Subject matter experts (SMEs) are sought for their mastery of a topic, but political science writer Philip Tetlock in his book, Expert Political Judgment, found diligent researchers, who applied critical thinking to a problem, performed equally as well or slightly better than SMEs when it came to forecasting political outcomes.
This phenomena applies equally well to intelligence analysts. SMEs are often held in high esteem for their in-depth knowledge of a single topic, but less specialized “diligent researchers” sometimes present stronger analysis. What gives diligent researchers an edge over their SME counterparts? Here are some possibilities:
- Non-SMEs interpret facts with fresh eyes. They don’t have preconceived ideas because every circumstance is new, so they evaluate data with less bias.
- Non-SMEs don’t have comprehensive knowledge of a subject like the expert, so they research. In fact, they are so driven to understand every angle of a problem they don’t know when to stop. But the exhaustive process leads to a strong understanding of the core issue, as well as the factors that shaped and fed it.
- Non-SMEs can’t rely on their expertise, so they are more willing to let structured thinking techniques guide their conclusions. Formal methodologies generally produce more accurate results because they reduce personal bias.
There is also a lesson for managers who hire based solely on a potential hire’s subject matter expertise, degree, or experience at a prestigious agency. A less celebrated candidate who displays intellectual curiosity, tenacity, and a healthy dose of humility may be the unexpected talent.