Divergence required

In a genuine desire to move fast and innovate, leaders can become frustrated when people don’t “just get” what they mean. I can still remember my first management role when I’d spend time “briefing” people on their tasks, then come back to find they hadn’t done what I had expected. I assumed the way forward was for me to either explain harder, or when that failed, to do it myself.

The temptation is then to hire in “like-minded” individuals who presumably require less effort to get on the same page. People who look like us, sound like us, have similar experiences and cultural backgrounds to us. I’ve certainly perceived a genuine connection with a candidate when in reality it was the comfort of sameness.

Some leaders may turn to what they think of as coaching, “I’ll lead them to my idea by making them think it’s their own.” I’ve experienced first-hand managers who were trying to coach me and ended up playing what might be described as a “guess the number in their head” game. I can also think of times I’ve naively done the same.

We reflexively seek homogeneity based on the (often implicit) premise that it is the differences and the effort required to align and remain aligned that create friction and slow things down. The problem is, if you want innovation, divergence is good. The differences aren’t the problem; they’re the catalyst for making better choices and finding better solutions:

Modern leaders embrace complexity, tolerate uncertainty, and manage tension in searching for creative solutions to problems […] managers feel a huge temptation to relieve tension by chopping out complexity and ignoring some of the variables that cause complexity at the outset of the thinking.

Building teams and communities of practice around people with divergent yet complimentary skills, thinking, and ways of working definitely comes with challenges:

It is therefore important to consider – and compensate for – potential negative consequences of team diversity on communication, cohesiveness, and consequently performance.

Taking the time to slow down and consider differences leads to innovation and improved effectiveness:

research has shown that when members of a diverse team proactively take the perspectives of others, it enhances the positive effect of information sharing and increases the team’s creativity.

when a team contains members who all feel included (that is, accepted and valued for their unique characteristics), the team becomes significantly more cohesive, which in turn has a positive impact on its effectiveness.

Interestingly, and perhaps counterintuitively, people don’t necessarily need you to agree with them to feel included. Once people feel and have genuinely been heard and understood, they are much more likely to be open to hearing and understanding others, including you.

I’ve really come to appreciate making the time to practice, facilitate, be aware of, and genuinely value:

1. Divergence: Creating the space for people to come together and unpack and understand their differences;
2. Emergence: Holding the space for others when things become uncomfortable in order to develop understanding and insight; and
3. Convergence: Knowing when and how to help them synthesise concrete outcomes and next actions.

I’m still learning how to be effective at it, and I’m also looking for ways to enable others to do this for themselves.