Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 303

The business case for diversity and inclusion

In March 2019, the Thinking Ahead Institute conducted its first public seminars in Sydney and Melbourne. We polled the audience of investment professionals on the current pace of action in the industry on inclusion and diversity. Delegates voted on five options and the overwhelming response in both cities shows us there is a lot of scope to improve.

Improved diversity is the new corporate zeitgeist. We need more women, we need more ethnic minorities, we need more, well ... just anyone that doesn’t look like ‘us’. And sorry, did I forget to mention we need it fast?

The investment industry is struggling to catch up. Why? Because for too long both structural and unconscious bias have limited opportunities for non-white, non-male, non-private school educated individuals. The workforce is so visibly homogenous that it has almost become embarrassing.

There have been signs of progress. The light shone on gender pay gaps, the recently proposed crackdown in the UK on ethnic pay gaps, and the increasing challenge against companies who have exercised discriminatory policies have dragged many companies into the limelight.

Wanted: quick fixes please! But wait … why exactly are we doing this diversity thing anyway?

As with most things in life, anything worth doing is hard and quick fixes are elusive. While many organisations have accepted the virtue of more diverse teams, it’s worth spending a little more time exploring why. Is this about compliance or commercials? Is this about performance or is this about culture? And by the way, will more women help my team make better decisions?

Digging deeper: the business case for diversity

The benefits of diversity have already long been noted. In a speech to Stanford Business School in 1998, Lewis Platt, then-CEO of Hewlett Packard noted:

I see three main points to make the business case for diversity:

- A talent shortage that requires us to seek out and use the full capabilities of all our employees
- The need to be like our customers, including the need to understand and communicate with them in terms that reflects their concerns
- Diverse teams produce better results.

This last point is not as easy to sell as the first two - especially to engineers who want the data. What I need is the data, evidence that diverse groups do better.”

Therein lies the problem. While it is generally accepted that diversity has many benefits, the arguments quickly meld into answering the question “does having more diverse teams improve business performance?” The often-cited McKinsey publication, Diversity Matters, found that companies in the top quartile of gender and ethnic diversity were 15% and 35% respectively more likely to have experienced financial returns above their national industry median. They found the reverse for companies in the bottom quartile. But, as the study notes, correlation is not causation; greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership does not automatically translate into more profit.

Building collective intelligence: is it diversity or is it cognitive diversity?

So how do you improve the collective intelligence within teams? Improved cognitive diversity goes a long way. Business school professors, Alison Reynolds and David Lewis, define cognitive diversity as “differences in perspective or information processing styles.” In their research published in Harvard Business Review, they noted a “significant correlation between high cognitive diversity and high [team] performance” when executing new, uncertain and complex tasks.

Brilliant. We have a link between cognitive diversity and performance. Unfortunately, the bad news is, unlike demographics, cognitive diversity does not come with a shiny label. It is hard to detect at face value. The worse news, from Reynolds and Lewis, is that:

“ ... having run the execution exercise around the world more than 100 times over the last 12 years, we have found no correlation between this type of [surface-level] diversity and performance”.

And to add insult to injury, Wharton management professor, Katherine Klein, notes that “board gender diversity either has a very weak relationship with board performance or no relationship at all”.

Some readers will be torn between wanting to have more diversity in the workplace and some hard-line academics who say that merely putting a bunch of women on your board won’t necessarily improve performance (which of course needs to be balanced with the heavily caveated studies which say that they will).

There is, however, some further evidence. Anita Woolley, Associate Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, has devoted much of her research to systematically examining the collective intelligence of teams. In the search for a collective intelligence factor (the c-factor), Woolley and her co-authors argue that there are three factors which correlate significantly to a team’s collective intelligence:

  • the average social sensitivity of group members
  • the equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking, and
  • the proportion of females in the group.

But the latter two factors did not remain statistically significant after controlling for social sensitivity. In Klein’s work she postulates that the weak relationship between surface-level diversity and team performance could be due to the fact that the women named to corporate boards may not in fact “differ very much in their values, experiences, and knowledge from men”. Even if these women were different from men, “they may not speak up in board conversations and they may lack the influence to change the board’s decisions”. Her research points to the idea that outliers to a group often self-censor and even when these individuals speak up, majority group members may discount their views, not taking “full advantage of their own cognitive variety”.

Diversity: the not-so-hard facts

We need to tread carefully here. This is not a hard science. Greater surface-level diversity is not the magic bullet for solving your team’s decision-making issues. But, on the other hand, there are quite a few reasons why greater diversity is of benefit to your organisation.

Improved diversity of people from different socio-economic, educational and cultural backgrounds is a useful path to improved cognitive diversity, especially if all of your team currently comes from a limited range of backgrounds. We also know that good diversity policies (a) ensure that there are clear signals to your employees that there are no glass ceilings and everyone has fair access to opportunities, (b) allow organisations to access the best and widest pool of talent available, (c) ensure that your organisation is reflective of a global client base and a changing global landscape and (d) align with UN’s sustainable development goals.

So where does this leave us?

To truly leverage the benefits of diversity requires organisations to put in effort – diversity requires integration for it to work well. James Surowiecki in his 2004 book, The Wisdom of Crowds, argues that groups can make better decisions than individuals but only if three conditions apply: diversity, independence and an effective means of aggregating views. His last point on aggregation is critical. There’s no point in having a diverse team if nobody listens to what anybody else is saying. And there’s no point having a diverse team if people feel excluded and believe they don’t have a voice.

Organisations need a sustained, systematic and long-term commitment to diversity and inclusion. While the theory around diversity is important, it’s the practice that really matters.

We explore this point further in our paper, How to choose? A primer on decision-making in institutional investing.

 

Marisa Hall, MSc, FIA, is a Director in the Thinking Ahead Group, an independent research team at Willis Towers Watson and executive to the Thinking Ahead Institute.

 


 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Why investment stewardship matters for long-term investors

Julie Bishop on leaders, life, Liberals and libertines

Two great examples of why company management matters

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.