The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies (review)

Where do you store your ketchup, in the refrigerator or in the cupboard? Ketchup storage illustrates a problem of coordination when people do things differently. People don’t much care how the condiment is stored; they just want to find it. However, sometimes we can improve our situation when we are exposed to other ideas and techniques. In the engaging book, The Difference, Scott Page claims that groups of diverse persons are better at solving problems and making predictions than individuals who are smarter or groups with uniform perspectives and methods of looking at problems. In terms of diversity, Page is talking about diverse ways of looking at, engaging with, interpreting and predicting solutions for problems. Rather than conforming to each other’s perspectives, Page exhorts us to appreciate and work with our differences, like where we store ketchup, in order to be better problem solvers.

Page does not claim that diverse perspectives and toolkits will be better for solving problems in every case. In part, it depends on how one defines the “problem” to be solved. If the problem is finding the optimum new product to sell or public policy to employ, then a diverse set of perspectives is likely best. If the problem is how to mobilize a group into social action, then more uniformity might be better. Indeed, Page acknowledges that common perspectives allow for quick and error-free communication. The downside is that when we have identical perspectives, we are likely get stuck rather than find our way to the best solution. Our desire to conform, which is a function of our social being, leads to common perspectives. If everyone adopts an unproductive perspective, this can lead the group to make bad decisions. While he notes that “groupthink” can foster disastrous policy decisions, common perspectives can also foster trust, which can also lead to improved outcomes. So which is best when? The question remains unanswered.

Another difficulty is the source of diversity. Page notes that diverse perspectives do not come from the ether but are constructed from other perspectives. In this process, there is superadditivity: One plus one equals twelve. “Thus, if we hope to continue to innovate and reach new understandings, we must encourage the creation of new and diverse perspectives.”(50) But how does this work? How do we create these diverse toolkits? Page doesn’t really explain this although he does explain that affirmative action might fit within his framework. But this may be an important question that relates back to his model. One can envision different models for achieving diversity in cognitive toolkits. For example, there might be institutionalized diversity (like affirmative action), spatial diversity, and collective or “ground-up” diversity (through the use of so-called “weak ties” in a network). But, how people with diverse tools are assembled may affect the ability of the collective to perform the desired task.

This issue also relates back to the problem definition. Problems can involve information aggregation (each person in a group holds a different piece of the puzzle), coordinated searching (we spread out in search of the best solution), and sharing different perspectives (the classic brainstorming session). These are all present in The Difference, but it would seem the processes are very different. Social influences would seem to play a large role, but he does not discuss a specific mechanism.

Page creatively illustrates his model in interesting thought experiments, but the book’s empirics are a little thin. This is understandable in that Page is explaining a model that generates hypotheses, but this reader yearned for more concrete examples. Of course, the book should motivate empirical researchers across (yes) diverse disciplines, from social psychologists to social network analysts to business school researchers. And the book does raise interesting questions that could link disciplines. Are diffusions of fads facilitated by lack of diversity in perspectives? Is innovation and entrepreneurship really the...