Blog Post
Most leadership teams don’t avoid diversity of thinking because they dislike it. They avoid it because they assume it will slow everything down.
More perspectives → more discussion → longer meetings → less productivity.
It’s a believable story. It’s also often wrong.
In a short clip, Dr Juliet Bourke addresses the productivity objection with a simple experiment: two groups, the same time limit, very different outcomes. Her point is blunt: the real productivity drain isn’t “discussion”. It’s rework.
And the stakes aren’t soft. Bourke’s research has linked low diversity of thinking with an ~30% built-in error rate, while diverse thinking teams can deliver an ~20% uplift in innovative capability.
The productivity myth: “We don’t have time for that”
The myth usually sounds like this:
“We’re moving fast.”
“We don’t have time for everyone’s perspective.”
“We’ll debate this forever.”
“We just need a decision.”
Underneath it is a fear that cognitive diversity equals productivity more talk, more friction, less progress.
But what teams are actually trying to avoid is this pattern:
Decide fast → miss key perspectives → ship a weak decision → reopen it later.
That “later” is where time disappears: delays, resistance, fixes, reversals, escalations.
Dr Juliet Bourke’s experiment: same time, different result
Bourke describes giving two groups the same problem and the same time limit.
Group 1: “Go for your life”
This group did what most teams do by default: brainstorm together, riff, build the solution live in the room.
It looked productive: energy, volume, whiteboards full of activity.
But when they stepped back:
the output lacked depth
they had lower confidence in what they produced
observers weren’t convinced it would “hold” in the real world
Group 2: structure the thinking first
The second group used the same hour differently:
they clarified how people approach problems upfront
they gave space for those different approaches to develop properly
then they stitched the perspectives together
The result covered more of the field, with fewer gaps, and higher confidence.
Same hour. Different quality.
Why unstructured brainstorming often underdelivers
This isn’t just a “meeting style” issue. Decades of research has shown that traditional interactive brainstorming groups can underperform compared with people generating ideas independently first (and then pooling them).
Translation: a room can feel busy and still produce a thinner solution than it thinks it did.
What this actually proves
The takeaway isn’t “structure makes meetings nicer.”
It’s this:
Unstructured discussion often optimises for momentum, not completeness. So you get the illusion of speed—until reality catches up.
And once a decision is public, missing perspectives don’t disappear. They show up as:
implementation failure
stakeholder backlash
risk exposure
“we didn’t think about that”
the decision quietly being reopened
That’s the productivity cost.
What “diverse thinking” looks like in practice (without adding hours)
Most teams don’t need longer meetings. They need clearer roles for the thinking that already exists.
A simple way to pressure-test decision quality is to make sure each lens gets airtime:
Outcomes: What are we trying to achieve? What does “good” look like?
Options: What else could we do? What are we not considering?
Evidence: What do we know, and what do we need to validate?
Risk: What breaks? What’s irreversible? What’s the downside case?
People impact: How will this land? Who carries the consequences?
Delivery/process: How does this actually happen end-to-end?
If a team consistently skips one lens, it doesn’t save time. It just delays the cost.
Why “dissent” is part of productivity
High-quality decisions require legitimate challenge.
Research on dissent shows that exposure to differing viewpoints can stimulate more original thinking and improve the quality of outcomes—even when it’s uncomfortable.
That discomfort is not dysfunction. In many cases, it’s the mechanism that stops weak decisions becoming expensive ones.
And there’s a broader point here: groups of diverse problem-solvers can outperform groups made up of the “best” individuals, because they search the solution space differently.
The alternative has a name: groupthink
When teams prioritise unanimity and speed over realism, they can fall into groupthink—including self-censorship and an illusion of unanimity.
It feels efficient in the moment. It’s costly in execution.
The real productivity metric: decisions that hold
The best definition of productivity in decision-making isn’t “how fast we decide.”
It’s:
How rarely we have to fix the decision after we make it.
That’s what Bourke’s experiment illustrates. Cognitive diversity isn’t a cost. Used deliberately, it’s one of the most reliable levers for decision quality—without adding time.
Where Decision Profile Mapping fits - Embrace Cognitive Diversity
At Wizer, Decision Profile Mapping is how we make these decision lenses visible across a team—so leaders can see what’s over-represented, what’s missing, and how to design decision panels that reduce rework before it starts.
FAQ: Cognitive diversity, productivity, and decision quality
NO read below
Does diversity of thinking slow teams down?
Not inherently. It can feel slower in the moment because more perspectives surface earlier, but it often saves time overall by reducing rework — decisions being revisited because key risks, evidence gaps, stakeholder impacts, or delivery realities weren’t considered upfront.
What is cognitive diversity?
Cognitive diversity (diversity of thinking) refers to differences in how people approach problems and decisions — what they prioritise, what they notice first, and what they need to feel confident in an outcome.
Why do leaders believe diverse thinking wastes time?
Brainstorming is often unstructured and optimises for momentum and volume of ideas. Structured diverse thinking deliberately gives distinct decision lenses space (for example: outcomes, options, evidence, risk, people impact, delivery/process) and then integrates them — improving completeness and decision confidence.
How does cognitive diversity improve decision quality?
It reduces blind spots. When teams ensure multiple decision lenses are present, they are more likely to surface risks early, validate assumptions, strengthen options, anticipate stakeholder reactions, and design decisions that can actually be executed.
What is groupthink and how does it relate?
Groupthink is a pattern where teams prioritise agreement and speed over quality, leading to self-censorship and missed issues. It can look efficient in the meeting, but it often becomes expensive during execution.
How can teams use cognitive diversity without adding more meetings?
Use a structured agenda that guarantees each decision lens gets airtime (even briefly). Many teams don’t need more time — they need better sequencing: clarify outcomes, expand options, check evidence, pressure-test risk, consider people impact, confirm delivery reality, then integrate trade-offs.
What is Decision Profile Mapping?
Decision Profile Mapping makes the thinking mix in a team visible. It shows which decision lenses are over-represented, which are missing, and where blind spots are likely to appear — so leaders can design the right mix of perspectives for the decision at hand.
Are some decision profiles “better” than others?
No. There are no bad profiles and no hierarchy. The value of a decision lens depends on the decision. Strong teams ensure the right perspectives are available and used intentionally at the right moment.
