Greater diversity doesn’t necessarily equal better performance, and organizations still have to be mindful of how diversity is managed in order to improve performance, writes Richard Holden
Breaking down the old boys’ club in business, government, and other organizations is intrinsically important. Ensuring greater diversity in organizations – on gender, racial, ethnic, and other lines – is, simply put, the right thing to do.
But some advocates of greater diversity make an extra claim: that it improves the quality of decisions, and hence an organization’s performance. Do the right thing and increase profits or effectiveness. What’s not to like?
Robust empirical evidence to support this claim – that more diverse organizations perform better – is tricky to provide. One can look at more diverse organizations and compare them to less diverse ones. Suppose that more diverse organizations do, in fact, perform better. What does one conclude?
Well, what one should definitely not conclude is that greater diversity causes better performance.
Those things may be correlated. But that could easily be because higher-quality organizations want to, or can afford to be, more diverse. Or it could be some other factor correlated with diversity is the true driver of superior performance. Economists call these “endogeneity problems” – challenges to interpreting a mere correlation between two variables (A and B, say) as evidence that A causes B.
Yet the causal effect of diversity on the performance of organizations is a deeply important question. Ideally, one would like to run an experiment where diversity within teams in an organization is randomly assigned.
Just as pharmaceutical trials randomly assign some patients medication and others a placebo, economists in recent decades have performed field experiments to measure the impacts of all manner of interventions. The quintessential example of this paradigm is the experiments that led to development economists Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer winning the 2019 Nobel Prize in economic sciences.
A pharmaceutical trial of, say, heart medication can determine its causal effect by looking at the average number of cardiac events in the group taking the medication compared with the control group (those on the placebo). Field experiments in economics can determine the causal effect of all manner of social and economic interventions.
That is why a research paper by three economists – Benjamin Marx, Vincent Pons, and Tavneet Suri – published in April 2021 is both interesting and important. It is about just such a field experiment centered on diversity and team performance.
Their experiment involved people working as canvassers for a non-profit organization in Kenya. The work involved going door to door to promote voter registration. Workers were randomly assigned a teammate, a supervisor, and a bunch of people to canvass.
Diversity within the teams was along ethnic lines. This led to: “random variation within teams in the degree of horizontal diversity (between teammates), vertical diversity (between teammates and their supervisor) and external diversity (between teams and the individuals they canvassed).”.
Measuring team-level performance, the authors conclude that “horizontal ethnic diversity decreases performance, while vertical diversity often improves performance, and external diversity has no effect.”. Specifically, teams that were ethnically homogeneous were 20% more efficient in completing their visits than diverse teams. But teams with a manager of the same ethnicity as one of the teammates were about 7.5% less efficient.
There may be a potential trade-off between the different horizontal and vertical effects of diversity in organizations.
Diversity within teams might increase “communication costs” due to a lack of shared experience or common understanding of how to perform tasks together. Or it might be that people prefer working with people most similar to themselves.
On the other hand, homogeneity throughout an organization’s hierarchy may well lead to managers favoring subordinates they more easily relate to.
This is a simple theory, but the authors’ experiment bears it out. Vertical diversity increases performance, perhaps by reducing favoritism. Horizontal diversity decreases performance, perhaps by increasing communication costs.
Diversity can lead organizations to perform better, but that does not mean that greater diversity causes better performance.
As with all experiments, how well the results translate to other contexts is an open question – what is known as “external validity.” It is possible the results apply only to ethnic diversity among non-profit organizations doing voter registration in Kenya.
Or perhaps there are broader lessons. One might be that vertical diversity is particularly important for breaking down inefficient favoritism. This might be as true in Australia or Japan as in Kenya. But to know for sure we’d need to see a randomized controlled trial in those exact environments.
The other lesson is that perhaps the downsides of horizontal diversity might be mitigated or overcome through improving training or communication protocols. It might be the “diversity cost” goes away as people get to know each other better.
Diversity is inherently important. Creating more diverse organizations across society is the right thing to do. It can also lead organizations to perform better.
But the latter isn’t automatic. It depends on how the organization is structured and managed.
This article is republished with permission from UNSW BusinessThink, the knowledge platform of UNSW Business School. You may access the original article here.
An alarming rise in loneliness is damaging our health, our communities and the bottom line. Having convinced themselves of the benefits of remote working, companies must not lose sight of the importance...
Audio available
The growing amount of data on diversity, equity and inclusion (DI&E) can help shine a light on gender imbalances in the workplace and pressure companies to alter their behavior. So said panelists...
Researchers have developed a machine learning-based system that acts as a skills matchmaker to assist with the process of effective job transitions....
Coaches working with leaders who lack emotional intelligence have a tough job on their hands, but here experts share the strategies that can lead to success. ...
Audio availableYou have 4 of 5 articles left to read.
and then