For architects working in multiple project sectors, one of the unexpectedly rewarding aspects of the job is learning about our clients and their work. Occasionally, for the most curious of us, we take a deep dive into particular fields of study and we come away with an enhanced appreciation for our clients’ contributions to the world.

In this exploration, we often gain enough newly found knowledge to inspire dinner conversations on topics as interesting and varied as eSports, the Montessori Method, or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Rarer though is the occasion to stumble upon a concept that resonates meaningfully with our own profession and that challenges or alters our own perceptions of how we work in the industry of architecture and design.

A recent project for a robotics lab led me to an exploration of self-organizing systems in nature referred to as collective intelligence. Imagine schools of fish or mound-building ants that work collaboratively and collectively to ensure protection or successfully complete a task. Essentially, collective intelligence is a measurement of the team’s effectiveness, and the idea applies to human groups as well. Since almost every profession relies on the work of teams, data on what makes a good team is crucial information. What I found is that studies on collective IQ have been performed repeatedly. In 2010 MIT published a report outlining some of the findings:

In two studies with 699 people, working in groups of two to five, we find converging evidence of a general collective intelligence factor that explains a group’s performance on a wide variety of tasks. This “c factor” is not strongly correlated with the average or maximum individual intelligence of group members, but is correlated with the average social sensitivity of group members, the equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of females in the group.* 

 In other words, groups performed better when they were comprised of members who were more empathetic, more egalitarian, and more female.

In the last decade our architecture firm has embraced a philosophy that “all of us are better than any one of us.” It is a belief that a community is better at solving its own challenges than any one individual. We’ve embraced this both internally in how we structure our project teams, as well as externally in how we include a broad range of stakeholders in envisioning a project. The more people have a chance to share their perspective on what is needed in a project, the less likely we are to miss something important in the design.

And although this collaborative sentiment is felt deeply in our ranks, we have not necessarily grounded it in scientific data. But there was proof in witnessing the success of sensitive projects that emerged from profound collaborative efforts.

It is important to note that the burgeoning of this philosophy at our firm occurred in concert with the increase in female participation and leadership within the office. The proportion of women in the architecture industry, and especially at leadership levels, continues to lag behind graduation rates. But it is increasing. The acceptance of female expertise in this industry has been a measured rise, but my perspective – 15 years in – is that the impact is palpable. Firms are actively marketing their collaboration strategies and preference to work with, as opposed to for, communities. We are leaving behind the idea of the “lone genius” and embracing the concept of collaborative engagement. And our projects are better for it.

My feeling had been that correlation between female participation, improved collaboration, and project success were not unrelated. And it turns out, it’s not just my feelings: it’s science.

I have also become aware of the 2019 best seller advocating cognitive diversity, Rebel Ideas: The Power of Diverse Thinking by Matthew Syed. Syed effectively shifts the diversity conversation from one about political correctness to one about performance and innovation. By offering up stories, interviews, and research, he illuminates how blind spots, echo chambers, and the pleasure our brains experience when someone confirms our way of thinking obstruct new solutions to complex problems.

As mother of young children, the conclusions of these studies have steadied the constant uncertainty about my value to the industry. What I should know, and what every woman should know, is that there is a power in our lived experience and in those traits traditionally considered feminine, such as nurturance, supportiveness, and cooperation. Innate social sensitivity, emotional intelligence, and an egalitarian leadership style are valuable characteristics that translate to better team cohesion. Diversity fosters reinvention and growth. These equate to improved execution in many standard metrics of business performance.

The takeaway is simple - when organizations bring more women and diversity to the table, they increase their odds for success.

* Woolley A., Chabris C. F., Pentland A., Hashmi N., Malone T. W., Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science330, 6004 (2010).

See the original Commercial Construction & Renovation's Women in Construction article here.