Diversity is delicate
On striking the right balance between different-ness and same-ness
Key insight
Diversity in itself is not good and not bad. Nor is it a goal to strive for. Instead, it is a tool to be managed. Managing diversity well produces goods results. Managing diversity poorly produces bad results.
An unavoidable buzzword
In modern business jargon, there are a few words that never fail to put a smile on my face. Often, these business buzzwords are used in and out of context, without respect for their true meaning, by people who are mainly concerned with sounding smart instead of being smart. As a result, these words have become hollow phrases. Synergy; leverage; disruption. All three are wonderful examples of meaningless buzzwords. However, one of the most misused buzzwords must be diversity. Most of the people who talk about diversity never once stop to think about what diversity really means or why it even matters in the first place. That is a problem. First and foremost, empty talk is irritating to bosses, team members, and customers. At its best, using business jargon can prevent people from gaining a clear view of a topic. At its worst, it can cloud a company’s judgment, leading to entire strategies based on a fantasy or on an ill-understood concept. Let’s set the record straight and apply some scientific rigor to this hot-button issue.
When businesspeople talk about diversity, they usually do so under the assumption that diversity is a good thing per se. They see diversity as a worthy goal in and of itself. Surely, they think, we should always strive to increase diversity: after all, heterogeneous teams outperform homogeneous teams. Also, the customer seems to prefer a high degree of diversity. Another thing to note is that they almost always think of diversity in a very narrow sense, as either cultural or ethnic diversity. They measure a team’s diversity mainly by the amount of different nationalities or the variance in the individual members’ skin color. In this article, I will test those two assumptions to see whether they hold up under scientific scrutiny. I will focus on the effects that diversity can have on team performance, as team performance matters (as I have previously explained in this article). I will make the case for a more nuanced way of thinking about diversity, based on insights from organizational research and the scientific study of team performance.
What is diversity?
Let’s start by defining diversity. At its core, diversity is about real or perceived differences between people. These differences can be found across any characteristic. This includes what one looks like, what one talks like, what one cares about, what one knows, what one is able to do, and so on. So, diversity is a very broad concept. Only thinking about diversity in terms of culture or ethnicity is a mistake. Actually, in many business contexts, culture and ethnicity are amongst the least relevant types of diversity. That brings us to the second mistake many people make: thinking diversity is a good thing in and of itself. That is not true. Instead, diversity should be seen as a management tool. And, like all other management tools, it is not the tool itself that determines the outcome. Rather, it is the way in which the tool is used that matters most. So, when establishing a team, diversity should never be the goal. Instead, it should be a means to reach the goal. Increasing or decreasing diversity can have a significant effect on team performance. Diversity can have either a positive or a negative effect on team performance, depending on the way in which the diversity relates to the task at hand and depending on the way in which the diversity is managed. To explain when diversity is good and when it is bad, I have to explain the categorization-elaboration model.
When is diversity a good thing?
The categorization-elaboration model was introduced in 2004 by organizational psychologists Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan. To understand its core message, you have to know a bit of background on diversity research. For a long time, researchers thought that there were good and bad types of diversity. For example, diversity in skills was thought to be a ‘good’ type (that is to say, that it has a positive effect on team performance), while diversity in ethnicity was thought to be a ‘bad’ type. However, researchers were not able to find good evidence for that hypothesis. They struggled to explain diversity’s effects for a while until the categorization-elaboration model came and shed some light on the issue.
The model revolves around the notion that any type of diversity can be both a good thing and a bad thing. To understand how it can be a good thing, we first have to understand the concept of information elaboration. Information elaboration is the process by which all team members freely and openly discuss all the information that they have, with the goal of finding out what is best for the team. This is usually (but not always) the ideal way of working together: every team member can contribute his or her information, opinion, and expertise. As such, more information elaboration usually leads to higher team performance — especially when the nature of the problem is such that it is required for every team member to add his or her expertise to the discussion, which often is the case in multidisciplinary teams.
Diversity can have a positive effect on information elaboration. After all, if the team members have access to a more diverse pool of skills, knowledge, opinions, and values, they have more instruments at their disposal to solve the problem at hand. However, this positive relationship is moderated by the task at hand and the members’ ability and motivation. In other words: having more diversity leads to more information elaboration, which leads to better performance, but only if the team is working on a task that promotes information elaboration and only if the members are willing and able to engage in the process of information elaboration.
When is diversity a bad thing?
However, it is not a given that more diversity automatically leads to more information elaboration. In fact, diversity can even hinder information elaboration. In that way, diversity can be a bad thing. This happens because of a process called social categorization. Social categorization happens when the team members begin to put the others in categories: those who are similar to them and those who are not similar to them. Social categorization is especially likely if the diversity is salient: if it is easily recognizable and if the differences are large instead of subtle. This must be familiar to you since it is a very natural human process that has evolved over millions of years. However, it can severely hurt team performance if social categorization leads to an intergroup bias. This happens if individual team members experience an identity threat: they feel that their ‘own’ group is discriminated against, treated unfairly, or not taken seriously. As a result, they develop a bias against the other groups. They start thinking in terms of ‘us against them’ and grow to dislike the ‘others’. This process underlies many social problems, for example racism or sexism. It also severely decreases motivation to engage in information elaboration. If you do not trust the others, you are not willing to share your valuable information, opinions, and expertise with them. As a result, information elaboration is decreased and performance suffers.
How should you manage diversity?
So, by now we have established that diversity is a broad concept that can either increase or decrease team performance, depending on how it is managed. I want to present four practical takeaways for making sure that diversity works for you, not against you:
- Think of diversity in a broader sense
Diversity can be applied across all possible characteristics, not just culture and ethnicity. In fact, culture and ethnicity usually don’t make the largest difference. - Promote diversity only when it actually matters
Multidisciplinary teams can benefit from diversity in skills, opinions, and values. However, that is not a given. Always think of diversity in relation to the task at hand. What problem is the team trying to solve? How can the team benefit from diversity? If diversity is not relevant in your specific situation, don’t strive to increase diversity. Remember: it is a tool, not a goal. - In diverse teams, promote inclusivity to prevent intergroup bias
If you are managing a team in which diversity is salient, members are likely to engage in social categorization. While not a bad thing per se, that can lead to intergroup bias. Therefore, it is important to promote inclusivity in such teams. If all members understand and respect each other, they are less likely to develop a negative bias and more likely to engage in information elaboration. - Be culturally sensitive to properly assess social categorization
There are many ‘lines’ along which members can categorize the others. Gender, nationality, ethnicity, professional background, seniority, and so on. Be aware of these so-called ‘faultlines’ to understand in what ways members categorize each other.
