A great piece by Caterina Bulgarella, published in Forbes, about the benefits of cognitive diversity – in a nut shell – people think differently because of backgrounds, values, life experiences, etc. Although focus is on midterms, I was struck by how much it applies to our workplaces. We need diversity of mind to make the best decisions and expand our possibilities or be doomed to repeat repeat repeat. #engagement #cognition #culturechange #actionable #diversity #inclusion
What do you think? Michelle
Article:
Not only did the 2018 midterm elections run with the most heterogeneous group of candidates ever, but they successfully delivered on the promise of ushering greater diversity into U.S. politics. Heading to Washington this coming January are a record number of women, first-time congressional representatives from a significantly broader racial and ethnic spectrum and a sizable group of LGBT elected officials.
The increased diversity of the next Congress is not only a sign that national politics have started reflecting the evolving demographics of the U.S. population, but a potential asset at a time when difficult ethical issues are rising to the top of the political agenda. The group of public officials voters chose on November 6th will give voice to a greater range of values, perspectives and beliefs. It is this deeper level of diversity—what science calls “cognitive diversity”—that may help Congress address a wider set of concerns and successfully grapple with difficult decision-making processes.
Diversity Improves Decision-Making
While diversity is often linked to performance and innovation, its effects on the decisions made by senior governance bodies (e.g., Congress, executive teams, boards etc.) are as important. Diversity of beliefs, perspectives and styles can have a de-biasing impact on complex decisions. For example, cognitive diversity increases the number of alternatives and perspectives group members end up considering, including the evaluation of negative information. But it also lowers the likelihood of groupthink, makes it easier for a team to devise out-of-the-box solutions and reins in that subtle illusion of control that often leads decision-makers to believe they can stir events over which they have zero influence.
The benefits of cognitive diversity are especially consequential in contexts, such as the U.S. Congress, historically dominated by a limited set of demographics and potentially frozen into partisan views. When group members are faced with a larger representation of interests and experiences, the quality of their decision-making is likely to improve.
Diverse group make better decisions because they are exposed to a greater variety of perspectives and decision-makers engage with each other differently. For example, a study that looked at the quality of decision-making made by groups from the same sorority/fraternity, joined by newcomers with the same affiliation or a different one, found that groups with newcomers from a different sorority/fraternity were more likely to arrive at the correct solution. Two dynamics helped these groups make better decisions: first, old-timers paid greater attention to the opinions of the newcomers; second, incorrect members were more likely to change their minds.
A great piece by Caterina Bulgarella, published in Forbes, about the benefits of cognitive diversity – in a nut shell – people think differently because of backgrounds, values, life experiences, etc. Although focus is on midterms, I was struck by how much it applies to our workplaces. We need diversity of mind to make the best decisions and expand our possibilities or be doomed to repeat repeat repeat. #engagement #cognition #culturechange #actionable #diversity #inclusion
What do you think? Michelle
Article:
Not only did the 2018 midterm elections run with the most heterogeneous group of candidates ever, but they successfully delivered on the promise of ushering greater diversity into U.S. politics. Heading to Washington this coming January are a record number of women, first-time congressional representatives from a significantly broader racial and ethnic spectrum and a sizable group of LGBT elected officials.
The increased diversity of the next Congress is not only a sign that national politics have started reflecting the evolving demographics of the U.S. population, but a potential asset at a time when difficult ethical issues are rising to the top of the political agenda. The group of public officials voters chose on November 6th will give voice to a greater range of values, perspectives and beliefs. It is this deeper level of diversity—what science calls “cognitive diversity”—that may help Congress address a wider set of concerns and successfully grapple with difficult decision-making processes.
Diversity Improves Decision-Making
While diversity is often linked to performance and innovation, its effects on the decisions made by senior governance bodies (e.g., Congress, executive teams, boards etc.) are as important. Diversity of beliefs, perspectives and styles can have a de-biasing impact on complex decisions. For example, cognitive diversity increases the number of alternatives and perspectives group members end up considering, including the evaluation of negative information. But it also lowers the likelihood of groupthink, makes it easier for a team to devise out-of-the-box solutions and reins in that subtle illusion of control that often leads decision-makers to believe they can stir events over which they have zero influence.
The benefits of cognitive diversity are especially consequential in contexts, such as the U.S. Congress, historically dominated by a limited set of demographics and potentially frozen into partisan views. When group members are faced with a larger representation of interests and experiences, the quality of their decision-making is likely to improve.
Diverse group make better decisions because they are exposed to a greater variety of perspectives and decision-makers engage with each other differently. For example, a study that looked at the quality of decision-making made by groups from the same sorority/fraternity, joined by newcomers with the same affiliation or a different one, found that groups with newcomers from a different sorority/fraternity were more likely to arrive at the correct solution. Two dynamics helped these groups make better decisions: first, old-timers paid greater attention to the opinions of the newcomers; second, incorrect members were more likely to change their minds.