An interesting study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and discussed in the Harvard Business Review piece “Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable—and That’s Why They Perform Better” explains why this may be the case. When there is a diversity of perspectives, the team must work harder to achieve a consensus despite their differences. In the end, the process substantially increases the chance of reaching a better outcome. The greater effort involved in reaching a consensus may lead a diverse group to think they are performing more poorly, but in fact, their results will generally be better due to a more careful and critical examination of the issues. This is because there is more analytical rigor that occurs when diverse team members test each other’s viewpoints rather than accept a common belief that might prevail in a homogeneous team.
Thus, we can expect diverse trial teams to more thoroughly consider the issues, factors, and premises when deciding such things as
- the value of a case;
- trial strategies and tactics;
- the impact of who will take on motions in limine, the opening argument, the closing argument, and each direct and cross-examination, etc.; and
- the most effective way to communicate the case to the judge and jury.
In the process, a diverse trial team is more likely to vet a broader array of possibilities, more critically evaluate the issues, and find creative strategies to communicate to the trier of fact because they bring a variety of experiences and different cultural lenses when developing the “all-important” trial strategy.
“A diverse group of trial attorneys is a winning formula,” Althia O. Bennett, chief counsel at the Office of State Inspector General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, explains, “because it will bring varied perspectives which lead to a more thorough analysis of the issues, resulting in a better outcome.”
She’s right. Data suggest that more racially diverse juries achieve better results. According to a study, more racially diverse juries more critically and thoroughly evaluate the evidence. See Am. Psychological Ass’n, Racially Diverse Mock Juries Have Wider Ranging and More Accurate Deliberation Discussions, Says Study, 2006. In other words, more homogeneous trial teams more often skip questions a more racially diverse team will ask. The more homogeneous teams perceive themselves to be in agreement, so they analyze less critically; they fall prey to groupthink.
This same reasoning suggests that having more gender-balanced trial teams may improve team performance as well. Women will bring their unique perspectives that can generate a more wide-ranging analysis by the team as a whole.
There are also data indicating that juries like seeing women on trial teams. According to a Decision Quest survey of several hundred jurors throughout the country, jurors reported finding women attorneys to be more believable than their male counterparts.
Trials are almost always about which side the jurors believe. While the attorneys are not the case parties, having attorneys who are perceived to be more believable can be a major asset. David J. Bradford and Craig C. Martin, authors of “Why You Want a Diverse Trial Team,” mention a host of other benefits of diverse trial teams. One of these benefits is that a “team with diverse voices may be more capable of communicating in terms that resonate with a broader spectrum of . . . decision-makers in the courtroom”—the jury and judge. And, the article continues, “a diverse team is more likely to collectively pick up on cues—verbal and non-verbal—and ‘read’ a witness, jury or judge with greater insight and precision.”
There are other, more subtle, but equally compelling reasons diverse trial teams may perform better. Bradford and Martin posit that “[w]hen a diverse trial team presents a cohesive case, it may increase the power of the message—indirectly suggesting that the principles upon which the case is based . . . are universal,” and not “representing the perspective of only a slice of society.” Also, as they note, the diversity of the trial team itself reflects on the client. As Deb Carlos, vice president and senior deputy general counsel of litigation at Comcast Corporation, put it, “[a] diverse trial team reflects a company’s core value that no demographic has a lock on talent.” A diverse legal team defending a large business can also dispel what could otherwise appear to be an unrelatable, monolithic corporate entity.
In addition, courtroom experience tells us that jurors don’t just consider what they hear from the witness stand. They take in everything they see and hear, and they tend to believe people whom they like or with whom they feel a sense of commonality. So, with a diverse jury pool, a diverse trial team can provide an intangible, powerful advantage: a connection of sorts with certain jurors.
Law firms and their clients should consider the tangible and intangible advantages a diverse trial team can bring to the courtroom. These teams have the potential to offer higher collective intellectual talent, better problem-solving acuity, and a connection with jurors and judges that can bode well for a client’s success.
