Think your board is diverse? Inclusivity can be counterintuitive

Having women or other underrepresented groups on your board could be hurting your firm (yes, you read that correctly).

Why? Because if they are simply on the board, without being genuinely included in the board’s work, then they’re just figureheads, there to make leaders feel good about themselves or fulfil a quota. We call this the ‘illusion of inclusion’. And if leaders feel they’re doing the right thing (without actually doing it), they’ll check the diversity box and move onto the next issue – causing harm to the marginalised individuals and the firm as a whole.

Embracing inclusion is necessary for stellar collaboration and game-changing outcomes. It means considering the perspectives of people with different backgrounds and competencies to produce the best solutions for clients and the firm. This is what I call ‘smart collaboration’, and my research at Harvard University has shown that law firms embracing it produce higher revenues and profits, generate stronger client relationships, and attract and retain better talent. In contrast, when people are ostensibly part of the board, but their inputs are ignored or under-valued, there are far-reaching implications for the whole firm.

In law firms, if certain people on the board are discounted, the board is not only losing out on their wisdom but may also undermine the practice group or other set of people that board member speaks for

I explored this concept of shutting out diverse board members’ opinions with Randall Peterson. Based on several years of examining company board conversations, our findings were that, when conducted improperly, these discussions encouraged political manoeuvring, side-lined members with key expertise and shut out diverse input – leading to poor decisions and dysfunction.

And the dynamics can be starkly clear. In my upcoming book, Smarter Collaboration: A New Approach to Breaking Down Barriers and Transforming Work (coauthored with Ivan Matviak), we reference a study in which women members of parliament in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada were interrupted (mostly by men) more frequently than their male counterparts.

As a result, many women stopped participating in floor debates: not only those who were interrupted but also their peers, who wanted to avoid getting shut down. This phenomenon doesn’t just affect these specific women: it has far-reaching implications for the constituents these MPs are representing. Similarly, in law firms, if certain people on the board are discounted, the board is not only losing out on their wisdom but may also undermine the practice group or other set of people that board member speaks for.

The landscape has got to change. Here are three practical steps law firm boards need to take to make sure that they are practising genuine inclusion that leverages the perspectives of every member:

1. Establish clear rules of engagement and define the ‘anti-collaborative behaviours’ that undermine inclusion. It might seem like common sense to suggest listening sensitively, questioning others respectfully, debating constructively, challenging rigorously and deciding dispassionately. But the reality is that lots of high-powered lawyers who are stars in their individual fields aren’t accustomed to acting in this manner, and an agreed-upon set of norms helps sensitise people to expectations. Of equal – and perhaps greater – importance, outline behaviours that are unacceptable, such as interrupting people. By delineating those counter-cultural behaviours, people feel more justified in calling out bad behaviour.
2. Onboard new members thoroughly. When someone new joins the board, hold a launch meeting to make sure legacy board members know what the newcomer brings (expertise, life experiences, capabilities). On the flipside, when new joiners have a clear understanding of how their expertise contributes to the group and how the board will rely on them, they feel legitimate and responsible in raising issues, making contributions and challenging the board (on both content and the way it operates).
3. Conduct regular audits of board dynamics. Regular reviews, ideally conducted by a trustworthy outsider, frequently turn up all sorts of opportunities to improve group functioning and outcomes. My team recently worked with a law firm board that realised it was under-performing. Results from our proprietary psychometric tool showed the board was dominated by people with particular characteristics: most members were strong ‘initiators’ (they loved starting new projects but had trouble focusing through to completion) and ‘complex thinkers’ (they loved abstractions and theory but loathed detailed action planning). Confronted by hard evidence, the board members not only saw the root causes of some of their dysfunction but also grasped how the skewed membership led them to discount inputs from the few board members whose natural ways of working contradicted the majority’s. We were able to implement some specific changes, ranging from sub-committee configurations to conflict resolution training that has dramatically improved inclusion, and is pointing toward significantly higher board performance.

So, let’s clarify our provocative opening statement: it’s not that women or underrepresented groups directly cause lower performance. Instead, the issue is that poorly managed diversity on the board leads to dysfunction. Boards can – and, we argue, must – take steps to overcome the illusion of inclusion. Practical, easy-to-implement solutions can help the board collaborate smarter and reap the associated benefits.