Should you focus on diversity of thought in creating an inclusive culture?

You may have heard of the term ‘cognitive diversity’ or ‘diversity of thought’. It’s certainly something we’re hearing more and more about, and we’d like to dig into what we think about focusing on this idea as part of your EDI efforts.

To start with, it’s important to distinguish between neurodivergence and diversity of thought. 

Neurodivergence is an umbrella term to refer to people whose brain processes information in a way that is not typical of most people. Autism and ADHD are two examples of neurodivergence.

Diversity of thought or cognitive diversity refers to the different mindsets, processes and perspectives that individuals bring to their work. 

There’s an important distinction here: Neurodivergent people have been, and continue to be, underrepresented and marginalised in education and the workplace. The same can’t be said for a particular mindset or perspective.

There is also quite a lot of room for different interpretations when discussing cognitive diversity. It’s sometimes used to refer to a group of people with different areas of expertise or experience, other times it’s used to refer to a group of people with perceived differences in personality or communication type. The concept of cognitive diversity relies on the idea that people and their cognitive processes can be easily understood and labelled. You may be familiar with one of the founding theories of cognitive diversity, the Hermann brain dominance theory which divides and labels the brain into 4 quadrants - analytical, practical, relational and experimental. While the intention in discussing cognitive diversity is often very positive, there are a number of reasons why it’s unlikely to lead to positive outcomes. 

Firstly, assigning a particular cognitive approach to people doesn’t allow for fluidity and context-dependent adaptive approaches. Similar to the persistent myth of learning styles, it’s better to provide opportunities for people to be flexible in their cognitive processes and acknowledge that we are all multifaceted, and likely to have different approaches at different times.

There are several critiques of the concept of cognitive diversity based on a lack of retest reliability and the fact that the assessment is self-reported (rarely a reliable measure). Put simply, there’s little evidence that people’s cognitive approach is consistent from one point in time to another so is there any real value in assigning the label based on one particular instance?

Labelling people also brings with it a risk of stereotyping. The Hermann brain dominance theory mentioned above has 16 sub-labels, 4 per quadrant. Some examples of sub-labels include ‘logical’, ‘analytical’ and ‘feelings based’, ‘emotional.’ We know these qualities and descriptors are far more likely to be observed and applied to certain genders and races and therefore could perpetuate certain harmful stereotypes. They are also very context-dependent and again, it’s very difficult to say that people are really one thing or the other.

The idea of an organisation full of diverse perspectives, challenging views and new approaches is what we’re all striving for. The condition needed for this to happen is psychological safety which is the result of creating inclusive, equitable cultures where people feel able to take risks.  The way we think doesn’t happen magically overnight. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s the result of our background, our culture, and our experiences - which are largely shaped by the way the world responds to us. Diversity of thought is a by-product of a diverse team and organisation, not a substitute for it.

Finally, and importantly, prioritising diversity of thought over the representation and inclusion of people from different demographic backgrounds and lived experiences fails to address systemic inequalities and marginalisation.