When self-censorship blocks a group's creativity, and how to get out of it?

If you want to be creative and make decisions that are both inventive, appropriate and sensible, there's nothing like group reflection, hence the popularity of brainstorming and steering meetings. Many come away with mixed feelings, but few would dare question the principle. Yet researchers have shown that personal image, self-censorship and group dynamics can sometimes render creativity techniques ineffective. Fortunately, there are antidotes!

Brainstorming that's sometimes stagnant

When advertising executive Osborn invented the "brainstorming" method in the 50s, he popularized it with a powerful image. The term literally translates as "storm in the brain". The principle, which no-one dares dispute, is as follows: the spontaneous contributions of a heterogeneous group stimulate my own mind, leading me to generate other ideas, which in turn ignite sparks in the minds of the other participants. Together, we're more creative and effective.

And the recipe is simple, since the method involves just a few rules:

• Separate criticism from production,
• Remain benevolent,
• Prioritize quantity over quality, etc.

And yet, the recipe doesn't always work. As early as the 50s, Donald Taylor discovered that brainstorming was sometimes less effective than isolated creative research. Successive researchers have come to the same conclusion: a group is less productive than the sum of its participants, not least because of the interplay of censorship and self-censorship.

For example, when the formulation of ideas is based on a round-table discussion, participants remain focused on their idea while waiting for their turn to speak. This mobilizes their working memory. And it's not available again until they've spoken. While waiting to "liberate" their idea, they listen less attentively, blocking out any new ideas that might have caused the first one to fall by the wayside.

The blocking may be linked to the mechanism of memory and the organization of speaking. But representations also play a role. For example, if the other participants in a brainstorming session are presented as "experts", self-image and the feeling of being able to contribute to the group or not will play a role in the quantity of exchanges.

Lastly, participants may reduce their effort and contribution because they feel that their output will be drowned out by that of the group, and will not be perceived. This is the image of the "tug-of-war". We regularly observe that when a group practices tug-of-war, some competitors don't put in their maximum effort. They are less committed than if the event consisted of competing alone against another person...

In an environment where economic, image and power issues are at stake, these phenomena are even more important. The Challenger disaster in 1986 illustrates a whole series of censorship, self-censorship and, more simply, inhibition mechanisms. It should be remembered that the accident was linked to O-rings, which perform less well at low temperatures. Despite the weather, the launch went ahead, and a succession of events led to the accident.

America was in for a huge shock. There were so many talented physicists and engineers working on the project, it was surprising that no one was concerned about the seals' performance in extreme cold. But investigators soon discovered that, on the contrary, a few voices had been raised to point out the risk, but had not been heard; others had thought of the problem, but had not dared to say anything for fear of making a fool of themselves. One manager had even refused to sign an authorization, but his refusal was circumvented by the signature of his superior. The stakes were too high!

Christian Morel asserts that absurd decisions result from two main causes: silence and overconfidence. At a decisive meeting for the launch of the Challenger shuttle, several engineers remained silent because another engineer had already mentioned the gasket problem. Concerns were whispered when they should probably have been shouted. It's a paradox of human relations that he points out. To live together, we need polite relationships in which we control our emotions and spontaneity. But this often indispensable savoir-vivre can also be fatal.

Thus, in a stressful environment, and in the presence of charismatic or authoritarian people, participants adopt a sheep-like behavior. Anything that diverges from the group's thinking is harder to express. But the way groups work can sometimes be surprising. In certain circumstances, they can lead participants to limit their speech and adopt measured decisions, but they can also become polarized, and propose radical actions.

Three hypotheses according to Dominique Oberlé:

• The theory of persuasive arguments: in the course of exchanges, participants will hear arguments favorable to their position, which will further reinforce their point of view, and encourage them to defend it even more.
  
• Social comparison theory: they perceive social approval when they formulate their arguments, which encourages them to go even further.
  
• Self-categorization theory: participants express what they believe to be the group's position, as opposed to other groups, rather than stating their personal opinion. To differentiate themselves from other groups, they adopt a clearer formulation.

Threads on social networks are an illustration of this one-upmanship, to attract attention, receive recognition, or stand out strongly from other groups.

So how do we ensure that a meeting aimed at creativity doesn't get bogged down?

The above observations, which sometimes run counter to our perceptions, suggest that certain rules need to be respected if a group is to be creative.

• Speaking must be free. It's preferable to cut each other off and overwhelm the moderator or note-taker, rather than have everyone wait their turn to speak.
  
• Decisions are made on the basis of shared information, some of which is known to all, and some of which is provided by an individual, based on his or her specific knowledge. The facilitator must therefore reassure and encourage the sharing of information, which cannot be taken for granted. After all, some information is brought to us in dribs and drabs, because it represents power for those who hold it...
  
• To ensure that participants are not intimidated because they feel less competent, it's best to avoid starting a meeting with a round-table presentation of one's curriculum vitae after another.
  
• Writing is another solution. Applications such as Lino or Framemo enable exchanges to take place in real time, with the option of keeping responses anonymous. Eva Delecroix suggests simpler solutions: using sheets of paper and different colored pencils, each person is invited to read the contributions of others and produce their own ideas based on what they have read. A good brainstorm is one in which people talk, but also one in which they listen to each other. She cites an experience in which participants were told that they would have to summarize the ideas retained at the end of the meeting. Listening was better, as was speaking.

The situations discussed in this article show how self-censorship can inhibit creativity, render a group ineffective, cause a group to make absurd decisions or prevent it from seeing danger.

Nevertheless, self-censorship is also a useful regulatory system. What would human relations be like if everyone expressed themselves without reservation? Social networks give us a foretaste, and not always for the better. Sylvie DUCAS describes the many situations in which writers have to censor themselves, or accept the cuts imposed on them. But she also shows that the difficulty of talking about oneself, naming characters in a biography or clearly evoking a situation can become a springboard for creativity, invention and metaphor.

Illustrations: Frédéric Duriez

Resources

Christian MOREL Les décisions absurdes (Tome1), Sociologie des erreurs radicales et persistantes - 2nd edition Gallimard Folio Essais, 2004
http://www.christianmorel-sociologue.fr

Alex PASTERNAK - "How Challenger exploded, and other mistakes were made" June 2014
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvvg5/how-mistakes-were-made

Dominique OBERLÉ "Le groupe en psychologie sociale", Sciences Humaines magazine,
May 1999

Dominique OBERLÉ "Bien raisonner ensemble s'apprend" Cerveau et psycho n+78, June 2016

Sylvie DUCAS, "Censure et autocensure de l'écrivain", Ethnologie française, 2006/1 (Vol. 36), pp. 111-119.
https://www.cairn.info/revue-ethnologie-francaise-2006-1-page-111.htm

Estelle MICHINOV "When intelligence comes to the group" Cerveau et psycho n° 78, June 2016

Eva DELACROIX "Comment ne pas rater son brainstorming?" Cerveau et psycho n° 78, June 2016