How diversity makes teams more innovative Roco Lorenzo

Fifteen years ago,

I thought that the diversity stuff
was not something I had to worry about.

It was something an older
generation had to fight for.

In my university,
we were 50-50, male-female,

and we women often had better grades.

So while not everything was perfect,

diversity and leadership decisions

was something that would happen
naturally over time, right?

Well, not quite.

While moving up the ladder
working as a management consultant

across Europe and the US,

I started to realize how often
I was the only woman in the room

and how homogenous leadership still is.

Many leaders I met

saw diversity as something to comply with
out of political correctness,

or, best case, the right thing to do,

but not as a business priority.

They just did not have a reason to believe

that diversity would help them achieve
their most immediate, pressing goals:

hitting the numbers,
delivering the new product,

the real goals they are measured by.

My personal experience
working with diverse teams

had been that while they require
a little bit more effort at the beginning,

they did bring fresher,
more creative ideas.

So I wanted to know:

Are diverse organizations
really more innovative,

and can diversity be more
than something to comply with?

Can it be a real competitive advantage?

So to find out, we set up a study
with the Technical University of Munich.

We surveyed 171 companies
in Germany, Austria and Switzerland,

and as we speak, we’re expanding the study

to 1,600 companies

in five additional countries
around the world.

We asked those companies
basically two things:

how innovative they are
and how diverse they are.

To measure the first one,

we asked them about innovation revenue.

Innovation revenue is the share
of revenues they’ve made

from new products and services
in the last three years,

meaning we did not ask them
how many creative ideas they have,

but rather if these ideas
translate into products and services

that really make the company
more successful today and tomorrow.

To measure diversity,
we looked at six different factors:

country of origin,
age and gender, amongst others.

While preparing to go in the field
with those questions,

I sat down with my team

and we discussed what
we would expect as a result.

To put it mildly, we were not optimistic.

The most skeptical person on the team
thought, or saw a real possibility,

that we would find nothing at all.

Most of the team
was rather on the cautious side,

so we landed all together at “only if,”

meaning that we might find
some kind of link

between innovation and diversity,

but not across the board –

rather only if certain criteria are met,

for example leadership style,
very open leadership style

that allowed people to speak up freely
and safely and contribute.

A couple of months later,
the data came in,

and the results convinced
the most skeptical amongst us.

The answer was a clear yes,

no ifs, no buts.

The data in our sample showed

that more diverse companies
are simply more innovative, period.

Now, a fair question to ask
is the chicken or the egg question,

meaning, are companies
really more innovative

because they have
a more diverse leadership,

or the other way around?

Which way is it?

Now, we do not know how much
is correlation versus causation,

but what we do know is that clearly,

in our sample, companies
that are more diverse

are more innovative,

and that companies
that are more innovative

have more diverse leadership, too.

So it’s fair to assume
that it works both ways,

diversity driving innovation
and innovation driving diversity.

Now, once we published the results,

we were surprised
about the reactions in the media.

We got quite some attention.

And it went from quite factual,

like “Higher Female Share
Boosts Innovation”

to a little bit more sensationalist.

(Laughter)

As you can see,

“Stay-at-home Women Cost Trillions,”

and, my personal favorite,

“Housewives Kill Innovation.”

Well, there’s no such thing
as bad publicity, right?

(Laughter)

On the back of that coverage,

we started to get calls
from senior executives

wanting to understand more,

especially – surprise, surprise –
about gender diversity.

I tend to open up
those discussions by asking,

“Well, what do you think of the situation
in your organization today?”

And a frequent reaction to that is,

“Well, we’re not yet there,
but we’re not that bad.”

One executive told me, for example,

“Oh, we’re not that bad.

We have one member
in our board who is a woman.”

(Laughter)

And you laugh –

(Applause)

Now, you laugh, but he had a point
in being proud about it,

because in Germany,

if you have a company

and it has one member
on the board who is a woman,

you are part of a select group of 30

out of the 100 largest
publicly listed companies.

The other 70 companies
have an all-male board,

and not even one of these hundred
largest publicly listed companies

have, as of today, a female CEO.

But here’s the critically
important insight.

Those few female board members alone,

they won’t make a difference.

Our data shows that for gender diversity
to have an impact on innovation,

you need to have more
than 20 percent women in leadership.

Let’s have a look at the numbers.

As you can see, we divided
the sample into three groups,

and the results are quite dramatic.

Only in the group where you have
more than 20 percent women in leadership,

only then you see a clear jump
in innovation revenue

to above-average levels.

So experience and data
shows that you do need critical mass

to move the needle,

and companies like Alibaba,
JP Morgan or Apple

have as of today
already achieved that threshold.

Another reaction I got quite a lot was,

“Well, it will get solved over time.”

And I have all the sympathy in the world
for that point of view,

because I used to think like that, too.

Now, let’s have a look here again
and look at the numbers,

taking Germany as an example.

Let me first give you the good news.

So the share of women
who are college graduates

and have at least 10 years
of professional experience

has grown nicely over the last 20 years,

which means the pool
in which to fish for female leaders

has increased over time,

and that’s great.

Now, according to my old theory,

the share of women in leadership

would have grown
more or less in parallel, right?

Now, let’s have a look
at what happened in reality.

It’s not even close,

which means I was so wrong

and which means that my generation,

your generation,

the best-educated
female generation in history,

we have just not made it.

We have failed to achieve leadership
in significant numbers.

Education just did not
translate into leadership.

Now, that was a painful realization for me

and made me realize,

if we want to change this,

we need to engage,
and we need to do better.

Now, what to do?

Achieving more than 20 percent
women in leadership

seems like a daunting task to many,

understandably, given the track record.

But it’s doable,

and there are many companies today
that are making progress there

and doing it successfully.

Let’s take SAP, the software
company, as an example.

They had, in 2011,
19 percent women in leadership,

yet they decided to do better,

and they did what you do
in any other area of business

where you want to improve.

They set themselves a measurable target.

So they set themselves a target
of 25 percent for 2017,

which they have just achieved.

The goals made them think more creatively
about developing leaders

and tapping new recruiting pools.

They now even set a target of 30 percent
women in leadership for 2022.

So experience shows it’s doable,

and at the end of the day,

it all boils down to two decisions
that are taken every day

in every organization by many of us:

who to hire and who
to develop and promote.

Now, nothing against women’s programs,

networks, mentoring, trainings.

All is good.

But it is these two decisions

that at the end of the day
send the most powerful change signal

in any organization.

Now, I never set out
to be a diversity advocate.

I am a business advisor.

But now my goal is
to change the face of leadership,

to make it more diverse –

and not so that leaders can check a box

and feel like they have
complied with something

or they have been politically correct.

But because they understand,

they understand that diversity
is making their organization

more innovative, better.

And by embracing diversity,
by embracing diverse talent,

we are providing
true opportunity for everyone.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

(Applause)

十五年前,

我认为多样性的
东西不是我必须担心的。

这是老
一代必须为之奋斗的东西。

在我的大学里,
我们是 50-50 岁的男女

,我们女性的成绩通常更好。

因此,虽然并非一切都是完美的,但

多样性和领导决策


随着时间的推移自然会发生的,对吧?

嗯,不完全是。

在欧洲和美国
担任管理顾问的

过程中,

我开始意识到
我是房间里唯一的女性的频率

,以及同质化的领导力仍然是多么的一致。

我遇到的许多领导人都

将多样性视为出于政治正确性而需要遵守的事情

或者,最好的情况是正确的做法,

但不是业务优先事项。

他们只是没有理由

相信多样性会帮助他们实现
最直接、最紧迫的目标:

达到数字、
交付新产品、

衡量他们的真正目标。


与不同团队合作的个人经验

是,虽然他们
一开始需要更多的努力,

但他们确实带来了更新鲜、
更有创意的想法。

所以我想知道:

多元化的组织
真的更具创新性

吗?多元化不仅仅是需要遵守的东西吗?

能否成为真正的竞争优势?

因此,为了找出答案,我们
与慕尼黑工业大学开展了一项研究。

我们对德国、奥地利和瑞士的 171 家公司进行了调查

,在我们发言时,我们正在将研究范围扩大

到全球

另外五个国家的 1,600 家公司

我们基本上问了这些公司
两件事:

它们的创新程度
和多样性。

为了衡量第一个,

我们向他们询问了创新收入。

创新收入是
他们在过去三年中

从新产品和服务
中获得的收入份额,

这意味着我们没有问
他们有多少创意,

而是问这些创意是否能
转化为

真正成就公司的产品和服务
今天和明天更成功。

为了衡量多样性,
我们研究了六个不同的因素:

原籍国、
年龄和性别等。

在准备
带着这些问题进入现场时,

我和我的团队坐下来

讨论了
我们对结果的期望。

说得客气一点,我们并不乐观。

团队中最持怀疑态度的人
认为,或者看到了一种真正的可能性

,我们什么也找不到。

团队
中的大多数人都比较谨慎,

所以我们在“仅当”的情况下齐心协力,

这意味着我们可能会

在创新和多样性之间找到某种联系,

但不是全面的——

而是只有在满足某些标准的情况下 ,

例如领导风格,
非常开放的领导风格

,允许人们自由
、安全地发表意见并做出贡献。

几个月后
,数据进来了

,结果说服
了我们当中最怀疑的人。

答案是肯定的,

没有如果,没有但是。

我们样本中的数据表明

,更多元化的公司
只是更具创新性。

现在,一个公平的问题
是先有鸡还是先有蛋的问题,

意思是,公司
真的

因为
拥有更多元化的领导层而更具创新性,

还是相反?

是哪条路?

现在,我们不知道
相关性与因果关系有多大,

但我们所知道的是,

在我们的样本中,很明显
,更多元化

的公司更具创新性,而更具创新性的

公司也

拥有更多元化的领导力。

所以可以公平地
假设它是双向的,

多样性驱动创新
和创新驱动多样性。

现在,一旦我们公布了结果,

我们
对媒体的反应感到惊讶。

我们得到了相当多的关注。

它从

“更高的女性份额
促进创新”之类的非常真实的东西

变成了更耸人听闻的东西。

(笑声)

正如你所见,

“宅在家里的女性花费数万亿美元”,

以及我个人最喜欢的

“家庭主妇扼杀创新”。

好吧,没有
什么不好的宣传,对吧?

(笑声)

在那篇报道的背后,

我们开始接到高管打来的电话
,他们

想要更多地了解,

尤其是——惊喜,惊喜——
关于性别多样性。

我倾向于
通过询问来开启这些讨论,

“嗯,您如何看待
贵组织今天的情况?”

对此的常见反应是,

“好吧,我们还没有到那里,
但我们还没有那么糟糕。”

例如,一位高管告诉我,

“哦,我们还不错。

我们董事会中有一位女性成员。”

(笑声

)然后你笑了——

(掌声)

现在,你笑了,但他
为此感到自豪是有道理的,

因为在德国,

如果你有一家公司

,而且
董事会中有一个女性成员,

是 100 家最大的
上市公司中精选的 30 家公司的一部分。

其他 70 家
公司的董事会全是男性,截至今天,

这百家
最大的上市公司

中甚至没有一家拥有女性 CEO。

但这是至关重要的
见解。

光是那几个女性董事会成员,

她们不会有什么不同。

我们的数据显示,要让性别多样性
对创新产生影响,

您需要有
超过 20% 的女性担任领导职务。

让我们来看看数字。

如您所见,我们
将样本分为三组

,结果非常引人注目。

只有在
女性领导层中女性占比超过 20% 的群体中,

您才会看到
创新收入明显跃升

至高于平均水平。

因此,经验和数据
表明,你确实需要临界质量

来推动这一目标,

而阿里巴巴、
摩根大通或苹果等公司迄今为止

已经达到了这一门槛。

我得到的另一个反应是,

“嗯,它会随着时间的推移得到解决。”


对这种观点深表同情,

因为我曾经也是这样想的。

现在,让我们再看看这里
,看看数字,

以德国为例。

让我先告诉你一个好消息。

因此

,拥有至少 10
年专业经验的大学毕业生的女性比例

在过去 20 年中增长良好,

这意味着随着时间
的推移,女性领导者的人才库

越来越多

,这很好。

现在,根据我以前的理论,

女性在领导层中的比例

或多或少会同步增长,对吧?

现在,让我们来
看看现实中发生了什么。

它甚至没有接近,

这意味着我错了

,这意味着我们这一代,

你们这一代

,历史上受过最好教育的
女性一代,

我们只是没有成功。

我们未能在相当数量上取得领导地位

教育只是没有
转化为领导力。

现在,这对我来说是一个痛苦的认识

,让我意识到,

如果我们想改变这一点,

我们需要参与进来
,我们需要做得更好。

现在,该怎么办? 鉴于

以往的记录,在许多人看来,实现超过 20% 的
女性领导力

似乎是一项艰巨的任务,这是可以

理解的。

但这是可行的

,今天有很多公司
正在那里取得进展

并成功地做到了。

我们以软件
公司 SAP 为例。

2011 年,他们有
19% 的女性担任领导职务,

但他们决定做得更好,

并且在您想要改进的任何其他业务领域都做了您所做的事情

他们为自己设定了一个可衡量的目标。

因此,他们为自己设定
了 2017 年 25% 的目标,

而他们刚刚实现了这一目标。

这些目标让他们更有创意地
思考培养领导者

和挖掘新的招聘人才库。

他们现在甚至设定了 2022 年女性领导层比例为 30% 的目标。

所以经验表明这是可行的

,归根结底,

这一切都归结

为我们许多人每天在每个组织中做出的两个决定:

谁 雇用和
发展和促进谁。

现在,没有什么反对女性的项目、

网络、指导和培训。

一切都很好。

但正是这两个

决定最终在任何组织中
发出了最强大的变革信号

现在,我从未
打算成为多元化倡导者。

我是一名商业顾问。

但现在我的目标
是改变领导力的面貌,

使其更加多样化——

而不是让领导者可以勾选一个框

并感觉他们已经
遵守了某些事情

或者他们在政治上是正确的。

但因为他们理解,

他们明白多样性
正在使他们的组织

更具创新性、更好。

通过拥抱多样性,
通过拥抱多样化的人才,

我们
为每个人提供了真正的机会。

谢谢你。 太感谢了。

(掌声)