Conformity Has A Higher Value Than Diversity

Image courtesy

"So many innovation processes are simply toxic to creating conditions in which people feel moved to acknowledge real needs. Bureaucracies flourish by subordinating spontaneous human responses and awareness to standardised systems. Organisational hierarchy means we're going to be guarding our status before we share anything resembling our vulnerability"
Johnnie Moore

I think we consistently underestimate the power of conformity in organisations and industries. It is almost always valued more than diversity. The barriers to change that it creates - fear of failure, fear of the unknown, fear of isolation - means that in cultures that attempt to 'manage' innovation it can take a lot of courage to innovate because, as Johnnie goes on to say, "innovation goes with disruption and disruption is what 'processes' (typically) endeavour to eliminate".

Great ideas often have lonely childhoods and, as Hugh MacLeod has pointed out, they often alter the power balance in relationships and so are always initially resisted. This I think touches on the real strength of social technologies in connecting agents of change within organisations and across industries. Groups with shared values, common interests, objectives, passions. Groups that are willing to challenge the toxic assumptions and sacrifice the sacred cows. Social technology helps to spread learning, refine opinion, share stuff that works. It helps people spread change and break down the silos that "help restrict organisational potential". It offers interaction and inspiration but just as importantly, it offers validation - as this simple presentation from Sacha Chua captures rather succinctly:

Smarter Work: Why Social Networks Matter

View more documents from Sacha Chua.

But it's worth reflecting on the other side to this coin. In The Element, Sir Ken Robinson talks a lot about the role of diversity and dynamism in creativity and an important distinction between finding and being in your tribe, and being part of a crowd:

"We aggregate as groups for the same essential and primal purposes. The upside for us is that groups can be tremendously supportive. The downside is that they encourage uniformity of thought and behaviour".

Research has shown that innovative ideas tend to emerge more readily in communities in which people work in small and relatively isolated groups where early stage, incomplete and vulnerable ideas are given space and time to mature. But an overabundance of connections, where everyone is connected to everyone else, can reduce diversity and keep radical ideas from taking hold.
So find your tribe, but avoid the crowd.

Comments

[david cushman]

Odd (but perhaps tribal) that we do seem to write about similar things at similar times. In this case (very different angle but similar message) my blog post 'bored of twitter' http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2009/09/bored-of-twitter.html

Nutshell: For the evolution of ideas we need diversity, for our engagement we need relevance. Solving the tension between these offers the answer to 'what comes after twitter;.

[Mark]

GWF!

Actually, there is another thing that leads to what we know of as "innovation" & which is actually a lot more common than intentional innovation: "random drift" - that is conformity gone wrong (miscopied).

And of course, conformity is neither good nor bad in itself (unless you're championing intentional innovation which is Johnnie's point, I think); it's value-neutral. It just happens to lie at the heart of our species' success, being one of the easiest ways for members of a social species to learn from their peers!

[Promotional Products]

Very intriguing article, I've read so many articles about being diverse and innovative. This is interesting to hear your thoughts about this subject. I like your idea of working in small isolated groups. I would agree that ideas flow more in this format.

[Randall Klopping]

The reason that innovative ideas prosper better in small group structures is because such groups tend to be based much more on cooperation rather than on competition. Each individual is allowed more freedom in which they can freely talk about their ideas. In such a group they each pool their own strength and in doing so overcome one another's weaknesses.

In large group structures the atmosphere tends to be the opposite. They tend to believe strength comes from competition and thus unwittingly tend to force conformity and in the end undermine the trust factor that is essential for any group to truly work together and in the end, the cut-throat, dog eat dog environment eventually destroys the group.

Innovation is a byproduct of imagination and individuals who are in a high stress atmosphere tend to loose theirs. Those who are in an environment where they are free to express their ideas are more likely to use their imaginations because they trust those around them not to put them down or steal the idea.

Thus conformity is not the issue, it is cooperation and trust that the difference comes from. Conformity is often forced upon us and that in itself stifles innovation, but earn their trust and let them earn yours and then conformity isn't even a question.