I'm not so sure diverse (divergent?) approaches to a problem are always better than one leader's effort. For one thing, stand-out genius or talent shows up ran

I'm not so sure diverse (divergent?) approaches to a problem are always better than one leader's effort. For one thing, stand-out genius or talent shows up randomly in populations, it's not really predictable when or where it will occur. But on rare occasion when a natural leader does emerge, suppressing diversity (of problem-solving approaches) is likely the better strategy. The true maxima of human effort have generally followed this pattern, born of singularity and not diversity. Once an innovation is widely enough known, it attracts a diverse range of followers who improve the idea and nurture its maturation. Diversity is useful for the "aftercare" of innovation, but not its creation. The other major point is that value of diversity (however defined) vs. uniformity depends on context. In the context of one's home, there may be many ways to arrange furniture in a room, and with few exceptions, one way is as valid as another. By contrast, in a shared household over time diverse opinions are likely to converge to an arrangement using the space optimally. Diversity probably leads to a better workflow solution vs. one person's choices. OTOH there is not a great diversity of "valid" ways to remove an inflamed appendix, that is, regardless of other considerations, a qualified surgeon is required and procedural diversity is constrained by the anatomical realities. This situation demands uniformity not diversity. Finally, "diversity" has an indeterminate number of definitions, and applicability of the term is entirely dependent on context. On second thought, that would seem to drain it of specificity or meaning, on that ground, I should have a policy of using "diversity" carefully and sparingly.