Do diverse teams work better? Evidence from a real-world classroom experiment

Teams across universities and workplaces are becoming increasingly mixed by gender and language. Yet despite how common this is, we still know little about how these differences shape performance or who feels able to contribute and be heard.

While diversity is often assumed to be an advantage, its effects are not straightforward. In workplaces, broader perspectives and skills may spark innovation, while differences in language can introduce communication challenges. Similarly, in universities, bringing together students from different backgrounds may enrich learning or, conversely, disrupt the pace and flow of teaching.

But testing the effects of gender and language diversity is harder than it sounds. People tend to gravitate towards people like themselves, which makes it difficult to disentangle the impact of diversity from personal choice. This can make it unclear what diversity actually delivers or how organisations should manage it.

Testing diversity through a real-world classroom experiment

LSE researchers explored these questions through a real‑world experiment in a postgraduate classroom. The study followed two cohorts of around 180 master's students on a compulsory course focused on how to design, analyse and conduct research. Eighty per cent of the students were women and over 50 per cent were non-native English speakers. Students were mature learners, many with prior work experience. They were placed into seminar groups of around 16 students and then randomly assigned to smaller teams of four, creating a natural test of how group make‑up affects performance and participation.

The study looked at two outcomes that matter in group work – how well people performed, and whether they felt their views were heard. The researchers examined how the mix of people in a group shaped individual performance, and whether participants felt their ideas were recognised and taken into account.

Over the term, students took part in two weekly research tasks that applied academic concepts to specific policy problems. In the small teams of four, they first met privately to discuss the questions and agree on a shared answer, which they submitted as a group. They then came together in the larger seminar sessions where teams presented their ideas and defended them against those submitted by other teams.

Although these activities were not graded, students still had a good incentive to take them seriously since the final exam tested the same skills but without the support of a group. As a result, both small teams and larger seminars placed a strong emphasis on discussion and joint problem-solving.

The two settings involved different group dynamics. Small teams required sustained, close collaboration, where students had to navigate differences, manage tensions, and work through issues over time. Seminars, by contrast, were more public, with teams presenting their ideas, testing them against others, and engaging in open debate. Contributions were more visible, but the larger group also made it easier for quieter participation to pass unnoticed.

When diversity works: the importance of context and design

The researchers found that the impact of diversity depends not only on group composition – such as gender or language background – but also on the format of collaboration, including whether individuals worked in small, sustained teams or participated in larger, public‑facing groups.

In larger seminar groups, a higher share of women was linked to a greater chance of achieving top marks in both the overall degree and the dissertation. This was particularly true for women who were native English speakers.

Dr Chiara Orsini, Visiting Fellow in the Department of Social Policy at LSE and one of the authors of the journal article, explains: “A higher share of women in seminars seems to benefit native English speakers most. One reason may be that these environments encourage students to build supportive networks early in their degree, which they can draw on later when working on more demanding assignments. But because these tasks rely heavily on strong written English, the benefits tend to be more visible for native speakers.”

Smaller teams can support collaboration

When looking at whether students feel heard, the smaller team setting matters. Non‑native English speakers were more likely to feel that their contributions were listened to when they were in teams with a higher share of women in them. In these smaller, more stable groups, students have more space to speak and are less exposed than in larger seminars, which can make participation easier for those working in a second language.

“These patterns highlight the importance of considering both who is in a group and how people interact within it when designing collaborative environments,” says Dr Orsini.

“If we want diverse teams to work well, we need to think carefully about how they are organised. Our results suggest that having more women in the right settings can support both inclusion and excellence. That has clear implications for how we design classrooms, research teams, and collaborative projects more broadly.”

And the research offers a rare opportunity for Dr Orsini to see how her own work plays out. She explains:

“I teach Econometrics to master’s students, and the students have to do group work. So this year I have divided them into groups based on the principles we discovered in our paper and I’m curious to see the impact of this on students’ performance!”

Dr Chiara Orsini was speaking to Sue Windebank, Senior Media Relations Manager at LSE.

Subscribe to LSE Research for the World

Interested in LSE research? Sign up to receive our newsletter: a bi-monthly digest of the latest social science research articles, podcasts and videos from LSE.

Subscribe

Research for the World is the online magazine by LSE - The London School of Economics and Political Science.