💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 5848.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Katherine W. PhillipsRobert B. Lount, Jr.Oliver SheldonFloor Rink
February 22, 2016
Tech companies, banks, consulting firms, you name it all are scrambling to
create diverse and inclusive environments. But despite pouring millions of
dollars annually into diversity efforts, organizations sometimes fail to
capture the benefits that diverse groups reportedly offer.
One possibility for this failure is that the purported benefits of diversity
are more hype than reality, but that s unlikely given the ample research that
speaks against this claim. Racially diverse groups of jurors exchange a wider
range of information during deliberations than racially homogeneous groups, for
example. Diverse groups of traders are less likely to make inaccurate judgments
when trading stocks. Gender diversity in top management teams improves firm
performance, especially when innovation is a strategic focus. And our own past
research helped establish the fact that the mere presence of diversity can lead
groups to work harder, share unique perspectives, be more open to new ideas,
and perform better, especially when groups need to share information and
resolve differences of opinion.
So why the disconnect between the potential of diverse groups and reality? Part
of the problem may be the fact that people s biases about diverse groups, both
conscious and unconscious, can undermine the very benefits of diversity.
To examine this hypothesis, we conducted a series of experiments in which
participants made judgments about the level of conflict in a group s
interactions. They also rated their willingness to provide that group with the
resources it requested. With this approach we were able to hold constant the
content of the interaction every participant either read the same exact
transcript, watched the same video interaction, or listened to the same
discussion among a group of four members. The only thing that changed was the
racial composition of the individuals in the group. Homogeneous groups were
either all-white or all-black, and diverse groups had two whites and two blacks
in the group.
The findings were striking. When reading a transcript with pictures revealing
the group s composition, racially diverse teams were perceived as having more
relationship conflict than homogeneous ones. And they were less likely to
receive additional resources because of these biased perceptions of conflict
even though the objective content of the group interaction was exactly the
same.
We tried it again maybe it was something about the written transcript that
left some things to the imagination of the participant. This time we hired
actors to create videotaped discussions for our participants to watch. We were
very careful to ensure that content, tone, and behavior of the actors was the
same across the videos. Again, the only thing we changed was the composition of
the group it was either diverse or homogeneous and we saw the same pattern
emerge. Diverse groups were perceived as having more relationship conflict, and
because of this, financial resources were less likely to be given to them than
to homogeneous groups. The diverse groups were handicapped, potentially
derailing future success.
In our final study we used audiotaped discussions and photos of the group
members to appear racially diverse or homogenous and found the same pattern of
results. Importantly we learned from this last experiment that it is only when
groups are experiencing moderate and somewhat ambiguous levels of conflict that
there is a clear bias against diverse teams. When the conflict was very clear
and high, homogeneous and diverse teams were equally less likely to receive
funding.
There are two important observations that make these findings compelling it
wasn t just that the presence of more black members made people think the
groups had more relationship conflict. Groups of all blacks were rated the same
as groups of all whites. It was only when there was a diverse racial
composition that this biased assessment emerged. Second, participants in our
studies also assessed how much task conflict existed in the groups and here no
differences were found. It was only the assessment of relationship conflict
that varied and undermined the willingness to support the diverse teams.
So what can organizations do to combat this bias against diverse groups? At a
basic level, an important first step is to cultivate an awareness of this bias
in those responsible for evaluating diverse teams. Relationship conflict, in
fact, is not necessarily a sign that things are going completely wrong or can t
be resolved. It may be the result of differing information, perspectives, and
worldviews being worked through to allow innovation, better problem solving,
and accurate decisions to emerge. Remember that your assessment of the severity
of the conflict might be lower if it was happening in an equivalent homogeneous
group.
Second, managers should rely upon clear standards of performance set before
not during group observation instead of making performance and resource
determinations in the middle of the process. Another way to measure performance
could be having people who were not able to observe the group process be
involved in the evaluation of the outcomes. These evaluators should also be
blind to the composition of the team if possible. This should help reduce bias
against diverse teams the same way blind auditions in orchestras helped
eliminate bias against female musicians. By disconnecting the process and
composition from the actual performance of the groups, the benefits of
diversity might be seen more clearly.
Finally, a little advice for the diverse teams themselves: You have to play
offense and ensure that managers see and value when things are going smoothly
on the team. Celebrate your outcomes, even when they come from what may look
like a messy process to others. And make sure those evaluating you know as much
about when things are going well as they do about when things seemingly aren t.
Without counter information, managers biases may stunt the progress of diverse
teams, and unwittingly undermine the opportunity for the benefits of diversity
to emerge in the organization.
Katherine W. Phillips is the Paul Calello Professor of Leadership and Ethics
and the senior vice dean at the Columbia Business School. Her research focuses
on the areas of diversity, stereotyping, status, identity management,
information sharing, minority influence, decision making, and performance in
work groups.
Robert B. Lount, Jr. is an associate professor of management at the Fisher
College of Business at the Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. from
the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. His research
focuses on how group composition and social status shape decision making,
motivation, trust, and performance.
Oliver Sheldon is an assistant professor of Management and Global Business at
Rutgers Business School. His research investigates triggers of interpersonal
competition and conflict within small groups and teams, with the aim of
shedding light on how organizations might improve coordination and
collaboration among employees.
Floor Rink is a professor in Organizational Behavior at the Faculty of
Economics and Business from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. She
examines how people respond to diversity and change within organizations and
how people s decisions are influenced by organizational norms and regulations.