Critique people’s ideas for better brainstorms
Published February 4, 2025
One of brainstorming’s cardinal rules is not to criticize anyone’s ideas. And that’s probably wrong.
Research suggests that groups who challenge each other “in benevolent ways” generate more, better ideas. “Managers often tell groups not to criticize each other, but the data actually suggests that debate helps the creative process,” says Leigh Thompson, collaboration expert and professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University (Rosen, 2013).
Healthy, authentic dissent during workshops helps generate more ideas. A 2001 study by Nemeth, Brown, and Rogers found that groups with authentic dissent, not a devil’s advocate, generated more ideas than groups without dissent. Groups who incorporate dissent into their practice “stimulated more quality solutions”. Dissent surfaces participants’ different perspectives and “stimulates divergent as well as original thought” (Nehmeth, et al. 2001).
Dissent also increases energy in the room. It generates “feelings of excitement and stimulation” (Nehmeth, et al. 2001). As you work to manage the energy in your workshop room, some healthy dissent can help keep things interesting.
But how do you design productive dissent into your brainstorming?
More posts on workshops and facilitation
Brainstorming can occur in private as participants work individually prior to the start of the workshops (in the days leading up to) or by working individually during the workshop itself. Then add a review and critique period after brainstomrong to spur new ideas and refine existing ones.
Leigh Thompson recommends using an activity like Pro and Con cards to provide productive feedback and create productive dissent after generation activities. This kind of critique can be done in private and then shared with the group (private critique), or can be done in private and shared anonymously with the group (anonymous critique).
“You’re hard on the problem and respectful of the people,” says Thompson. In practice, eliciting this kind of “responsible feedback” can be difficult. So Thompson offers a tip: have team members write down rather than vocalize their opinions and recommendations (Walsh, 2016).
By formalizing dissent as an activity that everyone does, you enable people to challenge norms and think critically about each idea. “Constructive dissent drives the organization forward by challenging norms and promoting critical thinking” (Cecci-Dimeglio, 2013). Structured activities create a psychologically safe place for people to speak up.
Next time you find yourself brainstorming ideas or solutions, follow with a silent pro/con critique to help flesh out ideas and to spur new ones.
Cecci-Dimeglio, Paola. 2023. "Leadership Insights: Navigating The Science Of Failing Well, From Psychological Safety To 'The Right Kind Of Wrong'". Forbes, August 28, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paolacecchi-dimeglio/2023/08/28/leadership-insights-navigating-the-science-of-failing-well-from-psychological-safety-to-the-right-kind-of-wrong/.
Nemeth, Charlan, Keith Brown, and John Rogers. 2001. “Devil’s Advocate versus Authentic Dissent - Stimulating Quantity and Quality.” European Journal of Social Psychology. (article)
Thompson, Leigh interview with Rosner, Hillary. 2013. “Collaborate Better.” Kellogg Insight. March 13, 2013. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/collaborate_better.
Thompson, Leigh interview with Walsh, Dylan. 2016. “5 Strategies for Leading a High-Impact Team.” Kellogg Insight (blog), July 1, 2016. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/five-strategies-for-leading-a-high-impact-team.
