CEOs generally want more diversity on their boards. After all, different perspectives and fresh ideas produce more innovation and agility, or so the theory goes. But as one CEO at the head of a company needing to make a lot of swift changes recently pointed out – a diverse board also brings with it a number of issues. “Do I really want the hassle of dealing with potential fall-outs, clashes and differences of opinion that more diversity would inevitably bring, and therefore actually reduce our decision-making agility?” he asked. “Perhaps, I’m better off sticking to a homogenous board. At least that way, I’ll be able to crack on with pressing matters without too much backlash. After all,” he added. “Very few boards that pursue diversity ever see any desired benefits.”

Far from being an isolated case, we see many CEOs who question the effectiveness of their diversity initiatives. We believe that the majority of diversity programmes are failing to deliver and hampering agility for reasons connected with how diversity is defined, and how it is dealt with from a developmental point of view within organisations.

Defining diversity
I have heard the phrase, “He or she is a diverse individual”, or a close variant, on more than one occasion, in both the private and public sectors. It should go without saying that when we talk of diversity, we are not talking about individuals, but a variation amongst people. Diversity does not exist in splendid isolation, and is not defined by colour, age or sexual orientation. In some situations, adding the view of a middle-class, middle-aged white male could be adding diversity to the mix. Diversity can therefore only exist in groups, and refers to the ways in which people can differ across a whole range of dimensions. As such, it is equally applicable to visible and non-visible characteristics of an individual.

Despite this, there does appear to be a fixation on the importance of visual representation with respect to diversity. In 2008, the Alliance for Board Diversity in the US, compiled statistics about the composition of the boards of directors of Fortune 100 companies. They came up with a range of interesting statistics, such as 83% of board members were white men, whilst only 17% of board seats were held by women and minorities. Research in the UK in 2006, echoed similar results; although black and ethnic minority communities account for around 7.9% of the UK's population, they are hugely underrepresented on public boards. Whilst this certainly tells us something, what it does not tell us is whether the visible differences denote anything meaningful when it comes to decision-making, creativity, or agility in the workplace.

We are in danger of using visible physical characteristics to ‘represent’ diversity, and assuming that these visible differences translate into variations in outlook, views, skills and experiences. Political views, social background and personality are not covered by any laws in Great Britain, and yet are all hugely variable and important dimensions that affect how people operate at work as much as any of the more ‘visible’ dimensions typically covered by legislation. When we consider how to reap the benefits of having a diverse group of decision makers, it is therefore vital that we ensure the differences are not literally ‘skin deep’, as this will not add a great deal to the group’s ability to innovate or respond with agility.

Once we are clear on what we actually mean by diversity, we can then consider what might be expected from a truly diverse group, and whether the promised performance benefits actually arise.

Do diverse groups actually deliver?
One of the strongest business cases for diversity is that it fosters innovation and creativity – a key way a company can become agile. The evidence that diverse teams produce more innovative solutions stems from differences in seeing and thinking, as well as from the range of experience that individuals can bring from elsewhere. Most companies accept that diverse teams have a far better chance of creating more ideas than homogeneous ones, and in some cases, drive particularly groundbreaking innovation; precisely the type of innovation that companies are desperate for right now.

Take the example of the highly diverse Quantum Lab at Hewlett-Packard, consisting of over 30 researchers from 13 different countries and 4 different continents. They are still one of the highest patent-generating labs in the US, whilst other companies that are hot housing diverse teams to come up with innovative ideas and products, are still generating mixed results. The basic findings seem to be that diverse teams, when managed well, lead to more innovation because the diversity advantage is recognised, valued and leveraged.

Note, however, that ‘being managed well’ is a necessary component if the benefits of diversity are to be reaped. Diverse teams without good management guidance can be dysfunctional, and often underperform mono-cultural teams. Other studies support this view, and find that the internal communication issues and conflict found within diverse work groups actually restrict performance as a result of diverse groups requiring a more sophisticated management approach; something that our CEO friend intuitively believed might affect his board’s decision-making agility.

With respect to the part of agility that relates to speed and ease of decision-making, is it possible that having a truly diverse team could make teams less agile if the tensions and differences are not managed effectively? The answer appears to be ‘yes’. So what can you do about it? Will a nice dose of diversity training address this ‘double-edged sword’ of diverse groups?

The problem with diversity training
Although almost unheard of 20 years ago, most companies now do some form of diversity training for a variety of reasons. Like the benefits of diverse teams themselves however, it has proven difficult to show that they have a positive impact. According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD), the ‘jury is still out’ when it comes to attempts to manage diversity through diversity training. Part of the issue with such programmes is their perceived link with older equal opportunities programmes, which tend to focus more on issues of legality rather than opportunity.

Anecdotally, a lot of managers take a dim view of diversity management that is not helped by this conceptual link to the older style training. Indeed, some programmes are still guilty of falling into the ‘visibility trap’ mentioned earlier, by dealing predominantly with those dimensions of diversity covered by legislation and focusing on ‘the law’. In the delegate’s eyes, this simply adds weight to the view that the training is a requirement rather than an opportunity, in much the same way as people sometimes view health and safety training. Not only does this focus ensure that delegates are unlikely to learn much about truly coming to terms with diversity and a consideration of how to utilise it, it also means that they come to the training with low expectations and a low motivation to learn. At worst, diversity management is seen as a tick-box exercise, hardly the best way for those to approach it if the benefits of having diverse teams are to outweigh some of the challenges.

Where do we go from here?
The first question for any organisation considering running a diversity management programme, is to ask what is required from it. Training programmes that address very different requirements often get lumped under the banner of ‘diversity training’, which does not help. The range of scope of programmes typically falling under this banner can be seen in the table below, which details the sort of material, motivations and outcomes for each type of programme.



As the table above illustrates, if we are to reap the true benefits of having diverse teams, it’s about providing training that goes beyond equal opportunities (1) and even beyond training that will help leaders and team members really understand what diversity is and how to manage it effectively (2). It will touch on how to actually utilise diversity (3) in order to help your team become agile to improve group and organisational performance.

If we want to create agile organisations that make effective decisions and can cope in adversity, then utilising diversity and all its richness in terms of different views, experiences, styles and beliefs is a valid goal. Unfortunately, it is this aspect of diversity that takes more time than simply sending managers on a one-day course covering legislation. Programmes that seek to go beyond the need to raise awareness about the ways in which we differ, are those that develop techniques for working with those differences, deal with inherent prejudices, and foster a climate where people are able to speak openly about these issues. If this is too much to take on, then expecting to reap the benefits of investing in diversity is perhaps not realistic.

What does all this mean for organisational agility and the decision our CEO had to make? The organisational reality at the time dictated that he did not have the time to invest in a programme that would have ensured he reaped the benefits of diversity. However, from what we know of organisations that truly embrace a range of diverse views and skills, a longer-term investment of management time, although painful at times, could have reaped greater rewards.

Diversity Profile
At ER Consultants, we spend a lot of time working with CEOs and organisations to help them understand each other’s different personalities, thinking styles and ways of working. We achieve this through raising peoples awareness about their skills, personalities and often their prejudices about how others work, before developing strategies for coping with and utilising these differences. It is not always an easy process, and it is not achieved through simply telling people how they can or cannot work with each other.

One way we can help to achieve this is through personality profiling – a tool that goes beyond visible differences and focuses instead on personality types (see article on page 12). After all, a team’s ability to work together productively often boils down to the ways in which the different personalities interact to bring out the best in each other. In our experience, when you look beyond the visible, and focus instead on selecting a diverse range of attributes for your team, you are more likely to achieve agility.


For more information, contact: Mike.Thackray@erconsultants.co.uk