Why ‘diversity of thought’ falls short

Have you heard the story behind Powrsuit? The idea originated in our last startup, an investing platform. We had a four-person founding team with an even gender split, and the two women (us 👯‍♀️) were the public faces. And yet, as soon as we launched, we noticed a concerning phenomenon: women investors were starkly underrepresented.

When we say ‘we’ noticed, we mean us two women. It wasn’t because we were more perceptive, strategic, or smarter than our male counterparts (they are both fab!); we were simply primed to look for a gender gap. 

This early awareness impacted our strategy. We focused on behaviour change tactics to address the significant barriers between women and financial freedom, and we were very successful. 

Would we have achieved the same result with four white men? Who knows.

We need diversity of thought; we shouldn’t always Believe women and All Lives Matter

The problem with snappy campaign catchphrases is their intention can be twisted to serve almost any purpose.

‘Believe women’ aimed to address a stigma often faced by women victims. The point was to highlight the vast overestimation of false reporting, not to claim that women never lie. 

All Black Lives Matter. Remember that controversy? There was an invisible ‘too’ at the end, not a hidden ‘more’. 

Diversity of thought fits into this category

The notion is so obvious it’s almost nonsensical. Of course, we need diversity of thought; that’s where the benefits come from. But when people say ‘diversity of thought’, what they really mean is ‘white men are enough’.

It’s ‘best person for the job-ing’ the debate. Yes, you should hire the best person for the job; yes, diversity of thought is important, and yes, All Lives Matter.

But, these statements are cleverly designed to silence calls for change by reinforcing the status quo. When we’ve already achieved diversity via the different backgrounds white men bring to the table, why make space for anyone else?

The more diversity you have, the better it gets

Yes, any two people will bring diverse perspectives—no two humans share the same experiences, strengths, and values. Even when diversity of thought isn’t considered in the hiring process. Even when the majority of jobs are filled through networks – people are far more likely to look and act like you.

But are you happy with the minimum? You shouldn’t be. Because there are countless examples of these groups coming to some pretty daft (and costly) conclusions. This is by no means an exhaustive list:

• New Zealand rugby celebrated the supporting role played by All Blacks wives on International Women’s Day. Female fans immediately spotted who they’d overlooked: New Zealand’s champion women’s team.
   
• Peleton launched an ad featuring a husband gifting an exercise bike to his thin, grateful wife. The $1.5 billion drop in valuation was the thanks women gave them.
   
• Fans of ‘shrink it and pink it’; Bic are repeat offenders. Women loved Bic For Her pens about as much as being encouraged to “Look like a girl, act like a lady, think like a man, work like a boss”.
   
• In Hollywood, 83% of directors and writers are men. In movies, women do just 35% of the talking. This inequality has been justified by studies showing that male protagonists win at the box office. No one thought to ask the obvious question: Does the data account for funding differences? The $1.5 billion Peleton lost has now been spent on Barbie – the highest-grossing Warner Bos movie ever.
   
• And what about the male-dominated Venture Capital landscape? With just 2% of funding going to a group that consistently outperforms, you have to wonder why all those investors aren’t enraged.

We could go on, but Google it. History is littered with such ridiculous oversights that we’re left asking, ‘How did no one pick up on that?’ 

It’s because the benefits of diversity are tightly correlated with the level of diversity.

Why take the hard road?

So now we’re two white women starting a company – we see the irony. An early supporter commented, ‘You shouldn’t really have diversity in the early stages; it’s too hard to make decisions’. 

We call BS. It’s trying to make those decisions without diversity – that’s the hard part.

When we published an article on navigating stakeholders, a Chinese Powrsuiter was quick to raise an oversight: We focused on one very Western view. Whoops, it turns out we didn’t consider all cultural variations. What a surprise. 

When we published a series on managing menstruation, another Powrsuiter emailed to politely remind us that not all women have periods, and not all people who have periods are women. Point gratefully received and articles updated.

We’ve got full calendars; why make life hard for ourselves? Do you know how much time it would take for two of us to deliver a solution that truly meets the unique needs of all our members? However much it is, it’s far more than we have.

Why go through mental gymnastics, when we can surround ourselves with people who can give us the cheat sheet?

Now that’s true diversity of thought.