Last week, I discussed the importance of asking both Why?
and How? questions in solving problems. This week, let me expand the discussion
further to answer the following question: Is this diversity necessarily a good
thing when it comes to solving problems? We tend to assume that we’ll get
better results from groups of people from different backgrounds and possessing
a variety of skills than we would from groups with a single orientation. That
means diversity of many types, not only differences of culture, ethnicity and
gender, but also variety of expertise, intellectual perspective, values and
interests. They are all important for collaborative public policy.
We may believe in the value of diversity from intuition,
ideological conviction and personal experience. But do we have rigorous models
and empirical evidence to support this belief?
Cognitive Diversity
All forms of diversity are not equally effective. It’s the
differences in perspectives and methods of approaching problems that most often
lead to better outcomes. This is what is called cognitive diversity. Variety in
the way problems are framed and interpreted helps a group get unstuck when a
single approach can’t produce a workable solution.
It comes to us naturally, without forethought. Our way of
looking at the world is not something we typically question. It just is. We
accept it and expect that others will do the same. In fact, we may go so far as
to think that others are “wrong” and we are “right” in the way we look at the
world.
Differing ways of looking at the world, interpreting
experience, solving problems and predicting future possibilities work together
to produce a distinctive mental tool set. Groups with this sort of variety
consistently outperform groups working with a single problem-solving
perspective.
Identity Diversity
When it comes to convening a collaborative policy group,
though, diversity usually refers to cultural, ethnic and gender balance.
Identity diversity, satisfies the crucial need for fairness and equity, but, by
itself, doesn’t ensure better problem-solving. Again, the picture is
complicated because there are many forms of identity diversity – culture,
gender, age, socio-economic status, among others. The evidence points to
cultural diversity as having the most significant impact.
Variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds often correlates
with more creative and effective solutions than other types of identity
diversity. That’s because differing cultural perspectives, language and
experience can also mean different ways of thinking and defining problems.
A group of people who can look at a problem in opposite ways
is much more likely to come up with innovative solutions than one dependent on
a single perspective. Cultures develop their own sense of what’s important and
what the mind needs to focus on, and that leads to very different ways of
defining and solving problems. So cultural difference is most effective when
it’s also characterized by cognitive difference.
That link, however, may not always exist. People from
differing ethnic or cultural backgrounds may acquire the same training, skill
sets and experience as people from the prevailing culture. In that case, they’ll
likely think about things in the same way, and the deeper differences
disappear. Other types of identity differences can also add richness of
thought, but the data link cultural and ethnic identity with the greatest
overall benefit.
So, don’t stop with cultural diversity. Also make sure that
participants don’t all rely on the same toolsets to solve problems. The group
needs to have a rich variety of perspectives, interpretations, methods of
solving problems and approaches to predicting the future – that is, all the
elements of cognitive diversity. That added dimension increases the likelihood
that such groups will find a more creative and effective result.
Preference Diversity
Probably the first thing that comes to mind in putting
together a collaborative group – indeed its main purpose – is to include the
full range of interest groups most likely to be affected by a decision – and
most likely to oppose it if they are excluded. What about diversity of
interests? Isn’t that essential to coming up with a better solution than one
devised by a group representing a single interest?
Not necessarily. In fact, the most consistently disruptive
element is divergence of interests and values – or preference diversity. That’s
understandable since interest groups tend to complete with one another and
fight to get their needs met. Drawn into a collaborative group, they are often
not communicating well but still battling over fixed positions. Even if the
group also possesses variety in problem-solving tools and cultural perspectives,
divergent goals work against the beneficial effect they can have.
Groups with diverse cognitive toolboxes and diverse
fundamental preferences have higher variance performance (they locate better
outcomes and produce more conflict). So, if such groups can find a way to work
together, they are likely to excel in producing creative solutions. But if they
can’t get along, they can fail pretty badly.
Collaborative
Leadership
What does that mean for an executive who wants to convene a
group with just these characteristics? Is it as risky as a roll of the dice?
Not at all. Evidence shows that these complex groups get off
to a rough start, often because they have to negotiate over the definition of
the problem to be dealt with. There are many other reasons, such as hostility
to new ideas, poor communication, efforts to control agendas, and so on. Over
time, however, they can learn to work together more effectively. A key reason
for success is good group management.
The best way to achieve effective group dynamics is to
manage the process with collaborative leaders, possibly working with
professional mediators and facilitators. In other words, people with the
experience and skills to help groups work through conflict. The divisive force
of fundamentally differing interests is strong and requires skill to manage
effectively. Nothing will guarantee success, but effective group management can
make all the difference in helping people learn how to get along and collaborate
effectively.
Whether or not you agree with these methods and conclusions,
they make a powerful case for the value of diversity.
