[thelettere]

Increasing racial diversity as a solution is a recommendation without empirical grounding. I am a white male and I work part time in ed tech. Our department is quite mixed - both my supervisor and the head of our department are black woman. However, there is little collegiality here.

And this matches the literature - the more ethnic/racial diversity in a community, the less civic engagement and trust (1). I'm not sure what the answer is, but the research suggests diversity is not a universal panacea. Like anything else, there are benefits and liabilities involved - and there are other considerations to take into account.

For example, I wonder if her co-workers had been more like her in other ways, such as matching her taste in video games, dress, attitude and so on - if her experience would have been different. In my department I suspect it's mostly these other things (work and personality styles especially) that are the reason for the lack of cohesion.

The best groups I've been a part of are those that mixed the right amount of same and different. We need to feel some commonality with others to form bonds, but we also need enough differences to challenge and stimulate us. Effective hiring practices require attention to both, else company and employee will suffer.

(1) http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...

*Edited to expand on the point/add clarity.

[johnny99]

The research I've seen claims that the benefit of diversity is higher performance, not increased collegiality. They may even be inversely correlated. From a Kellogg School of Management (Northwestern) piece (1):

"The mere presence of diversity in a group creates awkwardness, and the need to diffuse this tension leads to better group problem solving... while homogenous groups feel more confident in their performance and group interactions, it is the diverse groups that are more successful in completing their tasks."

(1) http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/better_decis...

[thelettere]

Apples and oranges. The issue Erica is concerned about is her social discomfort at work, not her team's performance. Also, the study you cite was measuring gender and length of group membership diversity, not racial/ethnic diversity.

[disputin]

The last team I worked on had 2 Englishmen, 5 Indians, 2 Pakistanis, a Frenchman, a Portuguese, a Greek, an Australian, and a Kazakh. It was chaos. No one understood each other, and so heated arguments were the norm. This was not higher performance.

[pc86]

Presumably any benefits gained from diversity can very easily be lost in the mix of language and true cultural barriers. In the spirit of the article it'd be more relevant if it were a mix of genders, races, and socioeconomic standing at birth than a mix of different nationalities, languages, and workplace customs.

[disputin]

"if it were a mix of genders, races, and socioeconomic standing at birth" Clearly the latter two were the case. The gender mix was about 30% female.

[pc86]

What I meant was the language barrier almost certainly added more complication than the diversity.

[eitally]

I generally agree with you, but ... http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

There is also the "problem" of mixing professional and personal relationships. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but some individuals absolutely do. not. want. For teams where the workplace is the social hub for most but not all, those stuck at the social periphery are most likely going to suffer professionally. And this doesn't even get into class differences (as in, those protected classes, not socioeconomic) and feelings of not belonging.

[thelettere]

This is quite late, but I just want to clarify: I am not "against" diversity. I am merely contesting the idea that the answer to all issues around having employees feeling uncomfortable or discriminated against at work is not as simple as: "just add diversity". I have no idea what the answer is, but the research and my experience suggest it is a lot more complicated than that.