We can’t hear you over how right we are.
I’ve spent almost a decade teaching dialogic interpretation to some of our nation’s best interpreters - gifted storytellers helping visitors examine the complex meanings of our historic spaces, museums and national parks. I work with them on how to better talk about topics our field has historically avoided and most importantly how to honor the vast knowledge and lived experience of our audiences. And in almost every training, someone asks me,
“But what if what they say is wrong? Am I supposed to just let that stand?”
And then I say - but what if they’re right? What if you are both...right?
We all overestimate how much we know — it’s what psychologists refer to as our “bias blind spot.” As Cindy Lamothe writes in The Cut, the bias blind spot is “the idea that our unique life experiences and circumstances give us greater insight than the people we observe or interact with on a daily basis.”
Intellectual humility is the recognition that the things we have believed to be true might, in fact, be wrong. It’s important because, in today’s politically-polarized world, those who are intellectually humble are more likely to learn from people they disagree with - they are more engaged, they listen better and their arguments tend to be more constructive. Which got me thinking...
Can cultural institutions - known for centuries as knowledge keepers and taste makers - thrive by being more intellectually humble?
Though our field has talked about sharing authority ad nauseum, many organizations continue to give lip service to community-led practice while repeating the same antiquated institutional behaviors. Intellectually humble institutions embrace the practice of consistent curiosity, even working to uncover the blind spots in their own knowledge. They are receptive to new information and are focused more on establishing contemporary relevance rather than defending an outdated or inaccurate point of view.
Our industry has long prioritized academic training, multiple degrees and deep subject matter knowledge in hiring. But at Google - a company who lists intellectual humility as one of the traits they most look for in applicants - the least important attribute they look for is “expertise.” Google executive Lazlo Bock explained in the New York Times, “If you take somebody who has high cognitive ability, is innately curious, willing to learn and has emergent leadership skills...and they have no content knowledge, and you compare them with someone who’s...a world expert, the expert will go: ‘I’ve seen this 100 times before; here’s what you do.’ ” Most of the time the nonexpert will come up with the same answer, added Bock, “because most of the time it’s not that hard.” Sure, once in a while they will mess it up, he said, but once in a while they’ll also come up with an answer that is totally new.”
And that’s a vitally important characteristic of an intellectually humble institution - they allow themselves to not know. They don’t pretend to have all the answers — they lead with questions rather than with solutions. It makes them vulnerable, but they find greater satisfaction in seeking the truth than in being right.
Bock goes on to say that the people who are most successful at Google “will have a fierce position. They’ll argue like hell. They’ll be zealots about their point of view. But then you say, ‘here’s a new fact,’ and they’ll go, ‘Oh, well, that changes things; you’re right.’
And that ability to recognize, validate and incorporate new points of view while making decisions? It helps intellectually humble institutions eliminate outdated ways of doing things - particularly policies and practices that are rooted in colonization and white supremacy.
So, though we know that as Vu Le writes, salary cloaking - the practice of not sharing salary ranges in a job posting - “increases the gender and racial wage gaps,” institutions who lack intellectual humility fear that sharing salary ranges gives job candidates the ability to negotiate from a stronger position. They withhold information because they are convinced they know best what a person’s time and effort are worth.
It’s a prime example of how our field has continued to perpetuate intellectual arrogance.
Intellectually arrogant institutions:
are overly attentive to their own strengths and are oblivious to their weaknesses;
appoint leaders who reward only colleagues and staff who think like them;
make decisions based on the preferences of their current audience and funders - those the institution has historically valued - preventing them from considering other audiences or avenues of support;
are unable to admit wrongdoing or apologize for harm they have perpetuated;
are unable to hold the institution, its leadership and its staff accountable for mistakes; and resist change - specifically as related to issues of diversity, equity and inclusion.
So what do we do?
Hire differently. Stop hiring for content knowledge but rather for intellectual humility. People with high degrees of intellectual humility hold aptitudes that, as informal education spaces, we ostensibly seek to foster in our visitors - critical thinking, curiosity, openness and a tolerance of ambiguity.
Elevate team members who embrace collaborative leadership models. Intellectually humble leaders create a positive influence around them: their teams are more transparent and eager to learn.
Read more about how the diverse perspectives of a group make it smarter than its smartest individual.
Select leaders who are unafraid to surround themselves with people of differing perspectives, people who won’t simply rubber stamp things.
Reduce fear of other perspectives by cultivating a spirit of play amongst both your staff and your external stakeholders. Make being wrong, fun.
Acknowledge when you do not know something and cultivate an attitude across your organization of, “We don’t know. Yet. Let’s find the folks who do and work with them.”
Admit when we are wrong - internally, externally and very publicly. Be accountable.
Other ideas? (I’m practicing intellectual humility here…) Drop me a line.