Jakob Sverre Løvstad
CTO, Seema
2 April 2025
In all humility, I would argue that it is almost impossible to talk about diversity in any meaningful way without understanding at least the basics of social identity theory (SI). SI came into being when Henry Tajfel published his first article in 1959, and since then it has been researched by many, with accompanying buckets of articles and books. Tajfel himself was part of a group of Jewish psychologists and psychiatrists who tried to find good models for the causes of all the terrible things that had happened during the Second World War. We will probably return to several of them during this series of articles I have now begun. Their work has been invaluable in understanding what makes people do what they do - in a negative sense.
In all cases, SI is relatively easy to understand in its simplest form: We all walk around with identities, and these identities are activated differently in different contexts. For example, being Norwegian isn't very exciting if you're sitting in Valdres with your family and staring out at the mountains. But if you're walking through Madrid and hear someone singing "Ja, vi elsker" (Yes, we love), it may suddenly be relevant to your national identity, and you may end up stumbling into a pub where a bunch of people are cheering for an international football match. Then it's suddenly very important/interesting that you're cheering for the red, white and blue. And then often other dividing lines (such as where in the country you're from) less important (although in other settings you would see friction between people from Vardø and Vadsø, for example).
From this witty (again, in all humility) example, it's worth remembering that identity is contextual. Although we have become preoccupied with certain groups for historical and political reasons, it is clear from research that the effect of group affiliation varies greatly given where you are and with whom. And research also shows that we can create differences between us out of the most meaningless things (such as the colour of a shirt, random labels we are given or other phenomena that are actually completely meaningless). It doesn't have to be just the typical categories that the current zeitgeist focuses on.
In general, it's also the case that we attach part of our self-esteem to group affiliation. Returning to the football example, people will generally be much more keen to maintain their Norwegian identity if we win the international match than if we lose. We prefer to be in groups that are fun to be a part of. And we're also more generous with those we consider to be in our own group.
From the above comes our cliché that every organisation is its own village. "When you want to find out what the situation is with diversity in terms of wellbeing, performance, sickness absence and so on, you have to collect data locally, in the context that is relevant. It's no use saying things based on how the situation is in another company, another country or whatever. At best, such references will be hypothesis-generating, but that's it.
If the article here wasn't quite enough, I can recommend watching this video that also explains the principles well and engagingly:
English 
Norwegian