> How is that any different than the OP suggesting that hostile work environments are the single cause of poor diversity? I'm baffled by how this could possibl

> How is that any different than the OP suggesting that hostile work environments are the single cause of poor diversity? I'm baffled by how this could possibly be your impression of the article. The WSJ is reporting on a recruiting push that failed to hire minorities and women. It's the only thing they talk about for the first five paragraphs, then they immediately reference the pipeline problem (emphasis mine): > The move shows how Facebook is applying its trademark data-driven approach to one of the tech industry’s most stubborn problems: the homogeneity of its nearly 15,000-person workforce. But its lackluster results reflect the limits of that method when tackling deep-rooted issues such as inequality. The article raises the pipeline problem again in multiple places: > Facebook says it wants its workforce to better reflect the diversity of its 1.7 billion monthly users—85% of which are outside the U.S. and Canada. But last month, it said it couldn’t substantially increase the diversity of its workforce because there weren’t enough qualified women or minority candidates. That drew fire from tech diversity and inclusion leaders on social media. > The extra incentive points—awarded in job categories that are too homogenous—are an unusual effort to expand Facebook’s “pipeline,” which is the pool of candidates recruiters identify to interview for a position.