You can see why the social sciences behemoth used to shore up <whatever you need to justify today> is a bit of a laughing stock. Retrofitting whatever facts you

You can see why the social sciences behemoth used to shore up <whatever you need to justify today> is a bit of a laughing stock. Retrofitting whatever facts you can engineer to meet the agenda you want to prove. > Organizations with above-average diversity in management see 19% higher innovation revenue than companies with below-average diversity in management. I can think of about 3 or 4 explanations for that not related to the implied causal/casual effect the author imposes. Lets be clear why this article exists. It is not to encourage diversity in the workplace but to encourage the massive and increasingly onerous burden of diversity and inclusion staff in HR and HR adjacent non job management structures. It's a huge money spinner for consultancies as well as the individuals in that church. A side effect of the massive growth in university soft subjects since circa 2000. The NHS in the UK is the most diverse organisation on the planet and every week there are new job postings like this: https://i.imgur.com/x0s0Fr2.png https://i.imgur.com/x0s0Fr2.png - jobs that do nothing, achieve nothing, add nothing to the outcomes of patients. This isn't about diversity (which is a natural facet of the composition of modern societies reflected in differing companies employment demographics) but about a new gravy train that exploits large state central control (thus the demands for more regulation) to self bolster enormous parallel structures that have no relationship to company performance. Thus the endless desperate need to self justify their existence - even as clumsily as this.