August 25, 2025 • 10 mins
The FORE tribe in Papua New Guinea practiced eating their dead, leading to diseases they didn't associate with their customs. An expedition found the tribe's animal classification mirrored modern science. In organizations, diversity can reveal new solutions, as seen in biotech and software firms, where diverse perspectives improved strategies and avoided costly mistakes. Balancing efficiency with diverse input is crucial for innovation.
#diversity, #efficiency, #innovation, #biotech, #software, #culture, #organizations
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the Colig Experience episode. Get ready to explore bold insights, daring experimentation,
(00:11):
and groundbreaking leadership strategies. Today, we're diving into the fascinating
world of human categorisation from the four tribes' sophisticated systems to how modern
organisations balance efficiency and diversity to drive innovation. Let's start.
The Fori tribe, an indigenous people living in the mountains of Papua New Guinea, had a unique
(00:35):
custom. They used to eat their dead. Yes, exactly like that. Even though this practice caused many
diseases that the tribe members suffered from, it never occurred to them to stop this distinctive
tradition. Disgusting. Disgusting. But you have to admit it was efficient. In 1965, an expedition
(00:58):
from the American Museum of Natural History set out for the high mountains of Papua New Guinea
to study animals that had adapted to live at elevations above 1900 metres. There, they encountered
the four people for the first time. The expedition discovered that the four also divided the animals
they knew in their environment into groups and subgroups, just like the scientists did.
(01:23):
What was even more remarkable was that their classification system was very similar to that
of modern science. Following this discovery, the expedition conducted a fascinating experiment.
They took seven men from the tribe and moved them to a place they had never visited before,
located at an elevation of 1100 metres. It's important to note that in this region,
(01:46):
there's a natural break at 1500 metres elevation, meaning the animals living below this height
are different from those living above it. The seven four men, therefore, were unfamiliar with
the animals in this new location where they had arrived, and yet they classified them into groups
and subgroups very similar to those used by modern researchers. We, like other animals,
(02:11):
are categorizing creatures. In nature, this is a very important trait. It's important to classify
plants to distinguish between those that are poisonous and those that aren't. It's important
to classify the animals in our environment to distinguish which ones are predators and which
ones aren't. This is important, and you know what, it's also efficient. When we see a tiger,
(02:37):
we don't need to wonder whether this particular tiger belongs to a subgroup of tigers that decided
to become vegetarians. We can save the time required to find out from him what his position is,
regarding the question of whether we're worthy of serving as his meal. Even though there are no two
identical tigers in nature, and no two identical humans, all humans and all tigers know very well
(03:02):
what's going to happen if they meet. And that's why the modern phenomenon of diversity seeking
recognition is a phenomenon that creates anxiety for many people. This happens because the inability
to classify those in front of us into familiar and clear groups undermines the familiar stability
and order. That's why some would prefer to turn back the clock to a reality where there are distinct
(03:27):
groups that are easy to distinguish and classify precisely, just like we distinguish between tigers
and house cats. There are women, and there are men, there are whites, and there are blacks, and there are
well, the point is clear. This phenomenon is also a familiar organizational one, perhaps much more
(03:48):
familiar than it seems to us at first thought. In many ways, organizational reality is quite
similar to the jungle, isn't it? Competition for resources in the environment very aggressive.
The ecosystem changes frequently. Sometimes one mistake is enough to get devoured.
Therefore, the natural tendency of organizations and those who manage them is to be as efficient as
(04:13):
possible. We try to maximize the efficiency of the organization's internal processes because this
creates a competitive advantage and a greater chance to survive and thrive in the jungle.
So here's the thing. No, that's not always the case. Let us explain. We'll start with an assumption
that says the more similarity there is between people in a system, the more efficient it will be.
(04:39):
And conversely, the more diversity and variety there is in the system, the more different
perspectives there will be on the same reality. And from here, there will be a need to create
synthesis between these perspectives, which will take time and consume resources. Not efficient.
Now, in parentheses, we must say that unfortunately, we're forced to replace the word diversity,
(05:04):
and also its cousin, variety. After they became the ultimate PC test of every organization,
it's no longer possible to go back and use the natural and basic meaning of these words.
These words are now reserved for social and political struggles that have expropriated their
use. You can agree with these struggles or not, but these concepts are definitely no longer neutral.
(05:30):
Close parentheses, let's say we're holding a discussion about the organization's marketing
strategy. Who do we invite to the discussion? Those who are connected to marketing and strategy,
who probably won't we invite? Everyone else. Why? Because it's not efficient. Why isn't it efficient?
(05:51):
Because they don't understand marketing or strategy. And besides, it's not their job.
And they certainly have plenty of work to do in the area that is their responsibility. So why
bother them with something else? What's behind this line of thinking? Because we love to categorize,
we don't see people, we see titles, roles. And as we said, this is very efficient. But sometimes
(06:16):
it's really not desirable to be efficient. There are situations where it's worth giving up the
filter that screens people according to their roles, and simply see people. There's a situation that
almost certainly every manager has encountered in their career. Let's say you're calling a meeting
with several people to think together in a kind of brainstorm about some problem.
(06:40):
Among others, you invite an employee and also their team leader. Then somewhere at the beginning
of the meeting, suddenly it happens. They exchange hidden messages. And after a few seconds, the
employee gets up and leaves the room while the team leader throws into the air. I know their opinion.
I'll represent them here. Now, we need to honestly say that many times it really is right to be
(07:05):
efficient and not waste two resources on the same problem. But sometimes it's complete foolishness
because sometimes we're not looking for the employee's opinion. We're looking for their
participation, for the interaction of their experience and knowledge with that of others in
the room, hoping that something new will be born from these connections. Take our experience
(07:28):
working with a biotech startup, developing a new drug delivery system. The leadership team wanted
to make a quick decision about their clinical trial design and initially planned to have just
the head of clinical operations represent the entire clinical team's perspective. But when we
insisted on including the lab technicians and junior researchers who actually handled the
(07:52):
day to day experiments, their insights about practical implementation challenges led to a
completely different trial protocol that ultimately saved the company six months and significant
resources. The inefficient inclusion of diverse voices prevented a costly strategic mistake.
(08:12):
We understand that this isn't efficient, but we equally understand that there are challenges for
which efficient processes aren't suitable. And we're also clear that when it comes to
complex questions that don't have simple answers, what matters isn't the knowledge that exists
between the ears of people in the room, but rather the interactions between them.
(08:36):
And the more diversity and variety there is in the room from a functional and conceptual
perspective, the greater the chance that from these interactions something new will grow that
wouldn't have emerged if we just tried to be efficient. Consider another example from our
work with a software company struggling with user adoption of their enterprise platform.
(08:58):
The engineering leadership was convinced they needed more sophisticated features and initially
wanted to limit the product roadmap discussion to senior developers and product managers.
However, when we brought in customer support representatives, sales engineers, and even the
office manager who happened to be a former teacher, the conversation shifted entirely.
(09:20):
The teacher's perspective on learning curves led to insights about user onboarding that the
technical team had completely missed. The inefficient inclusion of non-technical voices
revealed that the adoption problem wasn't about missing features. It was about overwhelming new
users with complexity. But, and this is a big but, if you're going for diversity and variety,
(09:46):
you need to work differently. There's no point in trying to run an efficient discussion
and bring many people to it, so there will be many opinions. It's a bit like pressing the gas
pedal and the brake at the same time. Lots of wasted energy and zero progress. If there's an
issue important enough to explore in a room full of perspectives, give it the respect it deserves
(10:10):
and pause the efficiency for a moment.
And that wraps up today's podcast. We explored how the four tribes' unique practices and
classification systems reflect the human tendency to categorize and how embracing diversity
over mere efficiency can lead to innovation in fields like biotech and software.
(10:36):
Don't forget to like, subscribe and share this episode with your friends and colleagues
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights. Stay tuned for more updates.
Welcome to the Colig Experience episode. Get ready to explore bold insights, daring experimentation,
(00:11):
and groundbreaking leadership strategies. Today, we're diving into the fascinating
world of human categorisation from the four tribes' sophisticated systems to how modern
organisations balance efficiency and diversity to drive innovation. Let's start.
The Fori tribe, an indigenous people living in the mountains of Papua New Guinea, had a unique
(00:35):
custom. They used to eat their dead. Yes, exactly like that. Even though this practice caused many
diseases that the tribe members suffered from, it never occurred to them to stop this distinctive
tradition. Disgusting. Disgusting. But you have to admit it was efficient. In 1965, an expedition
(00:58):
from the American Museum of Natural History set out for the high mountains of Papua New Guinea
to study animals that had adapted to live at elevations above 1900 metres. There, they encountered
the four people for the first time. The expedition discovered that the four also divided the animals
they knew in their environment into groups and subgroups, just like the scientists did.
(01:23):
What was even more remarkable was that their classification system was very similar to that
of modern science. Following this discovery, the expedition conducted a fascinating experiment.
They took seven men from the tribe and moved them to a place they had never visited before,
located at an elevation of 1100 metres. It's important to note that in this region,
(01:46):
there's a natural break at 1500 metres elevation, meaning the animals living below this height
are different from those living above it. The seven four men, therefore, were unfamiliar with
the animals in this new location where they had arrived, and yet they classified them into groups
and subgroups very similar to those used by modern researchers. We, like other animals,
(02:11):
are categorizing creatures. In nature, this is a very important trait. It's important to classify
plants to distinguish between those that are poisonous and those that aren't. It's important
to classify the animals in our environment to distinguish which ones are predators and which
ones aren't. This is important, and you know what, it's also efficient. When we see a tiger,
(02:37):
we don't need to wonder whether this particular tiger belongs to a subgroup of tigers that decided
to become vegetarians. We can save the time required to find out from him what his position is,
regarding the question of whether we're worthy of serving as his meal. Even though there are no two
identical tigers in nature, and no two identical humans, all humans and all tigers know very well
(03:02):
what's going to happen if they meet. And that's why the modern phenomenon of diversity seeking
recognition is a phenomenon that creates anxiety for many people. This happens because the inability
to classify those in front of us into familiar and clear groups undermines the familiar stability
and order. That's why some would prefer to turn back the clock to a reality where there are distinct
(03:27):
groups that are easy to distinguish and classify precisely, just like we distinguish between tigers
and house cats. There are women, and there are men, there are whites, and there are blacks, and there are
well, the point is clear. This phenomenon is also a familiar organizational one, perhaps much more
(03:48):
familiar than it seems to us at first thought. In many ways, organizational reality is quite
similar to the jungle, isn't it? Competition for resources in the environment very aggressive.
The ecosystem changes frequently. Sometimes one mistake is enough to get devoured.
Therefore, the natural tendency of organizations and those who manage them is to be as efficient as
(04:13):
possible. We try to maximize the efficiency of the organization's internal processes because this
creates a competitive advantage and a greater chance to survive and thrive in the jungle.
So here's the thing. No, that's not always the case. Let us explain. We'll start with an assumption
that says the more similarity there is between people in a system, the more efficient it will be.
(04:39):
And conversely, the more diversity and variety there is in the system, the more different
perspectives there will be on the same reality. And from here, there will be a need to create
synthesis between these perspectives, which will take time and consume resources. Not efficient.
Now, in parentheses, we must say that unfortunately, we're forced to replace the word diversity,
(05:04):
and also its cousin, variety. After they became the ultimate PC test of every organization,
it's no longer possible to go back and use the natural and basic meaning of these words.
These words are now reserved for social and political struggles that have expropriated their
use. You can agree with these struggles or not, but these concepts are definitely no longer neutral.
(05:30):
Close parentheses, let's say we're holding a discussion about the organization's marketing
strategy. Who do we invite to the discussion? Those who are connected to marketing and strategy,
who probably won't we invite? Everyone else. Why? Because it's not efficient. Why isn't it efficient?
(05:51):
Because they don't understand marketing or strategy. And besides, it's not their job.
And they certainly have plenty of work to do in the area that is their responsibility. So why
bother them with something else? What's behind this line of thinking? Because we love to categorize,
we don't see people, we see titles, roles. And as we said, this is very efficient. But sometimes
(06:16):
it's really not desirable to be efficient. There are situations where it's worth giving up the
filter that screens people according to their roles, and simply see people. There's a situation that
almost certainly every manager has encountered in their career. Let's say you're calling a meeting
with several people to think together in a kind of brainstorm about some problem.
(06:40):
Among others, you invite an employee and also their team leader. Then somewhere at the beginning
of the meeting, suddenly it happens. They exchange hidden messages. And after a few seconds, the
employee gets up and leaves the room while the team leader throws into the air. I know their opinion.
I'll represent them here. Now, we need to honestly say that many times it really is right to be
(07:05):
efficient and not waste two resources on the same problem. But sometimes it's complete foolishness
because sometimes we're not looking for the employee's opinion. We're looking for their
participation, for the interaction of their experience and knowledge with that of others in
the room, hoping that something new will be born from these connections. Take our experience
(07:28):
working with a biotech startup, developing a new drug delivery system. The leadership team wanted
to make a quick decision about their clinical trial design and initially planned to have just
the head of clinical operations represent the entire clinical team's perspective. But when we
insisted on including the lab technicians and junior researchers who actually handled the
(07:52):
day to day experiments, their insights about practical implementation challenges led to a
completely different trial protocol that ultimately saved the company six months and significant
resources. The inefficient inclusion of diverse voices prevented a costly strategic mistake.
(08:12):
We understand that this isn't efficient, but we equally understand that there are challenges for
which efficient processes aren't suitable. And we're also clear that when it comes to
complex questions that don't have simple answers, what matters isn't the knowledge that exists
between the ears of people in the room, but rather the interactions between them.
(08:36):
And the more diversity and variety there is in the room from a functional and conceptual
perspective, the greater the chance that from these interactions something new will grow that
wouldn't have emerged if we just tried to be efficient. Consider another example from our
work with a software company struggling with user adoption of their enterprise platform.
(08:58):
The engineering leadership was convinced they needed more sophisticated features and initially
wanted to limit the product roadmap discussion to senior developers and product managers.
However, when we brought in customer support representatives, sales engineers, and even the
office manager who happened to be a former teacher, the conversation shifted entirely.
(09:20):
The teacher's perspective on learning curves led to insights about user onboarding that the
technical team had completely missed. The inefficient inclusion of non-technical voices
revealed that the adoption problem wasn't about missing features. It was about overwhelming new
users with complexity. But, and this is a big but, if you're going for diversity and variety,
(09:46):
you need to work differently. There's no point in trying to run an efficient discussion
and bring many people to it, so there will be many opinions. It's a bit like pressing the gas
pedal and the brake at the same time. Lots of wasted energy and zero progress. If there's an
issue important enough to explore in a room full of perspectives, give it the respect it deserves
(10:10):
and pause the efficiency for a moment.
And that wraps up today's podcast. We explored how the four tribes' unique practices and
classification systems reflect the human tendency to categorize and how embracing diversity
over mere efficiency can lead to innovation in fields like biotech and software.
(10:36):
Don't forget to like, subscribe and share this episode with your friends and colleagues
so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful insights. Stay tuned for more updates.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.