August 16th, 2010
Todays word of the day…equifinality.
We should probably find an easier way to say what this word means, but it is an important idea.
I find myself talking more and more about cognitive diversity (differences in thinking styles) all the time and have started writing about it a bit as well. I think it is important for people to understand what cognitive diversity is, why it can be valuable and what kinds of things can get in the way of us realizing that value.
An important part of this conversation is the concept of equifinality, which is basically the idea that in an open system there are multiple ways to get the outcome that you want to get. This is an important part of the cognitive diversity conversation because the less you are open to considering and experimenting with other ideas and approaches, the less you are able to take advantage of the cognitive diversity that you have in your department or on your team.
Some people believe that there is one right way to get to the desired outcome…some people believe there are a variety of ways to get the same outcome.
Where do you fall on that continuum? Based on what we are learning about cognitive diversity it might be in your best interest to “crank up the equifnality” a little bit!
Be good to each other.
Joe,
This is an interesting post and you have creativity linked equifinality to cognitive diversity. Equifinality usually speaks to actions (behaviors), while you have creatively linked equifinality to diversity in thought as well. I find that very interesting.
Can you give an example that you have seen when equifinality in thought not action brought about similar consequences?
Joe,
I already asked the first question, but I want to follow it up with what I am tangled up in.
In thinking about equifinality we are taking about a myriad of open actions that could possibly end in the same consequence. However, you are talking about myriad, diverse thoughts leading to the same possible conclusions right?
I am trying to wrap my head around this because don't thoughts always need to lead to actions to affect consequences?
Diverse thoughts will lead to diverse actions in open systems that could lead to the same possible consequences. But the thoughts themselves? At some point one has to speak the diverse thought into existence to affect something right?
Tell me a little more about what you are thinking here if you would.
Andrew-
Hey man, thanks for reading and responding.
I am not sure if this answers your question or not, but…
If I am a supervisor and I believe strongly that there is one “correct way” to accomplish what we are hoping to accomplish, it makes it more difficult for me to take advantage of the cognitive diversity on my team. Rather than being open to considering many options, rather than experimenting with a variety of approaches and a variety of combinations of approaches, I am trying to identify the one “correct way.”
I think that this orientation also generally results in identifying approaches that are the safest and make the most sense…which are also generally the least creative and innovative.
Belief in the one “correct way” also makes it more difficult for leaders and teams to consider other perspectives and ideas once the one “correct way” has been chosen.
Make any sense?
-joe
Makes perfect sense Joe.
Great response.
Joe, I'm really digging this. And your response to Andrew clarifies further. There are multiple paths to single purpose and I believe this fits in nicely with the movement to customize hiring and onboarding processes per new hire "persona" or type if you will, even to the point of being specific to each unique individual.
That will be tough for HR and talent management folk, but I've read (although can't quote now) of how this approach improves retention, for example.
Joe,
I was thinking more about this post and also thinking about the comments. Most job cultures use top down leadership styles and therefore the diversity that resides within the workplace and amongst the workers is almost never celebrated nor recognized.
However, when the bottom up paradigm is employed, there is room for equifinality that allows growth in organizational creativity and imagination. This is just my opinion. Of course, I am involved in a volunteer program so I often see diverse opinions at work.
What are you opinions? Do you see any differences between the two styles of leadership and whether one is more conducive for equifinality?
That is right on the money Andrew…a big part of the problem is that we have an antiquated philosophy of leadership and organizational development. When we were solely focused on producing widgets as cheaply and efficiently as possible, we could actually encourage employees to leave their hearts and minds (and souls?) at the door. We did not encourage curiously or questions or inquiry…we just wanted you to do a specific task efficiently and quickly. Today we live in a very, very different world. How organizations create value has changed, how we communicate has changed, competitive advantage has changed, etc., etc., etc. Unfortunately our approach to organizations and leadership has not really changed. A lot of wonderful things are being said about a new way of leadership, but I think we still largely see an approach towards leadership/management that is about power and truth not being shared, but being connected to title. That does not promote equifinality and it does not make it easy to capitalize on differences.
-joe