4 ms·

How does that matter? Does diversity for the cause of diversity lead to better results? Is there any data around this? Hiring the most qualified people is the

How does that matter? Does diversity for the cause of diversity lead to better results? Is there any data around this? Hiring the most qualified people is the most important thing. As long as there isn't an inherent bias for not hiring someone who is hispanic, black, or brown, it should b e fine.

warent 7y ago
What you're posing is an age-old counterargument based around an irrational fear of white people experiencing prejudice and losing out on opportunities to underqualified people they would have otherwise had. There have been studies done around diversity, conducted both privately and publicly, which consistently conclude that increased diversity does result in enhanced decision-making, collaboration, and organizational value-add due to the different perspectives having a net positive influence rather than neutral or negative. Beyond pragmatism, from an idealist perspective aiding in increasing organizational diversity is the morally right thing to do. That doesn't mean hiring underqualified people; it means refusing to fill the position until the right person is found, which is a whole other problem on its own. Here are some resources to get started: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/diversity-work-group-performance https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/diversity-work-group-p... https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/1556374 https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/1556374
- hanselot 7y ago
  Can you tell me how much diversity juice I need to add to my team to make it perfect? Do I need to hire 1 black person for every white person? Please, provide me the ratio required to avoid marginal returns. I would need to undergo DNA testing for each person to avoid hiring anyone that is too much of one race. Do I get better returns if I hire someone that has 25% of 4 different races? Please elaborate on your very empirically verifiable and obviously logically cohesive argument. If you don't understand where my skepticism originates from, please turn your attention to the results of Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa (where racial quotas are enforced to ensure the blackest candidate is hired, not the best candidate). Look at the performance of the South African sports teams that have been forced to recruit players not based on merit, but on the colour of their skin.
- depr 7y ago
  Those studies are a pretty weak argument. The first link isn't about the type of diversity grandparent was talking about, but "informational diversity". The paper produces no direct correlation. The pragmatic angle is overblown. It being the right thing to do is a much stronger argument imo. Which I agree with, but companies generally aren't interested in it, unless they can use it for marketing.

warent 7y ago

What you're posing is an age-old counterargument based around an irrational fear of white people experiencing prejudice and losing out on opportunities to underqualified people they would have otherwise had. There have been studies done around diversity, conducted both privately and publicly, which consistently conclude that increased diversity does result in enhanced decision-making, collaboration, and organizational value-add due to the different perspectives having a net positive influence rather than neutral or negative. Beyond pragmatism, from an idealist perspective aiding in increasing organizational diversity is the morally right thing to do. That doesn't mean hiring underqualified people; it means refusing to fill the position until the right person is found, which is a whole other problem on its own. Here are some resources to get started: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/diversity-work-group-performance https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/diversity-work-group-p... https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/1556374 https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/1556374

hanselot 7y ago
Can you tell me how much diversity juice I need to add to my team to make it perfect? Do I need to hire 1 black person for every white person? Please, provide me the ratio required to avoid marginal returns. I would need to undergo DNA testing for each person to avoid hiring anyone that is too much of one race. Do I get better returns if I hire someone that has 25% of 4 different races? Please elaborate on your very empirically verifiable and obviously logically cohesive argument. If you don't understand where my skepticism originates from, please turn your attention to the results of Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa (where racial quotas are enforced to ensure the blackest candidate is hired, not the best candidate). Look at the performance of the South African sports teams that have been forced to recruit players not based on merit, but on the colour of their skin.
depr 7y ago
Those studies are a pretty weak argument. The first link isn't about the type of diversity grandparent was talking about, but "informational diversity". The paper produces no direct correlation. The pragmatic angle is overblown. It being the right thing to do is a much stronger argument imo. Which I agree with, but companies generally aren't interested in it, unless they can use it for marketing.