Here’s the pdf of the article: groupthink_lehrer

Groupthink, by Jonah Lehrer, Article in the New Yorker, Jan 30, 2012  pp. 22 — 27

“The most creative spaces are those which hurl us together. It is the human friction that makes the sparks.” (27)

Article in this week’s New Yorker discusses ways of encouraging creativity in the workplace. Citing scientific studies, Lehrer argues that brainstorming does not work because its cardinal “rule” of reserving criticism is prescribed, and therefore unrealistic. Creativity is messy, he says, and it thrives in the tense reality of human relations. Data has shown that brainstorming sessions are not nearly as productive as we have come to think. People are more effective, in fact, when they work alone as well as together, but mostly if they cross paths with other creatives in unexpected ways.

Brainstorming was invented by Alex Osborn, an ad exec. Osborn defined it in Chapter 33 of his book “Your Creative Power,” published in 1948, as “using the brain to storm a creative problem—and doing so in commando fashion, with each stormer attacking the same objective.” It presupposed an absence of criticism and negative feedback. This, Lehrer says, doesn’t always work, as group dynamics cannot be prescribed. Instead, “…when the composition of the group is right—enough people with different perspectives running into one another in unpredictable ways—the group dynamic will take care of itself.” (27)

Further, Lehrer writes about the importance of the “place” of creativity. The cubicle paradigm has led to isolation, depriving people of productive, cross-disciplinary encounters. He writes about how when Steve Jobs was building Pixar’s headquarters, he purposefully placed office space around a central atrium where people would be forced to walk to to get to their mailboxes, conferences and bathrooms. He did this to encourage chance meetings in corridors.

His biggest point is the importance of flexible workspace that, through its very architecture, encourages a meeting of the minds. A prime example is “Building 20” on the MIT campus, built as a temporary structure for WWII radar research. Meant to be demolished at the end of the war, through a set of circumstances the building was left standing and over the years housed a hodge-podge of departments. Since it wasn’t pristine, its tenants were free to tear down and build walls, and even floors. They could customize their spaces as they saw fit. Over the years the building has given seen some the most creative output this country has produced — Noam Chomsky’s linguistics, the Bose speaker company founded by grad student Amar Bose, and a slew of engineering discoveries.

=============
This is right up our alley for the SPACE chapter. It’s great to read scientific confirmation that schools need to have flexible spaces and that departments should be housed in such a way to encourage cross-disciplinary chance encounters. It also makes me wonder how to make such “chance encounters” happen within the structure of a class.