Diversity and inclusion can support team performance, but they do not guarantee it. Diversity brings different backgrounds, knowledge and perspectives into a team; inclusion determines whether people can contribute and whether their input is considered. Research finds small average links between diversity and performance, with stronger associations in some complex or creative work. The eight benefits below are plausible pathways—not assured outcomes—and depend on the task and how a team works together.
What the evidence says about diversity and team performance
A 2024 registered-report meta-analysis examined 615 reports and 2,638 effect sizes. It found statistically positive but small average relationships between demographic, job-related and cognitive diversity and team performance (absolute correlations below .1). Associations were more positive for complex tasks and work requiring creativity or innovation, but remained modest on average. Read the meta-analysis.
The OECD’s 2020 review likewise describes mixed results and cautions against treating demographic representation by itself as a dependable performance lever. The kind of diversity, the work being done and the team’s ability to use different contributions all matter. See the OECD review.
8 ways diversity and inclusion can help teams perform better
1. Put more task-relevant knowledge in the room
Differences in professional, educational and cognitive backgrounds can expand the knowledge and experience a team can draw on. The OECD review reports more consistent positive team-performance associations for professional and other task-related backgrounds than for demographic categories alone. That makes the match between people’s expertise and the task important; headcount diversity alone does not establish that a team has the knowledge it needs.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2. Generate more ideas for complex or creative work
When a task is complex or requires creativity and innovation, different experiences may prompt a broader range of ideas. The 2024 meta-analysis found more positive diversity–performance associations in those settings, while still describing the average relationships as insubstantial. The finding supports a conditional possibility, not a promise that a more diverse team will always be more innovative.
3. Approach problems from more angles
People with different perspectives may notice different causes, constraints or possible solutions. That wider set of explanations can be useful when a problem is uncertain or has no obvious answer. It is a plausible problem-solving mechanism, not a universal performance gain: both the OECD review and the meta-analysis emphasize that task and context shape results.
Rank #2
4. Consider alternatives more carefully
A mix of knowledge can help a team surface assumptions and weigh competing options. Whether that improves a decision depends on whether people can contribute and whether their views are actually considered. The OECD review does not establish a strong general business case either for or against greater gender representation on boards; board-level findings should not be mistaken for proof about teams.
5. Make it easier to ask questions and raise concerns
Inclusion can support psychological safety: a shared belief that team members will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions or concerns. That can make it easier to ask for clarification, flag risks or share an unfinished idea. In a 2022 working paper, Henrik Bresman and Amy C. Edmondson describe psychological safety in these terms. Read their working paper.
6. Help teams collaborate across differences
Inclusion practices can help people communicate across differences and combine their contributions toward a shared goal. In the pharmaceutical teams studied by Bresman and Edmondson, psychological safety moderated the relationship between diversity and innovation performance. The result is specific to that study’s setting; it does not establish that any particular inclusion practice will improve collaboration in every workplace.
7. Support innovation when the conditions are right
Bresman and Edmondson studied 62 pharmaceutical drug-development teams across six large pharmaceutical firms. They reported a more positive relationship between diversity and team innovation performance when psychological safety was higher, and a more negative relationship when it was lower. The authors characterize psychological safety as positively shaping the relationship. This is setting-specific evidence from a 2022 working paper, not proof of universal causation.
8. Contribute to broader workplace and business outcomes
Diversity and inclusion can be relevant beyond the immediate team, but claims about profits, productivity, retention or reputation need evidence for the particular outcome and setting. The ILO’s 2022 report addresses enterprise-level diversity and inclusion, while the OECD review covers firm productivity, teams and boards; neither supports treating any of those benefits as automatic. See the ILO report.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to tell whether a diversity or inclusion claim applies to your team
Before treating a proposed benefit as a likely result, check what the evidence actually measures and how closely it matches your workplace. Useful comparison questions include:
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →- Which outcome is being measured? Innovation, team performance, voice and productivity are different outcomes; one does not automatically prove another.
- What kind of diversity is involved? Demographic, job-related and cognitive diversity are not interchangeable.
- What does the task demand? Complexity and creativity matter to how diversity–performance relationships appear in the meta-analysis.
- Can team members speak up safely? A team’s ability to raise ideas, questions and concerns is relevant to whether differences can be used.
- Are contributions integrated into decisions? Representation is not the same as meaningful participation.
- Is the evidence from a comparable setting? Consider the team, sector, task and organizational context before applying a finding elsewhere.
Make inclusion practices specific and evaluate them
Start with a defined team goal—such as improving the way concerns are raised or ensuring that relevant expertise is considered in decisions—and choose an outcome that can show whether the practice is helping. The UK Inclusion at Work Panel’s March 2024 report reviewed peer-reviewed studies and survey data and warned that some diversity and inclusion interventions have little or no impact and may be counterproductive or unlawful. Generic training should not be treated as a guaranteed fix. Read the UK panel report.
Bresman and Edmondson discuss framing and inquiry as tactics for psychological safety. Their evidence comes from a working paper about pharmaceutical drug-development teams, so teams in other settings should assess whether those approaches fit their work rather than assume the same results.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
