Why do you hang out with people like you? Because you have to be friends with your friends’ friends. Society does not give you permission to dislike (or not know) your friends-of-friends. It’s called the forbidden triad. There is a complex quantitative puzzle involving triangles with plus and minus signs, all coded and ready for an elaborate statistical analysis. You can peek at the math in this October 2016 overview of the research by Dustin Stoltz, a PhD candidate at University of Notre Dame.
But back to people. The main problem is cognitive dissonance, that feeling you get when you are obliged to maintain two contradictory opinions at the same time. An example may be that you both love and hate a particular family member, politician, or manager in your workplace. Cognitive dissonance makes you uncomfortable, and you aspire to greater comfort. Therefore, you will choose between contradictory opinions and let one prevail over the other. So, you decide that you like that complex person. If you then meet a third-party who dislikes that person, you have to even-out the triangle. You will be motivated to change the third person’s mind, change your own mind, or just stop hanging out with the third party. If everyone does this, friendships and world views will evolve within cliques that are internally consistent, comfortable, and smug. But that’s not so clever.
That is because social networks are held together by people who choose to maintain contradictory opinions. They foster civil dialogue, cultivate plurality, and agree to disagree. It’s not so much that they are smarter, although that may still be the case. It’s that the exploration of the best information and the most diverse opinions guarantees contradiction. You will find attributes that seem contradictory but not mutually exclusive, such as sensitivity and courage. You will find rival facts, such as the prevailing research on global warming and colder winters in your own locale. And there will be facts that change quickly, such the price of oil or a change of government.
Workforce Analytics and the Workplace Culture of Curiosity and Discomfort
If you place comfort ahead of maximum information, then you have to insulate yourself from contradiction. Yet this can be a big mistake in the modern world. How could you possibly choose a stable mindset when the amount of information is exploding, technology is disrupting everything, and ideas and opinions go round the world in a heartbeat. It’s a wild and crazy world we live in. You must choose discomfort, and reject the allure of smug.
In workforce analytics, there is a great divide between colleagues and clients who are curious about new information and those who are not. It often feels like I exclusively support those hungry for the new, who like the challenge, who want to pick up a few tricks. Yet those who are more settled in their views or slower to change need to be brought along for the ride. That is because at the center of the social network people are obliged to commit to, and support, prevailing views. They tend to agree with one another just like you might do with your own friends. Looking outward to the fringes of the network, you might see a wider variety of irregular opinions, trends, and opportunities. The fringe is full of people who are removed from the network in some way, be it marginal legal status, geographic isolation, exclusion, or just looking different. To bring diverse views from the fringe to the center (and vice-versa) obliges us to maintain contradictory opinions.
The prescription that we must become uncomfortable applies equally to social trends, new technology, and disruptive workforce analytics. In your workplace, you may have had one opinion for a very long time. When you are presented with change or new evidence, it is one thing to simply obey orders or comply with the data. But if you really want to be clever, it is far better to hold onto that moment of discomfort for a while to get a sense of what everyone else is going through. Only then can you talk to diverse people who think and live in different worlds. And only then can you fine-tune new evidence to make it presentable to a broader audience.
If we are to disrupt normal ways of doing things through emerging information, we must stand at the bridge between two worlds, be prepared to disrupt ourselves, and get used to discomfort.