Building the rock tumbler: how to break look-alike thinking

This is article 4 of 6 in The Rock Tumbler series. Here is article 3.

Everyone wants the Holland result. A brilliant solution that survives politics and transforms infrastructure for decades. Nobody wants the Holland process. Breaking look-alike thinking is not theoretical. It is political, cultural, and financially complex. Drawing on three decades of corporate transformation and more than sixty acquisitions, this article examines what actually works when trying to build teams that can see systems problems. The barriers are real. The costs are high. It is doable, if you know what you are walking into.

Series one of this collection made the case that look-alike business teams are structurally unable to evaluate systems-level change, introduced the Rock Tumbler Theory as the alternative, and watched it prove itself at a two-billion-dollar scale in the Netherlands.

Now comes the hard part.

How do you actually build a rock tumbler inside a real organisation? Not in theory. In practice, with real politics, real budgets, and real resistance from people who benefit from the current arrangement.

I have spent thirty years on this problem. Not studying it. Living it. Across way too many acquisitions, dispositions, and reengineering projects, in industries that don't exactly celebrate unconventional thinking. What follows is what I've learned, including what I got badly wrong.

Everyone wants the result. Nobody wants the process

When I share the Holland story with business leaders, the response is almost always the same. Heads nodding. Recognition. Yes, that's what we need. Different questions, diverse teams, long timelines, public process.

Then I ask, "How long are you willing to wait for results? How much political capital are you prepared to spend to protect a team that moves more slowly initially and makes everyone uncomfortable? How will you handle it when the plan gets killed by a leadership change, and you have to wait five years for it to resurface?"

The nodding stops.

The Holland process took six months of open collaboration, survived political death, lay dormant for five years, and was resurrected without the creators' names attached. That's what systems transformation actually looks like. Most organisational initiatives that require that kind of timeline get killed long before they produce results. Not because they fail. Because the organisation runs out of patience.

The first thing to reckon with honestly. Do you actually want to build a rock tumbler, or just the idea of one?

Why good intentions fail and keep failing

In my experience, most diversity and innovation initiatives fail for the same reason: they change the composition of the room without changing what happens in the room.

You hire people with different backgrounds. You announce that fresh thinking is valued. You create an innovation lab. And then the people in those roles quickly learn, through a thousand small signals, that the way to survive and advance is to think like the people who already have power. So they do. And within eighteen months, you have a more demographically varied team producing exactly the same thinking as before.

The problem isn't the people. The problem is the environment they're operating in. If the incentive structures reward conformity, if the performance reviews value consensus, if the promotion decisions favour those who don't rock the boat, then different thinking will be selected out regardless of what the hiring policy says. People are not stupid. They adapt to the environment they're actually in, not the one described in the values statement.

The three barriers nobody names

I've watched the same three barriers kill initiatives to build teams that think differently, over and over, in otherwise well-run organisations. They are rarely discussed honestly because naming them implicates those in power.

The first is political. Look-alike teams protect themselves. The people who have succeeded within the current system, who have been promoted, rewarded, and recognised because they think like the dominant culture, have a genuine stake in that culture's continuation. They are not villains. They are rational actors. When you introduce people who think differently, who challenge assumptions, and who ask questions the current team never thought to ask, you are threatening the foundations of those people's success. The resistance that follows is real, organised, and often invisible. It doesn't look like opposition. It looks like "not a cultural fit."

The second is cultural. Culture fit is more powerful than any diversity initiative I have ever seen. It operates below the level of conscious policy. It lives in who gets invited to which meetings, whose ideas get expanded on versus politely acknowledged, and who gets the benefit of the doubt when they say something unconventional. You can mandate different backgrounds in hiring and produce look-alike thinking in practice, because the culture selects against difference at every subsequent step.

The third is financial. Teams that genuinely think differently are slower initially. They disagree more. They require more facilitation. They produce more friction, which is precisely why they produce better outcomes on systems problems, but which, in the short term, looks like inefficiency. In an environment governed by quarterly targets, slower initial progress is lethal. The team with fresh thinkers gets compared unfavourably to the look-alike team in month three, before the friction has had time to produce anything. And it gets shut down.

What actually worked in the rooms I was in

Let me be specific, because generalities are comfortable and specifics are useful.

The interventions that worked were almost always structural rather than cultural. You cannot talk your way to different thinking. You cannot workshop your way there. You have to build structures that make it necessary.

Here is one pattern I returned to repeatedly. Separating the people who generate options from the people who evaluate them. Look-alike evaluation committees kill fresh ideas before they can be fully formed. When I could create a protected space for idea generation, with genuinely different people, with explicit permission to challenge assumptions, and with evaluation deferred, different thinking had room to breathe. It didn't always survive the evaluation stage. But it survived long enough to become visible, which is more than it got in the standard process.

Another pattern which worked. Changing the composition of the room for specific decisions rather than overhauling the whole team. You don't always have the luxury or the mandate to restructure. Sometimes, you can bring in people with different lenses on a defined problem, with explicit authority to challenge the frame. Situational and improvisational, as Josh Harrison described his parents' methodology. Not permanent staff. Who does this specific problem actually need?

What consistently did not work. Adding different voices to a room where the power structure remained unchanged. If the hierarchy still determined whose input was taken seriously, different inputs became decorative. I have been in rooms where technically varied teams produced functionally look-alike decisions because everyone understood who actually made the choices.

The hiring question that changes everything

This is the single most useful reframe I found in hiring for teams that think differently. Stop asking whether a candidate fits the culture. Start by asking whether they can see what the current team cannot.

This requires you to know what the current team cannot see, which itself requires uncomfortable honesty. What are our shared assumptions? What questions do we never ask? What possibilities do we systematically discount? Where do our frameworks stop working, and we don't notice?

Most leadership teams I have worked with cannot readily answer these questions. The blind spots are, by definition, not visible from inside. This is where an external perspective, from advisors, from people who have worked in genuinely different industries or disciplines, or from people who have experienced the organisation's decisions from the outside, becomes essential. Not as decoration. As a structural requirement for seeing your own incapacities.

Building tolerance for productive friction

The rock tumbler requires friction. What it does not require is chaos. There is a real difference between productive disagreement and organisational dysfunction, and leaders who want to build teams that think differently need to understand the distinction.

Productive friction has a container. It happens within a shared commitment to a goal, with genuine mutual respect, and with ground rules for how disagreements are handled. It is a matter of friction over ideas and approaches, not about identity or worth. It is uncomfortable without being unsafe.

The container matters as much as the variety. I have seen teams with very different backgrounds produce nothing because they couldn't find a way to use their differences constructively. And I have seen mixed teams produce genuine breakthroughs because someone had built the structures, the norms, the facilitation, and the psychological safety, that allowed real friction to occur without destroying the collaboration.

Building that container is leadership work. It cannot be delegated to HR or outsourced to a consultant. It requires sustained attention from the person at the top of the room, modelling the behaviour they want to see. Genuine curiosity about views that differ from their own, visible willingness to change position when challenged well, and demonstrated protection of people who say uncomfortable things.

Timeline expectations: the honest version

If you are expecting rock tumbler results in ninety days, stop. You will be disappointed, and you will conclude that bringing in different thinkers doesn't work. Which is the wrong conclusion.

In my experience, genuine integration of teams that think differently, where the friction has become productive rather than merely uncomfortable, and where the different perspectives are actually informing decisions rather than being tolerated around the edges, takes a minimum of twelve to eighteen months. More often, two to three years. The Holland housing initiative took six months of open process and five years of dormancy before it bore fruit.

What this means practically is that any initiative designed to build different thinking needs protection from short-term evaluation. It needs a champion with enough political capital to keep it alive through the inevitable period when it looks slower and messier than the alternative. It needs a timeline measured in years, not quarters.

This is not a counsel of despair. It is a preparation for reality. The organisations that have built genuine capacity for systems thinking have done so because someone was willing to absorb the short-term cost to gain the long-term capability. In my experience, that someone has to be at or near the top. Middle management cannot protect this work from above.

The cost-benefit case: the honest version

Let me be direct about what this costs. Because I think the business case for building teams that think differently is often made dishonestly. In other words, all benefit, and zero cost.

The costs are real. Political capital is spent protecting the initiative from people who find it threatening. Comfort is sacrificed by everyone in a room where genuine friction is permitted. Speed initially decreases as teams that disagree move more slowly than those that don't. Leadership attention is sustained over years rather than months.

And the benefit, the only honest framing of the benefit, is this. These are the only teams capable of seeing and responding to systems problems. For sustainability challenges, climate-related business risk, and, frankly, any problem that requires understanding of connections across systems and long timescales, look-alike teams are neither slower nor less effective. They are structurally unable to see what needs to be seen. The cost of building different thinking is real and manageable. The cost of its absence is the continued inability to see the problems that will determine whether your organisation exists in twenty years.

That is the position I have come to after thirty-plus years. I will not pretend it is a comfortable one. I will say, though, that it is an honest one.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the opinions of leading Sustainability Thought Leaders, their views do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The world needs sustainability knowledge. At illuminem, no interest group or shareholder can influence our work. Thank you for supporting our mission to make high-quality and independent sustainability information free for all. Every contribution helps. Thank you for donating today.