Great minds don’t think alike

There’s an obvious need for creative thinking in a world characterised by ‘disruption’ – both to overcome today’s complex challenges and to seize new opportunities. As Albert Einstein famously put it, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". CEOs generally agree that diversity of thought is key to improving innovation - and results. The problem is, most corporate ‘diversity and inclusion’ efforts are not really aimed at broadening cognitive inputs. Instead, they are focused on improving, say, the representation of women or ethnic minorities - single, usually physical, aspects of our identity. These efforts also tend to be tucked away in special programmes, rather than embedded into the way a business is actually run. As a result, their impact is falling short. We may be wary of admitting it, but the whole D&I ‘thing’ isn’t really working, leaving many feeling frustrated, cynical or just bored with diversity initiatives. 

Ironically (but unsurprisingly), groupthink is getting in the way of improving diversity of thought. 

If we really want more innovative, creative thinking, it’s pretty obvious that businesses need the inputs of those who actually think differently. Hiring a woman who happens to think very similarly to the man she is replacing or joining on the team may improve gender balance, but is less likely to improve results than if a woman is hired because she thinks differently. (The issue of whether men and women tend to behave and think differently is a big, controversial topic in itself – personally, I believe that men and women are equal but typically somewhat different and we should celebrate and nurture these differences rather than try to pretend they don’t exist. There are, of course, many people who aren’t ‘typical’! If you’re interested in delving deeper, see Chapter 4 in my book A Good Time to be a Girl.)

Neurological diversity - differences in the way our brains are wired - is little understood, so it’s hardly surprising that its barely recognised, much less properly considered in the workplace. There are infinite variations in the way human beings think; the term ‘neurodiverse’ includes people with recognised differences such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia. It’s estimated that at least ten percent of us have a diagnosable form of neurodiversity, but the more we think about it, the harder it is to come up with a definition of what’s ‘normal’. In his book The Power of Neurodiversity: Unleashing the Advantages of Your Differently Wired Brain, Dr. Thomas Armstrong points out that ‘instead of pretending that there is hidden away somewhere a perfectly normal brain to which all other brains must be compared, we need to admit that there is no such brain, just as there is no standard flower or standard cultural or racial group and that, in fact, diversity among brains is just as wonderfully enriching as biodiversity and the diversity among culture and races.’ 

This seems quite intuitive; the problem is that most of our workplace practices and procedures aren’t set up to encourage difference. Recruitment processes, for example, are - increasingly - standardised, favouring the (higher achieving) ‘neurotypical’ over the unusual brain. What’s more, artificial-intelligence-based filtering tools aimed at overcoming human biases may actually reinforce them. You may have heard about Amazon ditching (in 2018) a recruitment programme created to automate its search for top talent. The company realised that the process was biased against women– because the computer model was vetting applications based on CVs received mostly from men (because the tech industry is male-dominated). The computer had learned to discount CVs that revealed the applicant was female (for example, if they had attended an all-women’s college or played in a women’s sports team). Just imagine how much greater the bias might be (based on the average successful candidate’s credentials) if the applicant had attended special schools for learning difficulties, or had particular cognitive challenges as well as skills. By their nature, automated programmes are not designed to pick out ‘different’ talent. Even techniques like video interviews where the candidate speaks to a camera can unhelpfully narrow the field. Several (very bright) graduates have told me they really clam up in these ‘robot’ interviews and yet they know it’s a hurdle to overcome before they can meet and engage with a real person. And even then, we’ve all heard the expression that someone ‘interviews well’ – but what about those who don’t, who may be brilliant and just what the business needs but aren’t so good at selling themselves? 

I often cite the recruitment challenge posed by Andy Haldane, Chief Economist at the Bank of England in a great speech he gave on diversity entitled ‘The Sneetches’ (after Dr. Seuss’ parody). There are two candidates for a position, A and B. They take a test based on attributes useful for the hiring organisation. Candidate A scores 8/10 and candidate B scores 4/10. Which one should be hired? The answer seems easy. A is by far the best candidate. He or she has quite literally ticked the right boxes. But let’s add a twist. What if the answers A gets wrong are two of only four that B gets right? And what if none of the rest of the existing team can get those two right? B is the candidate who brings skills to the organisation that it does not already have. The right recruitment decision for the organisation is to choose B. Candidate B adds more to the collective ability of the organisation, even though they are weaker individually. The question is, how often would existing recruitment practices deliver such an outcome?  I think this would hardly ever happen today. Individuals are typically judged on the alignment between their skills and those of the existing organisation. It takes quite a leap of faith to choose instead the candidate whose skills are misaligned with the hiring organisation, and especially someone who might think very differently. 

The BBC has just published an interesting story about Universal Music UK’s new guide for companies to ‘embrace neurodiversity in the creative industries’. Again, the figures are estimates (many are undiagnosed or undisclosed), but it’s thought that up to 40% of those in the creative industries are neurodiverse in the way the term is generally applied. It’s no coincidence: in the guide’s foreword, Florence Welch writes ‘People would talk as if my songs, my achievements, my career etc. had been achieved despite things like my dyslexia. But I was thinking, might it not be because of those things?’ The guide offers really strong practical tips around how to recruit, manage and mentor neurodiverse talent and is well worth a read https://umusic.co.uk/Creative-Differences-Handbook.pdf

Beyond the creative industries, there are plenty of examples of people with extraordinary abilities who don’t have a ‘typical’ mind – and who might very easily fail a standard recruitment process. The BBC cites Direct Line insurance company and intelligence agency GCHQ as two organisations who work consciously to attract and develop neurodivergent talent. GCHQ has been actively recruiting neurodiverse people for 20 years to create a ‘mix of minds’, looking for those who have an unusual ability to focus and find links and patterns that neurotypical people might not see. GCHQ apprentices are three to four times more likely to have dyslexia than the national average, and the agency says that ‘some of our most talented and creative people have a neurodiverse profile.’ The agency prides itself on adapting workplaces and practices to work for those whose brains might be wired a bit differently.  For example, interview styles are adjusted so that care is taken not to ask candidates multiple questions at the same time and using a whiteboard or flipchart to ‘park’ questions to return to later. Once hired, simple workplace adjustments including noice-cancelling headphones and voice-to-text or text-to-voice software to enable people to work effectively. 

Your company might not literally have codes to crack but all organisations are likely to benefit from a range of ways of thinking about an issue. Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister’s Chief Special Advisor, posted a blog over the New Year looking for ‘super-talented weirdos’ to assist No.10. He wrote: "People in SW1 talk a lot about ‘diversity’ but they rarely mean ‘true cognitive diversity’.…. What SW1 needs is not more drivel about ‘identity’ and ‘diversity’ … but more genuine cognitive diversity. We need some true wild cards, artists, people who never went to university and fought their way out of an appalling hell hole…By definition I don’t really know what I’m looking for but I want people around No.10 to be on the lookout for such people."

Cummings’ language might seem provocative but the idea of actively seeking talented people who will challenge the status quo with unconventional ideas is surely right – especially today. Those ‘wild cards’ may not have a diagnosable different brain-wiring but some very well might. Yet today, according to the National Autism Society, only 16% of those diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum are currently in fulltime employment in the UK. Employers are often very unsure how to get started - and how to manage people who might think very differently. The Diversity Project (which I chair) is explicitly trying to create new, diverse thinking in the investment industry, a sector that urgently needs to challenge itself more. Last December, the Project’s neurodiversity workstream held a seminar to help employers deepen their understanding. It was standing-room-only; an encouraging sign that the business case for truly different thinking is becoming accepted. A few firms have already moved from theory to practice; the encouraging results include some unexpected positive impacts, such as managers becoming better at managing and communicating with everyone. See https://diversityproject.com/neurodiversity to find out more.