This article is written by Ed Bernacki, The Idea Factory, Canada

  • The problem: We know that people do not think alike yet our understanding of diversity rarely considers the predictable differences in how people think, solve problems and collaborate.
  • Why it matters: Public servants must collaborate to create results. Conflicts often result from thinking style differences, not our ideas. This also impacts the design of public services. Do we implicitly assume that users think alike and will respond to a public service in the same way?
  • The solution: Create a deeper conversation on cognitive diversity that includes its value to improve collaboration and the design of services to match the cognitive diversity of citizens who use the products and services created by the public service.

When I reflect on the really big management ideas I explored in my career that made a difference to my life, none is bigger than understanding that our style of thinking can be measured, understood and appreciated, which leads to greater personal satisfaction in life.

The issue is simple: do people think alike? Of course, we all think differently. As such, why is this not often considered in our definitions of diversity?

The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation published content on diversity and inclusion based on a traditional view of diversity – race, gender, disability, education, experience, etc. These diversities are useful yet they are what we see with our eyes or defined in obvious ways. We can’t readily see into each other’s brains. The danger is judging someone’s ideas based on what is seen, instead of their thinking style, which is not easily seen. This difference is known as cognitive diversity. It is a useful diversity for collaboration and the design of public services. To be clear, this form of cognitive diversity has been part of the innovation tool kit in the private sector for several decades.

Dr. M. Kirton was a psychologist and academic researcher, who, in the 1960s, studied how executive teams made decisions for major change. He looked at the problem facing the teams and the decisions they made. He then interviewed each executive about the problem and the solution. He noticed some executives were highly structured and detailed in their thinking and problem solving. He also noticed others were almost the opposite; executives open to totally unique, and more flexible and spontaneous solutions. This was published as a study of Management Initiative where he concluded:

  1. By studying the problems and the solutions, he noticed that solutions often did not solve the problem effectively. Predictable mistakes were made.

  2. By studying the problem solvers, he noticed distinct patterns or styles of thinking in how people solved problems. This was cognitive style.
  3. He noticed that those who were more structured preferred solutions that were created from a more structured process; those who were less structured preferred solutions that were designed from a more open creative process.

  4. He concluded that executives were not aware of their style of thinking and how this impacted on the solutions they proposed. The lack of awareness of their personal style of thinking led to a cognitive bias in the style of solutions to solve a problem.

    • When a unique solution was required to solve the problem, executives agreed to solutions that only modified or improved the situation.

    • Conversely, some executives wanted to innovate new approaches when the problem only needed to be improved or enhanced.

It is worth re-reading these conclusions to ensure you see their implications. These insights involved decades of study to understand the cognitive style of the people making decisions for change. As an academic, he published a Theory of Adaption-Innovation to describe these two unique styles which he explored in many academic papers and several books. The theory has been used and tested by academics and PhD students since the 1980s, and is widely used by practitioners around the world.

The study of people as problem solvers rarely looks at the differences in how people solve problems and what can be learned by expanding our understanding of diversity.

New thinking on diversity

A group with this expertise concluded that the single idea which could help any organisation be more creative is recognising and harnessing the cognitive diversity of their staff, to allow them to contribute in the style of thinking they find most comfortable. Sadly, most organisations are designed with the implicit assumption that people think alike. That is why we have a cliché like, “I see the glass as half-full. I am a positive person,” to criticise those who see the glass as half empty. Yet, those people who see it as half-empty often see twice the potential. How is seeing twice the potential in a situation negative? It is a paradox of current thinking on diversity and collaboration.

Let me describe two styles of thinking. As you read this, notice attributes that are most like you; ask yourself, which is most like me?

You may prefer to do things “better”

  • You like being precise and methodical in your thinking.
  • You prefer to solve problems with incremental improvements and change.
  • You prefer solutions which are tried and true, and practical.
  • You prefer group consensus when making decisions.

You may prefer to do things “differently”

  • You often think through tangents to explore ideas.
  • You prefer to test assumptions, which may lead to radical thinking.
  • You prefer to produce many ideas; some may seem wild at first.
  • You have less regard for group consensus in decision making.

Which is closer to your style of thinking? The first is called an adaptive style of thinking. The second is called an innovative style of thinking. Are you more adaptive or more innovative? The research tells us that our “style” of thinking falls on a continuum somewhere between strongly adaptive and strongly innovative; and has a normally distributed Bell Curve. Your cognitive style is innate. There is no evidence that it changes as you mature in age, experience, or status. To clarify, I use these attributes for a simple explanation. In practice, people can use an indicator called the ‘KAI’. It is fully vetted to ensure it measures what it claims to measure. I once used KAI with 4000 public servants in Canada.

If you review these attributes, you may see differences in kids. Do you recognise them with your partner, a sister or brother, or with those you work with?

Which style is better? This question serves no purpose. One style is not better than the other. Your style made you successful. Both styles create ideas, but they will do so differently.

  • Innovators are great when different ideas are needed to solve a problem.
  • Adaptors are great to bring order and structure to a problem.

Applying this understanding

Dr M. Kirton conceived a simple model to use this understanding to make collaboration more effective.

  • If you work on a project or problem by yourself, call this “Problem A”. You can solve “Problem A” any way that feels right for you.
  • Assume you have a team to work with. This creates a second problem, “Problem B”. This is the problem of managing collaboration effectively to solve your “Problem A”.

Now, which is the bigger problem? I suspect you can remember team efforts where conflict got in the way of creating a good result. If you do not solve “Problem B” as a priority, two things can happen…

  1. You spend too much energy and time trying to get along.
  2. This reduces the energy and time invested to solve “Problem A”. The result is a weaker solution or inability to effectively solve “Problem A”.

I used the KAI to explore cognitive diversity with many groups. Here are several outcomes of these discussions:

  1. A Local Government Customer Service Team of 120 staff helps citizens with housing problems. I noticed the service team was strongly adaptive as most had a similar thinking style. The bell curve was skewed toward the adaptive side. People got along well but lacked the cognitive diversity to deal with clients with housing problems requiring more innovative thinking. This led to a professional development day for staff which included an understanding of thinking styles, which staff used for role playing exercises to practice giving advice to those who did not think like them.
  2. A Regional Health Board executive team used KAI. The Chief Medical Officer said, “We have a problem with people who do not comply with their medical prescriptions. We did assume they think alike.” This led to a discussion: why would a highly adaptive patient and a highly innovative patient not take their drugs? This insight changed their problem solving.
  3. An Innovation team of a large organisation had a skewed bell curve toward the innovation style of thinking. People loved change and inventing new strategies. The director then realised the team had good strategies that did not need more innovation but they needed more adaptation skills to refine and enhance their current strategies. This created a major breakthrough in their work.

To put this in the context of creative teams, Dr. M. Kirton said, “Our problems have become so complex, and the penalty for not solving them so high, that we need to study the problem solvers and the problems we need to solve.”

  • The study of creativity, innovation and design is focused on our problems and the solutions we create.
  • The study of people as problem solvers rarely looks at the differences in how people solve problems and what can be learned by expanding our understanding of diversity. For example, should we discriminate between people to match the problem that needs to be solved with people who have the best thinking style to solve it?

Implications for public service

The lack of understanding of cognitive diversity can lead to weak collaboration as people fail to see that disagreements may be based on differences in thinking style, not the ideas we prefer. You need to discuss collaboration at the start of the problem solving process to minimise the impact of “Problem B”. The greater insight is for the design of our public services. Are public services (from digital online services to in-person services) designed as if all users think alike or do we use these differences to design services for people who do not think alike?

If you read the growing body of work on behaviour insights, you see tips such as, “people prefer structure in their work.” If you believe in cognitive diversity, you cannot accept such generalisations. The same applies to design thinking. People use personas which share common behaviours, yet this approach lacks insight on how thinking style impacts behaviour. I believe that design thinking would be more effective if the design thinkers understood cognitive diversity.

It is for all of these reasons that we need to revisit our understanding of diversity. We know people do not think alike. Imagine if we applied this insight to our efforts to solve problems, collaborate, and design products and services for the public. We may find our results are more productive and seen by the public as highly creative. At a personal level, we may understand how people create ideas and we may ‘stop killing the ideas of people who don’t think like you.’ These are good goals for all public servants and our organisations.

👋 You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more

(Image Credit: Unsplash)