Cognitive Diversity: Harnessing Different Thinking Styles for Innovation

I'm not going to convince you that diversity in the workplace is important. 

Frankly, you should already be sold on that – study after study have shown that teams with ethnic, gender, age, and socio-economic diversity outperform their more homogenous counterparts in virtually every key performance metric. 

Yet, while we often focus on these traditional, outward-facing aspects, there's another crucial dimension that frequently goes overlooked: cognitive diversity.

People who think differently (literally powered by different cognitive operating systems) bring unique perspectives and problem-solving approaches to the table. 

I’m not just saying this as a neurodivergent startup founder myself. But the proof is in the pudding.

Let’s dig in. 

The Problem-Solving Problem

In his book Rebel Ideas: The Power of Diverse Thinking,” Matthew Syed* posits a compelling argument for cognitive diversity. Syed underscores the real driver of innovation isn’t just talent, it’s thinking differently. 

When individuals bring unique perspectives and problem-solving approaches to a project, they open up avenues for creative solutions.

Homogeneous teams, composed of individuals with similar backgrounds and thought processes, tend to reach consensus quickly. 

Quickly is good. But missing all sorts of angles…not so much. 

Similar individuals often fall into a sort of “groupthink,” where the drive for unanimity (and likely belonging) overrides the motivation to appraise alternative approaches critically. 

On the other hand, cognitively diverse teams might face longer deliberation times but challenging prevailing assumptions often lead to a more comprehensive analysis of issues. 

A variety of thinking styles generates a ‘collision of ideas,’ a dynamic way to discover novel solutions. 

Evaluating Cognitive Diversity

Introduced in 1999, the AEM-Cube is a model developed by organisational ecologist Peter P. Robertson. It is meant to help managers build teams that can quickly adapt to changes, solve problems, and innovate. 

The AEM-Cube measures employees’ (or potential employees’) cognitive biases on three axes:

• Attachment
• Exploration
• Maturity

By plotting them in the cube, managers can easily see how cognitively diverse their team is, or identify any gaps that could be addressed. 

Each axis is not a good/bad or right/wrong spectrum per se. Instead, they represent different cognitive approaches that can complement each other when balanced effectively.

Here’s a closer look at each:

Attachment

This axis measures whether a person is matter-attached or people-attached. As Robertson writes:

Human attachment has mostly been defined in terms of attachment to other human beings. But there seem to be other forms of attachment as well. It has been observed that technical professionals who are forced to stop a project to which they are totally dedicated may become depressed, showing all the signs of someone in mourning.

Before reading that, I might have referred to myself as primarily people attached. I care for, prioritise and dedicate myself to my clients and my team. 

But in saying that, I also recognise a significant amount of matter attachment; I guess we wouldn’t be entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs if we weren’t all a bit obsessed with the problem solving itself. 

Exploration

The second axis is really about risk appetite - will the individual explore the unknown or value stability and safety? 

It might seem effective to have someone who will boldly chase new ideas, but innovation is only possible with incremental (and well informed) decisions. 

Maturity

Robertson puts it best, explaining that the maturity axis explains the “degree to which one is able to assimilate one’s experiences.” Maturity, here, is not physical age but personal development. 

How far along is someone on their journey, and how much can they reflect on their own attachment and exploration tendencies? 

Another word for this might be wisdom. 

Putting it All Together

There are tons of models and frameworks out there to evaluate diversity, team dynamics and organisational effectiveness. 

But what I like most about the AEM-Cube is that it encompasses both neurotypical attachment style ranges, as well as the atypical. And that it’s not about measuring how “good” someone is, but rather, how they are intrinsically wired.

The Science

So how does this look in practice? 

Over a stretch of 12 years, Alison Reynolds and David Lewis studied how traditional diversity—gender, ethnicity, and age—affected problem-solving capability specifically. What they found was somewhat discouraging; there was no real correlation. 

But, after shifting their focus to cognitive diversity (with the help of the AEM-Cube), a pattern emerged. Suddenly, there was a clear correlation between higher cognitive diversity and better performance. 

Reynolds and Lewis even share specific examples, like an R&D team filled with PhD scientists who performed terribly, never even finishing the task. Even though these team members were incredibly intelligent (and traditionally diverse), they had no cognitive versatility. 

Building a Truly Cognitively Diverse Team

Creating a team that flourishes through cognitive diversity is no accident; it requires deliberate steps to seek out varied thinking styles. 

If you took a look at my leadership team at Bear Venture Group, you’ll see that we are a beautifully divergent bunch.

By design, I sought out a Co-Founder that is my complete opposite-in temperament, in pace, and in risk appetite. Where he is process, system and risk oriented, I am hitting the team fast and hard with the latest creative idea.

My consulting Partners by all accounts, have barely any similarities. But when they come together on a client problem, it’s absolute magic.

Here's a quick blueprint to build your own high performing senior leadership team:

1. Identify Existing Strengths and Gaps

Start by assessing the current cognitive styles within your team. Tools like the AEM-Cube or Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation theory can assist with surfacing a team’s cognitive biases and any gaps. 

2. Recalibrate Recruitment

Reflect on your hiring practices. And proactively hunt with your organisational deficits or improvement areas in mind. 

Find pathway partners that can guarantee access to different types of brains. If you are a professional services organisation, consider partnering with a sports institution or a trade association. 

For example, people might expect me to hire my consultants from investment banks or corporate strategy teams. Instead, I keep tabs on scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs. 

3. Foster an Inclusive Culture

Team members should feel psychologically safe and encouraged to share their unique viewpoints. No compromises can be made here.

4. Rotate Roles and Responsibilities

Sometimes, a simple role change can rebalance a team. Push team members into new and different responsibilities, even ones they might not seem best suited for. They will most likely surprise you!

Challenges Ahead

It’s not easy, and it’s not quick. 

Building a cognitively diverse team can feel risky and painful as you take a chance on someone you might not initially understand; and they may take longer at the beginning to rise to the challenge. 

Moreover, there has long been pressure for employees to “fit in” with the corporate culture. They either don’t want to feel like troublemakers, or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, they are incentivised to disrupt at every chance. 

In Australia, we have something called Tall Poppy Syndrome, where successful people end up criticised or “cut down.” A similar process can play out in the workplace with outside-the-box thinkers if mutual respect isn’t encoded into company culture.

To reap the rewards of diversity, we must be prepared to make proactive investments. 

Final Thoughts

I’ve long been aware of my rather strange (a kinder word might be “unique”) way of thinking.  Whilst that’s largely been an asset to my career, it doesn’t mean I can solve every problem. 

I always make sure to surround myself with people who think in completely different ways, those who see the obvious flaws in my "perfect plan". Plus, we can always learn a thing or two from others, even if you don't quite understand where they're coming from to begin with. 

Recommended Reading

For those who don’t have the chance to read Syed’s whole book, he narrates a short four-minute animation that summarises his findings. Just a warning, though: as soon as you watch it, you’re probably going to buy the book anyway!