Persuasive Advertising - J. Scott Armstrong [199]
The “second-solution” technique offers another approach to generating ideas. A facilitator asks the group members what the best solution would be if they were prohibited from using their first solution. This technique aids implementation because the group’s energy is devoted to finding alternatives rather than defending the current solution. In a problem involving a change in employee work procedures, the solutions were of better quality when groups were instructed to find a second solution after they had initially solved the problem. The second solutions were obtained in approximately two-thirds of the time needed to find the first solutions, and the groups generally preferred their second solutions to the first ones (Maier and Hoffman 1960).
Despite their popularity, I advise against the use of focus groups. As shown by a lab experiment, it is more cost-efficient to generate ideas by using individual non-directive interviews (Fern 1982). Focus group are also prone to misuse in that many people interpret the results of focus group sessions as evidence or as forecasts.
Build on ideas
I have learned that any fool can write a bad ad, but it takes a real genius to keep his hands off a good one.
Leo Burnett, 1950s
Consider what happens when a group member has an idea that differs from the beliefs of the other members. Initially, the others will try to bring the deviant member into line by reasoning with that person. If they are unsuccessful, they frequently ostracize the deviant person. This phenomenon is easy to demonstrate. There are studies in social psychology that demonstrate the enormous strength of this effect—such as the famous Johnny Rocco study by Schachter (1951)—but I imagine many readers have experienced this phenomenon.
One way to address this problem of rejecting new ideas is to use the “build” technique. Instead of discussing the negative aspects of an idea, focus on how to clarify or improve it. This enables the group to nurture ideas that differ, and helps group members to avoid the feeling that new and creative ideas are to be avoided. This technique requires a discussion leader to keep the group on track.
Maier (1963), which is still one of the best books on how to run groups, provided the following suggestions for groups (which I have modified). These suggestions are especially relevant for group leaders for face-to-face meetings, but they can also be modified for virtual groups:
• Be problem-centered. Keep all discussions problem-centered and avoid looking for excuses or seeking to blame others for a problem. Avoid negative statements.
• Record suggestions. Keep track of all suggestions for solving a problem so that each may be explored fully at some point.
• Explore. Explore multiple suggestions for addressing an issue. Ask probing questions, such as “Are there alternatives to using emotion to convince people?” “Do we have enough information about what the customers want?” “Are we mistaken in the assumptions about the target market?” “Is there a way to combine suggestions to generate an even better ad?” or “Is there any relevant research on the issue?”
• Protect people. Protect individuals from personal attacks and criticism. Ensure that their ideas are thoughtfully considered.
• Protect alternative viewpoints. Innovations come from different viewpoints; nurture rather than ignore such viewpoints. Maier and Solem (1952) illustrate this by using this problem: “A man bought a horse for $60 and sold it for $70. Then he bought it back again for $80 and again sold it for $90. How much money did he make in the horse business?” The correct answer is $20; yet 55 percent of his subjects got it wrong. As expected, group discussion helped, especially when leaders were trained to consider alternative views. In these groups, only 16 percent of the groups got the wrong answer versus 28 percent in the leaderless groups. I have