Diversity of expertise: an advantage for team performance?
In precision industries, a team can bring together design, production, metrology and quality without making better decisions. The managerial question is therefore specific: does diversifying expertise improve results, or must teams first organise how those perspectives are examined together?
What the literature establishes
Sujin K. Horwitz and Irwin B. Horwitz (2007, Journal of Management) distinguish task-related diversity from biodemographic diversity in their meta-analysis. The former shows a positive association with the quality and quantity of team performance; the latter shows no significant relationship with those outcomes in their synthesis. Discussing “diversity” without specifying the differences involved therefore obscures an important distinction.
The mechanism: working through differences, not just assembling them
Daan van Knippenberg, Carsten K. W. De Dreu and Astrid C. Homan (2004, Journal of Applied Psychology) propose a model integrating two mechanisms: the elaboration of relevant information and social categorisation. Different perspectives can enrich analysis, but divisions between subgroups can obstruct that work. This is a theoretical framework: its contribution is to explain why the same diversity can produce different effects, not to guarantee an improvement.
The hasty conclusion
One might conclude that adding another discipline to the table is enough to improve a decision. This confuses the presence of expertise with its influence on the analysis: a specialist can participate without their constraints being examined. The issue is therefore not just team composition, but how the team compares and integrates its reasoning. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
An average association from a meta-analysis does not demonstrate that changing composition will produce the same effect in a particular team. The categories used encompass differences in education, experience or function that are not interchangeable. These studies neither establish an optimal number of disciplines nor promise a productivity gain for a precision workshop.
A practical check in Neuchâtel
Within SHR's “Team Performance” programme, an exercise suitable for a Neuchâtel team in microtechnology, watchmaking or precision microelectronics is to document trade-offs when analysing non-conformities. For four weeks, record, for each decision involving several disciplines, a constraint raised by each and how it was incorporated or rejected with a reason. Then calculate the proportion of decisions with this complete record, and separately track those reopened because a discipline-specific constraint was initially overlooked. This monitoring does not prove a causal effect on performance, but checks whether the expertise present actually enters into decisions. To go further: explore the Team Performance training in Neuchâtel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Team Performance in Neuchâtel
- team performance
- Neuchâtel
- research
- training neuchâtel