I'm skeptical of the value of this, and I really wonder what their shareholders think. Your mandate as a founder should be to recruit the best people for the jo

I'm skeptical of the value of this, and I really wonder what their shareholders think. Your mandate as a founder should be to recruit the best people for the jobs you need, not reach some arbitrary split in gender/age/race/whatever. Without even discussing what "groups" are being balanced, let's ask a simple question: what are the odds that 50/50 GroupA/GroupB would be the optimal split? The half-and-half sounds unnecessarily generic. Why would the company's inherent biases towards/against GroupX be superior than those imposed by a natural labor market of supply and demand? Maybe one group is slightly better suited for the company's needs, and the labor stats reflect that [0]. Maybe the founder is chasing a moral imperative moreso than maximizing shareholder value. By all means, that's their perogative. As another commenter said, if nothing else this is an interesting experiment. I wanted to leave this comment in my post history to come back to in the future, to see how things end up working out for the company in question. [0] - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-chinese-city-where-men-have-three-girlfriends-because-there-are-so-many-women-10484270.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-chinese-cit...