Please listen to the short video clip and then then post your view on Scott Page's idea of diversity with a small 'd.' Once you have posted, go to the poll on the right side of the blog and post your view on this idea.
After viewing the video clip, I have conflicting ideas. I do think diversity within a community and drawing on experiences and strengths within this group is beneficial. I think too many times we do not tap into these strengths as we should. However, I am not sure if random groups of people would always work. I think there has to be some type of commonality and knowledge base about the problem or concept at hand.
Melanie, I agree with you. In my experience, diversity with strong leadership is very important to creating a culture of positive change in any organization or community. As Scott Page said, diversity is very important in a community, but it also takes a strong leader(s) to help keep that diverse group moving in a positive direction to accomplish their goals. I just completed interviews for three positions in the Division of Student Affairs that we were fortunate to fill. Between the three positions, we had approximately 40 very qualified people apply. Our goal in the selection process was to hire the most qualified people that could fit into our culture and also bring something to the staff that we may not already have (diversity). I believe we were able to accomplish this task.
Just curious Dickie. Did you all have any "diversity" on the interview committee? I mean was there someone from outside your department who could provide their feedback? Just asking:)
Joel, we did not have anyone from outside the Division of Student Affairs. But we did have diversity in race, sex, and departments of Student Affairs represented on the committee. Are you volunteering for the next interview committee we have? I have to warn you, we only take people who are not afraid of the Voki :)
I agree almost 100% with Mr. Page's comments on "diversity" vs "Diversity". I don't however think that just randomly getting folks off of the street in a focus group will result in the best answers to the questions. However, putting a few of these individuals into the mix creates an outside point of view and sparks questions that may not have been examined otherwise. For example, in some research that i am pursuing looking at transition students going in to higher ed whom have disabilities, today a community of professionals from all aspects of working with students (counselors, teachers, administrators, coordinators, etc) we met to discuss some direction and a model for improved resources and service delivery to increase success for this population. The "diversity" in the room brought about great suggestions and ideas for things that me nor my employment could have ever come up with. After viewing this video, I could see that maybe even having a disabled student present would have made for even better feedback!
I agree with Peters in that diverse groups of people may better solve issues, especially in higher education. For example, we have a service delivery committee that is working on an enhanced set of quality standards on how we respond to our students. This committee has representatives from not only student affairs but also faculty, public relations, institutional effectiveness, advisors, etc. One would traditionally think that the student services office should solely develop these standards, but having a more diverse group has produced more innovative and “out-of-the-box” ideas than a group only consisting of student services.
With respect to Peters comment about “random groups of people”, I suspect he said it in this manner for effect. I would assume there is a process in the randomness, as it could counterproductive if everyone in the group cannot comprehend whatever topic is being discussed.
Scott Page's research rings true for me. One, because we know that a random sample usually represents the larger population best and yields the most generalizable results. Two, I have witnessed similar outcomes in my work with Emergenetics, the science of thinking preferences and behavioral attributes. For instance, tackling a project or problem with a group of "experts" who are all Structural thinkers is not productive. Yes, they reach a consensus quicker (and they probably have a timeline, agenda, checklist and recommendations document to show for it) but their solution can be lopsided may not serve all constituents well. Same is true for assembling a panel of Analytical thinkers to develop plans for the Science Division. Yes, they know the content, but their panel would benefit from some Relational thinkers and some Conceptual thinkers who would see the problem or situation WAY differently and would offer perspectives the Analytical thinkers probably wouldn't have thought of. Ensuring diversity with a lower case "d" is not the quickest, most efficient way to solve a problem and get closure on the task, but it can be the most effective way to solve a problem with a real solution that will work for the long-term and for the widest group of constituents.
After viewing the video clip, I have conflicting ideas. I do think diversity within a community and drawing on experiences and strengths within this group is beneficial. I think too many times we do not tap into these strengths as we should. However, I am not sure if random groups of people would always work. I think there has to be some type of commonality and knowledge base about the problem or concept at hand.
ReplyDeleteMelanie, I agree with you. In my experience, diversity with strong leadership is very important to creating a culture of positive change in any organization or community. As Scott Page said, diversity is very important in a community, but it also takes a strong leader(s) to help keep that diverse group moving in a positive direction to accomplish their goals. I just completed interviews for three positions in the Division of Student Affairs that we were fortunate to fill. Between the three positions, we had approximately 40 very qualified people apply. Our goal in the selection process was to hire the most qualified people that could fit into our culture and also bring something to the staff that we may not already have (diversity). I believe we were able to accomplish this task.
ReplyDeleteJust curious Dickie. Did you all have any "diversity" on the interview committee? I mean was there someone from outside your department who could provide their feedback? Just asking:)
DeleteJoel,
Deletewe did not have anyone from outside the Division of Student Affairs.
But we did have diversity in race, sex, and departments of Student Affairs represented on the committee.
Are you volunteering for the next interview committee we have? I have to warn you, we only take people who are not afraid of the Voki :)
I agree almost 100% with Mr. Page's comments on "diversity" vs "Diversity". I don't however think that just randomly getting folks off of the street in a focus group will result in the best answers to the questions. However, putting a few of these individuals into the mix creates an outside point of view and sparks questions that may not have been examined otherwise. For example, in some research that i am pursuing looking at transition students going in to higher ed whom have disabilities, today a community of professionals from all aspects of working with students (counselors, teachers, administrators, coordinators, etc) we met to discuss some direction and a model for improved resources and service delivery to increase success for this population. The "diversity" in the room brought about great suggestions and ideas for things that me nor my employment could have ever come up with. After viewing this video, I could see that maybe even having a disabled student present would have made for even better feedback!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Peters in that diverse groups of people may better solve issues, especially in higher education. For example, we have a service delivery committee that is working on an enhanced set of quality standards on how we respond to our students. This committee has representatives from not only student affairs but also faculty, public relations, institutional effectiveness, advisors, etc. One would traditionally think that the student services office should solely develop these standards, but having a more diverse group has produced more innovative and “out-of-the-box” ideas than a group only consisting of student services.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to Peters comment about “random groups of people”, I suspect he said it in this manner for effect. I would assume there is a process in the randomness, as it could counterproductive if everyone in the group cannot comprehend whatever topic is being discussed.
Scott Page's research rings true for me. One, because we know that a random sample usually represents the larger population best and yields the most generalizable results. Two, I have witnessed similar outcomes in my work with Emergenetics, the science of thinking preferences and behavioral attributes. For instance, tackling a project or problem with a group of "experts" who are all Structural thinkers is not productive. Yes, they reach a consensus quicker (and they probably have a timeline, agenda, checklist and recommendations document to show for it) but their solution can be lopsided may not serve all constituents well. Same is true for assembling a panel of Analytical thinkers to develop plans for the Science Division. Yes, they know the content, but their panel would benefit from some Relational thinkers and some Conceptual thinkers who would see the problem or situation WAY differently and would offer perspectives the Analytical thinkers probably wouldn't have thought of. Ensuring diversity with a lower case "d" is not the quickest, most efficient way to solve a problem and get closure on the task, but it can be the most effective way to solve a problem with a real solution that will work for the long-term and for the widest group of constituents.
ReplyDelete