Computer scientists have known for many years that with enough eyeballs, all bugs are easy. Michigan professor Scott Page told us this at a recent conference. In other words, all problems can be looked at in such a way that they appear to be simple to solve. Each of us brings a set of tools and mental associations with us to any situation. The question is whether or not our particular set of tools and associations will be able to see the problem at hand as simple. And if our tools and associations are insufficient, then we should bring as many other sets of tools and associations to bear on the problem as we can. This is the value of diversity – enough different people with different ways of seeing things will always see your problem as simple.
There are no smart people. Or, perhaps more accurately, the IQ of a person is of very little importance when it comes to problem solving. Cognitive science is learning that a much better metaphor for the brain is a toolbox. Over our lifetimes, we learn how to use different tools and models. Language, grammar, and syntax are tools. Algebra, geometry and calculus are tools. Biologists learn whole sets of tools which are quite different from the tools that architects or astronauts learn. When we find ourselves faced with a problem, we quickly search through the tools we know to find one that might work. More importantly, we also combine the tools that we have – which compounds the usefulness of any new tool that we might learn.
We also develop sets of associations over our lifetimes. If you were to show a circle drawn on a piece of paper to different people, they will assign very different meanings to it. Some might think of a ball and sports. Others might think of an O-ring and the space shuttle disaster. Still others might think of ball bearings and various engineering applications. With the same stimulus, people will think of all sorts of different things.
When you are confronted with a problem, then, diversity matters in very tangible ways. “Social” diversity – race, gender, age, class – is almost irrelevant here. What is more important is what Page calls Cognitive Diversity – a diversity of tools and associations. We want to bring together a group of people with very diverse toolsets. The tools from different disciplines just might be able to solve the problem that we’re facing. Moreover, if we combine the tools from different disciplines, we will generate even more perspectives from which the problem might appear easy. We also want to bring together a diversity of associations. Different kinds of associations will lead us down very different paths to try to solve the problem. The more paths we try, the more likely it will be that we will find a way to look at the problem such that it will be easy.
So believe it or not, getting a “bunch of smart people together” to solve a problem is not the best approach. If you have a lot of very smart molecular engineers together, they will all very likely think in very similar ways – their training and toolsets will have very little diversity. They will see the problem in the same way, and if it is intractable to one (like, say, how to best design an office building), it will likely be intractable to them all.
This information should radically change how we assemble teams to solve problems. We should not bring together a bunch of smart people that we went to school with because the odds are that we will all think in very similar ways. We do not want to bring together only the “experts” in a field because their view of the “problem” will already be fixed by their years of experience with it. Instead, we should seek out a team with very diverse experiences, training, tools and associations. The greater the diversity, the more likely it will be that one of them will see your problem in a new way – a way that makes it simple.