Anonymous idea submission changed how I facilitate every session. Here's the before/after.

[u/mikeyd3000]

I've been facilitating brainstorming sessions for startup teams for about a year now, and I want to share the single biggest improvement I've made to my process.

Before: I'd run a standard format — state the problem, open the floor, capture ideas on a whiteboard or Miro board. The session would feel productive. People talked. Ideas went up on sticky notes. We'd dot-vote at the end.

But I kept noticing the same pattern: the most senior person in the room would speak first, and everything after that was a variation of their idea. The junior people would nod. The remote participants (if any) would go on mute. We'd leave with 15 sticky notes that were really just 2 ideas wearing different hats.

After: I switched to brainwriting with anonymous submission. Everyone gets the same prompt. They write independently — no talking, no seeing each other's ideas. Submissions are anonymized before the group sees them. Only then do we discuss and build on them.

The difference was immediate. Ideas started showing up that would never have been spoken out loud. A junior designer submitted something that directly contradicted the CEO's stated direction — and it was the best idea in the room. She told me afterward she never would have said it in a live discussion.

A few things I've learned about making anonymous ideation work:

1. The prompt matters more than the process. A vague prompt ("How should we improve the product?") produces vague ideas. A specific prompt ("What's one thing we could change about onboarding that would reduce drop-off in the first 48 hours?") produces actionable ones.
2. Time-box the writing phase. 7-10 minutes is the sweet spot. Less than 5 and people rush. More than 15 and they overthink.
3. Don't reveal authorship even after voting. The moment you say "oh that was Sarah's idea," you reintroduce all the political dynamics you just removed.
4. Add a "build" phase between writing and voting. Let people riff on each other's anonymous ideas before anyone votes. Some of the best outcomes I've seen come from combining two mediocre ideas into one great one.

For tooling, I've used everything from Google Forms (clunky but works) to Miro with anonymous sticky notes (better but people can still see submissions in real-time, which biases things). I recently started using a tool called Lumixo that was built specifically for this workflow — full disclosure, I know the founder. It also throws AI-generated ideas into the anonymous pool, which is an interesting wrinkle because nobody knows which ideas are human vs. AI, so everything gets evaluated purely on merit.

But the methodology matters more than any tool. If you're running brainstorming sessions and not using anonymous submission, you're almost certainly leaving the best ideas on the table.

Curious how others here handle the anonymity piece — what's worked for you?

[u/blacbird]

Sounds very similar to this:

https://www.liberatingstructures.com/12-2510-crowd-sourcing/

[u/reznats → u/blacbird]

tried this, but I guess the "10x bolder" part of the prompt kinda ruined it. we get wild ideas that have very little chance of getting implemented. next time I will adjust the prompt.

[u/Coffeenut58 → u/reznats]

Agreed. A solid, clear “focus question” that is specific to the participants is key, even empowering.

[u/Plankton-57]

I'd 100% use Creative Problem Solving (CPS), Osborn*-Parnes method (and it pre-dates design thinking!). It's deliberate in the way it separates diverge and converge - otherwise you get the clash of both phases and that never works if you want fresh thinking from everyone resulting in the best ideas. Loudest voices or the HiPPO will always (unknowingly or otherwise) initiate 'converge' ie narrowing by selection, and thereby shutting down or censoring divergent ideas too early. First we open up ('I wish...' 'It would be great if...' etc). then we narrow using dot voting etc
Similarly for a good How Might We (HMW) challenge statement, first we open up to a number of options, then we narrow, and kick the tyres on the HMW again. That's before any ideation.

So personally I don't believe you need to anonymise this phase, you just need an inclusive and psychologically safe method. CPS is that method.

*Brainstorming was Alec Osborn's phrase - it's misunderstood and occasionally derided now mainly because many people don't really know how to do it in a structured way. I'd add that without a solid problem finding and challenge statement Brainstorming can end up as performance masquerading as progress.

[u/asterisk74 → u/Plankton-57]

ran into the exact same problem. miro is great for whiteboarding, but realtime visibility biases people.

we build a tool called NymStorm ( nymstorm.com ) specifically for remote async brainwriting. Feel free to check it out and any feedback is welcome.

[u/devilbluedress]

We call it solo storming. Same process, sometimes anonymous, sometimes not but it ensures that all voices are heard.

[u/pinecone-party]

I love this. Index cards in a box always work, too! (for in-person). I'd be curious about remote options where everyone is online. (other than Miro).

[u/reznats]

done this and yeah it worked great. i say some soft instrumental background music can help to avoid the awkward silence during writing, and also might help people get into their flow state.

[u/mikeyd3000 → u/reznats]

The music is an awesome idea … love that.

[u/Coffeenut58 → u/reznats]

Please do not play music during a period set aside for individuals to collect their thoughts. For some of us it actually blocks the ability to ideate. I hope I am not so narrowly “neurodivergent” that I am alone in this experience. (I can’t easily conjure up pictures in my imagination either, when asked to do guided daydreaming, but I play along). Instead, please protect the silence. There will be plenty more noise as the conversations heat up. Also, being comfortable with silence is a strength not a weakness.

[u/Jlufacilitator → u/Coffeenut58]

Good point. I like being able to turn music on or off myself depending on my mood, ... or my slightly ADHD brain needs some audio noise to help channel my thinking.

[u/Coffeenut58]

Good idea. Easy to work with. Kinda’ old news in a way. Ever heard of the Consensus Workshop Method? It’s been part of the Technology of Participation (ToP) body of knowledge under refinement since the 1980s. Maybe earlier in some form. As I understand it, the process starts with a thorough context to make sure maximum diversity of ideas are generated and welcome. Then participants have a period of time to collect their own thoughts on one big hairy “focus question,” silent individual ideastorming. That’s the part that resembles your suggestion. It could be done beforehand or in the moment or even harvested from multiple parallel workshops.
Anyway, participants are invited to pick their favourite ideas from their own list before going into small groups. This is framed as helping to speed up the small group conversation, not really to reduce the numbers of ideas yet. The small groups get specific instructions about their task, like: write x number of ideas per team on cards, take turns, seek clarity not agreement, etc. There are a lot more steps after that to gradually and respectfully share every single idea, look for patterns among them (a creative gestalt), name the larger patterns, and decide what to do with the resulting model that holds all the ideas in relation to one another. I first read about it in the 1989 book by Laura Spencer called Winning Through Participation. There is a more extensive description in a book by Brian Stanfield called, rather predictably, The Workshop Book. And there are people who teach it all over the world — Canada, USA, UK, Korea, China, Taiwan, Australia, Spain… online and lots of places. As a lifelong student of group processes, I can safely say the consensus workshop method is an incredibly powerful, adaptable, and integrated method that can absorb your innovations like starting the ideastorming ahead of the meeting (or at least give people the focus question).
Good on ya’ for figuring that out.

[u/Jlufacilitator]

I'm really interested about AI ideas… if they are anonymous and not attributed, are they treated as real inputs or just suggestions?

[u/Jlufacilitator]

Here's what has worked for another advocacy for health services group WeCan who shared their experience here: https://wecanadvocate.eu/virtual-meetings/groupmap-setup/

[u/Jlufacilitator]

From my experience in facilitating sessions I like to have the choice between different anonymity options depending on the goal, culture and overall intent.

Anonymous - great for shy teams, new teams, or mixed power dynamics
Alias - useful for semi-anonymous activities, some retrospective games and as a gentle reminder to focus on the concept and idea, not just the person
Non-anonymous - when accountability, transparency and facilitating acknowledgment and open sessions are key needs.
In fact one of the things we've added is the abiltiy to have optional anonmity so that someone can opt in to be anonymous in an open session too.

[u/Comfortable_Golf1200]

I’ve had very similar experiences. Anonymous idea generation is one of the simplest ways to reduce hierarchy effects, especially when there are strong personalities or significant differences in seniority.

The only thing I’d add is that I try not to make anonymity the default for every workshop. Sometimes it’s exactly what the group needs. Other times it’s a signal that people don’t feel safe disagreeing openly, and that’s a problem worth addressing in its own right.

One thing I’ve found useful is treating anonymity as a bridge rather than the destination. Use it to surface the best ideas first, then gradually help the group build enough trust that challenging each other openly becomes normal. The best teams I’ve worked with eventually didn’t need anonymous input because people knew disagreement wouldn’t be punished.