Over the last several years, there has been an increased push to talk about diversity, under the assumption that being blind to difference is counterproductive and that to leverage the benefits of diversity, we have to emphasize it. But is it really a good idea to talk about difference? This week’s WAPPP seminar featured Ashley Martin, PhD Candidate at Columbia Business School, as she presented a series of studies about awareness of difference and effects on inclusion and empowerment.
There is a great deal of literature about awareness of difference with respect to race: talking about difference reduces bias and increases engagement. However, there is almost no research on this awareness strategy for gender. The single study that had been published showed that being aware of or emphasizing gender differences was related to benevolent sexism. As a field, researchers have not systematically explored the types of differences attention to diversity emphasizes, whether they are similar for race and gender, and how this strategy affects outcomes for each group.
Effects of awareness on attributions of difference
In the first study, the researchers asked 143 participants to list ten differences either between men and women or between black and white people. When asked to categorize these differences, it became clear that the listed racial differences were far more in the realm of opportunity and culture, and the gender differences were more related to personality and biology. The results of this initial study demonstrate that the types of differences that people generate when asked to consider race and gender are difference – for race, people focus on external differences related to opportunity, but for gender, people focus on internal differences.
The second study served to measure individuals’ beliefs about how one should approach difference. Study participants were rated on an awareness scale (how often they agreed with statements like “there are differences between groups that should be acknowledged” versus “there is no reason to categorize people based on their membership in a certain group”) and how often they attributed difference to external versus internal factors (opportunity/culture or personality/biology). Study participants who said that we should celebrate racial differences were more likely to attribute difference to opportunity; by contrast, those who said we should celebrate gender differences were more likely to attribute difference to biology. Recognizing external differences with respect to race is a positive development, as recognizing inequality is the first step in disrupting it. However, attributing gender differences to personality and biology has consequences for women.
In particular, the third study revealed that “personality differences” really boil down to stereotypes about gender and leadership; that men are agentic and assertive, whereas women are communal and warm. By telling people to recognize and embrace differences, we may be inadvertently telling them to embrace stereotypes that limit women’s opportunities. In this experiment, subjects were divided into three groups: the first read an article on why it is good to be aware of differences, the second an article on why it is good to be blind to differences, and the third were simply asked to think about diversity.
In the second stage of the study, participants were asked to rate whether differences between groups were due to opportunity or biology, to what extent a list of character traits regarding assertiveness versus communality were associated with each group, and a measure of “denial of inequality” – whether participants thought that discrimination was not a problem, and that on average all groups were treated equally.
On the race side, participants were more likely to attribute difference to opportunity rather than biology. However, those who reflected on the importance of acknowledging difference in the first stage were more likely to attribute differences to opportunity, while those who read the article deemphasizing difference made fewer opportunity attributions. On the gender side, participants endorsed biological reasons for difference in both the control and the “aware” condition. Only the group who read the article about being blind to difference attributed gender differences more to opportunity than to biology. Further analysis of these findings indicated that there was little connection between race and stereotyping. By contrast, all participants associated men with agency much more than women, though in the blind condition, this assessment decreased somewhat.
Overall, this study reveals that being blind to difference is the baseline for racial differences, and that awareness pushes people to consider the antecedents of difference more closely. For gender, awareness of difference doesn’t change results from the status quo, but being blind to difference can improve assessments of women.
Effects on bias
The next study was designed to test the effects of awareness ideology on bias. Two groups of male study participants were asked to read either the “aware of difference” article or the “blind to difference” article, and then were given a woman’s resume and asked to rate her leadership potential and assess whether they would hire her. In the awareness condition, participants rated the applicant lower on leadership potential than in the blindness condition, and were less likely to hire her. The decision to hire is mediated by the individual’s leadership evaluation, which is itself affected by stereotypes regarding agency and what makes a good leader that are emphasized through awareness of gender difference.
Effects on women’s confidence
How do these assessments affect women at work? In the next study, 163 women were asked to make lists of differences or similarities between genders, and were then asked to what extent these qualities undermined their ability to be seen as a leader. When women listed differences, they perceived these differences as having a major negative effect on their leadership potential and listed more words related to agency and assertiveness than when they listed similarities.
In the next phase of the study, 115 women read either the article about the benefits of being aware of difference, the benefits of being blind to difference, or a control article that was completely devoid of any gendered content. Next, the participants took a workplace confidence scale: in the control condition and in the awareness condition, women rated their workplace confidence above the midpoint. However, in the blindness condition, women rated themselves as significantly more competent.
Awareness of difference not only affects confidence, but also action-taking. The next study featured 126 female managers, who read either the aware or blind to differences article, then completed a self-assessment of their agency, the workplace confidence scale, and then participated in several risky decision tasks. In the awareness condition, the participants identified less with agency, rated themselves lower on workplace confidence, and took less action than in the blindness condition.
Dyadic effects
In the final study, the researchers examined how men’s awareness beliefs affected male-female interactions. Study participants were divided into male-female pairs. In the first part of the study, the men read either the awareness or blindness article. Next, the pairs were asked to complete the bushfire survival task, requiring them to discuss and rank a list of survival items in order of importance. Independent raters were asked to evaluate the amount of time men versus women spent talking, the level of openness in the conversation, and the overall quality of the interaction. In the awareness condition, men spoke more than women and were less open. In the blindness condition, women spoke significantly more than men, men and women were equally open, and the interactions were overall higher in quality. Indeed, it seemed that men were “leaning out” so that women could lean in.
The results of these studies indicate that awareness of difference can be beneficial in attributing race to external differences, but that deemphasizing gender difference leads to better outcomes for women. This research demonstrates that diversity strategies shouldn’t be monolithic, as they may not work for all groups. Perhaps instead of discussing differences between men and women, discussing similarities may be an effective intervention to promote gender equality.
Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Inclusive Talent Management: How Business Can Thrive in an Age of Diversity with Stephen Frost
Many organizations believe that they are truly meritocratic. This belief can make C-suite executives react defensively when faced with evidence of bias. How can diversity and inclusion advocates best communicate to such an audience in ways that leverage existing research and, most importantly, in ways that will be accepted and incorporated by those in leadership roles? This week’s WAPPP seminar featured Stephen Frost, Founder and Principal at Frost Included and WAPPP AY14 Fellow, whose latest book, Inclusive Talent Management: How Business Can Thrive in the Age of Diversity, demonstrates how to align talent management and diversity and inclusion agendas.
Steve began with a video that encapsulates the notion that “it’s easy to miss something you’re not looking for.”
When viewers are concentrating on counting the number of passes one team makes, it’s easy to miss the moonwalking bear! A similar logic applies to talent management concerns – when managers protest that they “can’t find qualified women” for a leadership role, it behooves us to ask how we can restructure talent management processes with an eye toward diversity and inclusion to make sure that such qualified candidates – who certainly exist! – are properly identified and given due consideration.
One reason it’s so easy to “not look for” diverse candidates is because we anchor on our in-groups. Think of your five closest friends, your five closest colleagues, your partner(s), and where you live. How diverse is this group? Often, our in-groups are very similar to ourselves. Our in-groups also serve as our anchors for perceiving traits like intelligence and trustworthiness in others. Without a diverse in-group that would counteract this implicit bias, we create schema of what a “leader” looks like, for example, based on the people we know who are similar to us. This bias can also manifest in corporate decisions, so that we tend to hire, retain, and promote people like ourselves.
The challenge, Steve says, is that in an age of diversity, we are still addicted to likeness. The resolution is how to change the system and our own behaviors. The key to creating change is to employ both unconscious nudges – changing the way we structure our environment to incentivize less-biased decisions – as well as conscious leadership efforts.
Steve and his colleagues interviewed 66 organizations, asking whether they believed themselves to be meritocracies and asking about their talent management in terms of recruitment, retention, and promotion. The current state is homogenous talent management, infused with large amounts of bias at each stage. However, Steve also found three models of diversity and inclusion programs. Diversity 101 is “diversity for diversity’s sake,” characterized by a compliance-based approach – “we do it because we have to.” Diversity 2.0 is “diversity for social responsibility,” which makes a marketing approach to diversity designed to draw out the benefits of difference. Diversity 3.0, by contrast, treats diversity as a boardroom-level issue and employs a bottom-up, integrated approach to systems designed to embed the benefits of difference.
One such example, as Steve described, was a decision to interview candidates in groups of ten in order to save time and money. In these larger settings, interviewers tended to see skill sets as more salient, rather than identity, and were primed to think about team dynamics rather than the individual. In these group interview settings, recruiters hired more diverse candidates. This change was to save resources, not because of the research on nudges toward diversity and inclusion, but had the effect of creating a more diverse work environment.
Steve also discussed an intervention in talent management specifically related to gender at KPMG. The organization’s talent management approach involved all of the (predominantly straight white male) partners gathering in one room, talking about who they want to promote to the partnership, putting candidates on table, and agreeing on 10-20. Unsurprisingly, given what we know about in-groups and unconscious bias, the candidates up for promotion tended to look like the existing partners. The question is how to make this group less biased and more meritocratic without making them defensive.
The simple intervention that Steve proposed was to whiteboard the pipeline of potential incoming partners, separating the pool that were considered ready for partnership from those who were one to two years out, but to write the names of male candidates in red and female candidates in green. As soon as the names were written out, the discrepancy was clear – women were considered one to two years out for consideration for partnership, while men were disproportionately considered ready for promotion. On top of this, Steve attached a quantitative measure of performance for each name. Then, it became clear that several names in the “ready for partnership” group, predominantly men, were less well-performing than women in the “one to two years out” group. This intervention employs simple strategies to engender a rational, rigorous, calm, and systematic approach to checking in-group bias in talent management.
One practical challenge with diversity and inclusion interventions is that everyone is stressed and has little time and attention, to say nothing of resources, to put toward this critical work. Fortunately, even simple interventions can decrease unconscious bias, and when paired with conscious leadership efforts, these interventions can be very powerful. The simplest approach is simply to ask people to remember to ask “WADI”: What About Diversity and Inclusion.
Steve began with a video that encapsulates the notion that “it’s easy to miss something you’re not looking for.”
When viewers are concentrating on counting the number of passes one team makes, it’s easy to miss the moonwalking bear! A similar logic applies to talent management concerns – when managers protest that they “can’t find qualified women” for a leadership role, it behooves us to ask how we can restructure talent management processes with an eye toward diversity and inclusion to make sure that such qualified candidates – who certainly exist! – are properly identified and given due consideration.
One reason it’s so easy to “not look for” diverse candidates is because we anchor on our in-groups. Think of your five closest friends, your five closest colleagues, your partner(s), and where you live. How diverse is this group? Often, our in-groups are very similar to ourselves. Our in-groups also serve as our anchors for perceiving traits like intelligence and trustworthiness in others. Without a diverse in-group that would counteract this implicit bias, we create schema of what a “leader” looks like, for example, based on the people we know who are similar to us. This bias can also manifest in corporate decisions, so that we tend to hire, retain, and promote people like ourselves.
The challenge, Steve says, is that in an age of diversity, we are still addicted to likeness. The resolution is how to change the system and our own behaviors. The key to creating change is to employ both unconscious nudges – changing the way we structure our environment to incentivize less-biased decisions – as well as conscious leadership efforts.
Steve and his colleagues interviewed 66 organizations, asking whether they believed themselves to be meritocracies and asking about their talent management in terms of recruitment, retention, and promotion. The current state is homogenous talent management, infused with large amounts of bias at each stage. However, Steve also found three models of diversity and inclusion programs. Diversity 101 is “diversity for diversity’s sake,” characterized by a compliance-based approach – “we do it because we have to.” Diversity 2.0 is “diversity for social responsibility,” which makes a marketing approach to diversity designed to draw out the benefits of difference. Diversity 3.0, by contrast, treats diversity as a boardroom-level issue and employs a bottom-up, integrated approach to systems designed to embed the benefits of difference.
One such example, as Steve described, was a decision to interview candidates in groups of ten in order to save time and money. In these larger settings, interviewers tended to see skill sets as more salient, rather than identity, and were primed to think about team dynamics rather than the individual. In these group interview settings, recruiters hired more diverse candidates. This change was to save resources, not because of the research on nudges toward diversity and inclusion, but had the effect of creating a more diverse work environment.
Steve also discussed an intervention in talent management specifically related to gender at KPMG. The organization’s talent management approach involved all of the (predominantly straight white male) partners gathering in one room, talking about who they want to promote to the partnership, putting candidates on table, and agreeing on 10-20. Unsurprisingly, given what we know about in-groups and unconscious bias, the candidates up for promotion tended to look like the existing partners. The question is how to make this group less biased and more meritocratic without making them defensive.
The simple intervention that Steve proposed was to whiteboard the pipeline of potential incoming partners, separating the pool that were considered ready for partnership from those who were one to two years out, but to write the names of male candidates in red and female candidates in green. As soon as the names were written out, the discrepancy was clear – women were considered one to two years out for consideration for partnership, while men were disproportionately considered ready for promotion. On top of this, Steve attached a quantitative measure of performance for each name. Then, it became clear that several names in the “ready for partnership” group, predominantly men, were less well-performing than women in the “one to two years out” group. This intervention employs simple strategies to engender a rational, rigorous, calm, and systematic approach to checking in-group bias in talent management.
One practical challenge with diversity and inclusion interventions is that everyone is stressed and has little time and attention, to say nothing of resources, to put toward this critical work. Fortunately, even simple interventions can decrease unconscious bias, and when paired with conscious leadership efforts, these interventions can be very powerful. The simplest approach is simply to ask people to remember to ask “WADI”: What About Diversity and Inclusion.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Consequences of Value Threat: The Influence of Helping Women on Female Solos’ Preference for Female Candidates with Michelle Duguid
At this week’s WAPPP seminar, we were delighted to host Michelle Duguid, Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis. Professor Duguid is a key scholar of power and status-linked social identities in organizations. The impetus for her research agenda began with a project on the social, profession, and philanthropic networks of board of directors. Looking through years and years of proxy statements, she noticed that boards were initially homogeneous and gradually added a few members with some demographic diversity. Once these additions had been made, further diversity stagnated. These observations led to broader questions: how do high-status groups diversify, and what factors dampen further diversification?
As we know, female representation at the highest levels hasn't kept pace with representation at lower levels. What explains this discrepancy? Are men consciously excluding women? Or is implicit bias to blame? One solution t this problem has been to deliberately place a few qualified women at the top to act as “diversification catalysts” – these women are supposed to counter stereotypes about women in the workforce, serve as role models, and advocate for women in the hiring process. If this approach is working, Professor Duguid says, it's at a glacial pace.
It may be that female solos – the sole women in working groups -- actually discriminate against female candidates. In her previous research, Professor Duguid and her collaborators identified value threat as the mechanism underlying female solos’ decisions to select or not select female candidates. Value threat is concern about not being seen as valued member of the work group, which individuals are keen to avoid. When female solos are faced with a female candidate with superior qualifications, they tend to experience value threat. Female solos may feel that their reputation and social standing is under threat, assuming that the group will view this woman as more valuable. Despite this value threat, women who actively exclude other women are not seen in a positive light – they’re derided as insecure, selfish “queen bees” or “mean girls.”
Organizations may look to women who have helped other women in the past to help diversify their organization, under the assumption that if they have helped women in the past, they’ll be less likely to discriminate in the future. However, it’s possible that those who have helped women feel licensed to not select a female candidate over an equally qualified man. If a female solo has helped women in the past, she doesn’t have to worry about the negative identity implications of being a “mean girl” – she can discriminate with impunity. This moral licensing is common in other areas – pro-social behavior in one realm can permit questionable acts in another (individuals who purchase “green” products are less likely to give to charity, for example).
Group context is significant to whether (and how much) individuals experience value threat. In particular, Professor Duguid has found that group status is correlated with value threat. If female solos are evaluating female candidates to join their high-status group, they are much more likely to discriminate. In a high-status group, female solos selected female candidates 30% of the time, compared to 76% for female solos in low-status groups. In low-status groups, individuals are less likely to get the self-image boost or tangible benefits that would come from belonging to a higher status group, and therefore care less about what other group members think. With decreased value threat comes decreased discrimination!
With these findings in hand, Professor Duguid set out to test two main questions: 1) Are female solos in high-status groups who have previously volunteered to help women licensed to discriminate against female candidates? 2) To what extent can context reduce value threat, and are women who experience less value threat less likely to feel licensed to discriminate?
Study 1
The first study was designed to examine the effects of gender and helping on value threat and candidate preference. Professor Duguid set up a “high-status group,” enlisting the help of the Dean. Study participants were told that they would be a part of the Dean’s focus group on the success of the school’s admissions process in screening for high-quality candidates. In order to qualify for the focus group, they had to score well on a test. Half the group was told that they could volunteer to help a same-sex candidate who would be working on a similar study by providing strategies for the test. The other half, the control group, was not given an option to help. After taking the test, participants were given the names of the other members of their “group,” three participants of the opposite sex. They were then told that they could select who the next group member would be and were given a man and a woman’s name. When female participants volunteered to help, they chose female candidates significantly less than in the no-option condition. Male participants overwhelmingly chose male candidates in both conditions. Female participants reported far more value threat than male participants, which mediated the relationship between gender and candidate choice.
Study 2
The second study was meant to examine effect of numerical status and helping on individuals’ experience of value threat. In this study, female participants could volunteer to help other women, be assigned to help women, or not be given an option to help. Consistent with the first study, female participants who volunteered to help were far less likely to select female candidates than those in the no-option condition. However, female participants who were assigned to help selected female candidates more than those who volunteered to help. This finding lends credence to the idea that volunteering to help creates a moral licensing effect that permits later discrimination. This study also demonstrated the difference between female solos and female majorities. Female majorities identified far less value threat than female solos, which mediates the relationship between numeric representation and candidate choice.
Study 3
In the third study, Professor Duguid looked at deliberate helping. Would female solos be motivated to volunteer to help other women in order to later discriminate against female candidate without suffering the negative attributions associated with this behavior? Female participants were asked to pick a candidate in one of three conditions: 1) the female candidate was slightly more qualified than the male (female solos should be strategically motivated to help female candidates in order to license future discrimination); 2) the male candidate was slightly more qualified than the female candidate (we would not expect female solos to be motivated to help women – they could select the male candidate based on merit without fear of seeming discriminatory); 3) the female candidate was overwhelmingly more qualified than the male (female solos would not be motivated to help these candidates to license future discrimination – it would be very strange for them to not select the overwhelmingly qualified candidate). True to the researchers’ predictions, female solos were much more likely to help in the first scenario.
Study 4
The final study was designed to test whether reducing female solos’ experience of value threat would influence their perceptions of helping other women as a licensing opportunity. If female solos felt more valued, the logic goes, they would be less likely to discriminate. In this study, before selecting a candidate, one group of female solos was asked to list five reasons numeric minorities “would be concerned about not being seen as a valued member of the group.” The second group was asked to list five reasons numeric minorities “would be seen as valued members of the group.” The third group, the control, was asked to list five things about their previous day. In the first condition, female solos were significantly less likely to choose female candidates. However, in the second condition, female solos chose the female candidate approximately 73% of the time. When female solos feel valued, they are far more comfortable bringing another woman into the group.
These findings offer an answer to the question of why diversification at high levels has been so slow. If women don’t feel valued, it would be unrealistic for them to pull someone in who could be competition. However, understanding value threat means that organizations can take positive steps to increase representation and diversity. Professor Duguid recommends substantially increasing the diversity of decision-makers and increasing inclusion to ensure that people feel valued, not just representative of a group.
As we know, female representation at the highest levels hasn't kept pace with representation at lower levels. What explains this discrepancy? Are men consciously excluding women? Or is implicit bias to blame? One solution t this problem has been to deliberately place a few qualified women at the top to act as “diversification catalysts” – these women are supposed to counter stereotypes about women in the workforce, serve as role models, and advocate for women in the hiring process. If this approach is working, Professor Duguid says, it's at a glacial pace.
It may be that female solos – the sole women in working groups -- actually discriminate against female candidates. In her previous research, Professor Duguid and her collaborators identified value threat as the mechanism underlying female solos’ decisions to select or not select female candidates. Value threat is concern about not being seen as valued member of the work group, which individuals are keen to avoid. When female solos are faced with a female candidate with superior qualifications, they tend to experience value threat. Female solos may feel that their reputation and social standing is under threat, assuming that the group will view this woman as more valuable. Despite this value threat, women who actively exclude other women are not seen in a positive light – they’re derided as insecure, selfish “queen bees” or “mean girls.”
Organizations may look to women who have helped other women in the past to help diversify their organization, under the assumption that if they have helped women in the past, they’ll be less likely to discriminate in the future. However, it’s possible that those who have helped women feel licensed to not select a female candidate over an equally qualified man. If a female solo has helped women in the past, she doesn’t have to worry about the negative identity implications of being a “mean girl” – she can discriminate with impunity. This moral licensing is common in other areas – pro-social behavior in one realm can permit questionable acts in another (individuals who purchase “green” products are less likely to give to charity, for example).
Group context is significant to whether (and how much) individuals experience value threat. In particular, Professor Duguid has found that group status is correlated with value threat. If female solos are evaluating female candidates to join their high-status group, they are much more likely to discriminate. In a high-status group, female solos selected female candidates 30% of the time, compared to 76% for female solos in low-status groups. In low-status groups, individuals are less likely to get the self-image boost or tangible benefits that would come from belonging to a higher status group, and therefore care less about what other group members think. With decreased value threat comes decreased discrimination!
With these findings in hand, Professor Duguid set out to test two main questions: 1) Are female solos in high-status groups who have previously volunteered to help women licensed to discriminate against female candidates? 2) To what extent can context reduce value threat, and are women who experience less value threat less likely to feel licensed to discriminate?
Study 1
The first study was designed to examine the effects of gender and helping on value threat and candidate preference. Professor Duguid set up a “high-status group,” enlisting the help of the Dean. Study participants were told that they would be a part of the Dean’s focus group on the success of the school’s admissions process in screening for high-quality candidates. In order to qualify for the focus group, they had to score well on a test. Half the group was told that they could volunteer to help a same-sex candidate who would be working on a similar study by providing strategies for the test. The other half, the control group, was not given an option to help. After taking the test, participants were given the names of the other members of their “group,” three participants of the opposite sex. They were then told that they could select who the next group member would be and were given a man and a woman’s name. When female participants volunteered to help, they chose female candidates significantly less than in the no-option condition. Male participants overwhelmingly chose male candidates in both conditions. Female participants reported far more value threat than male participants, which mediated the relationship between gender and candidate choice.
Study 2
The second study was meant to examine effect of numerical status and helping on individuals’ experience of value threat. In this study, female participants could volunteer to help other women, be assigned to help women, or not be given an option to help. Consistent with the first study, female participants who volunteered to help were far less likely to select female candidates than those in the no-option condition. However, female participants who were assigned to help selected female candidates more than those who volunteered to help. This finding lends credence to the idea that volunteering to help creates a moral licensing effect that permits later discrimination. This study also demonstrated the difference between female solos and female majorities. Female majorities identified far less value threat than female solos, which mediates the relationship between numeric representation and candidate choice.
Study 3
In the third study, Professor Duguid looked at deliberate helping. Would female solos be motivated to volunteer to help other women in order to later discriminate against female candidate without suffering the negative attributions associated with this behavior? Female participants were asked to pick a candidate in one of three conditions: 1) the female candidate was slightly more qualified than the male (female solos should be strategically motivated to help female candidates in order to license future discrimination); 2) the male candidate was slightly more qualified than the female candidate (we would not expect female solos to be motivated to help women – they could select the male candidate based on merit without fear of seeming discriminatory); 3) the female candidate was overwhelmingly more qualified than the male (female solos would not be motivated to help these candidates to license future discrimination – it would be very strange for them to not select the overwhelmingly qualified candidate). True to the researchers’ predictions, female solos were much more likely to help in the first scenario.
Study 4
The final study was designed to test whether reducing female solos’ experience of value threat would influence their perceptions of helping other women as a licensing opportunity. If female solos felt more valued, the logic goes, they would be less likely to discriminate. In this study, before selecting a candidate, one group of female solos was asked to list five reasons numeric minorities “would be concerned about not being seen as a valued member of the group.” The second group was asked to list five reasons numeric minorities “would be seen as valued members of the group.” The third group, the control, was asked to list five things about their previous day. In the first condition, female solos were significantly less likely to choose female candidates. However, in the second condition, female solos chose the female candidate approximately 73% of the time. When female solos feel valued, they are far more comfortable bringing another woman into the group.
These findings offer an answer to the question of why diversification at high levels has been so slow. If women don’t feel valued, it would be unrealistic for them to pull someone in who could be competition. However, understanding value threat means that organizations can take positive steps to increase representation and diversity. Professor Duguid recommends substantially increasing the diversity of decision-makers and increasing inclusion to ensure that people feel valued, not just representative of a group.
Monday, February 8, 2016
What Works: Gender Equality By Design (Part 2!)
Fresh from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Professor Iris Bohnet presented the second half of her forthcoming book “What Works: Gender Equality by Design” at the first HKS WAPPP Seminar of the spring semester. Professor Bohnet had presented the first half of her book at the first WAPPP Seminar in the fall, and the group was eager to hear more about her focus on “de-biasing organizations” rather than “de-biasing mindsets.”
Professor Bohnet is the Director of the HKS Women and Public Policy Program and Co-chair of the Behavioral Insights Group at the Center for Public Leadership at HKS. Her research demonstrates a powerful truth: No matter how well-intentioned they are, people can still fall prey to bias. Instead of trying to break people of these often unintentional biases, we should be looking to organizational design to “make it easier for all of us to do the right thing.”
The limits of diversity training
Professor Bohnet began with a survey of existing interventions to overcome bias in the workplace, including diversity training, negotiation training, leadership training, mentorship and sponsorship, and networking. Despite being a billion-dollar industry, the evidence on diversity training is mixed. After hundreds of studies, it is hard to be optimistic about diversity training, if only because it is incredibly difficult to de-bias minds. Beyond stereotypical thinking, humans rely on a number of other cognitive shortcuts that are very difficult to unlearn.
The rest of these interventions are geared toward helping women navigate the workforce more effectively. One critique of this approach is that it places the onus of fixing gender discrimination on women. However, it is important to be pragmatic and to consider how these methods can be helpful. The evidence from mentorship and sponsorship networks is particularly encouraging. Female economists who participated in mentorship training workshops were more productive, more likely to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and more likely to get tenure. This is some of the best causal evidence to date about the impact of mentorship and sponsorship and demonstrates the positive impact of these interventions.
Using behavioral insights to move the needle
Behavioral insights and organizational design present an opportunity to develop novel interventions to decrease bias and improve diversity. For organizations looking to attract the best candidates, Professor Bohnet suggests they look at the language in their job advertisements. She presented a job advertisement for a teacher reading in part, “Looking for a warm and caring teacher with exceptional pedagogical and interpersonal skills to work in a supportive, collaborative work environment.” Gendered language like this resonates with women rather than men and can inhibit great male teachers from applying. And with boys falling about a year behind girls in reading and writing by age 15, partially because of the lack of male role models among their teachers, it makes a difference.
There are numerous behavioral interventions that workplaces can develop to overcome bias. Two simple things organizations can start with: get rid of “potential” rankings in employee evaluation, and stop managers from seeing employees’ self-evaluations before giving their own rankings. There is an enormous amount of bias in potential rankings. In another iteration of “seeing is believing,” a lack of female senior partners at a firm may lead to biased thinking that women don’t have the potential or desire to ascend the career ladder. While it’s not clear how to get rid of this bias, it is simple enough to remove potential rankings altogether in evaluating employees. Similarly, there can be a significant difference in employee rankings. On average, women are inclined to give themselves lower self-evaluation scores than men. If managers can see employees’ self-evaluations before making their own judgments, they may be influenced by these scores and give women lower scores (and men higher) than they otherwise would. Instead, the manager could have conversations with team members about their performance, but wait to see a numerical self-evaluation until after they have made their own evaluations. These two findings are low-hanging fruit for organizations looking to reduce workplace bias; research increasingly shows that mindsets change once behavior has changed, and these low-impact methods reduce the effect of bias in the workplace.
Gender diversity in teams
In recent years, the “business case for diversity”—evidence that more diverse organizations do better than those that are more homogeneous—has attracted a lot of attention. A meta-analysis of 120 studies finds a small diversity premium for diverse corporate boards. However, these studies are just observational: it could be that diversity really does pay, or that companies that are high-performing are also more inclusive. One study measuring collective intelligence found that gender diverse teams outperformed homogeneous teams on each of the tested tasks. Gender diverse teams demonstrated complementary skill sets and a greater tendency to listen to and build on others’ ideas. Gender diverse teams are much more likely to avoid groupthink, which increases their effectiveness.
However, Professor Bohnet emphasized, we should care about gender equality because it’s the right thing to do, not just because of the business case for diversity. In closing, she discussed several organizational improvements that could encourage equitable behavior, including a “comply or explain” system for corporate diversity. Goal setting, transparency, and accountability all play a crucial role in changing behavior and, by extension, changing mindsets. Professor Bohnet’s book is available on March 4—be on the lookout for more bias-reducing, diversity-maximizing insights!
Professor Bohnet is the Director of the HKS Women and Public Policy Program and Co-chair of the Behavioral Insights Group at the Center for Public Leadership at HKS. Her research demonstrates a powerful truth: No matter how well-intentioned they are, people can still fall prey to bias. Instead of trying to break people of these often unintentional biases, we should be looking to organizational design to “make it easier for all of us to do the right thing.”
The limits of diversity training
Professor Bohnet began with a survey of existing interventions to overcome bias in the workplace, including diversity training, negotiation training, leadership training, mentorship and sponsorship, and networking. Despite being a billion-dollar industry, the evidence on diversity training is mixed. After hundreds of studies, it is hard to be optimistic about diversity training, if only because it is incredibly difficult to de-bias minds. Beyond stereotypical thinking, humans rely on a number of other cognitive shortcuts that are very difficult to unlearn.
The rest of these interventions are geared toward helping women navigate the workforce more effectively. One critique of this approach is that it places the onus of fixing gender discrimination on women. However, it is important to be pragmatic and to consider how these methods can be helpful. The evidence from mentorship and sponsorship networks is particularly encouraging. Female economists who participated in mentorship training workshops were more productive, more likely to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and more likely to get tenure. This is some of the best causal evidence to date about the impact of mentorship and sponsorship and demonstrates the positive impact of these interventions.
Using behavioral insights to move the needle
Behavioral insights and organizational design present an opportunity to develop novel interventions to decrease bias and improve diversity. For organizations looking to attract the best candidates, Professor Bohnet suggests they look at the language in their job advertisements. She presented a job advertisement for a teacher reading in part, “Looking for a warm and caring teacher with exceptional pedagogical and interpersonal skills to work in a supportive, collaborative work environment.” Gendered language like this resonates with women rather than men and can inhibit great male teachers from applying. And with boys falling about a year behind girls in reading and writing by age 15, partially because of the lack of male role models among their teachers, it makes a difference.
There are numerous behavioral interventions that workplaces can develop to overcome bias. Two simple things organizations can start with: get rid of “potential” rankings in employee evaluation, and stop managers from seeing employees’ self-evaluations before giving their own rankings. There is an enormous amount of bias in potential rankings. In another iteration of “seeing is believing,” a lack of female senior partners at a firm may lead to biased thinking that women don’t have the potential or desire to ascend the career ladder. While it’s not clear how to get rid of this bias, it is simple enough to remove potential rankings altogether in evaluating employees. Similarly, there can be a significant difference in employee rankings. On average, women are inclined to give themselves lower self-evaluation scores than men. If managers can see employees’ self-evaluations before making their own judgments, they may be influenced by these scores and give women lower scores (and men higher) than they otherwise would. Instead, the manager could have conversations with team members about their performance, but wait to see a numerical self-evaluation until after they have made their own evaluations. These two findings are low-hanging fruit for organizations looking to reduce workplace bias; research increasingly shows that mindsets change once behavior has changed, and these low-impact methods reduce the effect of bias in the workplace.
Gender diversity in teams
In recent years, the “business case for diversity”—evidence that more diverse organizations do better than those that are more homogeneous—has attracted a lot of attention. A meta-analysis of 120 studies finds a small diversity premium for diverse corporate boards. However, these studies are just observational: it could be that diversity really does pay, or that companies that are high-performing are also more inclusive. One study measuring collective intelligence found that gender diverse teams outperformed homogeneous teams on each of the tested tasks. Gender diverse teams demonstrated complementary skill sets and a greater tendency to listen to and build on others’ ideas. Gender diverse teams are much more likely to avoid groupthink, which increases their effectiveness.
However, Professor Bohnet emphasized, we should care about gender equality because it’s the right thing to do, not just because of the business case for diversity. In closing, she discussed several organizational improvements that could encourage equitable behavior, including a “comply or explain” system for corporate diversity. Goal setting, transparency, and accountability all play a crucial role in changing behavior and, by extension, changing mindsets. Professor Bohnet’s book is available on March 4—be on the lookout for more bias-reducing, diversity-maximizing insights!
Monday, September 14, 2015
What Works: Gender Equality by Design
Imagine the following situation: You are a young professional musician. And you are really good. Music is what makes your blood flow. Ever since you were a little girl, piano and violin lessons excited you rather than bored you. Today is a very important day for you: You're auditioning for a position in the National Symphony Orchestra. How would you feel if you knew that the minute you walked on stage, before even playing your instrument, your chances of being hired would decrease significantly?
Before research showed that having musicians audition behind a curtain, so the jury would not be able to tell their gender, increased the chance that a woman would be hired or promoted, and that these "blind" auditions alone could account for a third of the increase in the proportion of women musicians hired into top-tier American symphonies, female musicians would face just that scenario. The implicit biases of possibly well-meaning members of the jury would too often reduce women's chances to succeed in the audition.
Although we would all like to think we do not suffer from the same biases as the members of those juries, the opposite is likely true. During the first HKS Women and Public Policy Program seminar of the academic year, Professor Iris Bohnet explained that we are all biased in one way or another, "because seeing is believing". We observe patterns in the world, such as most kindergarten teachers being female, or most software engineers being male, so we come to expect people to fill those roles. Don't believe it? Take the test yourself.
Professor Bohnet is the Director of the HKS Women and Public Policy Program (WAPPP) and Co-chair of the Behavioral Insights Group at the Center for Public Leadership at HKS. During the seminar, she presented a preview of her forthcoming book “What Works: Gender Equality by Design”, in which she argues that we can use insights we learn from Behavioral Economics to close gender gaps caused by implicit biases.
These insights allow us to create “nudges", which are small actions designed to obtain the most desirable reactions from people, building on knowledge of how the -often irrational- human mind actually works. In the book, she talks about "nudges we can use to make the world a better place", because they can reframe the environments in which we work. Best of all, they are mostly cheap and can be introduced quickly.
Professor Bohnet described previous approaches to increasing diversity in the workforce, such as diversity, leadership, and negotiation training, and underscored that there is not enough evidence to prove that these interventions work. On the other hand, interventions like long-term capacity-building or mentoring have been found to be very promising. In a study that followed the career trajectories of women economics professors who were randomly assigned into a long term mentorship program, the professors in the program fared better than those in the control group.
She mentioned many other nudges to redesign the work environment, like putting up more images of female leaders -"what you see matters in what you think is possible for yourself"-, avoiding panel interviews, assessing job candidates on a pre-determined set of questions immediately after the interview, highlighting the increased presence of gender mixed corporate boards rather than their low proportion, and many more. Professor Bohnet is handing in the manuscript for the book next week, so look forward to reading more when it comes out!
Before research showed that having musicians audition behind a curtain, so the jury would not be able to tell their gender, increased the chance that a woman would be hired or promoted, and that these "blind" auditions alone could account for a third of the increase in the proportion of women musicians hired into top-tier American symphonies, female musicians would face just that scenario. The implicit biases of possibly well-meaning members of the jury would too often reduce women's chances to succeed in the audition.
Although we would all like to think we do not suffer from the same biases as the members of those juries, the opposite is likely true. During the first HKS Women and Public Policy Program seminar of the academic year, Professor Iris Bohnet explained that we are all biased in one way or another, "because seeing is believing". We observe patterns in the world, such as most kindergarten teachers being female, or most software engineers being male, so we come to expect people to fill those roles. Don't believe it? Take the test yourself.
Professor Bohnet is the Director of the HKS Women and Public Policy Program (WAPPP) and Co-chair of the Behavioral Insights Group at the Center for Public Leadership at HKS. During the seminar, she presented a preview of her forthcoming book “What Works: Gender Equality by Design”, in which she argues that we can use insights we learn from Behavioral Economics to close gender gaps caused by implicit biases.
 |
| Professor Iris Bohnet, Director of the HKS Women and Public Policy Program |
Professor Bohnet described previous approaches to increasing diversity in the workforce, such as diversity, leadership, and negotiation training, and underscored that there is not enough evidence to prove that these interventions work. On the other hand, interventions like long-term capacity-building or mentoring have been found to be very promising. In a study that followed the career trajectories of women economics professors who were randomly assigned into a long term mentorship program, the professors in the program fared better than those in the control group.
She mentioned many other nudges to redesign the work environment, like putting up more images of female leaders -"what you see matters in what you think is possible for yourself"-, avoiding panel interviews, assessing job candidates on a pre-determined set of questions immediately after the interview, highlighting the increased presence of gender mixed corporate boards rather than their low proportion, and many more. Professor Bohnet is handing in the manuscript for the book next week, so look forward to reading more when it comes out!
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Diversity and Inclusion at the London Olympics (new book)
New book by WAPPP fellow, Stephen Frost:
The Inclusion Imperative is the untold story of the inclusion programmes behind the scenes at the world's greatest event, the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It presents a radically different method for organisations to implement successful 'Diversity and Inclusion' and help themselves, their people and the wider world.
As Head of Diversity & Inclusion at the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Ltd., Stephen Frost was responsible for incorporating diversity and inclusion across the 200,000 workforce, volunteers and contractors, as well as in the $2 billion procurement programme and all aspects of service delivery. At WAPPP, Stephen’s research will focus on diversity and inclusiveness during the planning of the London Games which are regarded as one of the best ever. Stephen graduated from Oxford and Harvard and has a background in advertising and consulting. He is a Fulbright Scholar, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a Young Global Leader with the World Economic Forum. He established the workplace team at Stonewall and led membership of their flagship Diversity Champions program for employers to over 300 members ranging from JPMorgan to the Royal Navy and Manchester City Football Club. He also developed the Workplace Equality Index, the UK's first LGBT leadership program in conjunction with Henley Management college and a diversity recruitment guide distributed to every higher educational institution in the country.
The Inclusion Imperative is the untold story of the inclusion programmes behind the scenes at the world's greatest event, the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It presents a radically different method for organisations to implement successful 'Diversity and Inclusion' and help themselves, their people and the wider world.
As Head of Diversity & Inclusion at the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Ltd., Stephen Frost was responsible for incorporating diversity and inclusion across the 200,000 workforce, volunteers and contractors, as well as in the $2 billion procurement programme and all aspects of service delivery. At WAPPP, Stephen’s research will focus on diversity and inclusiveness during the planning of the London Games which are regarded as one of the best ever. Stephen graduated from Oxford and Harvard and has a background in advertising and consulting. He is a Fulbright Scholar, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a Young Global Leader with the World Economic Forum. He established the workplace team at Stonewall and led membership of their flagship Diversity Champions program for employers to over 300 members ranging from JPMorgan to the Royal Navy and Manchester City Football Club. He also developed the Workplace Equality Index, the UK's first LGBT leadership program in conjunction with Henley Management college and a diversity recruitment guide distributed to every higher educational institution in the country.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Breaking Through the Corporate Glass Ceiling
Over the last generation, women have made huge strides in
the professional world. By many
accounts, they account for over 60%
of US college graduates. And while the economic recession harmed everyone, women
have had a lower
rate of unemployment than men, particularly in white collar industries,
where their presence has been increasing.
But somehow, there seems to be a limit to how far they can rise---that proverbial “Glass Ceiling”. Though women are a majority in professional occupations, they’re just 4.2% of CEOs in America! Corporate boards are a whole other story.
Today’s WAPPP Seminar featured Cathy Tinsley of Georgetown University, presenting some preliminary findings from her research on Progress on Gender Diversity for Corporate Boards: Are We Running in Place?
Using a number of different laboratory experiments and statistical analyses, she and her colleagues explore the conditions under which more women might be added to corporate boards. While the research is still ongoing, some early results suggest a tendency to maintain the board's existing gender composition when members need to be replaced. Interestingly, she also saw an increase in selecting a woman for an open board seat when there were predominantly women in the candidate pool.
Of course, some of the reasons for women's representation on boards are important to note too. A Credit Suisse report issued last year found that companies with women on their board performed better than comparable companies that did not. In another report, Catalyst found that Fortune 500 companies with more women on their boards outperformed their peers on average across a series of financial indicators.
Women may be more represented on the boards of social organizations and non-profits than on of financial firms, for example. But should this be the case? Should women be represented equally simply because it’s fair and they are capable of providing the (exact) same service as men? Or because they bring something special and complementary---but essentially different---than men do?
But somehow, there seems to be a limit to how far they can rise---that proverbial “Glass Ceiling”. Though women are a majority in professional occupations, they’re just 4.2% of CEOs in America! Corporate boards are a whole other story.
 |
| "Progress on Gender Diversity for Corporate Boards: Are We Running in Place?" |
Today’s WAPPP Seminar featured Cathy Tinsley of Georgetown University, presenting some preliminary findings from her research on Progress on Gender Diversity for Corporate Boards: Are We Running in Place?
Using a number of different laboratory experiments and statistical analyses, she and her colleagues explore the conditions under which more women might be added to corporate boards. While the research is still ongoing, some early results suggest a tendency to maintain the board's existing gender composition when members need to be replaced. Interestingly, she also saw an increase in selecting a woman for an open board seat when there were predominantly women in the candidate pool.
Of course, some of the reasons for women's representation on boards are important to note too. A Credit Suisse report issued last year found that companies with women on their board performed better than comparable companies that did not. In another report, Catalyst found that Fortune 500 companies with more women on their boards outperformed their peers on average across a series of financial indicators.
Women may be more represented on the boards of social organizations and non-profits than on of financial firms, for example. But should this be the case? Should women be represented equally simply because it’s fair and they are capable of providing the (exact) same service as men? Or because they bring something special and complementary---but essentially different---than men do?
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Changing the Face of Corporate Governance
In an attempt to promote gender diversity on corporate boards, a number of countries including Norway, France and Spain have adopted quota-based models. According to constitutional lawyers, such a model has no chance in the United States. So when large institutional investors lobbied the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to collect information about corporate board diversity practices, the US adopted a disclosure-based approach to the issue.
In 2010, the SEC began to require publicly traded companies to disclose in their proxy statements certain information about diversity considerations in board nominations. A proxy statement is a special report sent to shareholders in advance of the company's annual meeting.
Aaron Dhir, Associate Professor of Law at the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, combed through the proxy statements of all S&P 100 companies for 2010 and 2011. Two years is not enough time to actually see board composition changes, but Dhir’s qualitative and quantitative content analysis presents a picture of the corporate response so far and raises questions about the efficacy of the SEC rule as a nudge toward greater board diversity.
In contrast to the command and control quotas, the idea behind more subtle nudge-based new governance models is that behavior can be changed by regulations that facilitate reflection by senior executives upon diversity and disclosure of relevant outcomes to the interested public. The approach takes longer to bear results than a simple requirement would, but it is supposed to facilitate change that is perceived less as an imposed burden and more as an organic development.
Under the 2010 SEC rule, annual proxy statements had to include whether the board nominating committee considered diversity in director nominations, if so, how the consideration was made, and if there was a board diversity policy then how this policy was carried out and evaluated.
The SEC did not provide any particular definition of diversity. As a result, Dhir found that the vast majority of companies considered diversity in terms of experience. Some of them considered demographic factors alongside the experiential diversity, but a number of firms limited the discussion at experience, which is, arguably, something that any board would do without any rules. So while the SEC regulation shed light on corporate board practices, it may not have changed those practices in any appreciable way.
Further bringing into question the rule’s efficacy as a “nudge” is Dhir’s finding of very little change between 2010 and 2011 statements. Ongoing reflection about board diversity would, presumably, be reflected in some kind of practice change from year to year, but it seems like in this case the rule prompted creation of a boilerplate language to be used and re-used. This raises another troubling question – if the rule simply allows corporations to “check the box” on diversity, then it may actually inhibit meaningful progress.
While the spirit of the rule is arguably to foster greater corporate diversity, the letter of the rule as it currently stands does not push companies to change their practices in any way. In fact, it even allows for responses like Berkshire Hathaway’s:
This is where the shame factor comes in. For a disclosure-based policy to be effective in changing behavior there has to be an internalized social norm that certain responses will be met with disapproval. However, if there is no such social norm then the disclosure is meaningless.
Dhir argued that while the importance of diversity has been recognized by corporations on an operational level, this mentality has not yet permeated the thinking of boardrooms about their own diversity situation. Several audience members went further, positing that diversity is not even a broadly recognized social norm in the U.S.
Having engaged in discussions on the matter and read comments on articles dealing with race and gender, I recon more Americans would endorse some notion of meritocracy than embrace the intrinsic value of diversity.
To change the face of corporate governance, I believe we need not only a stronger nudge from the SEC, but also more pressure on companies from the institutional investors who pushed for the rule from the beginning. (Like this "Say No to All-Male Boards" campaign). We also need to see more research from organizations like Catalyst, demonstrating that diversity is a smart business practice. Perhaps with a concerted effort we can convince enough people to tip the balance toward making diversity a widely-held social norm.
Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.
In 2010, the SEC began to require publicly traded companies to disclose in their proxy statements certain information about diversity considerations in board nominations. A proxy statement is a special report sent to shareholders in advance of the company's annual meeting.Aaron Dhir, Associate Professor of Law at the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, combed through the proxy statements of all S&P 100 companies for 2010 and 2011. Two years is not enough time to actually see board composition changes, but Dhir’s qualitative and quantitative content analysis presents a picture of the corporate response so far and raises questions about the efficacy of the SEC rule as a nudge toward greater board diversity.
In contrast to the command and control quotas, the idea behind more subtle nudge-based new governance models is that behavior can be changed by regulations that facilitate reflection by senior executives upon diversity and disclosure of relevant outcomes to the interested public. The approach takes longer to bear results than a simple requirement would, but it is supposed to facilitate change that is perceived less as an imposed burden and more as an organic development.
Under the 2010 SEC rule, annual proxy statements had to include whether the board nominating committee considered diversity in director nominations, if so, how the consideration was made, and if there was a board diversity policy then how this policy was carried out and evaluated.
The SEC did not provide any particular definition of diversity. As a result, Dhir found that the vast majority of companies considered diversity in terms of experience. Some of them considered demographic factors alongside the experiential diversity, but a number of firms limited the discussion at experience, which is, arguably, something that any board would do without any rules. So while the SEC regulation shed light on corporate board practices, it may not have changed those practices in any appreciable way.
 |
| Berkshire Hathaway Board of Directors, photo by Gregg Segal, CNN Money |
Further bringing into question the rule’s efficacy as a “nudge” is Dhir’s finding of very little change between 2010 and 2011 statements. Ongoing reflection about board diversity would, presumably, be reflected in some kind of practice change from year to year, but it seems like in this case the rule prompted creation of a boilerplate language to be used and re-used. This raises another troubling question – if the rule simply allows corporations to “check the box” on diversity, then it may actually inhibit meaningful progress.
While the spirit of the rule is arguably to foster greater corporate diversity, the letter of the rule as it currently stands does not push companies to change their practices in any way. In fact, it even allows for responses like Berkshire Hathaway’s:
“In identifying director nominees, the Governance, Compensation and Nominating Committee does not seek diversity, however defined.”Since the rule does not require companies to consider diversity, just to disclose whether or not they do, BH's response is completely appropriate.
This is where the shame factor comes in. For a disclosure-based policy to be effective in changing behavior there has to be an internalized social norm that certain responses will be met with disapproval. However, if there is no such social norm then the disclosure is meaningless.
Dhir argued that while the importance of diversity has been recognized by corporations on an operational level, this mentality has not yet permeated the thinking of boardrooms about their own diversity situation. Several audience members went further, positing that diversity is not even a broadly recognized social norm in the U.S.
Having engaged in discussions on the matter and read comments on articles dealing with race and gender, I recon more Americans would endorse some notion of meritocracy than embrace the intrinsic value of diversity.
To change the face of corporate governance, I believe we need not only a stronger nudge from the SEC, but also more pressure on companies from the institutional investors who pushed for the rule from the beginning. (Like this "Say No to All-Male Boards" campaign). We also need to see more research from organizations like Catalyst, demonstrating that diversity is a smart business practice. Perhaps with a concerted effort we can convince enough people to tip the balance toward making diversity a widely-held social norm.
Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Diversity to a Deadline: Delivering Everyone's London
The research is growing: for those of us concerned about diversity and the incorporation of traditionally excluded groups' members and voices into realms ranging from politics and boardrooms, to cubicles and community functions, there is probably a report or an experiment to which we can turn. We can examine the resilience of diverse groups, the challenges they face, and the styles of leadership that guide them best.
Reports and experiments are valuable, but when an entity embraces a goal to integrate diversity and inclusion throughout all functional areas, what does this actually look like?
Stephen Frost, WAPPP Fellow and former Head of Diversity & Inclusion for the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, was faced with this challenge. He spoke yesterday not as an academic, but as a practitioner. Before we begin, watch this fun video for a quick recap of the history of the modern Olympic Games and how this factors into the need for an intentional focus on diversity and inclusion.
Frost approached the task before him with an important guiding principle: it doesn't just happen. Diversity and inclusion (D&I) could not be taken for granted as a given in international games, nor could it be seen as a extra little side program. Rather, D&I needed to be a commitment integrated into all functions and decisions. The question "had to become not why would you do the program, but why wouldn't you?"
The D&I process for the London Olympic Games had three components: understand, lead, and deliver. London's vision was to use the power of the games to inspire change. The bid to the Olympic Committee highlighted diversity - of age, ethnicity, ability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and social status. A wonderful goal, to bring the experience of the Olympics more in line with the myriad of lives gathered in the audience, serving as volunteers, or employed as staff, but how?
Leadership is the key. Frost brought in Desmond Tutu to inspire the board and agency managers. Nearly all at the upper and mid-management level signed the diversity leadership pledge. There were no quotas for hiring; instead, information was monitored and frequently shared. No department wanted to rank at the bottom of this shared list, creating an internally competitive dynamic to meet and exceed all targets. The media caught word of this process, and unfortunately mocked it with headlines like, "Will Britain Take Gold for the Most PC Olympics Ever?"
The proof, however, was in the pudding. This process was not about being politically correct. It was about showing that a commitment to diversity and inclusion could be realized to exceed expectations in a large organization - and that these were, indeed, the people's games. The final part of the D&I process, delivery, illustrated its success. Frost highlighted the D&I efforts in workforce, procurement (supply chain/contractors), and service delivery. Specialized programs reached out to traditionally excluded groups for the workforce, no contract over £20,000 could be awarded unless the contractor met certain D&I standards and was approved by the Diversity Team, and the various needs of different groups were taken into account while designing details such as counter heights and entrances.
Frost challenges practitioners to reframe their perspectives on diversity and inclusion. While a commitment is necessary, there need not be additional programs or requirements - creating a more inclusive workplace need not be a burden. The key is removing barriers to entry, and accepting diversity and inclusion as critical aspects of every day business.
Valerie Kane is an MPP Candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Reports and experiments are valuable, but when an entity embraces a goal to integrate diversity and inclusion throughout all functional areas, what does this actually look like?
Stephen Frost, WAPPP Fellow and former Head of Diversity & Inclusion for the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, was faced with this challenge. He spoke yesterday not as an academic, but as a practitioner. Before we begin, watch this fun video for a quick recap of the history of the modern Olympic Games and how this factors into the need for an intentional focus on diversity and inclusion.
Frost approached the task before him with an important guiding principle: it doesn't just happen. Diversity and inclusion (D&I) could not be taken for granted as a given in international games, nor could it be seen as a extra little side program. Rather, D&I needed to be a commitment integrated into all functions and decisions. The question "had to become not why would you do the program, but why wouldn't you?"
The D&I process for the London Olympic Games had three components: understand, lead, and deliver. London's vision was to use the power of the games to inspire change. The bid to the Olympic Committee highlighted diversity - of age, ethnicity, ability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and social status. A wonderful goal, to bring the experience of the Olympics more in line with the myriad of lives gathered in the audience, serving as volunteers, or employed as staff, but how?
Leadership is the key. Frost brought in Desmond Tutu to inspire the board and agency managers. Nearly all at the upper and mid-management level signed the diversity leadership pledge. There were no quotas for hiring; instead, information was monitored and frequently shared. No department wanted to rank at the bottom of this shared list, creating an internally competitive dynamic to meet and exceed all targets. The media caught word of this process, and unfortunately mocked it with headlines like, "Will Britain Take Gold for the Most PC Olympics Ever?"
The proof, however, was in the pudding. This process was not about being politically correct. It was about showing that a commitment to diversity and inclusion could be realized to exceed expectations in a large organization - and that these were, indeed, the people's games. The final part of the D&I process, delivery, illustrated its success. Frost highlighted the D&I efforts in workforce, procurement (supply chain/contractors), and service delivery. Specialized programs reached out to traditionally excluded groups for the workforce, no contract over £20,000 could be awarded unless the contractor met certain D&I standards and was approved by the Diversity Team, and the various needs of different groups were taken into account while designing details such as counter heights and entrances.
Frost challenges practitioners to reframe their perspectives on diversity and inclusion. While a commitment is necessary, there need not be additional programs or requirements - creating a more inclusive workplace need not be a burden. The key is removing barriers to entry, and accepting diversity and inclusion as critical aspects of every day business.
Valerie Kane is an MPP Candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Do Female Leaders Mitigate Negative Effects of Diversity? The Case of National Leaders
Many of us are familiar with this scene: the boardroom is transformed from a place of suits and reports to one with mellon balls, cheese plates, colorful paper napkins, and mingling coworkers. Yes, this is your average company party. No, the intention is not to keep you in the office longer or find out who has the strangest sense of humor. Rather, these parties are part of a technique utilized by many organizations to overcome what Columbia Business School professor Katherine Phillips calls "the negative effects of Diversity 1.0."
Professor Phillips spoke yesterday about reframing our understanding of the challenges diverse groups face, and the leadership styles that could offer more opportunities for group cohesion and success. Diversity 1.0 represents the interpersonal dynamics that sometimes challenge these groups - often experienced as increased emotional conflict, explained in part by similarity attraction. Diversity 2.0 is the effort to understand what is causing the challenges in 1.0 - what are the underlying structural issues, and how can these be ameliorated?
Let's use some buzz words to frame Diversity 2.0: structural inequality, power differentials, status, disenfranchisement, lack of an empowered voice, and, on the national level, "ethnic fractionalization." With all that these words bring up, can you imagine that company parties would meet the level of challenge highly diverse groups face?
Professor Phillips presented her hypothesis that on the national level, female leaders are particularly fit to confront the challenges of Diversity 2.0. Working with Susan Perkins and Nicholas Pearce, Phillips conducted a nation-wide experiment. The subjects were presented with two different scenarios describing the fictional country Elmoa. Elmoa is either highly diverse, with many different ethnic groups making up the constituency, or has low diversity, with one dominant group making up the significant majority of the population. With very little other information, who do you think should be the next leader: David or Marsha? Who would be the most effective leader? Who will help improve ethnic inequalities?
How do you think the test subjects answered? Interestingly, they chose Marsha as the next leader, who would be the most effective and also improve ethnic inequalities. This was true for both the highly diverse Elmoa, and the low diversity Elmoa. The key finding is the difference between the two candidates: Marsha would be the most effective leader in either scenario, but only by 10 percentage points in the low diversity Elmoa, and by nearly 60 percentage points in high diversity Elmoa.
Okay, great. So now we know something about how test subjects would vote for and rank hypothetical nondescript candidates in a fictional country; how does this translate into real life?
Professor Phillips and her team did not stop their analysis here. They took their hypothesis to real-world data collected on national female leaders who served from 1950-2004. The good news? The number of female leaders has quadrupled in the last fifty years. The bad news? Female leaders were only 5% of all leaders during this time, and some of these were queens. Phillips removed those with royal regalia from the analysis.
How did these female leaders perform, especially in countries with high diversity and high levels of political and social difficulty? Pretty well, it seems. One way to measure performance is growth in GDP. Running statistical tests, Phillips and her team found that women leaders did indeed have a measurable effect in positively improving GDP growth in highly diverse, difficult-to-manage countries.
Does this mean that you should boycott company parties, believing in their futility, until you get a female CEO? Probably not. Does it mean that highly diverse nations with many social and economic difficulties are destined to struggle more if their leader is a man? Certainly not. These findings offer a beam of light onto the questions of gendered leadership style - actual and perceived - and outcomes. They offer information, and questions to keep the conversation alive and moving.
Valerie Kane is an MPP Candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)