Research shows more diverse teams deliver better results. You’re asking something that can’t be proven though: is this thing that is occurring better than the thing that didn’t occur. We can’t know the answer to that.
> Research shows more diverse teams deliver better results.
FYI, there's plenty of nuance in the research that people like to gloss over. My understanding is that diversity of background / experience improves team performance. But having a diversity of values amongst your team decreases performance.
For example, if you form a diverse team where some people care about profits above all else, and other people care more about doing good in the world, the team will become less effective. Its really hard to use this research when hiring because a lot of values questions (like "who did you vote for?") are somewhere between creepy and illegal to ask.
Source: I used to work with someone who had a PhD in psychometric assessment. People saying "diversity=good" was one of her bug bears. I haven't read the research myself.
I would ask if there was any published studies showing that "diversity of values" was bad, because searching Google for "diversity of values bad" does not yield any relevant results.
Then I would ask what her political leanings were next.
Studies seem to show that diversity initiatives fail mostly because of a lack of comprehensive diversity and inclusivity effort, e.g. companies talking big about it, but not backing it up with action, money, people, etc.
> Research shows more diverse teams deliver better results. You’re asking something that can’t be proven though: is this thing that is occurring better than the thing that didn’t occur. We can’t know the answer to that.
Research is based on the cumulative results of many recorded events, in which we try to garner a pattern of relationship.
A singular event might have two inputs: we either do the thing or we do not. We can observe the results of what we do, but we cannot observe the results of what we do not. With the aforementioned research, we can _estimate_ the results, and, in some cases, we should make decisions with those estimates in mind, but these are two entirely different concepts. Macro and micro.
> Research shows more diverse teams deliver better results
Seems like a bit of a sacred cow - how much better? Better enough to sacrifice, say, experience, contacts, or unique business knowledge for? How much, exactly?
FYI, there's plenty of nuance in the research that people like to gloss over. My understanding is that diversity of background / experience improves team performance. But having a diversity of values amongst your team decreases performance.
For example, if you form a diverse team where some people care about profits above all else, and other people care more about doing good in the world, the team will become less effective. Its really hard to use this research when hiring because a lot of values questions (like "who did you vote for?") are somewhere between creepy and illegal to ask.
Source: I used to work with someone who had a PhD in psychometric assessment. People saying "diversity=good" was one of her bug bears. I haven't read the research myself.