Does diversity really drive creativity?

If it is widely accepted that diversity leads to innovation (discuss), why do so many creative organisations struggle to get the diverse teams they believe will give them the alchemy they need for success?

Take a look at marketing agencies, product designers, architects and art galleries and you will see teams as homogeneous as an investment bank. Why is this? Why isn't the creative sector leading the way when it comes to diversity? What are the barriers and do we need to revisit the business case.

I've always loved working with creative types - musicians, artists, designers, filmmakers. There's something magical about people that create something from nothing. Whether it is beautiful art, poetry, fashion, stories, music or buildings. These are the people whose creations make the world a better, more beautiful place.

Some of us define creativity narrowly. Creativity means more than making tangible things that delight the senses. It also means to think of new ways of doing things, solve problems innovatively and shifting one’s entire paradigm.

In truth, we all create to a certain extent. If we're fortunate enough to work in teams where learning, challenge, and growth are valued, then even if we crunch spreadhseets all day we still have an opportunity to create on some level. Creativity comes in all shapes and sizes, not just in amazing artwork.

And yet, if any business were going to accept the 'diversity = creativity' argument it should be those whose very commercial existence depends on it. If it were as simple as a+b=c then the creative sector would be brimming with diverse teams. And yet that’s not the case. So where is the disconnect?

In this piece I'm deliberately not focusing on processes and procedures for hiring, talent management and creating an inclusive environment. Those challenges are well documented and slightly easier to address once you overcome the structural and cognitive barriers explored below.

Creative Individuals vs Creative Teams

Studies have shown there are factors that increase the level of creativity in individuals, which are different to driving innovation in teams. There is a fantastic summary of all of the studies in The effects of diversity on creativity: A literature review and synthesis published by Applied Psychology.

For individuals, speaking more than one language, being a first or second generation immigrant, being exposed to different cultures and having a wide social network all contribute to increased levels of creativity. Think Andy Warhol.

For teams - having individuals from different educational backgrounds, neurodiversity, a wide range of communication styles, knowledge of different areas, having different genders and nationalities, being geographically dispersed, direct vs indirect language styles, different attitudes and cultures all go into making teams more creative. At an organisational level, technology, workforce age diversity and R&D are also factors that increase the level of creativity.

The evidence is fairly unequivocal - diversity breeds innovation, even when measured in black and white terms like the number of patents measured by companies.

However, undoubtedly there is a level of creativity that comes from having creative individuals without necessarily having diverse teams. Perhaps this is one of the reasons some organisations do not push for more diversity. They already have enough Andy Warhols.

Creativity vs STEM

When you hear the words genius, intelligence, scientist, who pops into your head? The chances are if you've been educated and socialised in the west, consuming traditional media, film and TV, you will have a similar image. Einstein anyone?

Now that Google has finally taken some feedback, we do have slightly more diverse images when you search these words, and we also have new STEM faces on TV like Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock and Dr Anne-Marie Imafidon (google them).

In many of the creative businesses I've worked with that have struggled to move the dial on diversity, not for lack of trying, they fall at the intersection of creativity and science-based disciplines. Think industrial/product design and architecture. The 'perfect' designer is not only creative, they are also brilliant engineers or mathematicians, like Virgil Abloh, who studied both engineering and then architecture, before moving into the heady world of fashion.

Apart from the stereotype of a scientific genius, which contributes to an unconscious preference for people that look like Einstein, there are also structural barriers that make it more difficult for people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to get into the elite universities which these companies like to recruit from. Thankfully some academic organisations, like In2scienceUK, are starting to break down the barriers, but it will take a while for a diverse STEM pipeline of individuals who also have a creative spark.

In the meantime, I challenge companies to think outside of the box when recruiting. Go back to first principles and deconstruct what you need to see in your interns and entry-level hires in order for them to show they have potential, rather than waiting for the Royal College of Art to produce the next Norman Foster (The Gerkin).

Diverse Creativity vs History

History, or rather the narrow account we have been fed, has a lot to answer for.

Classical artists, writers, musicians and makers all tend to be of a certain hue and the same gender. Whatever the research tells us about diversity and creativity, our simple brains have been hardwired into believing that the masters of all things creative, the best of the best, were a small homogenous group of elite, European men.

This narrow version of history has reinforced the cognitive association of the highest forms of creativity with a stereotype that is not diverse, and also tends towards individual creativity vs collaborative working.

The way to counter this bias is to look for examples of creative individuals at the top of their game who are atypical. Read articles and books, watch videos and TED talks of creators that contradict the historical narrative, who have produced creative works that are world-class. If you don't know where to start, google - composers, artists, designers, filmmakers, writers - who are from underrepresented groups, such as female, Asian, African working class, disabled, LGBTQ+, neurodiverse etc. By diving into this research, you will not only reduce your unconscious bias, but you will also increase your own creativity.

Creative Types vs Stereotypes

Contrary to what Queer Eye would have you think, not all gay men know how to dress, are immaculately groomed and have apartments that look like the inside of a Vogue magazine.

And not all black people are good at singing and dancing, a trope which is due in part to the legacy of minstrelsy.

I've also worked with enough startups to know that the skew towards younger hires isn't only due to friendships and working hours, there is an unspoken belief that young people are more creative with tech.

Stereotypes help our inherently slothful brains make sense of the world. When it comes to building creative teams, instead of looking for diversity, we sometimes build groups of the same type - stereotypes.

My advice for countering the temptation to fill your next creative design project with a certain 'type' is to look for people that don't fit the mould. Do the real work of finding people who have the knowledge, skills, expertise, attitude or potential you need in order to work with and challenge others. Go counter to what your gut tells you (it's where bias lives).

There is no doubt that creativity drives diversity but there is much work to do, for team leaders and organisations to tackle the underlying obstacles. And much of it starts with self-work - self-learning, exposure to difference and to evidence that counters our hard-wired beliefs.

It's not easy and it won't change overnight.

If it were easy, those creative businesses that wanted to change would have cracked it already.