Why you are failing at diversity, and are going to continue to fail.

The story starts like this: Humans evolved in a dangerous environment where there was constant risk of an invading tribe (1) who wanted to steal our food or our women. Because of the risk of “the others,” we evolved a threat mechanism that has been named “in-group/out-group bias” (also called ethnocentrism) where we automatically exhibit favoritism toward those like us, and an aversion to those who look or act different (2). From this baseline concept, we assume that our bias against those who look different is the main cause of social issues. Then, we design and implement programs to increase diversity – typically focusing on those who look different. But what if the base is wrong? What if the current paradigm on how in-group bias evolved is leading us to focus our diversity policies in the wrong place and waste a significant amount of money along the way?

The failure of current diversity training is widespread

One large company that I worked with had been pushing to increase diversity in the workplace for 10 years with tons of money and effort spent on it. The outcome? One of their key metrics, women in upper management positions, had barely moved. This is not an uncommon outcome. Companies spend lots of money on diversity, about $8 billion a year in the US alone (3). Universities fight lawsuits to keep affirmative action programs in place to maintain diversity (4). The conversation about diversity extends all the way into our politics, and the discussion has transformed “in-group bias” into the much-feared buzzword “tribalism.” Many see tribalism as something that needs to be stamped out and stopped (through education or otherwise) in order to preserve our union, democracy, society, etc. And with all the talk, and all the education, nothing has changed except we have become more polarized (5). This suggests one of two things: 1) Our diversity and inclusion programs are poorly executed and ineffective. 2) Our paradigm and approach to in-group bias is focused on the wrong things.

Revisiting assumptions about the evolution of in-group bias

The original argument about how in-group bias evolved made a number of assumptions, starting with the flawed idea that inter-tribal fighting was common enough to build an evolutionary mechanism to protect ourselves from the nasty and dangerous “others” (6). This causes all of the issues we face to be categorized under one label and focuses all resources toward a fight against what I call “superficial bias.” There is ample evidence that the inter-tribal fighting narrative is incorrect, which has led our diversity and inclusion efforts in the wrong direction. The direction we have taken potentially overlooks a bigger and more sinister problem plaguing our companies and society overall. 

The argument against the inter-tribal fighting narrative:

1. At the height of pre-agricultural revolution society, it is estimated there were only 2 million humans on the face of the planet. However, through most of our evolutionary history, there were far fewer of us - with some estimates indicating our numbers dropped under 70,000 (7). This means that the total human population at the peak of our pre-agricultural society could fit into a medium-size city. This population would be smaller than that of today’s wildebeest migration across the Serengeti in Tanzania. They migrate in a giant circle, and each animal needs about 10 pounds of food a day. They never seem to run out of food even though 2 million of them are traveling in this circle within a small part of the continent of Africa. When only 2 million humans were spread across the entire planet, did human tribes really have to fight over scarce resources?

2. Scarcity was not something we needed to worry about back when our numbers were less than a million or so – which is almost all of our evolutionary history. Humans can eat a variety of foods, including plants, animals, seeds, fruits, and even bugs without getting sick – very much like scavengers (8). If groups of humans ran into each other, and one wanted the food of another, it would make the most sense to either share or just walk away to avoid a fight that could lead to serious injury or death of one or both of them (See Dawkins’ dove vs. hawk argument [9]). Why take such a big risk with a neighboring tribe over food when there are many places to find things to eat? In fact, the archaeological record suggests that pre-agricultural revolution societies did not suffer from malnutrition as can be seen from their bones and teeth (10). The first signs of malnutrition show up during the agricultural revolution (11). So, this suggests that we did not have the types of food scarcity that would cause tribes to invade other tribes for food. 

3. In anthropology, hunting and gathering societies are often referred to as “immediate return societies.” Some examples of these societies exist today on every continent. In all cases, they practice something called radical sharing, where everything is shared (12). To not share is to be ostracized or even killed. Hence, interacting tribes likely behaved the same way with one another the majority of the time - which is not the condition allowing the evolution of an mechanism to defend against pillaging foreign tribes. 

4. Radical sharing likely extended to sexual activity as well – hence pair bonding was likely a more flexible system where women and men had numerous sexual partners (13). There is no evidence that pre-agricultural society humans bonded for life or that a woman’s fertility was a strongly guarded resource – to be defended from foreign invaders. The assumption otherwise is based on our post-agricultural revolution bias toward marriage. This bias necessitated a comparison of humans to chimpanzees (fight for females) and gibbons (pair bonding for life). Instead, a comparison between the sexual habits of humans and bonobos makes much more sense. The bonobo has sex for fun, social connection, and to relieve relational stress, just like humans (14). Bonobos also happen to be closely genetically related to humans (15). Even our anatomy suggests that we were more like bonobos (16) than chimpanzees or gibbons. This strong evidence is summed up in the book “Sex at Dawn: How we mate, why we stray, and what it means for modern relationships” by Christopher Ryan. This freewheeling approach to sexuality means that meetings between tribes were more likely to include orgies than wars, which would be good for preserving genetic diversity in small groups. Even today, both men and women are attracted to “exotic looking” mates (17) – so much for in-group bias protecting our women’s reproductive capability. 

5. Furthermore, as humans were so spread out, we would not have many opportunities to interact with those who were exotic looking – so there were very few chances to meet people who looked significantly different from us. Hence, it seems unlikely that an evolutionary mechanism could be associated with tribal conflict.

6. There is an additional theory that in-group bias was an evolutionary mechanism for identifying “kin.” However, this theory seems even less feasible because visual cues are an unreliable way to identify true kin (20). On a great plain where everyone we would likely run into looks similar to us, though not necessarily family, it makes logical sense that a “kin finding” mechanism would create so many false positives that it would be largely worthless. It is easy to see this flaw in today’s world. For example, a Han Chinese person walking down the street in Shanghai on a business trip may readily see a person who looks like their long-dead grandfather. However, what is the likelihood of this person actually being a family member? Extremely low. With this in mind, why would we develop an evolutionary mechanism so poor that it would create so many false positives as to be useless? Hence, something else must be going on.

7. We do have a mechanism for avoiding disease, parasites, and genetic disorders. This mechanism causes us to avoid facial and body features that are imbalanced, uneven, discolored, or odd as they are all signs for risk of disease. When our brain sees these characteristics, our threat circuitry is activated. This mechanism acts very much like the impulse that causes us to jump away from something that looks like a snake on a walking trail. We jump first and investigate slowly to see if it is actually a snake or a stick. This does not mean we are afraid of sticks. We simply experienced a false positive. In the case of snakes or disease, false positives are better than false negatives – you are not likely to die by mistaking a snake for a stick but could die if your mistake was the other way around. Hence, false positives are beneficial in evolutionary terms and have been built into our fast thinking system. There is a reason that cartoons depict the evil person with an unbalanced face including irregular eye size, big nose, scraggly hair, bad teeth, and rough skin. Is this person evil or simply very unhealthy? To your brain, there is no evolutionary reason to distinguish when making a snap judgment.

Since our interactions with those who looked significantly different from us were so rare, it makes sense that the evolutionary mechanism that was designed to find differences could come into play during these novel interactions. There was no time to evolve a special ability for such occasions, so our brains used what was already there. Future research should look at how the brain functions when looking at beautiful out-group faces, as defined by the mask created by Dr. Stephen Marquardt, to see if those faces activate the threat circuitry. I believe they will find the beautiful out-group faces do not trigger a threat response. Hence another nail in the coffin of the current scientific belief regarding in-group bias. If this result pans out, that would suggest that the evolutionary mechanism for threat activation due to “not looking like me” is not based on an innate fear of the out-group as an invader but instead is based on the brain circuitry used for determining health status.

8. In fact, the mechanism of in-group bias can be switched off very quickly by simply finding something we have in common with the other person (18). Research has shown that simply allowing two groups to find something in common with people who look significantly different from them (Asians vs. Caucasians) causes the brain mechanism that leads to in-group bias to be tuned off. So, it makes no sense to evolve a protection mechanism against a foreigner that can be so easily defeated (19). This is more evidence that the mechanism has nothing to do with an invading tribe, but it is similar to the brain’s alarm response when confronted with a stick that looks like a snake.

9. And the final nail in the coffin on this idea of invading tribes is that there is little evidence of widespread inter-tribal fighting in the archaeological record before the agricultural revolution. There is no evidence to suggest that the fighting was against foreign tribes who looked different. It is just as likely that one brother killed another brother, or one part of a tribal family killed another part over a conflicting idea rather than being invaded and killed by foreigners.

So, the narrative that in-group bias evolved due to inter-tribal fighting to protect women’s reproduction is flawed at best, and its used as an explanation for man’s anti-diversity behavior may be completely wrong-headed. This misguided idea causes some diversity efforts to be overly focused on “superficial bias.” Superficial bias is based on visual cues such as differences in gender, skin color, dress, or other external expressions of culture. In fact, the highly refined in-group bias that we deal with in today’s world may be more widespread and damaging than many people realize. We are misinterpreting a brain mechanism meant to avoid disease. This bias itself leads to many social and political issues that should not be ignored, but it is currently causing us to neglect a much larger underlying issue: the protection of idea diversity.

The origin of the more damaging bias

The original and flawed way of viewing the evolutionary origins of in-group bias neglects one of the most important evolutionary advantages that humans have available for survival: ideas. Humans are the only species on the face of the planet that live and die based on ideas. We have huge brains that allow us to think, which costs a lot of energy. Even before these big brains evolved, we were not the fastest species or the strongest species, but the energy needed for large brains likely further reduced our already weak physical condition. As others have pointed out, we might be able to win an argument with our closest ape relatives, but they could easily rip us apart like rag dolls (21).

When a bear or an elephant migrates into colder areas, it must evolve a thick coat of hair over generations or die out. When a human migrates to colder areas, it has the idea to steal the coat of fur from one of those bears or other animals to stay warm, and then passes that idea and skill set to the next generation. Some human somewhere came up with the idea to learn to create fire, some human came up with the idea to make a spear out of a piece of wood, some type of rope, and a sharpened stone, some human somewhere came up with the idea to domesticate certain animals. Some humans came up with the idea to head north instead of west or east – directions we had never gone until that idea was created, and at least one part of an existing group chose to follow that new idea. Our ideas, not our genetics, allowed us to dominate the planet. For other animals, only genetic diversity and genetic mutation decides if the species stays alive, but for humans, diversity of ideas and idea mutation are equally and maybe even more important to survival than simple genetic diversity. So, when evolution selected for a big brain, it must have also somehow selected means for effectively using it within a social environment. Would it not make sense that a social species who evolved to have ideas would have also evolved a means to choose among those ideas, and even maintain idea diversity in a highly social structure, considering its importance to our species survival?

Why would idea diversity need to be protected?

Ideas are unseen things that an unseen belief structure must support or not. Interesting ideas required dedication of resources now for benefits later. This meant that, if I wanted to use the tribe’s resources to execute my idea, then I needed to convince the tribe to use its resources on my idea instead of others' ideas. Ideas were competing over resources. When problems are confronted by a group, members come up with ideas to be used to solve those problems, but which idea wins and how does it win?

Humans are highly social animals sometimes characterized by obligatory interdependence (22). We need our community to survive and being kicked out of the group would have meant certain death back in pre-agricultural revolution society. Our early history led us to evolve many pro-social mechanisms (6). A solitary individual would typically not need to worry about being killed by another tribe, but instead by a hungry lion, or simply by starvation. Humans were likely pack hunters, working together to make a kill that would be nearly impossible for a single human. Hence, social adhesion would have been important, and could have easily been maintained through hierarchical means as most anthropologists suggest. Whether you would expect the strongest to be on top, or the oldest and wisest or most socially connected, it does not matter – what matters for the survival of humanity is that the best idea or ideas survive and are executed. But the best idea may not come from the top of the hierarchy – it may come from one of the weakest, one of the youngest, one of the least experienced – and survival may depend on it.

Imagine a tribe of about 150 people (based on Dunbar's number [23], [24]). They are moving north and it begins to get colder. One of the members thinks that they should take some fire with them. The group leader (maybe strongest, maybe oldest, most experienced) believes their god will provide and rejects the idea – because of a belief that their god would punish them for stealing a right that only god has – the ownership of fire. He or she prefers to leave the tribe at the will of the god to prevent his fury.

Another tribesman disagrees and believes that god would not have introduced them to fire if they were not supposed to have it at all times – and besides, he prefers his food cooked. A conflict could arise between the two tribesman and the question is: how will this be resolved to provide the best evolutionary advantage for the tribe? If the physically strongest always won, would that give the best advantage? Likely not. If the oldest and most experienced always won, would that give the best advantage? Likely not as well. So, in terms of evolutionary advantage, what would be better for a thinking animal?

Would it not make sense, in an interdependent society, to have a mechanism that could allow us, if necessary, to break our social bonds with people close to us, or reject those who are of socially higher status than us over ideas – ideas that may seem very small and insignificant, but may mean the difference between life and death? A mechanism that could allow a group to make a difficult decision when conflicting ideas are presented, or even divide the group without regret or feeling of loss and then move in another direction?

When scientists research in-group bias, they are often surprised at how small, insignificant, and superficial the differences need to be in order to divide a group (25). Some examples include choosing a group based on a coin flip, different color t-shirts, or even cereal preference. Not only does the research suggest that we begin to identify and feel kinship with those who are like us on these insignificant differences, but it also shows we want those who are different to be hurt (26). This seems like a clear method to break a social bond in a species that is born to be social – a way to allow idea diversity to thrive in a social species that may otherwise simply go along with the group to avoid losing social connections.

This mechanism would allow a single individual with a different idea to convert and recruit a cohort large enough to survive independently of the larger group. Research into hunter and gatherer societies suggests that groups of 30 or fewer were still viable (27). So instead of making a life-and-death decision for the whole group based on who was physically strongest, most experienced, or even the simple flip of a coin, both ideas could have a chance.

Today when an anthropologist digs up the bones of a tribe who died of exposure, they may theorize that either the weather got too cold too fast, or the tribe got lost – because there is no record of their belief system. We will never know for sure if this is what happened or if the tribe died from exposure while waiting for their god to send down some fire. However, it does not seem hard to imagine such a scenario occurring. An in-group mechanism based on ideas would allow one part of the tribe to separate, take fire with them, and live in a new place. This seems like an obvious evolutionary advantage! So, this type of in-group bias could have been an evolutionary mechanism for protecting idea diversity.

So, what changed?

We moved into cities and took over the world. When a pre-historic tribe of 150 broke up into two or more groups and went off in different directions, they may have never seen one another again. There was plenty of space on the planet for tens of thousands of small tribes held together by ideas, all of which could be different. When a large tribe had ideological differences that became critical, the group either sorted it out, or they divided and that was that. Sometimes, but certainly not always, fighting and murder were a part of that division process, but it was inside the tribe, not between tribes, and over ideas, not resources.

Today, with billions of people on the earth, thousands of people living and working within a single city block, a high degree of global interconnectedness, and the prosperity fueled by capitalism – this mechanism looks very much the same as it did for our pre-agricultural revolution ancestors. People with different ideas fight to get their ideas recognized and accepted in their group. If they are not successful, they either leave the group or get pushed out – sometimes taking with them a part of the group they have converted. Then, they simply go off and either join or create another group, hoping to find those who think more like them or accept their ideas.

In fact, if this theory is correct, then we should expect our biggest in-group/ out-group issues to develop over differences in things we believe in – and that is what we see. Some of the most terrible wars are fought between people of the same race and kinship but with small belief differences, such as the Catholics vs. Protestants, Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims, the American Civil War, and many other civil wars across the world. Humans seem to spend a lot more energy, money, and blood fighting those who look similar to themselves with different ideas than those who appear different. Looking toward the business world, a study done by CPP estimated that conflict inside US companies costs over $359 billion per year in paid work time. Again, we are not fighting against people who look different – we are fighting with people who have different ideas.

Implications

This suggests we may wish to reevaluate our view of “in-group bias” as it is defined today and instead divide it into two categories: 1) Superficial bias: activated by an evolutionary mechanism for identifying health issues, and reasonably easy to overcome via exposure that allows people to discover common ground and disprove preconceived notions and stereotypes. 2) Idea bias: goes beyond superficiality and negatively impacts group cohesiveness. Idea bias cannot be overcome by simple exposure or by finding commonalities between those with different ideas – especially when those ideas are integral to the decision-making process. Idea bias must be continuously managed with effort, an advanced skill set, and an open-minded culture. Otherwise, it leads to in-fighting that hinders productivity and performance.

In our diversity policies and training, we focus on awareness of this “superficial in-group bias” as the destroyer of diversity – and then set out to eliminate it. Then, in our efforts to create diversity, we focus on the wrong thing: “superficial diversity” such as gender, skin color, etc. Superficial diversity can overlap with idea diversity; however, they are not the same thing (28). We should change our policies, procedures, and training to focus on true idea diversity to gain the most benefits. Research suggests that diversity increases shareholder value (29), (30), (31); it increases work performance (32); and it increases creativity and innovation (33). It has so many benefits that it makes sense to develop a more holistic approach to diversity.

When our policies, procedures, and ideas focus on superficial diversity without addressing the underlying issues, hiring managers tend to look for the person who looks different but who thinks just like them and fits their idea mold (34). So, when pushed/encouraged to hire a person who looks different, the hiring manager chooses based on the fact that they went to the right kind of school, they approach the interview process in a familiar manner, they answer the questions as expected, they have expectations of the job similar to that of the hiring manager. In other words, they are just like the hiring manager even if they look different. The hiring manager searches for a person with whom it is easy to find common ground that overcomes the difference in appearance – but that common ground defeats the purpose of hiring to promote the type of diversity that helps the bottom line. This approach has created a scenario in which companies often hire for superficial diversity rather than the diversity that counts – idea diversity.

For example, one complaint I have heard from companies is that not enough women apply for the jobs that are posted – hence they “try” to hire more women but are unable. Sometimes, this can be true, but often the real problem is that they created a job description that would not suit a person who truly thinks differently (35). Imagine posting a job for a sales manager that said that the key duties were to take customers golfing, beer drinking, and to strip clubs. How many women are going to apply for that job even if the company is pushing for more women in top sales positions? Yes, this is an extreme example, but how many of our job postings or interviews include seemingly small details that discourage some candidates and make real diversity unlikely? 

Research suggests that men tend to be very confident in interviews – even if their skills are lacking (36). Women tend to come across as less confident even if they are very competent. When the hiring managers are men (or women hired by men), the woman who is different from them tends to miss out on the job. And what do we tell the woman who missed out? You need to learn to appear more confident next time. In fact, this idea is so prevalent that a quick google search brings up a plethora of websites giving advice on how to fake confidence in interviews. This is a good example of how the very people saying they want diversity often blame the people who think differently for the problem and then encourage them to get trained to behave in the way the hiring manager expects. So, though we say we want diversity, all too often, we really want people who look different than us but think and act the same. 

This does not mean we should stop our current diversity activities

As mentioned earlier, superficial diversity can sometimes be a reasonable proxy for real idea diversity. For example, the book “Dataclysm: Who we are when we think no one is looking” by Christian Rudder shows that when searching through the different words used in dating websites, there are words used between Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, and Caucasians that are not easily explained without considering real cultural and idea differences between those groups. He was able to uncover real diversity in people’s most intimate posts across a superficial measure of diversity that would not have been apparent otherwise. So, pushing to hire people who look diverse can help with idea diversity. But we can do even better when hiring people who look different if we stop using the filter “do you think like me?” and instead focus on the type of diversity that moves the bottom-line results – idea diversity.

With this new paradigm, what can your company do differently?

1. Focus on what it takes to encourage and foster idea diversity – the superficial diversity will naturally change as you go down this path. This may include hiring expert consultants to help focus on hiring for diverse ideas and diverse ways of thinking. This will require rethinking your hiring processes and the criteria used when hiring. One successful example comes from US orchestras. After implementing blind auditions, they were able to increase participation by women from less than 5% in the 1970s to more than 37% today (37) (38). They did not accomplish this by forcing a focus on superficial characteristics, but instead by putting in place a process that allowed them to focus on the skill sets and capabilities that they needed to best accomplish their mission – being the best orchestra. This appropriate shift in focus caused the superficial characteristics (in this case, gender) to change automatically and in a highly effective way.

2. Focus your training programs on teaching people how to argue about ideas, how to listen to others, and how to give honest consideration to new things (39). Idea diversity thrives when people feel safe to express their ideas because they know they will be honestly considered (40). And when those in power have the mindset and skill set to be capable of considering ideas different from their own, and fostering an environment that allows true diversity to exist, then they will not only create more diverse teams, but also happier and higher-performing teams. A great place to start with this training is at the Academy of Brain Based Leadership where their high-performing teams workshop is aimed directly at enabling teams to create this tool set.

3. This may also mean reconsidering political correctness as it can actually harm idea diversity. Though political correctness may benefit many of our standard social interactions, making an environment safe for minorities, sometimes, it may stifle idea generation. Having “politically incorrect zones” (PIC) may benefit companies. PIC zones are places where people can knowingly choose to go and converse without worrying about being persecuted for what they say. Think about these spaces as places to be creative, joke around, and run thought experiments on ideas that would normally be forbidden to discuss. As an example, on one of my projects, we solved a 50-year-old problem by creating such an environment. The solution came from a discussion about sex and Viagra that would normally have been totally inappropriate in polite company and may have gotten the team fired had human resources walked into the room. You can see the solution we came up with by clicking on this video – and if you want to see the unintentional connection between the product and the politically incorrect idea, you can skip to minute 1:50.

4. Allow idea communities to grow (very much like what Google is doing) and support them because they think differently. This can mean allowing more green team vs. red team style activities to take place. Then learn from both and find ways to move forward as a company – maybe with new and improved best practices generated by both teams, or maybe have two separate processes, each optimized for different customer bases or stakeholders where applicable. This is a great way to use in-group bias as a means to evolve and change to maintain or grow market or product dominance.

5. When acquiring a company, it may mean taking a longer time to integrate the two entities to allow organic blending of the best ideas (41) (42) (43). It only makes sense that both the newly added entity and the existing entity may each have valuable ideas. When one of the groups simply overpowers the other, chances are that the best ideas will not all survive and this process may end up destroying value instead of creating it. The reason speed is often recommended is to avoid employee uncertainty around next steps – but this is a known issue and can be managed properly such that it is minimized or even eliminated. Fast mergers may be appropriate when the two companies already have a common or very similar culture, when the larger company buys for reasons other than knowledge, or when the larger company buys a failing company and wants to impose its own culture fully and completely as part of the turnaround.

6. In some cases, it may make sense to give up on diversity and admit that you don’t really want it – which is the plain truth for many companies. Simply ask yourself who you want as part of your tribe and pick accordingly. You will live and die based on that decision – which is a fact of life for many companies. But if you are not truly willing to commit to diversity, stop pretending – because implementing superficial diversity without a commitment to idea diversity might actually hurt you (44).

 

References

1. Van Vugt, M. (2009). Sex differences in intergroup competition, aggression, and warfare. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167(1), 124-134.

2. “APA Dictionary of Psychology.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, dictionary.apa.org/ingroup-bias.

3. “Focusing on What Works for Workplace Diversity.” McKinsey & Company, www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/focusing-on-what-works-for-workplace-diversity.

4. “DOCUMENTS IN THE NEWS - 1997/2003.” University of Michigan Affirmative Action Lawsuit, www-personal.umich.edu/~graceyor/govdocs/affirm.html.

5. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 11 Oct. 2016, www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/.

6. Van Vugt, M., & Park, J. H. (2009). The tribal instinct hypothesis. The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping, 13e32.

7. Ryan, C., & Jetha, C. (2011). Sex At Dawn: How We Mate. Why We Stray, And What It Means For Modern Relationships Author: Christopher Ryan, Cacilda Jetha.

8. Beasley, D. E., Koltz, A. M., Lambert, J. E., Fierer, N., & Dunn, R. R. (2015). The evolution of stomach acidity and its relevance to the human microbiome. PloS one, 10(7), e0134116.

9. Dawkins, R. (2006). The Selfish Gene: --with a new Introduction by the Author.

10. Berbesque, J. C., Marlowe, F. W., Shaw, P., & Thompson, P. (2014). Hunter–gatherers have less famine than agriculturalists. Biology letters, 10(1), 20130853.

11. Wells, S. (2011). Pandora's seed: Why the hunter-gatherer holds the key to our survival. Random House Trade Paperbacks.

12. Woodburn, J. (1982). Egalitarian societies. Man, 431-451.

13. Ford, C. S. (1960). Sex offenses: An anthropological perspective. Law & Contemp. Probs., 25, 225.

14. “May 2019.” Discover Magazine, discovermagazine.com/1992/jun/13-whatslovegottodo56.

15. Prüfer, K., Munch, K., Hellmann, I., Akagi, K., Miller, J. R., Walenz, B., ... & Knight, J. R. (2012). The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Nature, 486(7404), 527.

16. Diogo, R., Molnar, J. L., & Wood, B. (2017). Bonobo anatomy reveals stasis and mosaicism in chimpanzee evolution, and supports bonobos as the most appropriate extant mode l for the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. Scientific reports, 7(1), 608.

17. Waring, C. D. (2013). " They See Me as Exotic... That Intrigues Them:" Gender, Sexuality and the Racially Ambiguous Body. Race, Gender & Class, 299-317.

18. Olsson, A., Ebert, J. P., Banaji, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2005). The role of social groups in the persistence of learned fear. Science, 309(5735), 785-787.

19. Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X., & Han, S. (2009). Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(26), 8525-8529.

20. Park, J. H., Schaller, M., & Van Vugt, M. (2008). Psychology of human kin recognition: Heuristic cues, erroneous inferences, and their implications. Review of General Psychology, 12(3), 215-235.

21. Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Random House.

22. Brewer, M. B., & Caporael, L. R. (2006). An evolutionary perspective on social identity: Revisiting groups. Evolution and social psychology, 143, 161.

23. Dunbar, R. (2010). How many friends does one person need?: Dunbar's number and other evolutionary quirks. Faber & Faber.

24. Mac Carron, P., Kaski, K., & Dunbar, R. (2016). Calling Dunbar's numbers. Social Networks, 47, 151-155.

25. Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.

26. Hathaway, Bill. “Infants Prefer Individuals Who Punish Those Not like Themselves, Yale Researchers Find.” YaleNews, 12 Mar. 2013, news.yale.edu/2013/03/12/infants-prefer-individuals-who-punish-those-not-themselves-yale-researchers-find.

27. Dunbar, R., Gamble, C., & Gowlett, J. (2014). Thinking big: How the evolution of social life shaped the human mind. Thames & Hudson.

28. Efferson, C., Lalive, R., & Fehr, E. (2008). The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism. Science, 321(5897), 1844-1849.

29. Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial review, 38(1), 33-53.

30. Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of business ethics, 83(3), 435-451.

31. Ellis, K. M., & Keys, P. Y. (2015). Workforce diversity and shareholder value: a multi-level perspective. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 44(2), 191-212.

32. Saxena, A. (2014). Workforce diversity: A key to improve productivity. Procedia Economics and Finance, 11, 76-85.

33. Parrotta, P., Pozzoli, D., & Pytlikova, M. (2014). The nexus between labor diversity and firm’s innovation. Journal of Population Economics, 27(2), 303-364.

34. Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American sociological review, 77(6), 999-1022.

35. Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(1), 109.

36. “Why Are We Still Promoting Incompetent Men?” Harvard Business Review, 12 Mar. 2019, hbr.org/ideacast/2019/03/why-are-we-still-promoting-incompetent-men.

37. Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of" Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 715-741

38. Davis, Lizzie. “And the Rest...” Classic FM, 21 Nov. 2014, www.classicfm.com/discover-music/latest/gender-inequality-american-orchestras/gender-gap-in-american-orchestras-3/.

39. Bassett‐Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and innovation management, 14(2), 169-175.

40. Radecki, D et al (2018) Psychological Safety: The key to happy, high performing people and teams Authors: Dan Radecki, Leone Hull, Jennifer McCusker, Christopher Ancona

41. Raman, KaleHarbir SinghAnand. “Don't Integrate Your Acquisitions, Partner with Them.” Harvard Business Review, 1 Aug. 2014, hbr.org/2009/12/dont-integrate-your-acquisitions-partner-with-them.

42. Olie, R. (1994). Shades of culture and institutions-in international mergers. Organization studies, 15(3), 381-405.

43. Homburg, C., & Bucerius, M. (2006). Is speed of integration really a success factor of mergers and acquisitions? An analysis of the role of internal and external relatedness. Strategic management journal, 27(4), 347-367.

44. Richard, O., McMillan, A., Chadwick, K., & Dwyer, S. (2003). Employing an innovation strategy in racially diverse workforces: Effects on firm performance. Group & Organization Management, 28(1), 107-126.

And other reading

45. Navarrete, C. D., Kurzban, R., Fessler, D. M., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Anxiety and intergroup bias: Terror management or coalitional psychology? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 370-397.

46.  Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2008). The Neural Substrates of In-Group Bias: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02214.x

47. Zárate, M. A., Stoever, C. J., MacLin, M. K., & Arms-Chavez, C. J. (2008). Neurocognitive underpinnings of face perception: Further evidence of distinct person and group perception processes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(1), 108.

48. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader, 56-65.