Excluding is not only unfair, it is inefficient

On September 15th, I had the great fortune of sitting on the stage of the Illa Diagonal auditorium with José María Batalla, founder of La Casa de Carlota, a creative studio where people with Down syndrome and autism spectrum disorder are part of the team. I left with a question that keeps going through my mind: what talent are we failing to see? Often, when we look for it, perhaps it is not that talent is lacking, but that we lack the eyes to see it.

That evening, at the EIRA Gathering event, all the awards were dedicated to diversity as a condition for social impact in health. To Teresa Pont Castellana for making sex and gender biases in clinical practice visible. And to Manel del Castillo for CAIROS, a transformation of the Catalan health system that sees the diversity of institutions and ways of organizing as the key to a good system. The person, the profession, and the system.

What does science say about all this? A few weeks ago, the European University Association published a reflection by Anne Lequy, former rector of the Magdeburg-Stendal University. She questioned whether management teams with gender balance achieve better and more lasting results, and answered it with studies on peace and conflict. Peace agreements last longer when women participate in the negotiation. I spoke about it last February, with the study by Giuditta Fontana and colleagues, which puts the reduction of the risk of conflict reactivation at at least 11%.

And there is even more. Ten years ago I wrote in these pages about a Science study that for the first time measured the intelligence quotient of a group. This did not depend on the most brilliant member, but on the social sensitivity of the members, the equitable distribution of turns to speak, and the proportion of women. The authors added a nuance that time has confirmed. The effect of the proportion of women was explained in large part by social sensitivity, because they scored higher in it. It is a capacity that until now we have valued little.

Lequy adds an idea from Emma Johnston, a marine biologist and chancellor of the University of Melbourne. An ecosystem withstands shocks for two reasons. Because many species live there and because they are connected to each other. Organizations, the same. It is not enough to add different profiles if they do not talk to each other afterwards.

An ecosystem is not repaired by asking species to endure more. Lequy warns that the solution cannot be to ask women to be even more resilient. The loss of female talent usually occurs as one advances in their professional career. And why? Because of biases in evaluations. We are failing to see what they contribute. What needs to be changed is the water, not the fish.

In short, for years scientific evidence has been telling us the same thing. Excluding is not only unfair, it is inefficient. The question is no longer whether we need diversity when making decisions, but how long it will take us to make it possible. And, in the meantime, what talent will we continue to overlook?