So we bring different kinds of people together in a team.
But the question is,
will they say different kinds of things?
Right. It turns out probably not.
They tend to focus on what they have in common instead.
Right? So, like, you know the same thing I do.
I was thinking the same thing.
We could be friends.
So, Okay, if we have a group of people who are very similar,
maybe they won't change each other's perspectives
because they're too busy enjoying how similar they are,
and getting more extreme in their positions.
Now, we're going to get a group to gather people who are different. That will work.
If only we compose a team of people who know different things. They'll just share.
They'll just share.
And combine. Right.
They'll work.
Well, bad news.
As you know that doesn't happen either.
Right. So there's something we call the common knowledge effect,
which is that when you put a diverse group of people who know each
has a unique set of knowledge that needs to be shared in order to solve a problem,
what ends up happening is that people don't
actually share the unique information they have.
They end up focusing on the information they have in common.
Right. I notice what you say that matches what I'm already thinking,
and I tend to then reinforce and build upon that so that we can build common ground.
Right. So, if we do come from different perspectives,
we have a different challenge which is,
can we talk about the same things together?
Right? So, pragmatically I can build on what you're saying,
I can understand, I can add something relevant.
The collective effect of all of that influence of trying to build
common ground is all the different information we might have shared,
we're not really going to focus on that.
Right. So, the whole point of forming a diverse group is just lost,
and you don't get creativity you get commonality again. Right? So-
We identify the intersection we can all agree upon and we focus on that.
So, we have this problem,
we have diverse groups,
we want them to share their different information,
they don't seem to do it.
There are a few reasons we already mentioned.
Right. That, you know, pragmatically,
conversationally, I want to build on what you're saying but it gets worse than that.
Yeah. We're complicated.
It's even more complicated. Right?
One of the reasons is that,
common information is shared quickly,
because we all have it.
So, it becomes immediately a basis for forming
a perspective and then once that perspective forms in the team,
if I realize, oh I have this critical unique piece of
knowledge that directly contradicts this emerging consensus,
it becomes awkward to actually share that.
As we've seen already with conformity, right?
People are very reluctant to do that.
So, one element of this is that people
remain silent about critical information that they have,
and they're unwilling to share it.
So, that gets lost and the team sort of barrels
forward with this perspective that they arrived at sort of easily,
but isn't necessarily accurate or inclusive of all the relevant information.
But we can't just blame individuals for remaining silent.
Right? We've seen this in our research,
that sometimes people actually voice
the critical unique information but it goes into a conversational void.
That people ignore it. It's like, well, I don't have that.
I don't have anything about that.
I don't know what to do with that.
It doesn't fit what we were talking about. Forget it.
Right. So, it's wrong, it's incomplete,
it's illegitimate, and If it's unique I
don't have someone else to say "Oh I have that too." Right?
Right.
This must be right. We have to take it seriously.
So, unless you're willing to obnoxiously and repetitively say "I know this",
you have to take it seriously.
Chances are the groups will again barrel
forward and completely ignore unique information.
So, yet again another barrier to creativity in teams.
