Bringing in new opinions made them question themselves and their outcomes, but their outcomes were the right ones.
This might be the most interesting study on the list because it wasn’t initially designed to prove the value of diversity.
The groups with more diverse sets of participants were more likely to correctly identify the murderer than those with uniform members.
The interesting part about this one is that, even though the diverse groups did better, they felt less confident.
An economics professor at the University of Michigan, Dr.
Scott Page, was teaching a class on systems analysis, and he wanted to prove the value of this seemingly obscure field to the students in the class.
A selection of researchers from Columbia, MIT, University of Texas-Dallas, Northwestern, and a few other prestigious universities, studied stock picking in ethnically homogeneous and diverse groups. “Ethnic diversity was valuable not necessarily because minority traders contributed unique information or skills, but their mere presence changed the tenor of decision-making among all traders.
Diversity benefited the market.” The point made by the previous study that the “mere presence [of diverse ethnicities] changed the tenor of decision making” comes up again in a study from Northwestern and BYU.
Sometimes I’ll disagree with them or think they’re a jerk, but I still think those experiences make my understanding of the world more robust. That’s not just my opinion; it’s the position that has largely been borne out by research.
Not every workplace and not every study agrees (hey, more diversity!