Diversity Links

In the workplace, diversity is often limited to visible traits like  race and gender, which overlooks factors like neurodiversity or  different personality styles. When business leaders account for  differences in thinking and problem-solving, they can build stronger,  more adaptable teams.

Below, 20 members of Forbes Business Council share insights into the types of diversity that businesses tend to  overlook and why these factors matter. By embracing a broader  understanding of diversity, business leaders can foster a deeply  inclusive workplace where innovation and creativity thrive.

Read more here.

A new study, led by SapienCE scientists Andrea Bender and Larissa Mendoza Straffon,  – in collaboration with cognitive anthropologist John B. Gatewood from  Lehigh, and elaborating on ideas of past SapienCE member Sieghard Beller  – argues that data from comparative cognitive studies across cultures  and languages, among others, should be systematically incorporated in  research on human cognitive evolution. Models that simply  reverse-engineer cognitive abilities from the present into the  evolutionary past require revision.

In the study published in Psychological Review,  the researchers discuss how cultural variation produces diverse ways of  seeing and thinking about the world, and how this subsequently  influences everything from how we perceive and sort colours or represent  spatial relations to the emotions we feel, as demonstrated by  cross-cultural and cross-linguistic data.

Read more here.

 Having to get along with different kinds of people is a normal part of working life, and some disagreement is inevitable. In fact, it is even a sign of a healthy business, experts say. “Conflict is a sign of a high-performance workplace...of people who care, people who are passionate,” says Leigh Thompson, professor of dispute resolution and organisations at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Illinois. Conversely, organisations where people are too fearful of confrontation can suffer because no one wants to say they disagree or offer a different perspective. “We’re hard-wired for likeability, it’s how we have survived as humans,” says Amy Gallo, contributing editor at Harvard Business Review and author of Getting Along: How to Work with Anyone (Even Difficult People). “We really worry about hurting people’s feelings — women, especially, because of the way we’re socialised.” But sometimes there is someone you hit a brick wall with. What then?  

Read more here.

Countless management and HR blogs, articles, and books are packed with  advice about best practices for improving workplace culture, making  teamwork more effective, and ways to stay on task and get the most out  of meetings. In parallel, organizations often query employees with self  and peer assessments to better understand employee engagement. So why  don’t those approaches always work? Most organizations don’t take a  neuroscience perspective into account. What people can and are willing  to self-report does not always predict their behaviors, decisions, and  outcomes. Moving the needle requires getting neuroscience out of the lab  and measuring neural activity in the real world and in real contexts.  That is, we need to measure our brains while we do work at work, quite literally.

To do just that, Slalom, a global consulting company, and the Wharton Neuroscience Initiative (WiN) set out to do something together in 2022–2023 that had never been  done before. With guidance and expert oversight, Slalom employee  volunteers agreed to measure their own brain activity while engaged in  their real work. This data was then analyzed jointly by WiN and Slalom.  This unique collaboration to get neuroscience out of the lab and “into  the wild” has some provocative implications for driving creative  thinking, boosting employee engagement, and fostering enhanced team  chemistry.

Read more here.

The terms ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’ (and other associated terminology)  are conceptually ambiguous, rapidly evolving, and often conflated. The  terms ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ are also used interchangeably,  incorrectly. Within academic literature[footnote 9] these have different definitions, sometimes as conflicting concepts  (equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome). While, recently,  much emphasis has been on ‘diversity’ in the form of the descriptive  representation of characteristics (primarily ethnicity and gender), it  is not self-evident that focusing on visible characteristics promotes a  meaningful level of diversity. An organisation may be proportionately  representative of the population in gender and race. However, if the  workforce remains largely socio-economically and geographically  homogenous (for example, composed of middle-class graduates from South  East England) it is likely unrepresentative in life experience and  values.

‘Inclusion’ is yet more ambiguous as it is less empirical. The  Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) defines  inclusion as “the practice of including people in a way that is fair for  all, values everyone’s differences, and empowers and enables each  person to be themselves and achieve their full potential and thrive at  work.” The Chartered Management Institute (CMI) defines it as “ultimately  about attracting and unleashing talent, gathering different perspectives  to solve wicked problems, creating a collaborative culture and driving  innovation.” Each definition implies interventions are necessary but  both remain abstract and, fundamentally, subjective. 

As noted, employers are also now expected to take action to achieve ‘equality’ and ‘equity’. Harvard Law Professor Minow highlights a conflict between the 2 concepts: equality requires  impartiality and focuses on fairness for future opportunities; equity  considers past (dis)advantage and intervenes to correct current  disparities. However, judgements of relative advantage between  individuals and groups (by virtue of their characteristics), and the  proportionality of differential treatment required to address  disadvantage, is complex and likely beyond the capability of a corporate  HR team. 

Read more here.

In light of a number of somewhat braying articles in the mainstream media suggesting excessive ‘wokeism’ is rife within  the military, it seemed an opportune moment to investigate many of the  claims of Defence surrounding the topic of Diversity and Inclusion.

By and large, there are now two common uses of the term ‘diversity’:

The first, more traditional usage  is an indication of variety, used such as when highlighting the  unrivalled diversity of life within the Amazon rainforest, or the  splendid diversity of Heinz’ current soup range.

The second, social definition, employed more formally by Defence within this context, refers to an action, being “the recognition of differences between individuals or groups”. In relation to this  latter definition, a second element is attached, that of ‘inclusion’,  which the organisation characterises as “the effect of good diversity  management ensuring that all individuals, no matter what their unique  differences feel they belong [and are therein able to contribute  effectively] to the wider team.” A prudent step, given that recognition  alone without action would amount to no change.

Combined,  Diversity and Inclusion within this context therefore seek to optimise  the relationships (through inclusion) between all the members of the  force, based off understanding and acknowledgement of each individual’s  identified differences (Diversity). In this sense, diversity is seen as a  start state, and inclusion a vehicle of action by which to optimise it.

Read more here.

With organizations of all sorts facing  increased urgency and unpredictability, being able to ask smart  questions has become key. But unlike lawyers, doctors, and  psychologists, business professionals are not formally trained on what  kinds of questions to ask when approaching a problem. They must learn as  they go. In their research and consulting, the authors have seen that  certain kinds of questions have gained resonance across the business  world. In a three-year project they asked executives to brainstorm about  the decisions they’ve faced and the kinds of inquiry they’ve pursued.  In this article they share what they’ve learned and offer a practical  framework for the five types of questions to ask during strategic  decision-making: investigative, speculative, productive, interpretive, and subjective. By attending to each, leaders and teams can become more likely to cover  all the areas that need to be explored, and they’ll surface information  and options they might otherwise have missed.

Read more here.

Dr Axel Kravatzky shares a perspective on decision-making for sustainability.

The journey towards sustainability is not just about choosing the  right thing to do. It is about understanding deeply the ground on which  these decisions stand.

This understanding is rooted in strong, evidence-based  decision-making processes that can transform how companies perceive  their context and the developmental trajectories they choose.

In an era where sustainability challenges are as complex as they are  critical, the path to corporate resilience and responsibility is fraught  with the need for nuanced decision-making.

Diversity in decision-making is not just about fulfilling a quota or  being politically correct. It is about enriching the decision-making  process with varied perspectives that can lead to more innovative and  effective solutions. Alex Edmans, in his insightful recent book, May Contain Lies highlights how diversity in gender,  ethnicity, age and socio-economic backgrounds contributes to a richer,  more comprehensive understanding of issues.

This diversity helps in mitigating risks associated with groupthink –  a phenomenon where the desire for harmony or conformity results in an  irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

Read more here.

Alex Edmans, London Business School, CEPR, and ECGI; Caroline Flammer,  Columbia University, NBER, and ECGI; Simon Glossner, Federal Reserve  Board, share that companies, investors, policy makers, and wider society are paying  increased attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within  firms. DEI initiatives have two motivations – to improve a company’s  long-term financial performance, and contribute to societal goals.

In practice, DEI initiatives focus almost exclusively on demographic  diversity because it is easy to measure. Such initiatives have been  justified by papers claiming a strong link between demographic diversity  and financial returns, but they are deeply flawed. For example,  numerous McKinsey studies claim a positive link between ethnic diversity  and firm performance, but the results cannot be replicated even with their chosen performance measure (EBIT) and preferred  methodology. Moreover, there is no link with other performance measures –  gross margin, return on assets, return on equity, sales growth, or  total shareholder return – or when using more established methodologies.  The UK’s Financial Reporting Council published a study claiming that “Higher levels of gender diversity of FTSE 350 boards  positively correlate with better future financial performance (as  measured by EBITDA margin)”. Yet out of their 90 regressions linking  diversity to the EBITDA margin, zero are significant.

In a recent paper, we take a first step towards measuring the DEI of a company, employing proprietary data used by the Great Place to Work® (GPTW) to compile the list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For in America.

Read more here.

Pat Sharman, co-founder of advocacy group Everyone Matters, explains how diversity on trustee boards can help address complex and important issues such as climate change.

A 2016 Harvard Business Review article concluded that cognitively diverse teams are better equipped to manage, and respond correctly to, uncertain and complex situations.

It also found that the most cognitively diverse team more than halved the time it took to complete a strategic exercise compared to their least diverse peers.

Pension scheme trustees are faced with increased complexity – for example, climate change and nature-related risks. These risks are some of the most difficult to understand, make informed decisions on and manage. We need diversity of thought, which will lead to creative and critical thinking, to address these challenges.

Read more here.

In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,  Michael Platt and his colleagues found heart rate synchrony predicted the  probability that groups would reach the correct consensus with more than  70% cross-validation accuracy, thus providing a biomarker of  interpersonal engagement that facilitates adaptive learning and  effective information sharing during collective decision making.

“Heart rate synchrony was a much better predictor than any of the  standard kind of survey questionnaire-based self-reports,” Platt says.  “It indicates that heart rate synchrony can be a reliable, scalable  measure for assessing and improving team dynamics.”

Read more here.

Traditional brainstorming, as  coined by Alex Osborne in the 1950s, asks participants to consider any  and all ideas that might solve a problem. While blue-sky, no-limits  thinking has several benefits, the drawback is that leaders often,  paradoxically, get stuck. They encounter challenges like the “curse of  the blank page,” not knowing where to start because they can start  anywhere. They may also face the “Einstellung effect,” a phenomenon whereby the easy recollection of familiar solutions can block their ability to think of new ones.

This has led some to (erroneously) believe that generating solutions is  best left to people who are naturally creative. The good news is that  there are tools that can help one become much better at generating new  ideas. 

Read more here.

Most workers will be familiar with this scene: a meeting that goes  round and round on a topic – one that may not be important to the  priorities of the company. People leave the meeting frustrated and  unheard. And the whole experience is repeated the next time everyone  meets.

But does this have to be inevitable? Or is there a better way to  organise how we interact within teams to support effective decision  making?

Team decision making is thought to be critical for organisational  success. Yet there are often real challenges that lead to conflict and  confusion. 

We define effective team decision making as a process of understanding a  complex problem, identifying alternative solutions, and finally  selecting the most appropriate option to meet the team’s objectives. 

Read more here.

Do good teams make fewer mistakes? It seems a reasonable hypothesis. But in the early 1990s, when a young researcher looked at evidence from medical teams at two Massachusetts hospitals, the numbers told her a completely different story: the teams who displayed the best teamwork were the ones making the most mistakes. 

What on earth was going on? 

The researcher’s name was Amy Edmondson and, 30 years after that original puzzle, her new book Right Kind of Wrong unpicks a morass of confusion, contradiction and glib happy talk about the joys of failure. She solved the puzzle soon enough. The best teams didn’t make more errors; they admitted more to making errors. Dysfunctional teams admitted to very few, for the simple reason that nobody on those teams felt safe owning up.

Read more here.

The focus on innovation necessitates an answer to the question, “do you only need innovators in an R&D team?”

In essence, no.  Success in R&D spaces must  take into account both the research and discovery stage of the project,  or process, and the development and execution stage.

R&D team members each have innate ways they  prefer to ideate, utilise structures for efficiency, and negotiate rules  and norms on their teams. In order to maximise success, it is  invaluable for project managers to understand the cognitive diversity of  the team and best leverage it at various stages.

Decades of research around Kirton’s  Adaption-Innovation Theory, a psychometric measurement of  problem-solving, has proven that both adaptive and innovative  individuals are needed for teams addressing complex problems.

Adaptive people tend to be more enabled by rules  and routines, using tried and tested solutions to solve problems, while  innovative people thrive in situations which involve less structure and  less constraints.

In recent work with a US-based global home products  development company, the author helped identify the preferred cognitive  problem-solving style of team members and their managers in order to  identify where there may be cognitive gaps between the style of  individuals and particular tasks and individuals and team members.

Read more here.

Different brains do it better.       

Justin James Kennedy and Faye Cormick explore the barriers to cognitive diversity and how our commitment to embracing it can unlock its full potential.

Diverse perspectives offer great value through different ways of  thinking, different ways of processing information, and different  individual experiences and knowledges, expanding the bandwidth of human  problem-solving, decision-making, creativity,  and innovation. We know that each brain is unique, based on how they  are wired. Breaking down and removing barriers to cognitive diversity  sits with each of us. We each have the potential to change our thinking  and be open to differences. 

Let’s look at some of the barriers that impede our ability to embrace  cognitive diversity. One common barrier is our inclination to surround  ourselves with individuals who are similar to us, resulting in a  homogeneous social circle in which everyone thinks and behaves alike.  This makes it difficult to introduce cognitive diversity. To surmount  this barrier, we must actively seek opportunities to connect with people  from diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. This can be  accomplished by attending events and activities that attract a variety  of individuals, volunteering with organizations that serve different  communities, or simply engaging in conversations with those who have a  different perspective than our own.

Read more here.

Gary Klein, Emily Newsome, Kari Hoy, Wendy Jephson, and Malcolm MacColl introduce 6 questions to size up your team’s dynamics.

In a previous article on cognitive diversity,  the differences in how people think about important tasks and  activities,  five dimensions that seem to matter in a  workplace were described:

Dimension 1: Reactions to novel ideas

Dimension 2: ­General mindset or stance (contrarian, trend analyst, disruptor)

Dimension 3: Knowledge and experience

Dimension 4: Preference for working collaboratively or independently

Dimension 5: Tolerance for uncertainty

These five dimensions seem to make a difference. You want cognitive  diversity on some of the dimensions (reactions to novel ideas, general  mindset, knowledge, and experience). However, different preferences for  working collaboratively or independently can be counter-productive. So  can differences in how well people tolerate uncertainty—when is it time  to make a decision versus when do you need to gather more information.

But how can a leader determine where each team member stands on these dimensions? Trying to  arrange for sufficient cognitive diversity only makes sense if you can  tell where the team members stack up. Ditto for trying to reduce  cognitive diversity on dimensions 4 and 5.

Read more here.

Rachel Treece, CEO of The Henka Institute and FTS Global, shares her perspective on diversity ahead of the Clearstream Fund  Summit.

What does diversity mean to you?

The most important part of diversity, ultimately, is diversity  of thought. Because when we have diversity of thought, ultimately, that  helps bring in a broad range of perspectives.

When  we have different perspectives, that can really foster innovation. If  we have diverse teams, they can reflect a broader customer base. Diverse  workforces can help improve decision-making processes, they can help  with risk management and they can help with overall firm performance.

Read more here.

AllianceBernstein's Gayle Baldwin| Senior Research Analyst and Portfolio Manager—Equities, and  Vivian Lubrano| Portfolio Manager—Equities, share that companies that are thoughtful about assembling teams with  different cognitive diversity, different ways of thinking, have the  potential to really outperform. Investors don't necessarily understand or are identifying that as a source of alpha.

Read more here.
 

Gaining ground in 2023, the movement is making its mark on social media as well as science.

Neurodiversity is a term that refers to the natural range of differences in people’s  brains. The neurodiversity movement says that the brains that diverge  from the average within that range shouldn’t be dismissed as deficient  automatically. Instead, if a neurodivergent person struggles to function  in society, it may be because there’s a mismatch between their  abilities and their surroundings, not because there’s something  inherently wrong with their thinking.

The term dates back to the autism  community in the 1990s, though it’s now applied to all sorts of mental  differences — from ADHD to synesthesia. And though neurodiversity went  mainstream as a social justice movement, it’s now transforming the way  we research the brain, with more and more researchers applying  neurodiversity-inspired approaches to cognition.

Read more here.

John Nosta, an innovation theorist and founder of NostaLab, shares that the challenge in this AI-dominated era is to find a balance. AI's  influence in shaping societal norms and values is profound, not just in technological terms but also in framing how societies think and process information. The critical task is to harness AI's potential for expanding knowledge and cognitive diversity while being vigilant about  not falling into digital echo chambers that could limit thought diversity and critical engagement.

Read more here.

Recent research from the University of Canterbury has  looked at the way psychological safety, independent thinking and  inclusion can have a positive impact on team decision making.

The study involved a survey of 35 New-Zealand based decision making  teams and found that those who described higher levels of psychological  safety were more likely to report effective decision making.

“Over 60% of those who agreed to the statement ‘I feel safe offering  new ideas, even if they aren’t fully formed plans’ also agreed with the  statement ‘The selected solutions were of high quality’,” The  Conversation reported.

Read more here.

Problematic group dynamics can derail  all kinds of teams, and boards are no exception. For example, boards can  easily find themselves mired in ruts, following comfortably familiar  patterns that can lead to ineffective oversight. Directors brought onto  boards for their creativity and independence may find themselves in a  boardroom culture that pushes them to be deferential and disinclined to  challenge the status quo. Reaching consensus may become the goal more  than offering input and solutions; consequently, board members known for  rationality and agility can become irrational and obstinate.

The good news: board culture doesn’t  have to become dysfunctional. Boards can take proactive steps to resolve  problems and maintain effectiveness. But this requires directors to be  conscious of the dynamics of group behavior — the psychology of the  boardroom. It requires them to consider some key questions:

• How does this board respond when we feel under threat?
• What are we inclined to do when things are not working out as anticipated? Do we double down?
• Do we rationalize our past decisions? Do we permit the company to  continue to pursue strategies that are not working — or “throw good  money after bad” — because we can’t accept that we made the wrong call?
• Is our boardroom a place where healthy debate and dissenting views  are welcomed? Or is departing from the consensus view a one-way ticket  to marginalization?

Read more here.

Tough and volatile investment  environments, pressure on costs and competition for jobs are creating  pressure on investment teams to perform better. At the same time  investment professionals need to jettison some antiquated approaches to  decision making to keep pace with social norms. Cognitive diversity in  teams has been hailed as a saviour. 

For investment teams, in particular,  subject-matter and financial expertise is taken as a given, and it is  about finding ways of taking different routes to arrive at conclusions  and to make decisions. Bringing more than one way of thinking about  something helps teams test, challenge or indeed avoid assumptions and  biases than could affect the process if everyone thinks the same way.  

For investors facing increasingly complex,  inter-related and volatile investment markets, diversity of thinking is  a tool to make better investment decisions – both what to invest in,  and what not to. 

Read more here.

Sabrina Habib,  Associate Professor of Visual Communications, University of South Carolina, shares that creativity is among the most in-demand skills in the workplace.  It’s not surprising that top multinational companies are looking to hire inventive thinkers: Research shows that creativity can drive innovation and resilience in organizations.  Tech giant Google has grown by innovating the way we all use the internet. Electric car maker Tesla touts a collaborative working environment to “solve the world’s most important problems with talented individuals.”  Still, sharing ideas can get messy when colleagues don’t understand or support novel concepts – or if they shut them down. Research offers some concrete ways to facilitate idea generation, both individually and in groups. But first it helps to know what you’re trying to facilitate. 

Read more here.

This article highlights the unintended consequences of our current approach to ESG. How it could accelerate the shift from a liberal market economy to crony capitalism in which oligopolies prevail. The gap between small and large companies has been expanding for decades and has reached new extremes during the pandemic. 

Like many dangerous ideas, the diversity dividend is seductive. It marries the profit motive with a desire for ethical achievement, creating a righteous fervour among its adherents. However, the complex equilibria that comprise capitalist society have enacted sweeping changes to the way we think and interact over the past 200 years. To dismiss their corruption as mere “woke-washing” is wrongheaded and dangerous. 

Read more here.

Irma Becerra the President of Marymount University, shares that in today's rapidly changing world, organizations must be able to adapt and innovate to survive. Diversity of thought, experience and perspective can lead to greater creativity and the ability to see problems from multiple angles. 

Here are five things leaders should keep in mind when building a team strong in cognitive diversity:

1. Lead with a spirit of humility

2. Hire for innovation

3. Practice active listening

4. Create space for everyone at the table

5. Instill a culture of understanding that missteps may happen

Read more from the Forbes article here.

Bill Brady, Renewable Energy & Sustainable Materials Industry Expert, shares his perspective on solving the flaws of the innovation process.

...You have to think about surrounding yourself with a diversity of thought, diversity of experiences, diversity of training and people who  come at problems and solutions from different angles. Included in this  are gender diversity, ethnic diversity, age/experience diversity and  educational diversity.

Once you’ve developed diversity, the most important thing that a  leader has to create is an organization that learns. The best way to do  that is to fill the company with people who have growth mindsets. A  person with a growth mindset comes into every situation and says, “What  am I going to learn from this debate/discussion that’s going to make my  opinion better?” They do not go in to defend their position.

Read more here.

Organizational development innovator Thane Bellomo shares that you probably have too little conflict on your team. Does that sound  strange? Even counterproductive? Most leaders spend a good amount of  energy trying to minimize conflict on their teams. But they should  actually try to generate conflict.

Before going further, let me be clear that by conflict I do not mean insults, passive aggression, and fistfights. That kind of  conflict isn’t useful. What I’m talking about is constructive conflict  in the form of productive disagreement—sometimes vehement disagreement. 

Conflict of all kinds is something that most of us try to avoid. But it  is not an overstatement to say that conflict is an engine of human  progress. Humans make sense of the world together by trying different  things until we come upon the best solution to whatever problem it is we  are trying to solve. This process inevitably—and necessarily—involves  conflict.

Read more here.

CEO of Talking Talent Inc Teresa Hopke shares that the hyper focus on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), especially  in recent years, has been met with varying degrees of optimism and  skepticism in the workplace. 

Some see DEI as a long-overdue way to root  out systemic discrimination and to create more inclusive cultures.  Others have a distinctly different view of DEI, considering it a  political ploy in disguise that is causing more division than good. Well, who’s right? 

The answer, unfortunately, is really both sides might be right.  Despite DEI's noble and necessary purpose, building inclusive, fair  cultures so that diverse people, perspectives, and ideas contribute to  stronger connections and a stronger organization, the execution of it  sometimes falls short and leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. 

Read more here.

Natalie Nixon shares that to ask better questions and get more diverse inputs, teams have to practice cognitive diversity and embrace creative abrasion. 

To reach better outcomes and come up with better answers, you have to  first analyze the quality of your questions. The process of inquiry is  essential to the system that is creativity, but you need to inquire  about the right things—if you start with unenlightened inputs, you’ll  end up with unenlightened outputs. Read more here.

Crises are experienced in different ways by different people at  different levels of an organization or ecosystem. Senior decision-makers  are unlikely to have the same understanding or insights as those who  directly interface with customers or those grappling with the  operational technicalities of the situation. For this reason, “Prepared Leaders”  (those who have worked to ready themselves and their organizations to  withstand crises) should be open to all input and perspectives that can  help create a solution and improve outcomes, wherever that input and  those perspectives surface within the organizational hierarchy.

Read more here.

An ensemble of  algorithms working together will produce far more accurate predictions  than one working alone. Howard H. Yu, a Professor of Management and  Innovation at IMD shares that It essentially harnesses cognitive  diversity in the world of AI.

The ensemble method works by  dividing an existing dataset into small samples, which can then  independently train different algorithms at the same time. In these smaller sample sets, these algorithms tend to be weaker. They make more errors in their predictions on their own. But the  collective insight, or total wisdom of these algorithms is far superior  to that of a single algorithm. In fact, it is better than a single  algorithm that is trained by all the data in one go.
Read more here

Inclusion goes beyond diversity. Perhaps it is not a surprise, then, that scholars have called for a shift in emphasis from studying diversity in the workplace to studying inclusion in the workplace, arguing that although diversity and inclusion are interrelated concepts, they are distinct.

Differences among individuals are not just identified, but are  celebrated and integrated into daily work life. These differences are  also woven into the organization’s culture through policies, climate,  leadership and practices.

Fundamentally, an inclusive climate is a diverse environment within an  organization that values the contribution of all employees. It is a  workplace climate where people with different beliefs, perceptions and  observable characteristics are able to work effectively with others,  feel valued, and have strong feelings of belonging within that  organizational context.

Read more here.

In 2021 and 2022, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) carried out a survey of firms in respect of  their approach to diversity and inclusion. 

In advance of a full  consultation on new rule proposals in 2023, the FCA has provided a  progress update. Overall, the FCA remains concerned about the lack of  progress in the industry and has highlighted a number of key points that  it encourages regulated firms to consider and use.

Read more here.

Implementing diversity and inclusion is not about representing every  race, age, gender and ethnicity group in proportion to the surrounding  area. It is also about promoting "cognitive diversity," because people  who think differently blend perspectives for stronger collaboration,  problem-solving and innovation. Differences in thought processes also  help to avoid groupthink, which stifles creativity and results in stale  ideas.

Read more here.