Tag Archives: Diversity

Bridging Differences to Drive Creativity and Innovation

Bridging Differences to Drive Creativity And Innovation

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

I have a friend who was once ambushed on a TV show panel. Being confronted with a clearly offensive remark, she was caught off-guard, said something that was probably unwise (but not untrue or unkind), and found herself at the center of a media-driven scandal. It would cost her enormously, both personally and professionally.

I often think about the episode and not just because it hurt my friend, but also because I wonder what I would have done if put in similar circumstances. My friend, who is black, Muslim and female, is incredibly skilled at bridging differences and navigating matters of race, gender and religion. If she fell short, would I even stand a chance?

We are encouraged to think about matters of diversity in moral terms and, of course, that’s an important aspect. However, it is also a matter of developing the right skills. The better we are able to bridge differences, the more effectively we can collaborate with others who have different perspectives, which is crucial to becoming more innovative and productive.

The Challenge Of Diversity

There is no shortage of evidence that diversity can enhance performance. Researchers at the University of Michigan found that diverse groups can solve problems better than a more homogeneous team of greater objective ability. Another study that simulated markets showed that ethnic diversity deflated asset bubbles.

While those studies merely simulate diversity in a controlled setting, there is also evidence from the real world that diversity produces better outcomes. A McKinsey report that covered 366 public companies in a variety of countries and industries found that those which were more ethnically and gender diverse performed significantly better than others.

However, it takes effort to reap the benefits of diversity. Humans are naturally tribal. In a study of adults that were randomly assigned to “leopards” and “tigers,” fMRI studies noted hostility to out group members. Similar results were found in a study involving five year-old children and even in infants. Group identification, even without any of the normal social cues, is enough to produce bias.

The innate distinctions we make regarding each other carry over to work environments. When researchers at Kellogg and Stanford put together groups of college students to solve a murder mystery, teams made up of students from the same sorority or fraternity felt more successful, even though they performed worse on the task than integrated groups.

We rarely welcome someone who threatens our sense of self. So those outside the dominant culture are encouraged to conform and are often punished when they don’t. They are less often invited to join in routine office socializing and promotions are less likely to come their way. When things go poorly, it’s much easier to blame the odd duck than the trusted insider.

Group Identity And Individual Dignity

In western civilization, since at least the time of Descartes, we have traditionally thought in rational terms about how humans behave. We tend to assume that people examine facts to make judgments and that any disputes can be overcome through discussion and debate, through which we will arrive at an answer that is objectively correct.

Yet what if we actually did things in reverse, intuitively deciding what was right and then coming up with rational explanations for how we feel? Discussion and debate wouldn’t achieve anything. If rational arguments are merely explanations of deeply held intuitions, the “arguments” from the other side would seem to be downright lies or just crazy.

In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt points to decades of evidence that suggest that is exactly how we do things. We rely on social intuitions to make judgments and then design logic to explain why we feel that way. He also makes the point that many of our opinions are a product of our inclusion in a particular group.

Hardly the product of cold logic, our opinions are, in large part, manifestations of our identity. Our ideas are not just things we think. They are expressions of who we think we are.

Talking Past Each Other

Clearly, the way we tend to self-sort ourselves into groups based on identity will shape how we perceive what we see and hear, but it will also affect how we share and access data. Recently, a team of researchers at MIT looked into how we share information — and misinformation — with those around us. What they found was troubling.

When we’re surrounded by people who think like us, we share information more freely because we don’t expect to be rebuked. We’re also less likely to check our facts, because we know that those we are sharing the item with will be less likely to inspect it themselves. So when we’re in a filter bubble, we not only share more, we’re also more likely to share things that are not true. Greater polarization leads to greater misinformation.

The truth is that we all have a need to be recognized and when others don’t share a view that we feel strongly about, it offends our sense of dignity. The danger, of course, is that in our rapture we descend into solipsism and fail to recognize the dignity of others. That can lead us to dangerous and ugly places.

In Timothy Snyder’s masterful book Bloodlands, which explores the mass murders of Hitler and Stalin, the eminent historian concludes that the reason that humans can do unspeakable things to other humans is that they themselves feel like victims. If your very survival is at stake, then just about anything is warranted and cruelty can seem like justice.

Once our individual dignity becomes tied to our group identity, a different perspective can feel like more than just an opposing opinion, but a direct affront and that’s what may have precipitated the public attack on my friend. The verbal assault was probably motivated by her assailant’s need to signal inclusion in an opposing tribe.

Building Shared Identity And Purpose

Our identity and sense of self drives a lot of what we see and do, yet we rarely examine these things because we spend most of our time with people who are a lot like us, who live in similar places and experience similar things. That’s why our innate perceptions and beliefs seem normal and those of others strange, because our social networks shape us that way.

As we conform to those around us, we are setting ourselves apart from those who are shaped by different sets of experiences. While there is enormous value to be unlocked by integrating with diverse perspectives, it takes work to be able to bridge those differences. What we hear isn’t always what others say and what we say isn’t what others always hear.

In his book, Identity, political scientist Francis Fukuyama explains that our identities aren’t fixed, but develop and change over time. In fact, we routinely choose to add facets to our identity, while shedding others, changing jobs, moving neighborhoods, breaking off some associations as we take on others. “Identity can be used to divide, but it can and has also been used to integrate,” Fukuyama writes.

Yet integrating identities takes effort. We first need to acknowledge that our truth isn’t the only truth and that others, looking at the same facts, can honestly come to different conclusions than we do. We need to suspend immediate judgment and devote ourselves to a common undertaking with a shared sense of mission and purpose.

This is no easy task. It takes significant effort. However, it is at this nexus of identity and purpose that creativity and innovation reside, because when we learn to collaborate with others who possess knowledge, skills and perspectives that we don’t, new possibilities emerge to achieve greater things.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Four Deadly Business Myths

Leave a reply

Four Deadly Business Myths

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

The unicorn is perhaps unique among myths in that the creature doesn’t appear in the mythology of any culture. The ancient Greeks, for all of their centaurs, hydras and medusae, never had any stories of unicorns, they simply thought that some existed somewhere. Of course, nobody had ever seen one, but they believed others had.

Beliefs are amazing things. We don’t need any evidence or rational basis to believe something to be true. In fact, research has shown that, when confronted with scientific evidence which conflicts with preexisting views, people tend to question the objectivity of the research rather than revisit their beliefs. Also, as Sam Arbesman has explained, our notions of the facts themselves change over time.

George Soros and others have noted that information has a reflexive quality. We can’t possibly verify every proposition, so we tend to take cues from those around us, especially when they are reinforced by authority figures, like consultants and media personalities. Over time, the zeitgeist diverges further from reality and myths evolve into established doctrine.

Myth #1: We Live In A VUCA Business Environment

Today it seems that every business pundit is talking about how we operate in a VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) world. It’s not hard to see the attraction. Conjuring almost apocalyptic images of continuous industrial disruption creates demand for consulting and advisory services. It’s easier to sell aspirin than vitamins.

The data, however, tell a different story. In fact, a report from the OECD found that markets, especially in the United States, have become more concentrated and less competitive, with less churn among industry leaders. The number of young firms have decreased markedly as well, falling from roughly half of the total number of companies in 1982 to one third in 2013.

Today, in part because of lax antitrust enforcement over the past few decades, businesses have become less disruptive, less competitive and less dynamic, while our economy has become less innovative and less productive. The fact that the reality is in such stark contrast to the rhetoric, is more than worrying, it should be a flashing red light.

The truth is that we don’t really disrupt industries anymore. We disrupt people. Economic data shows that for most Americans, real wages have hardly budged since 1964. Income and wealth inequality remain at historic highs. Anxiety and depression, already at epidemic levels, worsened during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The recent great resignation, when people began leaving their jobs in droves, helps tell this story. Should anyone be surprised? We’ve been working longer hours, constantly tethered to the office even as we work remotely, under increasing levels of stress. Yes, things change. They always have and always will. We need to adapt, but all of the VUCA talk is killing us.

Myth #2: Empathy Is Absolution

Another favorite buzzword today is empathy. It is often paired with compassion in the context of creating a more beneficial workplace. That is, of course, a reasonable and worthy objective. As noted above, there’s far too much talk about disruption and uncertainty and not nearly enough about stability and well-being.

Still, the one-dimensional use of empathy is misleading. When seen only through the lens of making others more comfortable, it seems like a “nice to have,” rather than a valuable competency and an important source of competitive advantage. It’s much easier to see the advantage of imposing your will, rather than internalizing the perspectives of others.

One thing I learned living overseas for 15 years is that it is incredibly important to understand how people around you think, especially if you don’t agree with them and, as is sometimes the case, find their point of view morally reprehensible. In fact, learning more about how others think can make you a more effective leader, negotiator and manager.

Empathy is not absolution. You can internalize the ideas of others and still vehemently disagree. There is a reason that Special Forces are trained to understand the cultures in which they will operate and it isn’t because it makes them nicer people. It’s because it makes them more lethal operators.

Learning that not everyone thinks alike is one of life’s most valuable lessons. Yes, coercion is often a viable strategy in the short-term. But to build something that lasts, it’s much better if people do things for their own reasons, even if those reasons are different than yours. To achieve that, you have to understand their motivations.

Myth #3: Diversity Equity And Inclusion Is About Enforcing Rules

In recent years corporate America has pushed to implement policies for diversity, equity and inclusion. The Society for Human Resource Management even offers a diversity toolkit on its website firms can adopt, complete with guidelines, best practices and even form letters.

Many organizations have incorporated diversity awareness training for employees to learn about things like unconscious bias, microaggressions and cultural awareness. There are often strict codes of conduct with serious repercussions for violations. Those who step out of line can be terminated and see their careers derailed.

Unfortunately, these efforts can backfire, especially if diversity efforts rely to heavily on a disciplinary regime. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out long ago, strict rules-based approaches are problematic because they inevitably lead to logical contradictions. What starts out as a well-meaning effort can quickly become a capricious workplace dominated by fear.

Cultural competency is much better understood as a set of skills than a set of rules. While the prospect of getting fired for saying the wrong thing can be chilling, who wouldn’t want to be a more effective communicator, able to collaborate more effectively with colleagues who have different viewpoints, skills and perspectives?

To bring about real transformation, you need to attract. You can’t bully or overpower. Promoting inclusion should be about understanding, not intimidation.

Myth #4: People Are Best Motivated Through Carrots And Sticks

One of the things we’ve noticed when we advise organizations on transformation initiatives is that executives tend to default towards incentive structures. They quickly conjure up a Rube Goldberg-like system of bonuses and penalties designed to incentivize people to exhibit the desired behaviors. This is almost always a mistake.

If you feel the need to bribe and bully people to get what you want, you are signaling from the outset that there is something undesirable about what you’re asking for. In fact, we’ve known for decades that financial incentives often prove to be problematic.

Instead of trying to get people to do what you want, you’re much better off identifying people who want what you want and empowering them to succeed. As they prosper, they can bring others in who can attract others still. That’s how you build a movement that people feel a sense of ownership of, rather than mandate that they feel subjugated by.

The trick is that you always want to start with a majority, even if it’s three people in a room of five. The biggest influence on what we do and think is what the people around us do and think. That’s why it’s always easy to expand a majority out, but as soon as you are in the minority, you will feel immediate pushback.

We need to stop trying to engineer behavior, as if humans are assemblages of buttons and levers that we push and pull to get the results we want. Effective leaders are more like gardeners, nurturing, growing and shaping the ecosystems in which they operate, uniting others with a sense of shared identity and shared purpose.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credits: Unsplash

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Does Diversity Increase Team Performance?

1 Reply

Does Diversity Increase Team Performance?

GUEST POST from David Burkus

It’s often said by teams that “diversity is our strength.” We take for granted the idea that diverse teams bring more lived experiences, ideas, and solutions to the table. When asked, “How does diversity affect teamwork?” most leaders assume that teams composed of individuals from different backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives are more likely to approach problems from various angles and come up with innovative solutions. And hence most leaders assume that diversity is a source of greater performance.

And while that’s true—it’s not as clear cut as we assume.

When you look at the research, the relationship between diversity and high-performing teams isn’t always a positive correlation. For diversity to truly enhance teamwork, teams need to establish psychological safety and build shared understanding. Otherwise, diverse ideas, perspectives, and experiences can cause more friction than innovation.

In this article, we will explore the importance of psychological safety and shared understanding in diverse teams. By understanding the impact of diversity on teamwork and implementing these practices, teams can harness the full potential of their diverse members and achieve better problem-solving and value creation.

Psychological Safety

Psychological safety is crucial for diverse teams to tap into the benefits of diversity. When team members feel psychologically safe, they are more likely to share their ideas, take risks, and engage in open and honest discussions. As a leader, it is essential to create an environment where team members feel comfortable expressing themselves without fear of judgment or negative consequences.

One way to build psychological safety is by demonstrating vulnerability as a leader. When leaders openly share their own challenges, mistakes, and uncertainties, it creates a safe space for team members to do the same. This builds trust and shows that it is acceptable to take risks and make mistakes. By embracing vulnerability, leaders can set the tone for open communication and encourage team members to bring their authentic selves to the discussion.

Another important aspect of psychological safety is teaching respectful dissent. Disagreements are inevitable in any team, but it is crucial to handle them in a productive and respectful manner. Encouraging team members to express their differing opinions and perspectives fosters a culture of healthy debate and prevents the formation of echo chambers. By establishing guidelines for respectful dissent, teams can ensure that disagreements are seen as opportunities for growth and learning rather than sources of conflict.

Shared Understanding

Shared understanding is important for diverse teams to work together effectively. When team members have a clear understanding of each other’s work preferences, strengths, and weaknesses, they can collaborate more efficiently and leverage each other’s skills and expertise. Building shared understanding requires intentional efforts to create an environment where team members can openly discuss their working styles and expectations.

One strategy for building shared understanding is to use exercises like the “manual of me.” This exercise involves team members sharing information about their preferred communication styles, work habits, and personal preferences. By understanding each other’s preferences, team members can adapt their communication and collaboration approaches to accommodate different working styles.

Creating a team working agreement is another effective way to establish shared understanding. This agreement outlines the team’s norms and expectations, addressing questions about how the team wants to work together. It can cover topics such as communication channels, decision-making processes, and conflict resolution strategies. By collectively defining these guidelines, teams can ensure that everyone is on the same page and reduce misunderstandings or conflicts that may arise due to differences in working styles or expectations.

Diversity, when combined with psychological safety and shared understanding, enhances teamwork, and leads to improved performance. By creating an environment where team members feel safe to express themselves and fostering shared understanding, teams can tap into the full potential of their diverse members. Embracing diversity as a strength allows teams to approach problems from various perspectives, leading to better problem-solving and value creation. And that helps everyone on the team do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pexels

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on September 11, 2023

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Hire for Diversity and Empathy to Drive Innovation

Leave a reply

Hire for Diversity and Empathy to Drive Innovation

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

One of the questions I get asked quite often, both at conferences and when coaching executives, is what type of personality is best suited for innovation so that they can optimize their hiring. Are technical people better than non-technical people? Introverts better than extroverts? Is it better to hire foxes or hedgehogs?

The first thing I tell them is that there has been no definitive research that has found that any specific personality type contributes to innovation. In fact, in my research I have found that there is not even a particular kind of company. If you look at IBM, Google and Amazon, for example, you’ll find that they innovate very differently.

The second thing I point out is that every business needs something different. For example, Steve Jobs once noted that since Apple had always built integrated products, it never learned how to partner as effectively as Microsoft and he wished it would have. So the best approach to hiring for innovation is to seek out those who can best add to the culture you already have.

Foxes vs. Hedgehogs

In Good to Great, author Jim Collins invokes Isaiah Berlin’s famous essay about foxes and hedgehogs to make a point about management. “The fox,” Berlin wrote, “knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Collins then devotes an entire chapter to explaining why hedgehogs perform better than foxes.

Yet as Phil Rosenzweig points out in The Halo Effect, this is a highly questionable conclusion. Even if it were true that the most successful companies focus on one core skill or one core business, that doesn’t mean that focusing on “one big thing” will make you more successful. What it probably means is that by betting on just one thing you increase your chances of both success and failure.

Think about what would have happened it Apple had said, “we’re going to focus just on computers” or if Amazon had focused on just books. There is also evidence, most notably from Philip Tetlock, that foxes outperform hedgehogs on certain tasks, like making judgments about future events.

So the best strategy would probably be to hire a fox if you’re a hedgehog and to hire a hedgehog if you’re a fox. In other words, If you like to drill down and focus on just one thing, make sure you have people around that can help you integrate with other skills and perspectives. If you like to dabble around, make sure you have people who can drill down.

Introverts vs Extroverts

We tend to see leaders as brash and outgoing, but my colleague at Inc, Jessica Stillman points out that introverts can also make great leaders. They tend to be better listeners, are often more focused and are better prepared than social butterflies are. Those are great qualities to look for when adding someone to add to your team.

Still, you wouldn’t want to have an entire company made up of introverts and, in Social Physics, MIT’s Sandy Pentland explains why. Perhaps more than anything else, innovation needs combination. So it’s important to have people who can help you connect to other teams, both internally and externally, bring in new ideas and help take you in new directions.

Consider Amazon, a company that is not only incredibly successful but also highly technically sophisticated. You might expect that it hires a lot of introverted engineers and I’m sure that’s true. Yet the skill it is most focused on is writing, because it understands that to create a successful product, you need to get a lot of diverse people to work together effectively.

So much like with foxes and hedgehogs, if you’re an introvert you should make sure that you have extroverts that can help you connect and if you are an extrovert, make sure you have people who can focus and listen.

Technical vs. Non-Technical People

By all accounts, Steve Jobs was never more than a mediocre engineer, but was clearly a legendary marketer. Nevertheless, he felt strongly that technical people should be in charge. As he once told his biographer, Walter Isaacson, in an interview:

“I have my own theory about why the decline happens at companies like IBM or Microsoft. The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product becomes less important. The product starts valuing the great salesmen, because they’re the ones who can move the needle on revenues, not the product engineers and designers. So the salespeople end up running the company.”

Yet the story is not nearly as clear cut as Jobs makes it out to be. When IBM hit hard times it was Lou Gerstner, who spent his formative professional years as a management consultant, that turned it around. Steve Ballmer clearly made missteps as CEO of Microsoft, particularly in mobile, but also made the early investments in cloud technology led to Microsoft’s comeback.

So much like with foxes vs. hedgehogs and introverts vs. extroverts, the choice between technical and non-technical people is a false one. Far more important is how you build a culture in which people of varied skills and perspective can work closely together with a shared sense of purpose.

Today, as we enter a new era of innovation, organizations will need a far more diverse set of skills than ever before and building a collaborative culture will be key to success.

Collaboration Is The New Competitive Advantage

Over the past few decades, the digital revolution has shaped much of our thinking about how we advance a business. Digital technology required a relatively narrow set of skills, so hiring people adept at those skills was a high priority. Yet now, the digital era is ending and we need to rethink old assumptions.

Over the next decade, new computing architectures like quantum and neuromorphic computing will rise to the fore. Other fields, such as genomics and materials science are entering transformative phases. Rather than living in a virtual world, we’ll be using bits to drive atoms in the physical world.

That will change how we need to innovate. As Angel Diaz of IBM told me a few years back, “…we need more than just clever code. We need computer scientists working with cancer scientists, with climate scientists and with experts in many other fields to tackle grand challenges and make large impacts on the world.”

That’s why today collaboration is becoming a real competitive advantage and we need to focus far less on specific skills and “types” and far more on getting people with diverse skills, backgrounds and perspectives to work together effectively.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and an earlier version appeared on Inc.com
— Image credit: Unsplash

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The Discomfort Caused by a Diversity of Perspective

Leave a reply

The Discomfort Caused by a Diversity of Perspective

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When your organization doesn’t want to hear your truth because it contradicts a decision they’ve already made, that’s a sign of trouble. It’s a sign they’re going to do what they’re going to and they don’t care all that much about you. But, what if they’re wrong? And what if your perspective could snatch victory from the flames of an impending train wreck? As someone who cares about the company and thinks it would benefit from hearing what you have to say, what do you do?

When you have a culture that makes it clear it’s not okay to share divergent perspectives, you have a big problem.

In domains of high uncertainty, increasing the diversity of perspective is the single most important thing we can do to see things more clearly. In these situations, what matters is the diversity of culture, of heritage, of education, of upbringing, and of experiences. What matters is the diversity of perspective; what matters is the level of divergence among the collective opinions, and what matters most is listening and validating all that diversity.

If you have the diversity of culture, heritage, education, and experience, congratulations. But, if you’re not willing to listen to what that diversity has to say, you’re better off not having it. It’s far less expensive if you don’t have it and far fewer people will be angry when you don’t listen to them. But, there’s a downside – you’ll go out of business sooner.

When you have a perspective that’s different than the Collective’s, share it. And when there are negative consequences for sharing it, accept them. And, rinse and repeat until you get promoted or fired.

Image credit: Unsplash

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The Downside of Likemindedness

Leave a reply

The Downside of Likemindedness

GUEST POST from Rachel Audige

You know that extra buzz of care you feel for people like you? That might be you caught up in like-mindedness bias. We have a tendency to seek out people like us and ideas like our own. That may be just fine but let’s not kid ourselves that it fosters new thinking!

It’s hard not to enjoy kindred spirits. There is something very comforting about spending time with people who share similar values and desires, but I tire of meetings and work situations where people speak of the pleasure of being with folk like them:

“It is so good to be amongst like-minded people,” I heard in a local business meeting that I attend to be challenged.

“An event for the like-minded,” is supposed to attract us to an innovation event.

“Feeling like meeting like-minded women over lunch?” says an invitation I receive in my inbox.

We welcome people, but the sub-text is that they need to ‘be like us’. “There is nothing wrong with you as long as you look like, think like, act like, lead like, advance like, decide like, keep time like, create like, socialize like and consume like us,” writes Nancy Kline in More Time To Think.

It is a bias at large in the workplace and, indeed, in most other places. We just seem to want to self-replicate.

More pervasively, even social media algorithms nourish this thinking and feedback to us only the ideas and world views that we have ‘liked’. The result is that our own narrow views are played back to us in a mind-narrowing echo chamber. This is not an innovative ecosystem, it’s more like an echo- system where our own thoughts and ideas are reflected back at us.

This is not an innovative ecosystem, it’s more like an echo- system where our own thoughts and ideas are reflected back at us.

I believe this obsession with like-mindedness stems from a range of factors including:

▶ A fear of being different. Our desire to fit in and belong is usually greater than our willingness to stand out.

▶ A false idea of mateship that tells us we can only be ‘mates’ if we get on. We see this a lot in countries like Australia and New Zealand.

▶ Avoidance of conflict. In organizations where we are not encouraged to challenge the leadership or each other, some will choose to behave as though they agree to avoid any negative consequences.

▶ Fear of rejection. This is the people-pleasing side where people show agreement whether they agree or not.

▶ Need for Approval. This is very apparent in many large corporations and can lead to a passive/defensive culture in an organization. It may be amplified by the fact that for many the HiPPO (the bias where we defer to the Highest Paid Person’s Opinion) is offshore and there is a sense that we need to walk the corporate line.

▶ And lastly, what Nancy Kline would see as an untrue limiting assumption, that someone else’s divergent thinking ‘does not count’; a sense that we are—or our thinking is—superior.

“When we all think alike, there is little danger of innovation” — Edward Abbey

I don’t believe that like-mindedness is conducive to innovative thinking or the best decision making. I have sat on a board where the CEO and Chair were so close they did not call each other out on important matters. I have also been in a team where the Head of Sales and Head of Marketing were being told they should agree of things when I was convinced that each of them was likely to be more effective if they represented their divergent take on the customer, strategy and long-term versus short-term priorities.

A CREATIVE CULL

The like-mindedness bias not only impoverishes thinking but excludes those who are ‘un-like’ us in a variety of ways. Some expressions of this like-mindedness bias and its consequences that I have witnessed with regards to creative thinking are:

▶ Groups that place too much value on similarity and getting on. As a result, they are less likely to bring divergent thinking into the room. They may then consciously — or unthinkingly — not invite those who we believe are not ‘like them’. I have seen this lead to ideas that are less rich and less inclusive of a diverse range of views where I had to speak up for the absent (needless to say, I also had blinkers and would have left people out).

▶ Countless idea generation sessions where we have not consciously asked the question: who does this idea exclude? We tend to be very good at looking for benefits and challenges but many workshops have fallen into the trap of the mythical notion of ‘one size fits all’. This could exclude any number of people.

▶ I recall a meeting where a panel was seeking creative ideas around addressing the disproportionately low number of women positions of power in Australian businesses. Incredibly, only two men were in a room of over 100 women. This was unlikely to bring the most creative ideas or engage those that needed to be part of the conversation.

▶ Conversely, I have run a roundtable explicitly for people living with disability and upset a person who was hard of hearing and was seated at the back of the room, unable to lipread. Albeit unintentional, we need to watch out for ‘micro-aggressors’; those (seemingly) little things that remind people that the world wasn’t built for them. We talk a lot about ‘scalability’ in innovation. But how can we see something as truly scalable if we are leaving out about 15% of the population?

Most of us have been in a meeting — creative or otherwise — where the unwritten rule involves sacrificing more challenging, disruptive ideas for consensus and groupthink. In a creative session, if my goal is to get on with another person, I am unlikely to improve on their ideas. I am also unlikely to contradict them. This leads to a lowest common denominator effect whereby we settle on what is agreeable to all.

If we are not pushing each other for better, we are likely to stop at safe, possibly ‘vanilla’ concepts. This erodes our creative edge and our point of difference. Nancy Kline clearly sees the danger: “We worship at the altar of homogeneity. Actually, we sacrifice there… Homogeneity sounds so nice. Same, comfortable, familiar, predictable. But it is ruthless. And it infects even our conception of how to slay it.”

The most helpful way of exploring the many negatives of the like-mindedness bias and its impact on innovation is to highlight the value of its opposite…

DIVERSITY | DIVERGENT THINKING | INCLUSION and UNIVERSAL DESIGN

One of the most powerful measures to keep most biases in check is to invite diversity, divergent thinking and actively foster inclusion.

Mid-Covid-19 discussions in Australia, I was delighted to hear Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy’s response to a question about whether he agreed with the different stakeholders involved in making wellbeing decisions. He replied that it was preferable for them not to agree and that their decisions would be better for it.

Diversity is manifesting an understanding that each individual is unique and recognising individual differences. These differences may be in ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs or other ideologies. As Kline states: “The mind works best in the presence of reality. Reality is Diverse.”

‘Diversity’ has been part of the business vernacular for years now. Diversity is the mix. What matters is how we make this mix work once we combine different backgrounds, vocabularies, paradigms and processes. That’s inclusion. Not getting this right can whitewash creativity and, potentially, undermine the inclusiveness of any creative output.

Dr Jennifer Whelan, founder of Psynapse, offers a simple illustration of why diversity is preferable. Whelan describes two rooms. In the first room, you see people just like you; people who share the same language, skin colour, gender and even background. You can relax, these are ‘your kind of people’. You can build rapport, make assumptions, enjoy high levels of certainty. It feels efficient.

But there are risks to this, warns Whelan: “Too much agreement means we don’t consider alternative solutions, or discuss a broader range of ideas. We are at risk of groupthink and biases because we don’t have a fresh set of eyes on how we’re thinking. We don’t feel challenged so we go with the easier option and stick with tried and tested solutions. While some of the routine things we do at work might not suffer, when it comes to some of the more challenging things, this room acts as an echo chamber.”

In the second, you open the door to a room full of people who are both different to you and to each other. In this room, you’ll have to bring your A-game. You’ll need to listen more attentively and be better prepared.

“This second room doesn’t feel as comfortable as the first room. You have to work a lot harder and the outcome might not be as predictable,” says Whelan. However, this room has many potential upsides. This is likely to be a space which is more conducive to creativity. A place where more varied ideas are aired, less shortcuts are made and people are more likely to notice what might otherwise be overlooked.

Room one is more comfortable but it is less well equipped for creative thinking and is more prone to biases, errors and assumptions.

“Getting more comfortable in room two, the diverse room, is the goal of inclusion and, without inclusion, room two can risk higher levels of conflict. Different perspectives and ideas aren’t explored without an open, curious mind, so the team’s diversity can go to waste,” says Whelan.

So, what can we do to counter the like-mindedness bias to disinvest in sameness and think more inclusively and creatively and ‘make the mix work’ in our innovation?

My experience of corporate innovation workshops and idea generation sessions is that we focus on desirability, feasibility and viability but forget to ask the question: Who am I excluding?

It strikes me that we need to overlay—or better, underpin— all our creative thinking and work on new product and service design, process enhancement by this consideration and constantly strive to iron out the kinks to make whatever we are creating as inclusive as possible.

We also need to include universal design principles in our idea generation criteria: is it equitable? Flexible? Simple and intuitive? Is information perceptible? Is there a tolerance for error? Does it require low physical effort? Is the size and space adequate for approach and use? Who might this idea exclude? If we want to dial up our creative outputs, we need more divergent inputs. We need to actively seek out or create places where we will encounter different-minded people; divergent thinking and diverse group identities.

As Brené Brown says: “Daring leaders fight for the inclusion of all people, opinions and perspectives because that makes us all better and stronger.

“That means having the courage to acknowledge our own privilege and staying open to learning about our biases and blind spots.”

NOTHING KEEPS BIAS IN CHECK LIKE INCLUSIVE DIVERSITY

Whatever we are creating, we shouldn’t be considering difference after the fact. Literally — and metaphorically — we need to come up with ideas, systems, processes, designs, websites, buildings…where each and every person can enter through the front door.

I work on a simple premise that innovation should be geared towards making our lives better. When this view is shared, diversity really needs to be front and centre of any initiative. Online and off, we need to follow the thinking of the likes of Todd Rose, co- founder and president of non-profit Project Variability, who challenges the ‘myth of the average’ and recommends that we ‘design to the edges’ and optimise our processes, structures, systems, products and communication for the full range of human characteristics, traits, abilities and interests.

I have always found that my ideas can be improved and sharpened by people who think differently. As long as I listen to those voices with respect and interest — and genuinely contemplate the ideas of others.

I am convinced that we think better and are more likely to look at things from more angles with different perspectives in the room. This is why the best idea generation happens with multidisciplinary, cross-functional, cross-ability groups.

I’m not scared of a ‘clashing’ of ideas and debate. It keeps me sharp and it keeps me grounded. It keeps complacency at bay. It leads to more meaningful outcomes. I am conscious that my comfort with conflict may be another person’s discomfort.

Even when I’m overly partial to an idea, I try to think inclusively and not defensively, I try to make a point of inviting diverse voices to pipe up. Being challenged is a necessary part of the creative process. We need to embrace the discomfort.

Whatever we are creating, we shouldn’t be considering difference after the fact. Literally — and metaphorically — we need to come up with ideas, systems, processes, designs, websites, buildings… where each and every person can enter through the front door.

If you are interested in overcoming biases to enhance your innovation effectiveness, check out: “UNBLINKERED: The quirky biases that get in the way of creative thinking…and how to bust them” at www.rachelaudige.com

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Importance of Diversity in Innovation Teams

Leave a reply

The Importance of Diversity in Innovation Teams

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In a world defined by rapid change and complexity, innovation is the engine of progress. But what powers innovation? The answer lies in diversity—the rich tapestry of perspectives, experiences, and ideas that diverse teams bring to the table. Diversity in innovation teams is not a luxury; it’s a necessity for creating solutions that resonate with a global audience. Diverse teams challenge assumptions, uncover blind spots, and spark breakthroughs that homogenous groups often overlook. In this article, we’ll explore why diversity is critical to innovation, examine two powerful case studies, and offer practical steps for building inclusive teams that drive human-centered change.

Why Diversity Fuels Innovation

Diversity in innovation teams encompasses more than demographics like race, gender, or age. It includes cognitive diversity—different ways of thinking and problem-solving—as well as socioeconomic, geographic, and professional diversity. This multifaceted approach ensures that teams approach challenges from multiple angles, leading to more creative and effective solutions. A 2015 McKinsey study found that companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity were 15% more likely to achieve above-average financial returns, while those with gender diversity were 25% more likely to outperform their peers.

But the benefits go beyond numbers. Diverse teams foster psychological safety, where team members feel empowered to share bold ideas without fear of judgment. This environment is critical for human-centered innovation, which relies on empathy to address the needs of diverse audiences. However, diversity alone isn’t enough—organizations must cultivate inclusion to ensure every voice is heard and valued. Without inclusion, diversity can lead to conflict or disengagement, undermining innovation efforts.

Case Study 1: IBM’s Design Thinking Transformation

In the early 2010s, IBM faced a challenge: how to stay competitive in a fast-evolving tech landscape. The company turned to design thinking, a human-centered approach to innovation, and prioritized diversity in its teams. IBM assembled cross-functional groups that included engineers, designers, data scientists, and marketers from diverse cultural, racial, and professional backgrounds. These teams were trained to empathize with users, define problems collaboratively, and prototype solutions iteratively.

The impact was profound. Diverse teams helped shape IBM’s Watson AI platform, ensuring its applications—particularly in healthcare—addressed the needs of varied patient populations. For example, insights from team members with international healthcare experience led to features that supported multilingual patient interactions, improving accessibility. By 2018, IBM reported a 300% increase in ROI for design-driven projects, with diverse teams credited for identifying user needs that might have been missed by less varied groups.

“Our diverse teams brought perspectives that challenged our assumptions and made Watson a truly global solution,” said Phil Gilbert, former President of IBM Design. “Inclusion was the key to unlocking their potential.”

[Image: A diverse IBM team collaborates in a design thinking workshop, using sticky notes and whiteboards to map user journeys. Alt text: A group of professionals from varied backgrounds brainstorming around a whiteboard filled with colorful sticky notes.]

Case Study 2: Procter & Gamble’s Connect + Develop Program

Procter & Gamble (P&G) revolutionized its innovation strategy with its Connect + Develop program, launched in the early 2000s. The initiative sought external partnerships to co-create products, and diversity was at its core. P&G formed teams that blended internal employees with external experts from startups, academia, and global communities, representing diverse industries, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This approach disrupted P&G’s traditional thinking and led to groundbreaking innovations.

The Swiffer product line is a prime example. A diverse team of chemists, marketers, and external designers from varied cultural contexts collaborated to address unmet consumer needs for convenient cleaning. Insights from team members with experience in emerging markets ensured the Swiffer was affordable and practical for a wide range of households. The result? Swiffer became a $1 billion brand within a few years, contributing to P&G’s reported 50% innovation success rate through Connect + Develop.

“Diversity gave us a window into consumer needs we hadn’t seen before,” said Laura Becker, a former P&G innovation leader. “Our global team members brought ideas that transformed our approach.”

[Image: A Swiffer product prototype being tested by a diverse focus group in a real-world setting. Alt text: A group of people from different backgrounds testing a Swiffer mop in a home environment.]

Overcoming Challenges in Diverse Teams

While diversity drives innovation, it can also present challenges. Differing perspectives may lead to conflict, and unconscious bias can hinder inclusion. To address these issues, organizations must invest in training to mitigate bias, establish clear communication norms, and promote active listening. Leaders should also set shared goals to align diverse teams around a common purpose, ensuring that differences become a source of strength rather than division.

Building Diverse Innovation Teams: Practical Steps

Creating diverse, inclusive innovation teams requires intentional action. Here are five practical steps to get started:

Recruit with Purpose: Actively seek talent from underrepresented groups and diverse disciplines to build a robust talent pipeline.
Foster Psychological Safety: Create a culture where team members feel safe to share ideas and take risks, using tools like anonymous feedback systems.
Use Human-Centered Frameworks: Adopt design thinking or similar approaches to focus on empathy and user needs, leveraging diversity to understand varied audiences.
Train for Inclusion: Provide regular training on unconscious bias and inclusive leadership to ensure all voices are valued.
Measure and Celebrate Success: Track diversity metrics and celebrate innovations driven by diverse teams to reinforce their value.

By implementing these steps, organizations can harness the full potential of diversity to drive innovation that resonates with a global market.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

Diversity is the cornerstone of innovation in a connected world. The case studies of IBM and P&G demonstrate that diverse teams deliver measurable results—higher ROI, breakthrough products, and solutions that serve diverse audiences. But building such teams requires commitment. As leaders, we must challenge ourselves to recruit inclusively, foster psychological safety, and leverage human-centered tools to unlock creativity. The future of innovation depends on our ability to embrace the full spectrum of human potential. Start today—audit your teams, identify gaps in diversity, and take action to build a more inclusive innovation culture.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

Guest AI: Grok

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Diverse Teams Driving Innovation

Leave a reply

Case Studies

Diverse Teams Driving Innovation

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, innovation is not just an advantage—it’s a necessity. Diverse teams, bringing a mixture of perspectives, experiences, and cultures, are uniquely equipped to drive groundbreaking solutions. In this article, we’ll explore two compelling case studies illustrating how diversity is at the heart of innovative success.

Case Study 1: HealthTech Company – Revolutionizing Patient Care

A leading HealthTech company, cognizant of the need for inclusive healthcare solutions, formulated a diverse project team to create an app designed to assist patients with varied medical literacy levels. The team comprised software engineers, UX/UI designers, healthcare professionals, and patients from diverse demographic backgrounds. Each member provided unique insights into the app’s development.

**Challenges & Solutions:** Initially, the team grappled with integrating complex medical data in a user-friendly manner. However, the patient representatives highlighted specific pain points, which engineers and designers addressed through simplified designs and intuitive features.

**Results:** The app, celebrated for its user-centered design, increased patient engagement by 40% and was recognized with multiple industry awards. This success underscored the importance of diverse perspectives in healthcare innovation.

Case Study 2: EcoTech Initiative – Sustainable Energy Solutions

An EcoTech firm, aiming to make strides in renewable energy, assembled a team of environmental scientists, engineers, business strategists, and local community leaders. Their objective was to develop a cost-effective solar energy solution suitable for low-income regions.

**Challenges & Solutions:** The primary challenges were cost constraints and adaptability across different geographies. Local leaders provided insights into cultural and regional needs, guiding the development of adaptable units and cost-reduction strategies using locally sourced materials.

**Results:** The firm introduced a versatile solar panel that reduced costs by 30% and adapted to various landscapes. The project not only accelerated energy accessibility but also won contracts across three continents, demonstrating how diversity can expand market reach.

The Power of Diverse Teams in Innovation

Diverse teams are not immune to challenges, but they excel at turning them into opportunities. This is evident from the case studies above. Diverse perspectives ensure that solutions are comprehensive, culturally relevant, and innovative. By fostering diversity, companies can enhance creativity, ensure broader problem-solving capabilities, and ultimately drive success in a competitive market.

Building a Diverse Team: Key Takeaways

**Inclusive Recruitment:** Actively seek candidates from varied backgrounds and disciplines to enrich the innovation process.
**Empowerment and Inclusion:** Create an environment where all voices are heard and valued, encouraging open dialogue and collaboration.
**Continuous Learning:** Support team members in understanding diverse markets and perspectives through seminars, workshops, and cross-cultural training.

Conclusion

Diversity isn’t just a buzzword—it’s a catalyst for innovation. Whether dealing with technological advancements or regional adaptations, diverse teams bring forth multi-faceted solutions that drive industries forward. Embracing diversity thus emerges as a cornerstone of a robust innovation strategy, paving the way for sustainable success.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Diversity as a Catalyst for Innovation

Leave a reply

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In today’s hyper-competitive global market, organizations are continuously striving for innovative solutions to complex challenges. With the world growing more interconnected, the concept of diversity and inclusion has become not just a moral obligation but also a strategic advantage for innovation. A diversified workforce brings varied perspectives and skills, fueling creativity and driving transformation. In this article, I explore how embracing diversity serves as a catalyst for innovation through insightful case studies and evidence-based practices.

The Power of Diverse Perspectives

Diversity comes in many forms, including but not limited to race, gender, age, cultural background, and professional experience. Each aspect of diversity contributes unique lenses through which problems can be viewed, thus sparking fresh ideas and innovative solutions. It allows organizations to empathize with a wider array of customers and respond to their needs in nuanced ways.

Case Study 1: IBM’s Diversity Initiative

IBM is a leading example of how diversity can drive innovation. Recognizing the wealth of different perspectives afforded by a diverse workforce, IBM instituted “Diversity 3.0.” This initiative aimed not just to hire diverse talent but to embed inclusion into the very fabric of its operations.

By creating diverse teams tasked with innovation projects, IBM discovered that such groups were able to solve problems more effectively and create products that resonated globally. For instance, the formation of a multicultural team led to the development of IBM Watson’s language translation services. Through the team’s varied backgrounds and insights, IBM was able to refine Watson’s capabilities, making it a powerful tool across different languages and cultures.

Case Study 2: The LEGO Group’s Diverse User Base

The LEGO Group showcases how embracing diversity can influence product development and innovation. Traditionally, LEGO had focused on a narrow demographic. However, by engaging with a more inclusive user base, LEGO discovered untapped potential in diverse customer insights.

LEGO’s creation of the “LEGO Ideas” platform, where fans of all ages and backgrounds could submit and vote on designs, allowed the company to leverage this diversity. It resulted in innovative sets that appealed to a wider audience, such as the “Women of NASA” set. This initiative not only boosted creativity and market reach but also reinforced the brand’s commitment to inclusion.

Strategies for Harnessing Diversity

Inclusive Leadership: Leaders must create a culture where diversity is valued and where different voices are heard. This involves not only recruiting diverse talent but also ensuring they feel empowered to contribute.
Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Encouraging collaboration among teams from different cultural backgrounds can foster creative problem-solving and lead to innovative breakthroughs.
Training and Education: Providing continuous learning opportunities about the benefits of diversity and developing skills to manage diverse teams can pave the way for sustained innovation.

Conclusion

Diversity is no longer just a metric to be achieved, but a critical driver of innovation. By fostering an inclusive culture, organizations can draw on a broader spectrum of ideas and perspectives, leading to groundbreaking innovations. As the world continues to change at a rapid pace, those who embrace diversity as a catalyst for innovation will not only survive but thrive.

Let us commit to weaving diversity into the strategic fabric of our organizations and unlock the full potential of our collective creativity.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Navigating Diverse Expectations of Inter-generational Workforces

Leave a reply

Navigating Diverse Expectations of Inter-generational Workforces

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

In today’s dynamic professional landscape, organizations are increasingly characterized by a unique composition of inter-generational workforces. This fusion of Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z in the workplace offers immense potential for innovation, provided that leaders understand and navigate the diverse expectations and work styles inherent to each generation.

Diverse Expectations in the Workplace

Each generation brings its distinctive perspective shaped by the world events, cultural shifts, and technological advancements they have experienced. Here are some condensed insights into the expectations and characteristics of each generation:

Baby Boomers: Value job security, loyalty, and are often motivated by position and titles.
Generation X: Appreciate work-life balance, are independent, and often act as a bridge between older and younger employees.
Millennials: Seek purpose-driven work, value collaboration, and prioritize digital communication.
Generation Z: Are digital natives, expect rapid feedback, and value diversity and inclusion highly.

Case Studies

Case Study 1: Tech Innovators Inc.

Tech Innovators Inc. is a rapidly growing technology firm with a vibrant mix of employees across generations. The company noticed a frequent clash between the collaborative approach of millennials and the more structured communication style preferred by Baby Boomers.

To address this, the company initiated a mentorship program where employees from different generations were paired together. The aim was two-fold: older employees gained insights into digital collaboration tools, while younger employees learned about industry history and strategic planning.

The result was a harmonious blend of traditional experience and modern efficiency. Productivity saw a notable increase, and employee satisfaction metrics rose by 20%. The mentorship program became a cornerstone in fostering an inclusive and resilient workplace culture.

Case Study 2: GreenFuture Energy

GreenFuture Energy, a leader in sustainable solutions, faced challenges with inter-generational team dynamics, primarily the differing expectations around feedback and professional development.

In response, GreenFuture implemented regular “feedback forums” where real-time feedback was encouraged across all levels. Each forum was designed to be a safe space promoting open communication, facilitated by trained mediators to maintain respect and constructive dialogue.

This initiative empowered Gen Z employees to express their innovative ideas and receive guidance, while Baby Boomers and Gen X provided context and depth through their rich experience. As a consequence, team initiatives became more innovative and execution rates improved by 35%.

Strategies for Navigating Diverse Expectations

To harness the potential of an inter-generational workforce, organizations must adopt intentional strategies:

Foster Open Communication: Encourage transparent dialogues where all generations feel heard and valued.
Promote Inclusive Leadership: Develop leadership teams that reflect the generational diversity of the workforce.
Provide Tailored Professional Development: Offer training programs that cater to the distinct learning and career growth needs of each generation.
Leverage Technology: Use digital tools to bridge communication gaps and streamline collaboration across diverse teams.

Conclusion

Successfully managing an inter-generational workforce requires more than understanding generational stereotypes. It demands a genuine commitment to building a culture of inclusivity and adaptability, where diverse expectations are not just acknowledged but leveraged for organizational growth. Through strategic initiatives and open-minded leadership, companies can transform potential inter-generational hurdles into opportunities for innovation and enhanced team synergy.

Extra Extra: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pexels

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.