Diversity is multi-layered
There has now been at least 20 years of research to tell us that having people from different backgrounds and perspectives leads to better decisions and better performance. We even have pretty specific data; the tipping point for better firm performance is when three or more female directors are appointed. Or that companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians (McKinsey 2015).
However, what about the diversity that you can't see?
There are fundamental aspects of diversity which aren't so visually obvious and therefore harder to easily identify. What about background diversity?
There are definitely well-trodden paths to the boardroom. It seems you need to have the right ‘cultural fit’ for the board room and blue-chip senior management credentials. Perhaps this is why the people who jump through all the right hoops are usually on multiple boards? It doesn’t strike me as the most inclusive criteria and the optimal set of people to challenge the management of a company.
So let's unpick ‘cultural fit’, so other than gender, racial or ethnic homogeneity, we are talking education/class/background. A recent article in Harvard Business Review highlights a multitude of positive aspects to promoting people from lower socio-economic groups to more senior positions (better leadership qualities, more advocacy amongst the work force etc..)
In a world where so many start-ups are mentored by blue-chip/VCs, isn’t it interesting that so few corporates are open to input the other way around?
In our current environment start-ups or SMEs have often had to pivot, anticipate major shifts or innovate fast to avoid stagnation or even liquidation. Wouldn’t this ability to shift thinking or create seismic cultural change be insightful for more established organisations?
And finally, what about cognitive diversity?
The same concern about ‘cultural fit’ applies. All our brains have a pre-disposition to how they evaluate information on multiple dimensions which defines our individual thinking style. This style varies between people on multiple levels; one is faith in intuition versus need for statistical evidence. Another would be people who are driven to achieve versus people who are trying to prevent failure or loss. These differences affect the way we evaluate information.
What's more, scientific studies show that in a group, the more diverse the thinking styles and conflicting views, the more ideas we can generate and the best decisions are made when not everyone agrees. The reason being that people evaluate all avenues more critically.
However, collaborating with people who have conflicting views to you is conceptually hard and more stressful than the frictionless experience of working with people 'like you', but much less likely to produce the same ground-breaking opportunities and enhanced revenue growth.
At The Vision we have devised a specific format to engineer diverse thinking for complex problems or strategy formulation in your business.