A disaster that could have been avoided
In January 1986 the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after take-off. As people around the world watched, the shuttle burst into flames and split apart, killing all seven on board.
The subsequent investigation found that it was caused by a leaking “O-ring” – a major piece of insulation on one of the shuttle’s fuel tanks.
The investigation also found that, in the weeks leading up to the tragedy, a group of engineers and rocket scientists had warned of precisely this issue. They knew, and tried to tell senior decision-makers, that launching the shuttle in cold weather would make the insulators more susceptible to precisely the type of failure that caused the disaster.
Things could have been very different had the engineers been listened to.
The problem was (and I say this as someone who studied engineering) that they attempted to communicate the issue like engineers.
They tried to communicate a complex topic in a complex manner that worked for people with exceptional technical skills, such as themselves, but wouldn’t work for the other 95% of the population.
In this case, the result of miscommunication was tragedy.
Outside rocket science fields, in more “ordinary” organisations, teams of technical people have this type of problem every day, although usually on less of a mortal scale.
The people with the technical expertise to understand and design the highly complex systems that their organisations depend on – financial models, legal designs, IT systems, scientific discoveries etc. – don’t appear to have the communications expertise to get those concepts understood.
It’s almost as if the propensity someone has to understand and design new highly complex rules-based systems is inversely proportional to their ability to communicate that understanding to those without their ability.
And that is precisely the issue.
But there is a solution.
The Different Brains approach outlines a concept to understand what different skills mean for teams and organisations, and how to work together in ways that complement and fully utilise the very different areas of expertise many people have.
We can use Complementary Skills to move beyond an assumption of sameness, and instead make productive use of difference.
It’s a way to move from a mindset of “People who can’t communicate my way are useless” to “Mine is only one way to communicate. We can tap into greater expertise if we set up our teams to accommodate and utilise that difference”.
Learning more
| The presentation | I’ve created a presentation to introduce this topic, and many have found that it introduces a useful idea when presented directly. The presentation outlines this issue, ways to change how we think of different types of expertise, and ways to address the gaps between different types of people. If you you’ve been introduced to the concepts, this handout slide deck can serve as a useful reminder. | Different Brains & Complementary Skills – Presentation (pptx) |
| The working paper | Here’s a link to a draft working edition of a full article on this point. It includes a write-up of the presentation, evidence and reasoning used in the presentation, and exploration of solutions. It’s fully referenced, so could serve as a useful starting point for independent research in the area. | The stable PDF: Different Brains & Complementary Skills Article (PDF). The source document: Different Brains & Complementary Skills Article (docx). |