice matters equally, but then we filter everything through the same old hierarchies, risk tolerances, and comfort zones. It's democracy theater, and everyone knows it.

The real kicker? This fake inclusivity actually makes people more cynical about collaboration. They show up, contribute their energy, watch their ideas get politely nodded at and then ignored, and leave feeling more disconnected than before. You've managed to make participation feel like exploitation.

If you want genuine input, create structures that actually flatten the playing field. Anonymous idea submission, blind evaluation processes, rotating facilitation, clear criteria for assessment that everyone agrees on upfront.

Stop pretending a free-for-all is fair when it clearly isn't.

 

What to Do Instead?

If brainstorming isn't always the answer—and I think it often isn't—what alternatives can deliver better results?

Well, here are some approaches that consistently prove more effective than traditional group brainstorming:

 

Silent Ideation

Ask team members to generate ideas individually before any group discussion. This eliminates groupthink, prevents louder voices from dominating, and creates space for introverts to contribute their best thinking. When people aren't influenced by the first ideas shared, you get more diverse and creative solutions.

 

Strategic One-on-One Conversations

Sometimes the most valuable insights emerge from quiet, direct conversations with the right people. These focused discussions allow for deeper exploration of ideas without the performative pressure of group settings. You can tailor your questions to each person's expertise and get more honest, nuanced feedback.

 

Pre-Session Input Collection

Use surveys, forms, or structured templates to gather thoughts before meetings. This approach yields more thoughtful, well-developed responses since people have time to reflect. Your actual meeting time can then focus on meaningful discussion and decision-making rather than scrambling to generate ideas on the spot.

 

Collaborative Working Sessions

Instead of abstract idea generation, bring together a focused group to actively build solutions around a specific, well-defined challenge. These sessions combine thinking with doing, sketching concepts, mapping processes, or prototyping solutions in real-time.

 

Design Sprints and Structured Workshops

These intensive, facilitated processes move teams through ideation, prototyping, and testing in a compressed timeframe. Unlike traditional brainstorming, they produce tangible outputs and actionable next steps, not just lists of possibilities.

Of course, none of these methods are perfect for every situation, but they often generate more actionable results than gathering a group and hoping for inspiration to strike. The key is choosing the right approach for your specific challenge, timeline, and team dynamics.

Fine, But Do It Right

Alright, so you've done the homework, avoided the traps I've outlined, and still genuinely believe a brainstorming session is your best path forward, fine. Now comes the hard part: actually, managing the damn thing properly. How?

First, establish clear guardrails before anyone opens their mouth. Define the scope precisely, articulate the specific goal you're trying to achieve, and set concrete criteria for what makes an idea worth pursuing.

This isn't about stifling creativity; it's about channeling it. Constraints don't kill innovation, they focus it. A river without banks isn't flowing, it's flooding.

Second, please, assign a competent moderator, and I mean competent. This person needs the authority to redirect conversations, the judgment to separate signal from noise, and the backbone to shut down irrelevant tangents.

They're not there to validate every random thought that pops into someone's head. Their job is to guide the group toward productive outcomes, not to make everyone feel special about their contributions.

This means calling out idea repetition, stopping people who are dominating the conversation, and yes, politely dismissing suggestions that clearly don't fit the established criteria. Not every idea deserves equal treatment. Some are better than others and pretending otherwise wastes everyone's time.

Third, for the love of all that's productive, timebox the session. Set a clear start and end time, stick to it religiously, and structure the time intentionally. Thirty minutes of focused discussion beats three hours of meandering conversation every single time. When people know they have limited time, they tend to bring their A-game instead of their stream-of-consciousness ramblings.

And finally, end with clear next steps and ownership. Who's evaluating which ideas? What's the timeline for decisions? Who's accountable for follow-up? Without this, you've just hosted an expensive social gathering disguised as work.

So, Are Brainstorm Meetings Always Bad?

Well, almost always, yes. But like hot sauce or strong coffee, brainstorming sessions can add value when used sparingly and with intention, not as the main course.

When Brainstorming Can Actually Work

Traditional brainstorming can be effective, but only under specific conditions that most organizations rarely create:

• The problem is crystal clear. Vague challenges like "How do we innovate?" doom any session from the start. Participants need a specific, well-scoped problem they can sink their teeth into.
• Everyone comes prepared with context. Team members should understand the background, constraints, and stakeholders involved. Cold brainstorming with uninformed participants produces shallow ideas that ignore crucial realities.
• The session has structure and skilled moderation. Free-form idea dumping doesn't work. Effective sessions use proven frameworks, time constraints, and facilitators who can guide discussion while preventing any single voice from dominating.
• Participants have time to prepare. Even spontaneous creativity benefits from preparation. Share the challenge in advance so people can research, reflect, and arrive with initial thoughts rather than starting from zero.
• Ideas connect to concrete next steps. The session must end with clear ownership, timelines, and follow-through plans. Ideas without action plans become expensive feel-good exercises that accomplish nothing.

When these conditions align—which happens rarely—brainstorming can generate useful results. But most organizations would see better outcomes by investing that same time and energy into the focused alternatives we discussed earlier.

So, Dear Manager…

Brainstorming isn't the innovation engine you think it is. It's become the corporate equivalent of comfort food, familiar, easy to order, but rarely nutritious.

Here's the uncomfortable truth: most brainstorming sessions are productivity theater. They feel collaborative while actually stifling the very creativity they claim to unleash. You're not fostering innovation; you're burning calendar time and team energy on a process that research consistently shows underperforms compared to individual ideation.

Think about your last brainstorming session. How many genuinely actionable ideas emerged? How much time did you spend managing personalities instead of solving problems? How many participants left feeling like their contributions were buried under louder voices or groupthink?

The real cost isn't just the meeting time; it's the opportunity cost. While your team sits in a conference room throwing around half-baked ideas, they could be doing deep, focused work that actually moves the needle. They could be having strategic one-on-ones, researching customer pain points, or building prototypes.

Creativity and collaboration are absolutely essential. But let's stop confusing performative brainstorming with real innovation. Stop mistaking the appearance of teamwork for actual results.

Lead differently. Give your team time to think individually before asking them to think together. Structure your problem-solving with intention, not just good vibes.

And yes, sometimes the most productive thing you can do is skip the meeting entirely and just send that email.

Your team's best ideas deserve better than a chaotic conference room free-for-all.

Have thoughts on this? Sleep on them first, then send me your most considered response tomorrow.

Kindly,

– Jorge