16 ms·

This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for pr

This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. But what is the right mechanism? I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. I empathize with those in diversity roles that are tasked with finding the informal-but-not-legally-enforcable means by which to increase diversity. How are you reasonably going to achieve that? It's a hard problem to solve. It seems like something driven by society at large. I'm not sure if you can hire a person to solve this problem, honestly.

exolymph 5y ago
IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.
- throwaway684936 5y ago
  How does that work when the demographic is extremely economically disadvantaged and has no way to earn starting capital?
  - bcj7393nsk 5y ago
    - spankalee 5y ago
      What a horrible place you immediately jumped to. Historically and systemically disadvantaged does not mean or imply intrinsically disadvantaged. Jesus.
    - barbazoo 5y ago
  - tomp 5y ago
    Why would that be the case? AFAIK it's equally probable for a woman/gay/trans person to be born in a wealthy family or a poor family.
    - throwaway684936 5y ago
      Are you actually serious? We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads). Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender. In any case, check out these links: https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-and-poor-127585 https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-l... https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transgender-people-according-to-u-s-transgender-survey/ https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transge... https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        Transgender people are a tiny percentage of LGBT people, so using them to characterize all LGBT is intentionally misleading. Also, this law was actually about requiring that any non-white or LGBT person be on the board; the LGBT part being highlighted is part of Newsweek's anti-gay agenda.
    - burnished 5y ago
      The US has a recent history of racial discrimination that prevented a lot of people from building wealth in their communities or generational wealth. Not that there aren't a shit ton of white people living in trailer parks, but no one was denying them home loans because of the color of their skin. So, if owning your own home is a big part of your wealth over a life time, and your parents and their parents were discriminated against and prevented from accessing those mechanisms, it makes it much less likely that you will today be born in a wealthy or a poor family. Look up redlining on wikipedia if you want specifics.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    You mean like Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s? Or for that matter Italians or Irish or Eastern European immigrants?
    - throwaway684936 5y ago
      Racial/cultural/nationality discrimination isn't identical to LGBT discrimination.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        Indeed, it's much easier to hide that you're gay than that you're black or Russian.
- kuschku 5y ago
  The chance to successfully start a new company depends on the succes your parents and others in your demographic had. It's not that simple.
  - trhway 5y ago
    Having successful parents is equally random for everyone, isn't?
    - phalangion 5y ago
      Not with other systemic issues.
      - listless 5y ago
        Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? I know that’s a non-starter, but if you want to level the playing field for all kids, this is how you do it. Outside of that, you are leaving children to whatever shitty situation they didn’t ask to be born into. I’m not saying I’m for this. I’m not and you would have to kill me to get to my kids. Just seems like the most logical solution to an otherwise impossible problem.
        zozbot234 5y ago
        > Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? Because that worked really well in Communist Romania. "Let's make sure things are equally terrible for everyone, then we can call that a level playing field" is not sensible policy.
        giraffe_lady 5y ago
        some grim capitalist realist shit when it's easier to imagine taking everyone's kids away than it is to imagine not structuring society around the exploitation of artificial inequality.
        toast0 5y ago
- okwubodu 5y ago
  Until you need funding and find out you don’t fit the profile of a successful founder.
- bobkazamakis 5y ago
  capitalism doesn't solve every problem.
throwaway684936 5y ago
> It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. Those at the top will often prioritize their feelings over profit potential. Corporations are not true profit maximizers, that's a total myth. It's one of the reasons why WFH wasn't more popular earlier, and why some companies are trying to force back-to-office to the point it causes some of their employees to quit.
- LosWochosWeek 5y ago
  It's a myth that I just cannot comprehend. Do people not go to work and see their managers in action? What makes them think that after just enough career steps a switch happens and people just magically become soulless profit driven AIs?
jdrc 5y ago
> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results People also tout these studies for getting more women in business leadership. in reality that's a weird argument, women or lgbt or people of color don't need to be better in order to be accepted, they should be accepted by default. Maybe business culture with its rigid and often stupid conventions and demands has a lot to do with it. Things like, how business people socialize, what they 're expected to wear, what business gifts they send etc.
- jchw 5y ago
  Pretty sure the idea is that diversity (of thought and other) itself can improve outcomes, not that anyone is necessarily better or worse at their jobs.
  - jdrc 5y ago
    well, if we accept that the success of business is the sum of its parts, then it is implied that the diverse people add something more than others
    - fatbird 5y ago
      "The sum of its parts" is a very opaque phrase here. But even without defining it, anyone with work experience has some understanding of the effect of workplace dynamics, environmental factors, office morale, and other intangible influences on one's productivity and hence, the business's success. In other words, there are emergent properties in the calculus of success, and pursuing diversity is one way of trying to control that. "Diverse" people do not have to be intrinsically better employees, for them to positively affect the business's success.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - jdrc 5y ago
        Sorry, you put a lot of buzzwords there, but buzzwords do not constitute any proof. It's certainly true in low-skill businesses like , i dunno, agriculture that production scales linearly. If nonlinear interactions occur it would be interesting to name them, instead of attributing it to some kind of magic ether. I dont like this completely vague explanation because it's exactly the rhetoric that people mock when they want to attack diversity
tonguez 5y ago
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  yeah it's almost like the single axis of race isn't quite enough to make full sense of these problems. maybe we could mix in some other forms of identity and access people might have. could call it "union theory" or something idk.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Might want to note that BLM is very racially diverse.
Animats 5y ago
I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results Seems to not make much difference in financial results, either way. Wharton study:[1] [1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-really-boost-company-performance https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-dive...
- truffdog 5y ago
  There's a little bit of a systemic epistemic bias around this- diversity is socially desirable, so positive results are more likely to get published, get into the media, get shared, get remembered.
  - cuteboy19 5y ago
    I wonder what would happen if we found out that people of similar backgrounds work better together? The reasoning of increasing shareholders value would still apply. Would we start implementing de facto segregated workplaces?
- theptip 5y ago
  Maybe GP is thinking about the Gartner research measuring “performance” (can’t recall exactly how they define that though). https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/trends/workforce-diversity https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/trends/workforce-...
- armchairhacker 5y ago
  I believe those studies but correlation does not equal causation. I think the real reason that more diverse boards do better (if they do) is that the company hires people more based on talent and other metric which don’t discriminate, vs ones like patrimony. Forced diversity just sidesteps the problem because the company can still use bad metrics.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
_3u10 5y ago
I’ve never really understood the diversity thing. Why should it be more desirable to hire me because I was born in this place or that? Is the native part of me more deserving of a contract than the Latin part? If I was with a guy the night before instead of a woman am I more beneficial to a company? Am I even more valuable on the odd night I’m with a trans person? Am I more beneficial with my Paraguayan passport instead of a Canadian passport? Diversity should just be called what it is, bigotry.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  If diversity is valuable then: * in an organization filled with native (whatever that means) people, your Latin heritage would add value. In an organization filled with people with Latin heritage, the native part of you would add value. * in a company filled with cis-straight men, then diversity being valuable implies that anyone with a different experience would add value. * in Paraguay, your Canadian experience is more valuable in terms of whatever value diversity brings than it is in Canada. By contrast, in Canada, your Paraguayan experience would offer more value. Of course, it is possible that it's not true that diverity is valuable. But there's solid anecdotal evidence that it is, and maybe even a bit of actual statistics.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Oh by native I mean indigenous, I’d just say Indian but I’m not allowed to call myself that anymore without issues from the PC people telling me how ashamed of myself I should feel. I always forget the acceptable term to refer to myself by. I kind of get it but I just call that hiring people with experience. Like I do get hired because I’ve done a whole bunch of different roles and have actual diversity I’m not just a Java programmer with 20 years of experience making login forms. Also having done a lot of things I usually have an interesting non-work story to tell. I find that kind of diversity hugely valuable. I find hiring people because they check a diversity box dumb and bigoted.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Well yeah, mostly. The worst-case scenario is a bunch of people with different ethnicity, religious affiliation/experience, gender identity, age, etc. etc. ... who all like the same entertainment, food, clothing and vacation options. "Diversity" ... yes. But actual diversity, no. However, I'm not sure that this actually a real-world problem.
Alex3917 5y ago
> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results If Hollywood movies start getting a lot better with the new diversity requirements for Oscar eligibility, presumably this will serve as an example for every other industry.
- freyr 5y ago
  For the curious, eligible movies must satisfy at least one of the following criteria: At least one actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group must be cast in a significant role. The story must center on women, L.G.T.B.Q. people, a racial or ethnic group or the disabled. At least 30 percent of the cast must be actors from at least two of those four underrepresented categories.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results While that may be true, it isn't the case that more diversity necessarily makes a more profitable organisation. It's also a pretty dangerous game to play; diversity policies can be, and often are, implemented in a ham-fisted or corrupt way that destroys value. Simply look at the havoc that BEE has wreaked on South Africa's economy and especially the public service.
avazhi 5y ago
- temp8964 5y ago
  Why would anybody pro abortion?
  - freyr 5y ago
    Overpopulation? But I think it’s safe to assume they mean pro-choice.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      At this point it's not safe to assume anything. Maybe there are lots of them think it's a good thing to kill babies. Who knows?
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      Personally I also do use the term pro-abortion because it is clear about the actual issue and what the disagreement is. Pretty much every single person anywhere is in favor of both life and choice, it's a uselessly euphemistic set of terms that obscures the real conflict. I'm not necessarily in favor of any specific case of abortion, or wanting more of them in the world, or anything like that. "Pro abortion access" would probably be more technically correct but that opens the argument up to getting derailed by "well how much access" and shit. Plus the mild transgressiveness of the term is helpful sometimes, if it makes people stop for a second and ask like this.
  - inetknght 5y ago
    > Why would anybody pro abortion? There are many reasons. In the case that carrying a fetus to term would kill the mother: abort. One life does not merit the safety of another. In the case that a fetus was conceived in rape: abort. Would you remind yourself, and even be beholden to, evil? In the case that a fetus would be born unwanted: abort. It is better to be born into a loving family than raised in orphanages or worse: raised in a family who do not love you.
lanstin 5y ago
Maybe introduce new grounds for suing - if the stock underperforms, and leadership is showing a bias in its demographics, then the share holders can sue for presumptive discrimination reducing the quality of decision making.
rayiner 5y ago
Since it’s us mathematically minded people here, it’s worth pointing out that these studies don’t establish causation. You’d probably find a strong correlation between financial performance of firms and investment into other social initiatives, such as corporate philanthropy or environmental causes. It’s possible that wealthier and more successful firms are simply better able to afford such investments than less successful firms.
- gurkendoktor 5y ago
  Exactly: Most studies that I've been referred to are shiny McKinsey pages that boil down to big companies having more diverse boards on average. Besides what you said, that's not a surprising correlation because it's easy for Multinational MegaCorp Inc. to have a multi-ethnic board after a few international mergers. And then there are very opinionated shareholders like Vanguard and BlackRock, which receive voting rights for every Euro that I save for old age, who can make this outcome a self-fulfilling prophecy by punishing companies for lack of diversity. I don't think it's possible to control for all of this.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    I’ve done some work adjacent to those shiny mckinsey pages. The mergers wouldn’t explain it. It’s not looking at size, it’s looking at growth and success relative to where they were some period of time ago. It’s probably a bit tautological. The only effective way to make your company more diverse is to grow and hire diverse candidates. This is not the case for top level leadership though. Boards as well. Growing companies want to invest in their people and that tends to result in some more attention to diversity. Conversely dusty old companies that are having their lunch eaten by tech enabled competitors do tend to be very non diverse because that’s they way it is and it’s not an environment that diverse candidates want to join. Also self fulfilling.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - nullc 5y ago
Ourgon 5y ago
> and I'm saying this as an LGBT person I' m left-handed but I would never think of identifying myself as being part of some diffuse group of people 'united' by handedness. In the same vein I do not see why gays, lesbians and bisexuals are to be seen as part of a single group given that as far as I gather there is often not that much love [no pun intended] between the former two - it is not as if gays and lesbians have much in common. Do you truly identify as 'an LGBT person' - implying that those who claim to be spokespeople for 'this group' also speak for you - or do you just see yourself as a gay, lesbian or bisexual man or woman? Or, to put it even more bluntly, would you not rather see yourself as a person who happens to be gay or lesbian or bisexual, just like I see myself as a person who happens to be left-handed? I may sometimes grumble about some object which could have easily be made to fit left- and right-handed people alike [1] but I would never join a left-handed political action committee, nor would I trust anyone to 'speak for me' in such a context because I don't want to be used as a pawn in some ideological/political struggle. [1] If you ever start a cheese packing facility make sure to put a peel corner on the left and right hand side of the package, the latter is far more useable for left-handed people...
- edanm 5y ago
  There's a difference between what one wishes the world was like, and what one should do given the world as it actually is. Given the past rampant anti-LGBT feelings and actions around the world, it totally made sense for LGBT people to band together, to enact change on their own behalf. Much of the world is better for LGBT people today, but a) it's still not quite as good as most would want it, and b) in many parts of the world, it's still quite bad. So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly, then of course it makes sense for them to act as a group. (Though of course I don't literally mean that everyone treats them badly, just the general trend)
  - Ourgon 5y ago
    > So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly Simply put: Nonsense A bit more elaborate: some people have something against people who differ in some way, whether that be in their sexual orientation or handedness or skin colour or the language they speak or the food they eat or the god(s) they worship or the parties they vote for or the places they live or the clothes they wear. This has always been that way and will always be so. Most people harbour some preconceived ideas about those 'others' - yes, you do as well. In most liberal western societies these preconceived ideas are frowned upon by official institutions, especially when it concerns such ideas related to 'protected' identity categories like sexual orientation, race and religion. your statement regarding the supposed mistreatment of that group does not hold any water. It is a lie, an untruth, a distortion of the facts - unless you can prove your claim. Can you prove it? Show us how your statement is true, in what way everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. Just saying this does not make it true, not even repeating it ad nauseam, not even when it is claimed to be true by academics from the grievance studies departments - especially not when claimed by those academics from those grievance studies departments since they are on an ideological mission.
roenxi 5y ago
> There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. Based on personal observations, innate aptitude and interest doesn't seem to be aligned. Eg, one of the more amazing minds I've ever met was contained in a woman who just didn't have the competitive glint in her eye to make herself successful. Sad story in many ways. But - if that observation is true - then diversity policy quotas will break the correlation. At the moment, about half the aptitude is in women, some percent in various minority groups in rough proportion to their prevalence, etc. Companies better at surfacing talent will naturally be more diverse. Companies that forcibly make themselves more diverse through a quota will ironically probably regress to the mean level of competence and perform worse.
slibhb 5y ago
> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. If diverse boards do better it's because you have to be doing very well already to do something as stupid as picking board members for their sexual orientation.
- onos 5y ago
  Hence the argument that this move was a bid for regulatory capture by already established corps.
rayiner 5y ago
It’s also important that, at least as to racial minorities, they oppose consideration of race in hiring and promotion by large margins: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pew-poll https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe... > White people were the most opposed to considering race and ethnicity in hiring and promotion: 78 percent said only qualifications should be considered. But a majority of black respondents (54 percent) and Hispanic respondents (69 percent) also said race and ethnicity shouldn’t be considered. These are policies are being driven mostly by liberal whites oh behalf of racial minorities, but those minorities themselves mostly oppose such policies.
blindmute 5y ago
The only companies that can afford to diversity hire are already having great financial results
incomingpain 5y ago
>This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. Oh for sure it's the right decision. If even the legislation's intention was successful, forcing this matter will only go to create more radicalization and make the situation worse. >I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. Regardless of the issue you wish to prop up. There is always a study that says it will work. >It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. Businesses should not even consider diversity. There is a problem in some businesses in that they do discriminate. They discriminate against and that's the ideal goal of what should be fixed. Or should it? If we are in a free market and Business 1 refuses to hire LGBT. Business 2 hires those and will eventually pick up good people that give them a competitive advantage. Government coming in and using force to make Business 1 take LGBT on the board... That's not going to work out.

exolymph 5y ago

IMO the right mechanism is for people of [insert desired demographic] to start companies and make them successful.

throwaway684936 5y ago
How does that work when the demographic is extremely economically disadvantaged and has no way to earn starting capital?
- bcj7393nsk 5y ago
  - spankalee 5y ago
    What a horrible place you immediately jumped to. Historically and systemically disadvantaged does not mean or imply intrinsically disadvantaged. Jesus.
  - barbazoo 5y ago
- tomp 5y ago
  Why would that be the case? AFAIK it's equally probable for a woman/gay/trans person to be born in a wealthy family or a poor family.
  - throwaway684936 5y ago
    Are you actually serious? We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads). Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender. In any case, check out these links: https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-and-poor-127585 https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-l... https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transgender-people-according-to-u-s-transgender-survey/ https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transge... https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender https://www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price-transgender
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Transgender people are a tiny percentage of LGBT people, so using them to characterize all LGBT is intentionally misleading. Also, this law was actually about requiring that any non-white or LGBT person be on the board; the LGBT part being highlighted is part of Newsweek's anti-gay agenda.
  - burnished 5y ago
    The US has a recent history of racial discrimination that prevented a lot of people from building wealth in their communities or generational wealth. Not that there aren't a shit ton of white people living in trailer parks, but no one was denying them home loans because of the color of their skin. So, if owning your own home is a big part of your wealth over a life time, and your parents and their parents were discriminated against and prevented from accessing those mechanisms, it makes it much less likely that you will today be born in a wealthy or a poor family. Look up redlining on wikipedia if you want specifics.
- rayiner 5y ago
  You mean like Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s? Or for that matter Italians or Irish or Eastern European immigrants?
  - throwaway684936 5y ago
    Racial/cultural/nationality discrimination isn't identical to LGBT discrimination.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      Indeed, it's much easier to hide that you're gay than that you're black or Russian.
kuschku 5y ago
The chance to successfully start a new company depends on the succes your parents and others in your demographic had. It's not that simple.
- trhway 5y ago
  Having successful parents is equally random for everyone, isn't?
  - phalangion 5y ago
    Not with other systemic issues.
    - listless 5y ago
      Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? I know that’s a non-starter, but if you want to level the playing field for all kids, this is how you do it. Outside of that, you are leaving children to whatever shitty situation they didn’t ask to be born into. I’m not saying I’m for this. I’m not and you would have to kill me to get to my kids. Just seems like the most logical solution to an otherwise impossible problem.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        > Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? Because that worked really well in Communist Romania. "Let's make sure things are equally terrible for everyone, then we can call that a level playing field" is not sensible policy.
      - giraffe_lady 5y ago
        some grim capitalist realist shit when it's easier to imagine taking everyone's kids away than it is to imagine not structuring society around the exploitation of artificial inequality.
      - toast0 5y ago
okwubodu 5y ago
Until you need funding and find out you don’t fit the profile of a successful founder.
bobkazamakis 5y ago
capitalism doesn't solve every problem.

throwaway684936 5y ago

> It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. Those at the top will often prioritize their feelings over profit potential. Corporations are not true profit maximizers, that's a total myth. It's one of the reasons why WFH wasn't more popular earlier, and why some companies are trying to force back-to-office to the point it causes some of their employees to quit.

LosWochosWeek 5y ago
It's a myth that I just cannot comprehend. Do people not go to work and see their managers in action? What makes them think that after just enough career steps a switch happens and people just magically become soulless profit driven AIs?

jdrc 5y ago

> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results People also tout these studies for getting more women in business leadership. in reality that's a weird argument, women or lgbt or people of color don't need to be better in order to be accepted, they should be accepted by default. Maybe business culture with its rigid and often stupid conventions and demands has a lot to do with it. Things like, how business people socialize, what they 're expected to wear, what business gifts they send etc.

jchw 5y ago
Pretty sure the idea is that diversity (of thought and other) itself can improve outcomes, not that anyone is necessarily better or worse at their jobs.
- jdrc 5y ago
  well, if we accept that the success of business is the sum of its parts, then it is implied that the diverse people add something more than others
  - fatbird 5y ago
    "The sum of its parts" is a very opaque phrase here. But even without defining it, anyone with work experience has some understanding of the effect of workplace dynamics, environmental factors, office morale, and other intangible influences on one's productivity and hence, the business's success. In other words, there are emergent properties in the calculus of success, and pursuing diversity is one way of trying to control that. "Diverse" people do not have to be intrinsically better employees, for them to positively affect the business's success.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jdrc 5y ago
      Sorry, you put a lot of buzzwords there, but buzzwords do not constitute any proof. It's certainly true in low-skill businesses like , i dunno, agriculture that production scales linearly. If nonlinear interactions occur it would be interesting to name them, instead of attributing it to some kind of magic ether. I dont like this completely vague explanation because it's exactly the rhetoric that people mock when they want to attack diversity

tonguez 5y ago

giraffe_lady 5y ago
yeah it's almost like the single axis of race isn't quite enough to make full sense of these problems. maybe we could mix in some other forms of identity and access people might have. could call it "union theory" or something idk.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Might want to note that BLM is very racially diverse.

Animats 5y ago

I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results Seems to not make much difference in financial results, either way. Wharton study:[1] [1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-diversity-boards-really-boost-company-performance https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-dive...

truffdog 5y ago
There's a little bit of a systemic epistemic bias around this- diversity is socially desirable, so positive results are more likely to get published, get into the media, get shared, get remembered.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  I wonder what would happen if we found out that people of similar backgrounds work better together? The reasoning of increasing shareholders value would still apply. Would we start implementing de facto segregated workplaces?
theptip 5y ago
Maybe GP is thinking about the Gartner research measuring “performance” (can’t recall exactly how they define that though). https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/trends/workforce-diversity https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/trends/workforce-...
armchairhacker 5y ago
I believe those studies but correlation does not equal causation. I think the real reason that more diverse boards do better (if they do) is that the company hires people more based on talent and other metric which don’t discriminate, vs ones like patrimony. Forced diversity just sidesteps the problem because the company can still use bad metrics.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

_3u10 5y ago

I’ve never really understood the diversity thing. Why should it be more desirable to hire me because I was born in this place or that? Is the native part of me more deserving of a contract than the Latin part? If I was with a guy the night before instead of a woman am I more beneficial to a company? Am I even more valuable on the odd night I’m with a trans person? Am I more beneficial with my Paraguayan passport instead of a Canadian passport? Diversity should just be called what it is, bigotry.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
If diversity is valuable then: * in an organization filled with native (whatever that means) people, your Latin heritage would add value. In an organization filled with people with Latin heritage, the native part of you would add value. * in a company filled with cis-straight men, then diversity being valuable implies that anyone with a different experience would add value. * in Paraguay, your Canadian experience is more valuable in terms of whatever value diversity brings than it is in Canada. By contrast, in Canada, your Paraguayan experience would offer more value. Of course, it is possible that it's not true that diverity is valuable. But there's solid anecdotal evidence that it is, and maybe even a bit of actual statistics.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Oh by native I mean indigenous, I’d just say Indian but I’m not allowed to call myself that anymore without issues from the PC people telling me how ashamed of myself I should feel. I always forget the acceptable term to refer to myself by. I kind of get it but I just call that hiring people with experience. Like I do get hired because I’ve done a whole bunch of different roles and have actual diversity I’m not just a Java programmer with 20 years of experience making login forms. Also having done a lot of things I usually have an interesting non-work story to tell. I find that kind of diversity hugely valuable. I find hiring people because they check a diversity box dumb and bigoted.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Well yeah, mostly. The worst-case scenario is a bunch of people with different ethnicity, religious affiliation/experience, gender identity, age, etc. etc. ... who all like the same entertainment, food, clothing and vacation options. "Diversity" ... yes. But actual diversity, no. However, I'm not sure that this actually a real-world problem.

Alex3917 5y ago

> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results If Hollywood movies start getting a lot better with the new diversity requirements for Oscar eligibility, presumably this will serve as an example for every other industry.

freyr 5y ago
For the curious, eligible movies must satisfy at least one of the following criteria: At least one actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group must be cast in a significant role. The story must center on women, L.G.T.B.Q. people, a racial or ethnic group or the disabled. At least 30 percent of the cast must be actors from at least two of those four underrepresented categories.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results While that may be true, it isn't the case that more diversity necessarily makes a more profitable organisation. It's also a pretty dangerous game to play; diversity policies can be, and often are, implemented in a ham-fisted or corrupt way that destroys value. Simply look at the havoc that BEE has wreaked on South Africa's economy and especially the public service.

avazhi 5y ago

temp8964 5y ago
Why would anybody pro abortion?
- freyr 5y ago
  Overpopulation? But I think it’s safe to assume they mean pro-choice.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    At this point it's not safe to assume anything. Maybe there are lots of them think it's a good thing to kill babies. Who knows?
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    Personally I also do use the term pro-abortion because it is clear about the actual issue and what the disagreement is. Pretty much every single person anywhere is in favor of both life and choice, it's a uselessly euphemistic set of terms that obscures the real conflict. I'm not necessarily in favor of any specific case of abortion, or wanting more of them in the world, or anything like that. "Pro abortion access" would probably be more technically correct but that opens the argument up to getting derailed by "well how much access" and shit. Plus the mild transgressiveness of the term is helpful sometimes, if it makes people stop for a second and ask like this.
- inetknght 5y ago
  > Why would anybody pro abortion? There are many reasons. In the case that carrying a fetus to term would kill the mother: abort. One life does not merit the safety of another. In the case that a fetus was conceived in rape: abort. Would you remind yourself, and even be beholden to, evil? In the case that a fetus would be born unwanted: abort. It is better to be born into a loving family than raised in orphanages or worse: raised in a family who do not love you.

lanstin 5y ago

Maybe introduce new grounds for suing - if the stock underperforms, and leadership is showing a bias in its demographics, then the share holders can sue for presumptive discrimination reducing the quality of decision making.

rayiner 5y ago

Since it’s us mathematically minded people here, it’s worth pointing out that these studies don’t establish causation. You’d probably find a strong correlation between financial performance of firms and investment into other social initiatives, such as corporate philanthropy or environmental causes. It’s possible that wealthier and more successful firms are simply better able to afford such investments than less successful firms.

gurkendoktor 5y ago
Exactly: Most studies that I've been referred to are shiny McKinsey pages that boil down to big companies having more diverse boards on average. Besides what you said, that's not a surprising correlation because it's easy for Multinational MegaCorp Inc. to have a multi-ethnic board after a few international mergers. And then there are very opinionated shareholders like Vanguard and BlackRock, which receive voting rights for every Euro that I save for old age, who can make this outcome a self-fulfilling prophecy by punishing companies for lack of diversity. I don't think it's possible to control for all of this.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  I’ve done some work adjacent to those shiny mckinsey pages. The mergers wouldn’t explain it. It’s not looking at size, it’s looking at growth and success relative to where they were some period of time ago. It’s probably a bit tautological. The only effective way to make your company more diverse is to grow and hire diverse candidates. This is not the case for top level leadership though. Boards as well. Growing companies want to invest in their people and that tends to result in some more attention to diversity. Conversely dusty old companies that are having their lunch eaten by tech enabled competitors do tend to be very non diverse because that’s they way it is and it’s not an environment that diverse candidates want to join. Also self fulfilling.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- nullc 5y ago

Ourgon 5y ago

> and I'm saying this as an LGBT person I' m left-handed but I would never think of identifying myself as being part of some diffuse group of people 'united' by handedness. In the same vein I do not see why gays, lesbians and bisexuals are to be seen as part of a single group given that as far as I gather there is often not that much love [no pun intended] between the former two - it is not as if gays and lesbians have much in common. Do you truly identify as 'an LGBT person' - implying that those who claim to be spokespeople for 'this group' also speak for you - or do you just see yourself as a gay, lesbian or bisexual man or woman? Or, to put it even more bluntly, would you not rather see yourself as a person who happens to be gay or lesbian or bisexual, just like I see myself as a person who happens to be left-handed? I may sometimes grumble about some object which could have easily be made to fit left- and right-handed people alike [1] but I would never join a left-handed political action committee, nor would I trust anyone to 'speak for me' in such a context because I don't want to be used as a pawn in some ideological/political struggle. [1] If you ever start a cheese packing facility make sure to put a peel corner on the left and right hand side of the package, the latter is far more useable for left-handed people...

edanm 5y ago
There's a difference between what one wishes the world was like, and what one should do given the world as it actually is. Given the past rampant anti-LGBT feelings and actions around the world, it totally made sense for LGBT people to band together, to enact change on their own behalf. Much of the world is better for LGBT people today, but a) it's still not quite as good as most would want it, and b) in many parts of the world, it's still quite bad. So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly, then of course it makes sense for them to act as a group. (Though of course I don't literally mean that everyone treats them badly, just the general trend)
- Ourgon 5y ago
  > So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly Simply put: Nonsense A bit more elaborate: some people have something against people who differ in some way, whether that be in their sexual orientation or handedness or skin colour or the language they speak or the food they eat or the god(s) they worship or the parties they vote for or the places they live or the clothes they wear. This has always been that way and will always be so. Most people harbour some preconceived ideas about those 'others' - yes, you do as well. In most liberal western societies these preconceived ideas are frowned upon by official institutions, especially when it concerns such ideas related to 'protected' identity categories like sexual orientation, race and religion. your statement regarding the supposed mistreatment of that group does not hold any water. It is a lie, an untruth, a distortion of the facts - unless you can prove your claim. Can you prove it? Show us how your statement is true, in what way everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. Just saying this does not make it true, not even repeating it ad nauseam, not even when it is claimed to be true by academics from the grievance studies departments - especially not when claimed by those academics from those grievance studies departments since they are on an ideological mission.

roenxi 5y ago

> There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. Based on personal observations, innate aptitude and interest doesn't seem to be aligned. Eg, one of the more amazing minds I've ever met was contained in a woman who just didn't have the competitive glint in her eye to make herself successful. Sad story in many ways. But - if that observation is true - then diversity policy quotas will break the correlation. At the moment, about half the aptitude is in women, some percent in various minority groups in rough proportion to their prevalence, etc. Companies better at surfacing talent will naturally be more diverse. Companies that forcibly make themselves more diverse through a quota will ironically probably regress to the mean level of competence and perform worse.

slibhb 5y ago

> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. If diverse boards do better it's because you have to be doing very well already to do something as stupid as picking board members for their sexual orientation.

onos 5y ago
Hence the argument that this move was a bid for regulatory capture by already established corps.

rayiner 5y ago

It’s also important that, at least as to racial minorities, they oppose consideration of race in hiring and promotion by large margins: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pew-poll https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe... > White people were the most opposed to considering race and ethnicity in hiring and promotion: 78 percent said only qualifications should be considered. But a majority of black respondents (54 percent) and Hispanic respondents (69 percent) also said race and ethnicity shouldn’t be considered. These are policies are being driven mostly by liberal whites oh behalf of racial minorities, but those minorities themselves mostly oppose such policies.

blindmute 5y ago

The only companies that can afford to diversity hire are already having great financial results

incomingpain 5y ago

>This seems like the right decision (and I'm saying this as an LGBT person). The problem is, it just doesn't seem like legislation is the right instrument for promoting diversity in boardrooms. Oh for sure it's the right decision. If even the legislation's intention was successful, forcing this matter will only go to create more radicalization and make the situation worse. >I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results, and that public companies have a responsibility to their shareholders. Regardless of the issue you wish to prop up. There is always a study that says it will work. >It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements. There's a legitimate business justification to diversity policies. Businesses should not even consider diversity. There is a problem in some businesses in that they do discriminate. They discriminate against and that's the ideal goal of what should be fixed. Or should it? If we are in a free market and Business 1 refuses to hire LGBT. Business 2 hires those and will eventually pick up good people that give them a competitive advantage. Government coming in and using force to make Business 1 take LGBT on the board... That's not going to work out.