Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable —and That’s Why They Perform Bett er
In numerous studies, diversity— both inherent (e.g., race and gender) and acquired (e.g., experience and cultural background)—is associated with business success. For example, a 2009 analysis of 506 companies found that firms with a greater degree of racial and gender diversity enjoyed higher sales revenues, more customers and greater profits.
A 2016 analysis of more than 20,000 firms in 91 countries found that companies with more female executives were more profitable. In a 2011 study management teams exhibiting a wider range of educational and work backgrounds produced more innovative products.
Under increasing scrutiny, and mindful of the benefits of diversity on the bottom line, many companies are trying to recruit and retain a more diverse workforce. Still, success has so far been marginal. Why aren’t these companies making more headway? One reason could be that homogenous teams just feel more effective. In addition, people believe that diverse teams breed greater conflict than they actually do. Bringing these biases to light may enable leaders to correct course.
A study of fraternity and sorority members we conducted in 2009 offers a remarkable window into the workings of diverse and homogenous teams. In the experiment, participants were asked to solve a murder mystery. First, they were individually given 20 minutes to study the clues and pinpoint the likely suspect. Next, they were placed into teams of three with fellow members of the same Greek house and given 20 minutes to discuss the case and provide a joint answer. Five minutes into the discussion, however, they were joined by a fourth team member, someone from either their own house or another one.
After collectively naming their suspect, members individually rated aspects of the discussion. More diverse groups— those joined by someone from a different fraternity or sorority— judged the team interactions to be less effective than groups joined by insiders did. They were also less confident in their final decisions.
Intuitively, this makes sense: On a homogenous team, people readily understand each other and collaboration flows smoothly, giving the sensation of progress. Dealing with outsiders causes friction, which feels counterproductive.
But in this case their judgments were starkly wrong. Adding an outsider actually increased a group’s chance of arriving at the correct solution. The work felt harder, but the outcomes were better. In fact, working on diverse teams produces better outcomes precisely because it’s harder.
The idea goes against many people’s intuitions, and this is because of a common bias that psychologists call the fluency heuristic: We prefer information that is processed more easily, or fluently, judging it to be truer or more beautiful. If information becomes more familiar without much effort, we feel that we’re learning. But that doesn’t mean we are. In a 2011 study students actually performed better on a test after studying the text once and then trying to recall as much as they could, a strenuous task, than they did by repeatedly going over the text, a less demanding task.
When discussing the intersection of diversity and productivity, there’s another bias at play, too: Research shows that people often overestimate the amount of conflict that actually exists on diverse teams. In one study, MBA students were asked to imagine that they were comanaging several four- person teams of interns, and that one team had asked for additional resources. They saw photos of the members, depicting four white men, four black men, or two of each. They then read a transcript of a discussion among the group and rated the team on various factors. Teams of four white men and four black men were seen as having equal levels of relationship conflict, but the diverse teams were seen as having a higher level of relationship conflict than the homogeneous teams, even though everyone had read the same transcript.
This type of unconscious bias can clearly have a significant impact not only on hiring but also on the ways in which leaders create teams and encourage collaboration. Without realizing it, they may be reluctant to add diversity to a team or to assign colleagues with different backgrounds to work together, in response to a fear of the tension and difficulty that could ensue.
It’s critical to note that simply making a team more diverse is not necessarily enough to see the benefits. Diverse teams must find ways to work together productively, and often the best ways of working may seem counterintuitive.
For example, research suggests that when people with different perspectives are brought together, people may seek to gloss over their differences in the interest of group harmony—when, in fact, differences should be taken seriously and highlighted. In a 2012 study, teams of three were tasked with generating a creative business plan for a theater. On some teams, members were assigned distinct roles (artistic, event and finance manager), thus increasing diversity of viewpoints. These teams came up with better ideas than homogeneous teams— but only if they’d been explicitly told to try to take the perspectives of their teammates. They had to face up to their differences in order to benefit from them.
Another way to take advantage of differing viewpoints is to highlight the value of multiculturalism. In a 2009 study, pairs of Canadian students, one white and one First Nations, were teamed up for a conversation. Prefacing the meeting with a message supporting multiculturalism (versus no message) made the meeting more positive, while a message endorsing colorblindness led the white students to take a negative stance toward their First Nations partners.
Of course, diversity is not always a panacea, and it can at times produce corrosive conflict. When that happens, it is often because team members are bringing different values, rather than different ideas, to the table. It’s difficult to overcome differences in values, no matter how well- intentioned colleagues may be. In addition, diversity’s benefits are rarely obtained without a strong sense of team and organizational inclusion.
The research presented above suggests that diversity initiatives may not be successful until we do more to address the way diversity is perceived. When leaders see it first and foremost as a social obligation that makes things difficult and slows progress, they will likely make decisions that undermine the organization’s diversity goals. If, however, they can recognize that the debate and unfamiliarity that come with diversity are an important catalyst for creativity and deep thinking, their organizations will reap great rewards.
David Rock is a cofounder of the Neuroleadership Institute, a consultant and author of Your Brain at Work. Heidi Grant is a social psychologist. She is global director of research and development at the Neuroleadership Institute and serves as associate director of Columbia’s Motivation Science Center. Jacqui Grey is managing director, Europe for the Neuroleadership Institute.