I have been listening to and re-listening to the audiobook version of James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of the Crowd. I'll be making a variety of posts that explore the key concepts of the book and why they are so relevant to creative work. Similar to other books like Innovator's Behavior or Made To Stick, most people hear about the notions or read quick synopses of them and may not understand the principles to a depth where they really apply them to their own work. In short, the Wisdom of the Crowd holds fundamental principles for anyone wishing to be a successful innovator. There are four essential qualities to "crowds" that make them good for certain kinds of problems. They are:
1. Independence of opinion 2. Diversity of opinion 3. Participants use their own local knowledge 4. There is a mechanism to aggregate the diverse thinking and "average it" And Surowiecki discusses the kinds of problems crowd intelligence is applicable to: problems of cognition, coordination, and cooperation. For the most part, questions of innovation such as, "Which idea will become the most valuable?" are cognition problems. Their answer lies in the future and are not knowable before they happen. But I think it is the qualities necessary for a crowd's wisdom to be tapped that are non-intuitive and the hardest to appreciate. Read them over again and try to make sure to pause and think about what they mean. In essence, these properties are why distrust of experts or the singular individual which will have the right answer is a productive skepticism to hold. And I also think it describes why some individuals do become well known for their stellar track record. Surowiecki offers the legendary investor Warren Buffet as an example of an exception to his rule of experts. But I think it is exactly Surowiecki's principles that explain Buffet's success. Buffet is especially in tune to the wisdom of the crowd and he uses it to make his investing decisions. He and others like Peter Lynch are known for going and experiencing the products and services of the companies they evaluate. They talk to everyday people about their experiences. They embody the fourth principle -- they seek diversity and independent thinking and can "average it." This is very different than leaders who are often characterized as "doing what they want, regardless of what they hear." How good are you at soliciting diverse opinions and integrating what you hear into a more informed decision? I'll explore why this capability is fading rapidly or already gone in many organizations and what you can do to start bringing back in a future post.
Comments