Dr. Jamil Zaki

We are really a hyper individualistic, again, Darwinian species. Really, stack ranking is a social Darwinist approach to management. And the idea is, well, great, if you threaten people, if you make them want to defeat one another, they will be at their most creative when they are trying to do that, right? That it will bring out their best. The opposite is true.

I mean, stack-ranked workplaces, of course, are miserable. The people in them are quite unhappy and more likely to leave their jobs. But some of the more interesting work pertains to what stack ranking does to creativity. Because it turns out that if your job is to just not be at the bottom of the pile... then the last thing you want to do is take a creative risk.

I mean, stack-ranked workplaces, of course, are miserable. The people in them are quite unhappy and more likely to leave their jobs. But some of the more interesting work pertains to what stack ranking does to creativity. Because it turns out that if your job is to just not be at the bottom of the pile... then the last thing you want to do is take a creative risk.

I mean, stack-ranked workplaces, of course, are miserable. The people in them are quite unhappy and more likely to leave their jobs. But some of the more interesting work pertains to what stack ranking does to creativity. Because it turns out that if your job is to just not be at the bottom of the pile... then the last thing you want to do is take a creative risk.

You do not want to go out on a limb. You do not want to try something new if other people are going to go after you for doing that. And if you screw up or if it doesn't go well, you're eliminated from the group. So I think you're exactly right that these cynical environments are also highly conservative. I, of course, don't mean politically conservative.

You do not want to go out on a limb. You do not want to try something new if other people are going to go after you for doing that. And if you screw up or if it doesn't go well, you're eliminated from the group. So I think you're exactly right that these cynical environments are also highly conservative. I, of course, don't mean politically conservative.

You do not want to go out on a limb. You do not want to try something new if other people are going to go after you for doing that. And if you screw up or if it doesn't go well, you're eliminated from the group. So I think you're exactly right that these cynical environments are also highly conservative. I, of course, don't mean politically conservative.

I mean conservative in terms of the types of choices that people make. And that's sort of, I think, at the level of individual creativity. But there's also a cost at the level of what we might call group creativity. A lot of our best ideas come not from our minds, but from the space between us, from dialogue or from group conversation.

I mean conservative in terms of the types of choices that people make. And that's sort of, I think, at the level of individual creativity. But there's also a cost at the level of what we might call group creativity. A lot of our best ideas come not from our minds, but from the space between us, from dialogue or from group conversation.

I mean conservative in terms of the types of choices that people make. And that's sort of, I think, at the level of individual creativity. But there's also a cost at the level of what we might call group creativity. A lot of our best ideas come not from our minds, but from the space between us, from dialogue or from group conversation.

And it turns out that in stacked rank, zero-sum environments, people are less willing to share knowledge and perspective because doing so amounts to helping your enemy succeed, which is the same as helping yourself fail. So to the extent that creativity requires success, a sort of collaborative mindset, then cynicism is preventative of that.

And it turns out that in stacked rank, zero-sum environments, people are less willing to share knowledge and perspective because doing so amounts to helping your enemy succeed, which is the same as helping yourself fail. So to the extent that creativity requires success, a sort of collaborative mindset, then cynicism is preventative of that.

And it turns out that in stacked rank, zero-sum environments, people are less willing to share knowledge and perspective because doing so amounts to helping your enemy succeed, which is the same as helping yourself fail. So to the extent that creativity requires success, a sort of collaborative mindset, then cynicism is preventative of that.

And there's actually some terrific work by Anita Woolley and colleagues that looks at group intelligence, collective intelligence. This is the idea that, of course, people have levels of intelligence that can be measured in various ways and have various forms of intelligence as well.

And there's actually some terrific work by Anita Woolley and colleagues that looks at group intelligence, collective intelligence. This is the idea that, of course, people have levels of intelligence that can be measured in various ways and have various forms of intelligence as well.

And there's actually some terrific work by Anita Woolley and colleagues that looks at group intelligence, collective intelligence. This is the idea that, of course, people have levels of intelligence that can be measured in various ways and have various forms of intelligence as well.

But groups, when they get together, have a type of intelligence and especially creative problem-solving intelligence that goes above and beyond the sum of their parts, that can't be explained and actually in some cases is almost orthogonal. to the intelligence of the individuals in that group, right? Controlling for the intelligence of individuals, there's a group factor that still matters.

But groups, when they get together, have a type of intelligence and especially creative problem-solving intelligence that goes above and beyond the sum of their parts, that can't be explained and actually in some cases is almost orthogonal. to the intelligence of the individuals in that group, right? Controlling for the intelligence of individuals, there's a group factor that still matters.

But groups, when they get together, have a type of intelligence and especially creative problem-solving intelligence that goes above and beyond the sum of their parts, that can't be explained and actually in some cases is almost orthogonal. to the intelligence of the individuals in that group, right? Controlling for the intelligence of individuals, there's a group factor that still matters.

And so Anita Woolley and others have looked at, well, what predicts that type of collective intelligence? And a couple of factors matter. One is people's ability to understand each other's emotions. So interpersonal sensitivity. But another is their willingness to, in essence, pass the mic, to share the conversation and to collaborate.