Diversity Links

The essential ingredient when trying to avoid group-think is to focus first on options and  information, and to hold off preferences and advocacy for as long as  possible. After determining their objectives, groups should consider as  many options as possible. All members should be asked for all relevant  information about all of these options – even if the information doesn’t  favour options other members seem to prefer. Only after a thorough,  systematic search for information should members begin to discuss their  preferences or advocate for one option over another.

Read more here.

Do you talk to strangers  and people that are clearly living different lives to you? If you only converse with those you already know, you're very likely limiting your  opportunities to hear different points of view. This article by the author of "The Power of Strangers" Joe Keohane  is well worth your attention.

"A  lot of people hate small talk...Most people don’t understand what it’s  for. It’s not the conversation. It’s the opener for a better  conversation. It’s a way to get comfortable with one another and cast  around for something you want to talk about." If someone asks: What do  you do? - you need to understand this question is really asking: What  should you and I talk about?"

Read more here.

Beyond their demographic differences,  people working in a group will likely think differently about a  collaborative task. That cognitive diversity can be helpful — or not.  “In an organization, there’s tension between people who have incongruent  ways of thinking about a specific problem to solve,” Amir Goldberg of Stanford Graduate School of Business says.

Read more here.

The objective of the D&I initiatives proposed by the Regulators  is to ensure that the financial system is better able to support the  economy through well-run firms which can meet the diverse needs of their  customers. The Regulators seek a resilient financial services sector  which brings together and responds to different views and perspectives  so that concerns are raised, and decisions challenged effectively.  Diversity and inclusion are seen as reducing “groupthink” and  encouraging debate and innovation, thereby improving outcomes for  consumers and across markets and supporting financial stability. 

The purpose of the Discussion Paper is, amongst other things, to  enable the Regulators better to understand from financial firms and  other stakeholders how the Regulators can accelerate the pace of  meaningful change and what role they can most usefully play to support  that change, whilst also recognising the need for collective commitment  and leadership from firms on D&I issues. Whilst gender has  historically been the focus of diversity initiatives, it is recognised  that there is an imbalance in the extent to which other aspects of  diversity, including intersectionality, have been addressed. In  addition, throughout the Discussion Paper the Regulators are keen to  emphasise that any measures introduced should not result in a  box-ticking exercise.

Read more here.

On Friday, August 6th 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a  plan set forth by the Nasdaq stock exchange to promote diversity among  the companies it lists. Late last year, Nasdaq suggested that all listed  companies would either have to have underrepresented minority groups on  their boards of directors—or would have to explain why they are unable, at this time, to have such minority representation—or they would be delisted.

Skeptics of ESG have argued that the movement’s interpretation of  diversity is superficial and potentially violates the law as well as, in  their view, best business practices. Proposals like Nasdaq’s, in their  opinion, are damaging to business and capital markets over the  long-term.

Read more here.

Now is the time for financial  services firms to refocus their efforts on cognitive diversity. This  means looking beyond gender and ethnicity, to place emphasis on  diversity of both brains and backgrounds, argue the Diversity Project’s  Social Mobility workstream leads David Aujla and James Whiteman. Read more here.

Dave Snowdon reflects on the efficiency focus of Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) and the Learning Organisation, which appealed to a more human approach to work. 

He shares that anthro-complexity provides a sense of direction and a set of practices  that are not dependent on people changing their ‘mindsets’ or behaviour  before acting, instead people change as a result of those actions in  their own time, and in their own way. Shifting from talking about how things should be to definine the practice,  to initiating micro and localised changes in connectivity that of  themselves result in change and create a natural environment for talking  about things. Safe-to-fail activity, in order to enable conversations,  is key here. Read more here.

When it comes to getting work done, two heads are better than one. Except when they aren’t.

A new study from Wharton professor of operations, information and decisions Duncan Watts digs into the question of whether it’s better for employees to work in  teams or alone — and the answer may be surprising for managers trying to  figure out the best way to assign tasks.

In their research, Watts and his co-authors found that the answer  depends on the complexity: Simple tasks are best accomplished by  individuals, while difficult ones are more efficiently completed by a  group

Read more here.

Lindsay Jones, Chief People Officer at Delta Capital shares that there is momentum building around “Diverse Thinking.” In particular, but it gets  conflated with the topic of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and  becomes a convenient alternative.

We must avoid thinking of these initiatives in  isolation. Organisations can only really achieve diversity of thought by  including employees from all demographics with varied life experiences.

To nurture diverse thought leadership and to  incorporate a genuinely successful DEI program, organisations must  reinvent their environment.

Read more here.

Audrey Hametner shares how to advance diversity, inclusion, equity and belonging (DEIB) without sacrificing diversity of thought.

It’s absolutely crucial from day one that new hires feel that they are able to propose ideas for change and feel confident to share recommendations for improvement. The reality of their working week then needs to live up to that onboarding "pitch." All too often, creativity and new ideas are stifled by the need to ensure individuals are following the company line and keeping to the processes set out by "invisible" departments.

Read more here.

Most executives we work with feel a keen sense of responsibility to  their organization via strong decision-making. So why are employees so  critical? Most executives are making decent decisions, right? Well,  maybe not.

Global management consulting firm McKinsey recently released the results of their major study,  which indicates that only 28% of executives believe their leadership  team consistently makes solid strategic decisions, and 60% of executives  believe bad decisions come out of their C-Suite just about as  frequently as good ones.

Read more here.

New behavioral experiments by Alok Gupta from University of Minnesota  and Andreas Fügener, Jörn Grahl, and Wolfgang Ketter from University of  Cologne in Germany bring a cautionary tale for current AI applications.  The research, published in late 2021, uncovers risks, consequences, and  solutions to over reliance on AI in business and creative decisions.

A good example is over reliance by social media platforms on AI engines  to power news feeds. If the AI algorithm converges to certain types of  personalized content for a group of individuals, it can lead to an echo  chamber within this group. Group members, in turn, can become content  with a consistent, self-indulging, AI-filtered message, which is  reinforced by peers in the social circle. Oh well, isn’t this already  happening in some circles?

Read more here.

Auckland University of Technology's Dr Akshaya Kamalnath writes that despite [a broad dictionary definition of diversity], we have had almost a single-minded emphasis on  gender diversity to the exclusion of other forms of diversity, including  racial diversity. Thus, the other types of diversity seem to require a  new justification...certain types of companies may feel they value a particular type of  diversity over others and prioritise it. If we want companies to truly engage with these issues, they should be given the leg room to decide  their priorities and then work towards it. 

Read more here.

The concept of diversity of thought (DoT) continues to grow in  prominence in governance and other group decision-making contexts. This  trend is greatly encouraging. DoT holds the potential to improve both  the composition of boards, by bringing together different perspectives,  and the way that boards address complex challenges and opportunities.

To date, however, three factors have held back the potential usefulness of DoT:

1. The lack of a consistent definition for DoT, making it more difficult to identify whether DoT is present (or absent)
2. Poor dissemination of research findings that provide insight into when DoT is likely to have a positive (or negative) impact on group decision-making
3. The absence of an effective method for evaluating whether decision-making
   groups have sufficient DoT and an ability to apply it – you can only manage what you can measure

Read more here.

Amy C. Edmondson: Imagine a diverse workplace in which all employees felt a genuine sense  of inclusion and belonging.  It’s unlikely you work in such an  organization today. But it’s clear that every organization, public and  private sector alike, is increasingly aware of the need to get to work  on making this a reality.  I’ve spent over 20 years studying workplaces  in healthcare delivery, high tech, the drug industry, consumer products,  and more, where people with diverse skills and backgrounds must work  together effectively to accomplish challenging goals, and one consistent finding from this research is that psychological safety plays a central role in their success.

Psychological safety –  an environment in which people believe that they can speak up candidly  with ideas, questions, concerns, and even mistakes – is vital to  leveraging the benefits of diversity, because it can help make inclusion  a reality.  In brief, psychological safety is about enabling candor.  Inclusion is necessary for mutual learning – and mutual learning is  necessary to progress in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous  (VUCA) world.  Extensive academic literature on psychological safety has demonstrated its powerful association with learning and performance in teams and organizations.

Read more here.

Researcher Anita Woolley has studied what makes people work well together, so that teams become more than the sum of their parts.

In the late 2000s, the CIA conducted a research project  with Harvard University called Project Looking Glass, designed to  understand why the intelligence community had failed to foil the  September 11 attacks. The project consisted of a spy-game simulation of a  terrorist attack: a team of scientists was tasked with planning an  attack, and a group of intelligence officers asked to prevent it.

During  the simulations, the “terrorists” consistently beat the “spies”.  Researchers noticed that the experts struggled to collaborate  effectively because they were not making use of individual team members’  different strengths. It was only when they forced them to communicate  properly – instructing members to talk to each other about their areas  of expertise before moving forward – that they managed to be successful.

Read more here.

Andy Wu of Harvard Business School and his doctoral student Sourobh  Ghosh embedded a field experiment in a Google hackathon to investigate  the impact of stand-up meetings—a core component of agile management  practices—on innovation. They found that the teams that engaged in them developed less-novel products. The conclusion: Stand-up meetings inhibit  innovation.

Wu: More and  more companies are adopting agile practices in product development, but  it isn’t always clear why. There seems to be an assumption that agile is  a cure-all for innovation. The study that Sourobh and I did, however,  shows that one key element of the agile approach—regular stand-up  meetings—is great for implementation but actually undermines idea  generation.

Read more here.

When your company is hiring, do people focus on whether a candidate is a good “cultural fit” for the organization?

If the answer is yes, you’re in good company. The vast majority of  managers surveyed worldwide consider cultural fit to be one of the top  priorities in hiring, explains Lauren Rivera, an associate professor of management and organizations at Kellogg. But, she explains, this is generally a bad instinct.

Hiring for cultural fit, when done well, can boost retention and  productivity. But most organizations do it badly, Rivera says. Instead  of looking for people who share the company’s values, hiring managers  look for people who share their own background and interests. And if the  people doing the hiring are predominantly male, or white, or wealthy,  then they perpetuate that lack of diversity in their organization. 

“What you’re going to get is a copy of your existing employees,” she says. “In many instances, it is a form of discrimination.”

Read more here.

Innovation is an increasingly important source of competitive advantage  for companies: Over the last 40 years, organizations have increased  their expenditures on R&D as a percentage of all expenses by 800%.  However, increased R&D budgets alone do not always lead to real  innovation. The types of researchers a company hires plays an important  role in whether it will succeed in leaping ahead of competition. But  what types of researchers are most valuable?

Read more here.

Diverse boards and management teams have been shown to drive  innovation through diversity of thought, skills and perspective. 

Because private equity firms are accountable for driving long-term  returns for their limited partners, and the right executive team can  mean the difference of tens to hundreds of millions of value creation,  there is little room for error in hiring. How should private equity firms solve the  "pipeline" issue and look to find and attract strong diverse candidates  in the near term? The key to finding and hiring high-caliber leaders is  to expand networks and examine which qualifications will really drive  success for the hiring company and its private equity backer.

Read more here.

While in many cases unconscious bias awareness training may result in  insightful discussions, behaviour change may not occur or may only be  short term. Additionally with some people, awareness raising may  actually unintentionally encourage more biased thinking and behaviours.  Also, by hearing that others are biased and it’s ‘natural’ to hold  stereotypes, some people may feel less motivated to change their biases.

Moving beyond awareness of unconscious bias and implicit associations to long term bias reversal and inclusive behaviours requires changes in  organisational practices plus practical interventions to address  personal biases and creation of new positive behaviours and pro-active  approaches to working with people who are ‘different’ from the majority  group.

Read more here.

Is that money actually creating meaningful change? In recent years, some social scientists have argued that it isn’t. And studies show little conclusive evidence that diversity trainings shift attitudes and behaviors in a lasting way.

But  in a new paper, Ivuoma Onyeador, an assistant professor of management  and organizations at the Kellogg School, argues that we shouldn’t give  up so quickly. She and her coauthors—Evelyn R. Carter of Paradigm  Strategy Inc. and Neil A. Lewis Jr. of Cornell University—reviewed the  existing research on diversity trainings and used that data to make  evidence-based recommendations on how to improve them.

Read more here.

The human mind is inherently interdependent with its ecological, social,  political, and cultural environment. Therefore, any understanding of  the mind is necessarily incomplete if it fails to consider this  interdependence. By hiding the mind’s interdependence with its  environment, a mind = computer metaphor may obscure why psychological science  requires diversity in both study participants and the scholars who test them. Inclusion and diversity are required for reasons of social  justice and fairness...however, that yet another strong case for them can be made.

Read more here.

Katie Canell, Deloitte UK’s managing director for  audit innovation: Audit needs to evolve to adapt to the modern business world and the  changing needs of its stakeholders. To do this, all parts of the  business community need to work together – policymakers, investors,  company directors and auditors. You need diversity of thought if you’re  going to take a truly holistic look at audit and how it can adapt to  modern business and governance needs. That diversity of thought needs to  exist within audit firms as well as across the business community. “From our newest recruits at associate level, right the way up to  partnership, we have a huge opportunity to draw on different  perspectives and challenge different mindsets,” says Canell. “Diversity  of thought is so important; those new to the profession bring a valuable  fresh perspective and insight.” 

Read more here.

In this dynamic world where competition, management of risk and  technology are in a constant state of change and flux, boardroom  leadership is also evolving rapidly to keep pace.

First becoming a director at just 32 years of age, today Abby Foote is one of a new breed of directors rising to the challenge and leading a new  governance style that recognises the changing demands of the role of  directors in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous  world.

Read more here.

Disagreements are an inevitable, normal, and healthy part of relating to  other people. There is no such thing as a conflict-free work  environment. You might dream of working in a peaceful utopia, but it  wouldn’t be good for your company, your work, or you. In fact,  disagreements — when managed well — have lots of positive outcomes. Amy Gallo outlines the benefits.

Read more here.

Received wisdom is that the more diverse the teams in terms of age,  ethnicity, and gender, the more creative and productive they are likely  to be. However, Alison Reynolds and Davis Lewis have found no correlation between  this type of diversity and performance with a strategic execution exercise, which required executive groups to manage new, uncertain, and complex  situations. 

Read more here. 

50 percent of meeting agendas are recycled from other gatherings.  Perhaps not surprisingly, 70 percent of senior managers consider  meetings unproductive.

In the U.S. alone,  55 million meetings are held a day. Most of them are  woefully unproductive, and tyrannize our offices. The revolution begins  now — with better agendas, smaller invite lists, and an embrace of  healthy conflict.

Read or listen to more here. 

In a PwC survey, 62% of directors strongly agree that diversity brings unique perspectives to the boardroom. 52% strongly agree that gender diversity is very important in achieving diversity of thought. But 72% of male directors say too much attention is paid to gender  diversity, while only 25% of female directors agree. 76% of the men surveyed said they believe boards will naturally become more  diverse over time; only 33% of women said the same.

Read more here.

It’s important to celebrate your accomplishments. But as Leigh Thompson a Professor at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, watched executives engaging in a “brag session” at a corporate retreat,  she began to wonder if feeling proud could also inhibit creativity.  “Because if you are engaging in a brag session or being prideful, you are unwittingly encouraging people to self-censor their own ideas,” says  Thompson.

Listen to the podcast here.

The  design-thinking approach loosely follows a four-step process that  involves observing a problem, reframing it, designing solutions, and  testing them—all with the end goal of improving how humans experience a  product or service.

Rather  than blindly following the approach, it can be helpful to  understand the psychology behind it. And critically, social psychology  also offers insight into specific ways to get more out of each step in  the process.

So  why does design thinking work? And how can businesses effectively apply  these principles themselves? Thompson and Schonthal explain. 

Read more here.

It is perhaps tangential to the dominant diversity debate, yet the  Financial Reporting Council (FRC) notes: "The boardroom should be a  place for robust debate where challenge, support, diversity of thought  and teamwork are essential features.

"Diversity of skills, background and personal strengths is an important driver of a board's effectiveness, creating different perspectives among directors, and breaking down a tendency towards' group think'."

"Factors known to distort judgement are conflicts of interest,  emotional attachments, unconscious bias and inappropriate reliance on  previous experience and decisions."

Read more here.

A very strong theme from the interviews was

that to be successful, boards must have diversity of thinking, skills and experience. This is not about quotas, but about having a broad range of expertise, experience, perspectives and mindsets, to avoid getting stuck in a particular way of thinking. However, boards often recruit who they know, so end up with more people like themselves. Read more here.

Based on behavioral  and decision science research and years of application experience, Torben Emmerling and Duncan Rooders of Affective Advisory outline the right processes to allow groups to make better decisions together. Read more here.

In times of crisis, diversity of thought is critical—but a minority at  the table often dominate discussion. Advice from an introvert on  amplifying the voices and perspectives of those least likely to offer  them. Read more here.

Ed Salas: Several myths show up with troubling  frequency. The first is viewing teamwork as a distraction from real  work. That may be true if you equate teamwork with hosting company  get-togethers and birthday parties. But the research is really clear.  Teamwork is about how work gets done, and teams that do it better  outperform others by 20% or more.

A second myth is that if team members like each other and maintain  harmony, the team will be successful. Of course, we prefer working with  people we like, but liking or hanging out together doesn’t ensure great  teamwork. In fact, a little discord may be helpful at times, if team  members feel comfortable speaking up and can disagree constructively.

Read more here.

The analysis of the top 100 Singapore listed companies illustrates a  strong relationship between board diversity and company performance. In a diverse society, a diverse board can provide multiple perspectives,  helping increased social acceptability and, in turn, ensure that the  board conducts itself appropriately. It is critical for boards to ensure  they have diversity of experience, background and thought. 

Read more here.

According to Hays’ Staff Engagement: Ideas for action report, which is based on a survey of 1,196 employers and employees,  93% of employees want a ‘voice’ and the ability to share their opinions  at work and the same percentage want to work in an inclusive culture  where differences are valued.

Read more here.

Kathy Caprino interviews Any Edmondson – the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School, to learn more about how an organization can move away from promoting a culture of fear, to one of psychological safety.

Read more here. 

In today’s world, it’s hard to imagine a more important skill for CEOs than the ability to create and develop high performing teams in their organizations.

According to Google’s work on teams and research from The Power of Peers (2016) on groups, neither high performing teams nor groups were  necessarily comprised of the most talented individual members. The best  teams/groups were those whose members collaborated most effectively. Read more here.

Dr Akshaya Kamalnath outlines how more women on boards can important indicator of gender equality and board effectiveness but gender is only one facet of diversity.

In the longer run, investors, employees, customers and wider society can all benefit from companies taking a broader approach to board diversity that aims to get multiple viewpoints into corporate decision-making.

Read more here.

Dr Darleen DeRosa outlines how modern board governance is a far more  proactive undertaking, and many organizations are taking steps to change  the composition of their boards to encourage a greater diversity of  thought and promote the agile leadership qualities necessary to compete  in a business environment beset by disruption. 

Read more here

There is ample research to show that diversity, when harnessed properly,  can improve corporate performance. In cases of CEO succession, a board  with diversity of thought, backgrounds, and traits benefits the  organization by staving off groupthink and increasing the breadth of  perspectives. Constructing a quality board is about the caliber and perspective of  individual directors as well as the deliberate rules of engagement that  allow for productive debate and effective decision making. 

Read more here.

Ziena Jalil, former New Zealand Trade Commissioner to Singapore and  consulting partner at SenateSHJ, says organisations that embrace  diversity and inclusion outperform their peers in profitability and  productivity. Jalil said diversity was not just about ethnicity, it is also about  gender, race, sexual orientation, physical ability, age, socio-economic  background and beliefs, which organisations need to represent. Read more here.

An aspect of diversity that is getting greater attention is “diversity of thought”. This is the concept that people who have had different experiences, hold different beliefs or use contrasting ways of addressing problems, will think differently to each other. Diverse thinking allows people to frame problems in different ways, generate different potential solutions, and even creatively build on others’ ideas. It holds great promise if used in the right settings.

Read more here (on page 5).

Recently published in an HBR article,  a study by Catherine Tinsley and Kate Purmal found that prior to  becoming a US public company CEO, women were significantly more likely  than men to have served on a corporate board. More than half of the  female CEOs (59%) served on a public company board, as compared with 42%  of the men. Almost twice as many women (23%) as men (12%) served on a  private company board.

Might this be applicable to CEOs and other C-Suite Executives in NZ?

Read more here.

Black and white thinking may die hard, yet never has society been  quite as comfortable with the concept of the spectrum than the present.

According to researchers at Merriam-Webster, use of the word  “spectrum”, in a wide range of contexts, has grown dramatically within  the current decade. Coined by Isaac Newton in 1672 to describe  refractions of light, today referencing a “spectrum” is almost always  shorthand for acknowledging a metaphorical range of nuances.

Read more here.

Bart de Langhe and Philip Fernbach outline the risks of relying too much on categorical thinking:

• Compression - disregarding variation within a category
• Amplification - exaggerating differences across category boundaries
• Discrimination - excessive focus on some categories at the expense of others
• Fossilization -  difficulty escaping entrenched ideas

Read more here.