Disciplined diversity of thinking: five years and five insights

Juliet Bourke is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Management at UNSW Business School, UNSW Sydney and the author of Which two heads are better than one? How diverse teams create breakthrough ideas and make smarter decisions (2016). In 2016 she gave a TEDx Talk sharing her experience and research into cognitive diversity and inclusion. From 2011 – 2020 she led Deloitte Australia’s Diversity and Inclusion practice.

Cognitive diversity sounds like a good idea. Different perspectives on a problem could serve to flush out hidden risks and enable creative friction necessary for innovation. As the saying goes: two heads are better than one.

The challenge with cognitive diversity is not a belief in its efficacy, but uncertainty about how to operationalise it in practice. How can we ensure breakthroughs such as the discovery of DNA, and the solving of the Enigma code are repeated, and disasters like Enron and the VW emissions scandal avoided? If two heads are better than one, which two heads should we choose?

Finding the answers to these questions has served as the inspiration for my study in this area. The five key findings of my research are as follows:

1. Cognitive diversity makes a measurable difference to group decision making. It can help reduce decision making risk by about 30 per cent and increase the chance and quality of innovative output by about 20 per cent. It also bolsters followership. When potential followers see a group of decision-makers they automatically question whether their view has been represented. A more diverse group gives comfort to a larger group of followers, increasing the likelihood that the group’s decision will be followed more readily.

2. Demographic diversity is not a proxy for cognitive diversity. People can be visibly different (e.g., race, age, gender) and invisibly different (e.g., religion, sexual orientation and caring responsibilities) and yet think along similar lines. The opposite is also true. But we must not assume that individuals think differently just because they appear to be different.

3. People approach problem solving in six different ways: Focussing on outcomes, options, people, process, risk and evidence. Each of us has a bias towards — or is stronger in — one or two of these. Beyond basic domain expertise, solving a problem requires cognitive diversity, which requires finding others who solve problems using another of the six approaches. For example, someone with a strong people orientation might ask questions about stakeholders, whereas someone with a strong evidence orientation is more likely to ask questions about the quality and quantity of data. These approaches are fundamentally different, but both valid.

4. Demographic diversity has a positive indirect effect on problem solving. Some aspects of demographic diversity have a positive indirect impact on team cognitive diversity. Racial diversity can act as a curiosity trigger and gender balance helps to improve interpersonal dynamics and psychological safety. In turn, this can provoke underlying cognitive diversity by stimulating individuals to ask questions and speak up.

5. Inclusive leadership is key. It creates a team culture in which cognitive and demographic diversity are valued and thrive.

By acting upon these insights, we have the capacity to be more disciplined about cognitive diversity and to take great ideas from concept to practice.