1. Diversity in the Board Room: How to Unlock Its Full Potential
By Christiana Vonofakou, DPhil (Oxon)
Diversity in the boardroom is a hot topic. As an executive recruiter assisting public and
private companies in making key hires, I increasingly come across requests from clients to
include female talent in short-lists. Today, the call for gender equality in the board room is
loud and clear.
Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, recently argued that we need more
female leaders, drawing considerable media attention with her bestselling book “Lean In”.1
Several European Union member states have even enacted legislation for a minimum
percentage of female board directors. In the US, women hold about 17 percent of board seats
at Fortune 500 companies2, while one in seven board members (13.7 percent) at Europe’s top
companies is female.3 In the UK women hold only about 7 percent of executive directorships
and 15 percent of board seats among FTSE 100 companies. Among FTSE 250 these numbers
decrease slightly to 5 percent of executive directorships and 9 percent of board seats.4
The road to true gender equality is long and will have many winding turns. I have noticed a
lot of misconceptions in the market regarding the push for more female leaders. I recently
received a late-night call from a client with an urgent request for a female candidate to
interview, simply to satisfy HR requirements regarding fair and anti-discriminatory
employment practices. What I had long suspected finally became apparent: the value and
logic behind real diversity (gender or otherwise) is rarely ever communicated, let alone
understood. Even when organizations are serious about diversity across their boards and
leadership positions – as an ever growing number of companies clearly are – it is not enough
to merely push for more diversity in terms of numbers. Social psychology research shows us
that by merely bringing diverse teams together without appropriate organizational and
managerial intervention, we run the risk that negative reactions and gender stereotypes will
prevail and our organizations will take much longer to benefit from diversity – if at all.
Why Diversity Matters
Diversity means variety. Boards or management teams may differ in readily detectable
attributes, such as gender, nationality or ethnicity, but also in underlying - initially
undetectable - qualities such as personality or educational background. The conventional
logic is that diversity boosts the range of perspectives and skills brought to bear on a task,
while also increasing the probability that individuals will have unique information to share,
thereby stimulating creativity.
Harvard Business School Professor Boris Groysberg recently summarized the findings of a
survey of 294 female and 104 male board directors of private and public companies – 80
percent of whom were US board directors. He found that 34 percent of women and 57
percent of men said that women do bring fresh perspectives and diversity of thought.5 One
well-documented example is that women bring in-depth insight into female buyer’s
behavior.

2. Boards composed of men and women are more likely to have a greater range of perspectives
and skills to draw from, as opposed to homogenous, male dominated boards. However,
research has shown that diversity itself does not necessarily imply a difference in
perspective.6 Companies ought to ask: Do board members embody a diversity of
knowledge, skills and perspectives that, when combined, will stimulate creative thought
processes and innovative outcomes?
The Pitfalls
The very divergence of views that creates multiple perspectives will often lead to
disagreement and conflict at the workplace. Research has shown that groups with members
who differ from each other on easily detectable characteristics may experience higher levels
of conflict.7 Gender is a salient characteristic. While conflicts may become opportunities to
find creative solutions, they can provoke negative reactions at first. In fact, there is a range of
potential pitfalls.
Differences may fragment a team. Negative gender stereotypes and distrust of opposing
board members are likely to kick in. Gender stereotypes still prevail. A European-wide,
representative survey conducted on behalf of the European Commission in 2012 showed
that the majority of Europeans agree that the business community is indeed dominated by
men who do not have sufficient confidence in women in positions of responsibility.8 Such
initial distrust is likely to block both male and female board members from identifying with
the board as a whole.9
Perceived differences may cause board members not to identify as strongly with the board
as they might with a team of similar others10 – such as, a team composed of only men. Social
Identity Theory11 suggests that group members tend to favor ideas and opinions offered by
similar people, rejecting ideas and opinions of those who are different, hindering the growth
of any sort of creative thought processes.
In addition, a group’s capacity for idea generation depends on the degree to which members
are willing to share information. Research into minority dissent has been shown to predict
team innovation, but only in teams with high levels of participation and information
sharing.12 When low levels of initial trust and team identification exist, team members do
not feel safe discussing and sharing differences of opinion. Work groups tend to stress
uniformity in members’ thoughts and behaviour13, potentially blocking the very processes
that are essential for creativity.
Creative thought is more likely to occur when individuals are free from pressure and feel
safe.14 Raising questions about the status quo can be intimidating in its own right. Sheryl
Sandberg described this very same set of fears: “Fear of not being considered a team player.
Fear of seeming negative and nagging....Fear that by speaking up, we will call attention to
ourselves, which might open us up to attack.”15 Research has shown that threats to
reputation, dignity or identity are associated with more rigid thinking.16 It is clear that
diversity within climates that are initially characterized by distrust and lack of

3. communication will inhibit any beneficial effects of diversity on creativity and innovation
within organisations.17
How to Counteract The Pitfalls
Merely pushing for diversity in organizations without an awareness of some of the side-
effects that may occur when putting together diverse teams for the first time may backfire,
suppressing the desired result of creativity and innovation. If we are to unlock the benefits
of diversity within organizations, we need to take a look at the application and extension of
social psychological knowledge about mechanisms that reduce potential conflict. In the
1950s Gordon Allport put forward one of the most influential ideas in social psychology for
improving intergroup relations - the Contact Hypothesis.18 This suggests that contact
between members of different groups reduces prejudice and mitigates any pre-existing
stereotypes, leading to better intergroup relations - but only under appropriate conditions.
If organizations are mindful of gender equality or if they wish to hire executives from
diverse backgrounds onto their boards, they are in effect bringing individuals who belong to
different groups (such as across gender, but also ethnicity or socioeconomic background) in
direct contact with each other, asking them to effectively collaborate and work together. But
what are those necessary pre-conditions for harmonious intergroup contact that Allport
refers to? Are organizations providing the appropriate environment for the most effective
form of contact to occur? Below I outline five conditions that promise to ensure
organizations make the most of diversity.
1. Organizational Encouragement & Equal Status
Allport stressed the importance of authority sanctions for effective intergroup contact.19 The
organizational culture undoubtedly plays a powerful part in influencing how well men and
women work together. The degree to which an organization communicates the value of
diversity is of key importance. Allport also stressed the necessity for equal status between
groups for effective intergroup contact. Organizations should take care to ensure equal
status for male and female leaders. In practice this can take many forms, such as equal pay,
opportunities or recognition.
Moreover, heterogeneous boards or management teams need help in understanding how
their differences may be a source of competitive advantage. Organizations need to be
transparent and to explicitly point out the reasons behind particular board compositions.
Training on what is known about the advantages and disadvantages of composing diverse
boards to perform a task is therefore an essential by-product of HR initiatives to increase
diversity within organizations.
2. Leadership Support
The critical influence on how diversity affects group processes and contributes to creativity
and innovation is leadership. Chairmen and Chief Executive Officers exert powerful social
influence on an organization or team; managerial intervention is critical.

4. Norman Maier’s seminal research showed that leaders should use their power to protect
individuals with minority views, so that their opinions can be heard.20 Leaders can delay
criticism of an idea by asking for alternative contributions. A dominant, directive leader may
also prevent attempts by team members to bring about change. The leader must be
receptive to information but not impose solutions.
3. Emphasis on Common Goals
Leaders who integrate diverse perspectives and manage conflicts effectively are likely to
enhance the influence of diversity on creativity and innovation implementation. Key to this
is the need for common goals. Emphasizing shared objectives and painting a common vision
are important for any organization, but are particularly critical if a diverse board is to work
together harmoniously. Stressing common objectives cannot be underestimated as a key tool
for fostering group identification and hence bringing about effective collaboration.
4. Minority Perseverance
I have pointed to organizational and leadership factors that are essential to support the
voicing of ideas that challenge the status quo. Social psychologists have also extensively
studied minority group members in teams and examined the ways they can best get their
message across. Minority Influence Theory21 suggests that perseverance and consistency on
the part of minority group members, such as women on boards, act to bring about change in
the views of majorities and are a necessary behavioral style for creativity and ultimately
innovation to occur.22 Consistency of arguments over time is crucial for changing the
majority’s views.23
5. Previous Exposure
Over time, the experience of diversity at board level and the wider organization will soften
into familiarity24, which in turn fosters mutual trust and greater group identification. The
degree to which board members have prior experience in working alongside men and
women alike will predict how easily and well they will collaborate with one another from
the outset. This in itself should encourage organizations to invest in diversity now, so that
the very real benefits of diversity have time to kick in.
An understanding of the potential benefits and pitfalls of diversity, coupled with insight
into the mechanisms to counteract those very pitfalls, will hopefully allow organizations to
make the most of diversity in the board room (and beyond). Executive recruiters will
likewise feel assured that the search for more female talent is not only pressing, but indeed
worthwhile and more important than ever.
Notes
1 Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work and the will to lead. New York: Random
House, Inc.

5. 2 Catalyst, 2012 Catalyst Census: Fortune 500 Women Board Directors (December 2012),
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2012-catalyst-census-fortune-500-women-
board-directors
3 Women on Boards: Commission proposes 40% objective, European Commission Press
Release, Nov 2012. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1205_en.htm
4 Ruth Sealy and Susan Vinnicombe, The Female FTSE Board Report 2012: Milestone or
Millstone?, Cranfield International Centre for Women Leaders (Cranfield, England:
Cranfield University School of Management, 2012).
5 Boris Groysberg and Deborah Bell, Dysfunction in the Boardroom, June 2013.
http://hbr.org/2013/06/dysfunction-in-the-boardroom/ar/1
6 Milliken, F.J., Bartel, C.A., & Kurtzberg, T.R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work
groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link
diversity and performance. In P.B. Paulus & B.A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity:
Innovation through collaboration (pp. 32-62). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7 Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S.M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The
effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on
workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287 – 305.
8 Women in decision-making positions, conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request
of Directorate-General Justice, survey co-ordinated by Directorate-General
Communication, 2012.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_376_en.pdf
9 Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-
motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
10 Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding
the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 402 – 433.
11 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago:
Nelson.
12 De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M.A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The
importance of participation in decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68,
1191-1201.
13 McGarth, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
14 Claxton, G. L. (1997). Hare brain, tortoise mind: Why intelligence increases when you think
less. London: Fourth Estate.
15 Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work and the will to lead. New York: Random
House, Inc.
16 Cowen, E. L. (1952). The influence of varying degrees of psychological stress on
problem-solving rigidity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 420-424.
17 West, M.A. (2003). Innovation implementation in work teams. In P.B. Paulus & B.A.
Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 245-276). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley.

6. Pettigrew, T. F. (1971). Racially separate or together? New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Williams, R. M. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. New York: Social Science
Research Council.
19 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley.
20 Maier, N. R. (1970). Problem solving and creativity: In individuals and groups. Monterey,
CA: Brooks Cole.
21 Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.
22 Nemeth, C., & Owens, P. (1996). Making work groups more effective: The value of
minority dissent. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 125 –
142). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
23 Nemeth, C., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential
benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P.B. Paulus & B.A. Nijstad
(Eds.), Group creativity: innovation through collaboration (pp. 63-84). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
24 West, M.A. (2003). Innovation implementation in work teams. In P.B. Paulus & B.A.
Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 245-276). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Note about the author
Christiana Vonofakou is a Director at an international executive search firm and lives in
London.
She holds a DPhil in Experimental Social Psychology from the University of Oxford. Her
DPhil thesis focused on examining ways of reducing prejudice and discrimination towards
minority groups. She is the author of various social psychology articles, published by the
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology amongst others, and a book chapter, published
by Blackwell, investigating the impact of contact on intergroup relations. She is bilingual in
German and Greek and fluent in English.