Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter

greetings from New York City and

Columbia Business School executive

education my name is Scott Gardner and

I'm very happy to be here today with

Professor Katherine Phillips for the

wide diverse teams are smarter webinar

before we begin if you'll look at your

screens right now a recording will be

made available of the webinar if you'd

like to tweet about the webinar please

do so at hashtag CBS exec

and as always if you have any questions

please upload those to the Q&A box and

we'll get to as many of those as

possible in the last 10 minutes and

during the conversation continues it's

my pleasure to introduce professor

Katherine Phillip she is the Reuben mark

professor of organizational character

and the director of the Sanford C

Bernstein & Company center for

leadership and ethics at Columbia

Business School she's also served as our

senior vice dean from 2014 to 2017 she

received her PhD in organizational

behavior from Stanford and her

bachelor's in psychology from the

University of Illinois she is the

recipient of numerous professional

awards from the International

Association of conflict management and

the gender diversity and organizations

division of the Academy of Management

poets and quants named her one of the

top 40 Business School professors under

the age of 40 and her work and insights

have been featured in numerous media

outlets and scholarly journals such as

the New York Times The Washington Post

the Chicago Tribune and fortune in 2018

she was included on the on the radar

2018 list by thinkers 50 and became

Academy of management fellow Catherine

is great to be with you today thank you

thank you guys for having me I know we

have a lot of great material so let's

get started shall we okay so we talked

about diversity a lot these days and

again like a lot of our topics it can be

a very diverse or broad term yes so for

the purposes of our webinar what do you

mean by diversity yeah so it is indeed

true that diversity is a complex term

and it's been used by many people in

different ways the way I think about it

is twofold one is that there's some

surface level differences that we can

see sometimes people call with social

category differences where I maybe they

like race and gender on the other hand

there's also deeper level differences

maybe your work style maybe knowledge

your perspectives about the tasks that

we're working on and I make a big

assumption one is that if we bring a

group of people together to work

together in a team we're bringing them

together because we're assuming that

they're bringing some unique knowledge

and perspectives and ideas and ways of

doing things

that would be beneficial for that team

if everybody knows the same thing what's

the point of having the team right so I

make an assumption that there's deep

level diversity there and then the

question is what is the impact of having

that surface level or social category

difference present in that space right

great okay so let's look at our first

slide here so when you when you look out

there in the world you see headlines

like this one this one here is actually

from Credit Suisse Ohio returns with

women and decision-making physicians

kind of arguing that research report

reaffirms that in fact there is a

linkage between gender diversity and

better results one of the things that I

try to tell people all the time is to be

very careful when they are looking at

these things and there are lots of

situations where these kinds of results

are not quite accepted right right so

this question that oftentimes comes up

is like why doesn't all of this research

that's out there that links diversity

with performance why doesn't that status

why are people not believe people not

believe in this right and I recognized

early on in my career that I really

wanted to try to understand partially

because of how I'm trained basically as

a psychologist I want to know if there's

actually a causal relationship between

diversity and outcomes that is if we put

people together in a room and there's

some surface level characteristics that

are different between them will that

actually benefit the team in some clear

way in the outcomes

okay so I've done I've done 20 plus

years of research that tries to answer

this causal question great well let's

ask this then the name of the webinar

how does it make us smarter to have

diversity yeah so this is actually a

piece that I published in 2014 and then

it was a republished again in 2017 by

Scientific American where I tried to

summarize the broad literature out there

recognizing first that diversity can be

difficult it can be very hard and

could be some negative effects that come

from putting people together who are

dislike one another but if you if you

have the right circumstances the

conclusion is that being around people

who are different from you makes us more

creative more diligent and hard-working

right and so let me tell you a little

bit about how I come to that conclusion

I do research that brings people

together to solve problems together as a

team and when those people come together

they make some individual decision and

they have some perspective about the

problem that they're facing or they have

some unique information that I've given

them so I know that they have some

unique deep level diversity right

amongst them and then I manipulate

what's the composition of the group do

they have surface level differences or

not are they a diverse team in terms of

those social categories or a homogeneous

one and I've done this now you know I've

published 20-plus papers I've done it

with thousand plus people where I've put

people into these small groups three to

six people in the group and I find

results that look like this kind of over

and over again now first of all I find

that diverse groups tend to outperform

homogeneous groups that is they're

better able to get to the right answer

they're more likely to have the diverse

unique knowledge perspectives and things

that they have deeper in them come out

to the surface to be utilized

effectively for the team's performance

right but when you ask people after

they've done this interaction how

effective was the group did things go

well how confident are you that you have

the right answer you see this opposite

effect that is that's shown here on the

graph where you see teams actually feel

like they were that more effective when

they were homogeneous when the surface

level characteristics were the same that

in comparison to when they were diverse

and they're more confident right if you

think about it it makes a lot of sense

if what what's going on is when people

get into the group and they see oh we're

all the same and they have an

interaction that's kind of free of

conflict we're on the same page very

quickly we think we did great

right we're really confident that we got

the right answer right and diverse

groups that are going through they have

agreements about the perspectives they

are bringing in unique knowledge that

otherwise wouldn't be brought up and

they kind of say well you know it was a

little bit harder for us to come just to

conclusion so the process is the problem

right and it's not the result the result

may have been better with the more

diverse team but they're saying well the

process was difficult exactly that's

exactly right it's a bias right

it's a bias this I really love now you

and I have known each other for a few

years I've heard you say this part and

this really altered my thinking on

diversities let me just read this value

is not simply because the people who are

different are bringing different

information which is what we all mostly

think as we go into diverse situation

but everyone changes their behavior when

in the presence of diversity yeah that's

interesting yeah so this this actually

this conclusion is a really important

one because the reality is that my

research has shown that it's even if the

person who looks different isn't

bringing some unique information with

them maybe the information is actually

already represented amongst the majority

of the group that's there the presence

of that surface level difference

triggers a different type of behavior

you actually now are looking for unique

information you're more open to hearing

those different perspectives you you

assume that because we look different

right we may think different right and

so you yourself starts to change your

behavior so you know let me tell you a

little bit about this one study that's

actually not my own it was done by Sam

summers and it's a jury decision-making

study where he manipulated very clearly

if the composition of the jury was all

white or if there were some lights and

some blacks Lee and either six whites or

four whites and two blacks and the

results of the research suggested that

actually the whites changed their

behavior in the presence of the

diversity right in the presence of the

of the African American jury members

such that they actually are more

diligent they actually recognize when

there's missing data they bring up less

inaccuracies they actually recall the

data more effectively and so they

actually are working harder that's why I

say they work harder when they're in

that diverse context and you know Sam

summers argue that part of the reason is

you know could be in that particular

context where race is an issue that well

you know I want to be really clear that

I'm not a racist right well and I want

to work

car to show you that I'm really thinking

deeply about this information my own

research acquires difference is

differences my own research actually

uses all kinds of different categories

I've looked at I've looked at you know

just minimal group differences I've

looked at political affiliation etc and

you see the similar kinds of effects

that happened so it's not just a I don't

want to appear racist it's is that this

person is different from me and I need

to think deeper great about the problem

and you see that in other research so

this this first bullet here talks about

research that is with race and the

second one actually talks about research

that we did with political affiliation

that actually shows that even before you

go into your communication into the

interaction more than just a group

interaction that in fact you are

thinking more deeply and more critically

about the different perspectives that

could be relevant for the problem that

you're facing

so in this studies we asked people we

want to we want you to interact with

this other person who has a different

perspective than your own but before you

actually talk to them we want you to

just write a statement in preparation

for the interaction that you're going to

have with this person and when we look

at that preparation it's it's it's

better they actually consider oh well I

have this perspective this person has

another perspective let me dig deeper

into this situation

and into this information to see well

why do I think the way I do well I might

you think the way you do and so then

once they do that they go in they talk

they have better performance right right

it completely makes sense you prepared

better you actually thought through the

problem more deeply exactly and just

make sure I'm getting this great also if

you're in a homogeneous group would

there be the tendency of members of that

group to sort of hide behind not taking

responsibility because they're like well

it's a homogeneous group I'll let one

person be a representative of the

thought yeah right and so this is this

you're opening up the idea like I am we

all have different perspectives it's

very you know obvious maybe if it's just

surface level so I can't hide behind the

fact that I'm just sitting back and

letting what I think right is gonna be

just a group right thought yeah it's

gonna fire those synapses it's really

interesting that that sometimes people

pick

pretty quickly when I talk about my

research on the idea of groupthink

because this research is very related to

the idea of groupthink that when you are

in an environment where everyone is the

same you know you're less likely to

question those different perspectives

and when I've done this work what I've

seen is the person in that homogeneous

environment who has that unique

information you know the one I know they

have unique information they're less

they're less likely to bring it up

confidently and when they do bring it up

their peers say what are you talking

about right we didn't have that that

must not be that important because we're

all the same we should all have the same

perspective right so like what are you

talking about and they're actually it's

funny that they say that the environment

feels more hostile towards them then a

diverse environment

and so one of the things that that I've

concluded is here on the slide the

diversity kind of jolts us into

cognitive action in ways that

homogeneity just does not right and the

benefits that we get from actually being

in that diverse environment become

pretty clear yeah so I'm gonna summarize

you know kind of what I've said with

this slide here where when we think

about surface level social category

diversity right things like race and

gender but there may be other things in

your organization it could even be

functional differences you know that the

marketing people versus the finance

people it could be you know did you come

in with the the current CEO or the

previous CEO all right you know we see

that a lot in organizations

I've been depending on the context

you're in it could be you know are you

single are you married like there are

things that become salient in particular

context that might drive these kinds of

effects okay so the social category

diversity it actually triggers us it

legitimates the presence of difference

different perspectives we expect there

to be some different perspectives there

it enhances things like pre meeting

preparation that we just talked about

information sharing something we call

integrative complexity which is just how

complex is the problem do you see that

it's that there's multiple sides to this

right to this issue we take other

people's perspective we were more

creative and we actually put forth more

effort we work harder okay so people

work harder but if you look at this all

together you recognize people do work

harder but people are

we're cognitive misers that is we we

don't really want to work so hard right

and we we actually that's what you see

that result like it wasn't that

effective that goes back to the original

slide right and they may not value the

process but feel good about the process

of getting to that to the to that

outcome I'll tell you about one other

one other study that's not on the slide

and that is we gave people a transcript

of a group conversation or we had them

watch a little video of a group

interaction and we just simply changed

the composition of who was in the group

so that the group was either homogeneous

on the surface or different and there

was a little conflict in the interaction

right and then we asked people how much

conflict is there okay and do you want

to invest in this team so that it can

continue to do its work and what people

said was even though the transcript was

exactly the same they said there was

more conflict if the group was a diverse

than if it was homogeneous we have this

bias we see this interaction happening

where people who look different from

each other are conflicting with one

another we think oh my god this is

horrible

all right this is not good I don't want

to see this right and no I don't want to

invest in this team any further right

okay so we end up getting in our own way

and we'd stop our stop ourselves from

being able to actually benefit from the

diversity that we have and the

assumptions that people are making going

into a diverse team are so opposite of

the assumptions going to a homogeneous

team is the maybe the assumption is let

this is going to be easy right and

that's not necessarily true they're just

maybe not being as effective because

you're not you're looking at surface

emerging you know not working as hard

and you walk out it looks like oh that

was an easy process but it's just

because you wanted to come to consensus

because the assumption is of course

we're all going to feel the same that's

right that's exactly that's not true

that's not true like then we should be

expecting difference all the time

exactly if we changed our mindset to a

mindset of difference is normal right

right and that in fact there's no two

individuals that are exactly the same

that we should have some differences

amongst us can we find it can we get it

out to the table can we benefit from

that from those differences that

perspective what is the you know I seen

this another what's the North Star right

where are we going where we going that's

this is the process but you know that's

you always keep that in mind yeah great

is that that that working hard and one

of the things that that comes through in

the data is if you look at homogeneous

teams versus the diverse teams the

diverse teams take longer to solve the

problem okay now when I've talked to

people about this they say that's

exactly right diverse teams are so

inefficient they're problematic because

they take too long and you have to go

him and in hauling about is that this or

either that and the reality is in the

studies that I've done I give people a

time a time frame to try to solve the

problem right say I give them 25 minutes

and they can finish as early as they

want as late as they want they still get

paid the same amount of money right they

still get paid the same when the diverse

the diverse teams take the 25 minutes

they take you know twenty minutes of the

twenty five the homogeneous groups take

14 we got it right right and the reality

is you paid them for doing 14 minutes of

work right when you really wanted them

to do 25 minutes and then that result

may not avail exactly and then that

result may not have been what you wanted

it to be right so this this this this is

an analogy that I use to help people

think about what about what am I talking

about when I say hard work some of us go

to the gym to go to the gym I do okay I

don't shouldn't worry raising my hand I

don't go more we all should go more

right there is there but when we go to

the gym we go in an intention right we

go in with a desire to seek discomfort

nobody wants to be sweaty you know the

pain that we get when we're doing the

reps and we say okay I got to do ten

more so I can really get that that

twinge in the muscle that lets me know

that muscle is working hard we take it

as a sign of progress we take it as a

sign that we're doing something right

and there will be benefit that comes

from this and that's the same way I

think about diversity that there's

a-there moments when you will be

uncomfortable there are moments when you

will disagree with somebody who looks

different from you and you'll think to

yourself do they disagree with me

because we're different on the surface

or do they really value and respect me

do they value and respect my perspective

that discomfort that you're feeling is

actually

normal and it's a sign that you are

making progress that's what I would like

people to think about you go to the gym

you have to be motivated to go right

right

and we oftentimes avoid that discomfort

right right but the reality is we need

to embrace that discomfort and

organizations and people who actually

decide that they want to embrace that

diversity I guarantee you you will get

some benefits out of that right and you

and if you if you continue it and if you

recognize that there are things that you

need to do to make sure that the upsides

outweigh the downsides right that you

don't that you're not in pain when

you're going through that experience

right that you have some balance in the

same way that when you go to the gym you

have to have some balance you can't just

keep going and keep going and keep going

and keep going you need to figure out

how to find the balance for yourself

right right absolutely yeah all right so

this is great information let's move on

to the next one so we we received a lot

of pre rubbin our questions about this

and you know one of the big themes we

saw that the reality of the even with

those best intentions even that

Northstar it doesn't always happen

that's right it doesn't always happen

and we know this is from some of my own

research with women in stem we know that

there are biases out there that get in

the way of us actually capturing these

benefits so in the first part of my

career I think I would say I was

probably one of the most optimistic

diversity scientists out there right

that that you know I I was look really

looking for where could the benefit come

from what are what is the potential

right and so I've been very I think

become well known for articulating the

potential and many people have used my

research to kind of support the business

case along with some of that early work

that I showed you that different places

like McKinsey etc right and so yes there

is a business case for diversity yes you

can get benefits from it but we know

that there are these kinds of biases

that are out there that get in the way

of actually benefiting from these things

this is particularly from about women in

stem with some quotes here you know if

you're perfect we might accept you but

if you're not perfect forget about it

right and not a whole lot is taken on

right I have to prove myself again and

again I'm held to a different standard

than my male colleagues you know it's

it's hard to be in this environment

where people are mistaking me for the

you know for the secretary right for the

administrator and so when we look at

this this research more broadly we have

to recognize that we have to do some

work to mitigate these downsides these

biases right so that's what you're gonna

say like yeah what are a few strategies

yeah yeah some questions so there's no

perfect answer right some people have

asked me like what to do what's the

solution and the reality is I tell

people this all the time if I had the

perfect answer I probably wouldn't be

here right now I'd be on the beach

enjoying my billions of dollars that I

made because I've solved one of the most

difficult problems out there right so

there's lots of strategies that people

throw at these problems and what I'm

just going to point out to you right

here are some factors that have been

identified very clearly to be important

for kind of capturing those benefits of

diversity so first of all there you need

to be open to innovation change

indifference you need to recognize that

we're working on tasks that are complex

and non-routine that is you shouldn't

necessarily expect benefits of diversity

everywhere right the relationship

between diversity and outcomes

performance is oftentimes predicated on

what your strategy is what your goals

are and what kind of task you're working

on so non-routine complex tasks where

you need to integrate unique information

and perspectives and really here and try

to get to that innovation focus is where

you should expect to get some benefits

from this diversity that's where things

will play out the way that I had

described okay the second thing is in

all of the studies that I've done

they've been people who are working in a

team with a goal to solve a problem not

to debate their opinions not to win but

to solve a complex problem that they

otherwise wouldn't be able to solve if

they didn't have one another's knowledge

and perspectives so you need to be

focused on problem solving versus

debating opinions and it's really about

we it's about us

solving this problem together and that's

having that kind of collectivistic

perspective as opposed to I want to be

seen as the best in this group right so

you have to have some collectivism there

and then the last one is really

important and that is any time you

introduce social category differences

you you may be introducing status

differences power dynamics that have to

be recognized and that have to be

essentially minimized okay so when we

think about characteristics like race

and gender we know that in society those

are in fact associated with status

differences and we also know that other

types of characteristics can be

associated with status differences as

well like some people are seen as better

than others and so it's really important

when you bring this diversity together

to try to minimize that those status

differences and there's a few strategies

that that people have shown work one is

making sure that there's some equality

of airtime don't let some groups

dominate the discussion over others that

actually reinforces that status

hierarchy and makes it difficult for

people to actually capture the benefits

of other people's knowledge second thing

is you can do things in your own team to

change that strut that dynamic that

power dynamic things like having low

status people speak up first right if

the high status people are the ones

dominating the discussion again your

Metin you may not get the benefits from

that diversity no interruption rule when

I'm talking nobody else is talking right

so that everyone is getting their equal

airtime and then finally there's

research that shows that even the rule

that you have in place for how do you

make the decision can make a difference

so remember early on I told you about

Sam summers jury decision-making study

where essentially in a jury its

unanimity rules right it's like

everybody has to agree and that changes

the dynamics significantly if it's a

majority rule we don't have to listen to

these people right right and so even

thinking about what are the norms of how

we come to our final conclusion may

change the way you are able to capture

the benefits of that diversity and so

those are a few ideas but of course the

reality is and I try to help people to

understand the problem is not diversity

itself

right so people say oh you know

diversity forget about it is hard I

don't want to don't want to deal with it

we know that diversity itself can have

benefits the question is what are the

things that are getting in the way of

capturing the benefits of that diversity

and those are things like biases

discrimination prejudice right all of

the isms that we talk about compulsion

complacency right all of these things

that get in the way of us actually

capturing the benefits those are the

things that we need to to aim our target

at to try to make sure that we are

mitigating those things and you know for

some characteristics they may be easier

than others some people say okay

professor Phillips that's all fighting

good right except these things are so

ingrained in the structures and the

cultures and in the way of doing things

and organizations who gets the cushy you

know assignment who gets the next best

client that comes in these are all

decisions that are made that are that

that are subject to bias right and and

and and and in limiting people's

opportunities so we have to be very

careful to Zone in on those issues to

try to make sure that we we can get over

the the negative side so we can get to

the positive positive benefits that I

guarantee you will be there see that

that difficulty is a good result there

is difficulty it's a good yeah that's we

have a lot of questions man yeah we're

gonna get to as many we have about four

minutes left right now but we will be

taping the conversation continues after

this so we will take all our so many

questions we get to but this is a really

good one this from Quan okay

will a diverse and heterogeneous group

become homogeneous over time if so how

do you maintain in the psychological

differences among members group

commitment seems to build groupthink I

love that question tastic question is

one that I often get and I would I would

argue to you a couple things one is

healthy turnover is important and that

that in fact research has shown that

healthy turnover is important for groups

and and the second thing is what do you

make normative in the group when you

talk to people for instance you're

getting to know them you're asking them

how their weekend was are you looking

for similarity or are you looking for

difference and if you create a norm that

difference is normal that

you did something different than I did

this weekend and I want to learn about

it that it kind of continues to kind of

keep that ethos present in the group so

I encourage people you know don't hide

the fact that you know you were off

doing whatever you were doing this

weekend because it kind of creates the

opportunity for you to to highlight that

my there are things about who I am and

what I do that I value that are

important to me that may be different

than yours and we have to respect those

differences and with the turnover to

keep making sure your hiring practices

that's right we're thinking about that's

right it's very easy to fall into that

sort of homogeneous hiring that's right

you know absolutely all right with a

couple more minutes from Elizabeth how

does this data change by industry if at

all oh yeah absolutely we know that

there are some industries that are that

are a little behind kind of more behind

others on there and their efforts around

diversity and so the reality is if you

think about a particular industry each

industry has its own culture it has its

own history it has its own structures

right so you can imagine that an

industry that has been always masculine

dominated like tech and and you know

science like stem areas that that we

know there's more difficulty with

particular types of diversity gender and

racial difference or when we think about

you know if you're thinking about a

consumer products kind of company maybe

you won't have the same culture there in

the same history and so it really does

that I think the history and the in the

culture matters right all right well we

have about time for one more question

here this is from Luis do you think that

the better results of diverse teams

serve for blue-collar workers also or is

it just more for educated executive

group another really good question the

reality is there is a bit of a bias and

the research that's done right so if we

think about where a lot of this research

that you see out in the world is being

done it's been done at universities so

I'm you know working with educated

people so it's a it's a very good

question

I don't know if I have really good

evidence to suggest that it won't work

in blue-collar in situations or that it

will work in blue-collar situations but

I think the dynamic that you have to be

cognizant of is what kind of work are

the blue-collar workers doing and how do

we think the differences between them on

the sir

this might be affecting that work that

you're doing so it's a question of what

is the work that you're doing there's a

question of what is the culture like in

that blue-collar environment and and do

you have stronger status hierarchies

around gender and race and these kinds

of things and what are you doing to

mitigate that you know I think we we all

have probably seen the story about GM

that recently came out right so we so

you know we see that the context does

matter and that the hope is my belief is

that there are benefits that can be that

can be garnered in any environment if

you in fact understand the context

that's how that's impinging on those

benefits whatever your context is right

you apply it right well this has been

great

lots of great information I'm so excited

to answer more questions with you during

the conversation continues Kathryn thank

you so much for being with us today

thank you and thank you for being with

us stay tuned for the conversation

continues we will send that along with

this live webinar to you thank you thank

you

you