> Oh, that’s easy. Because you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity. It’s w

> Oh, that’s easy. Because you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity. It’s winning in the marketplace because it’s better. It would help if you cited your sources here, but I do remember myself seeing some studies on this. One in particular was about how venture capital firms did better when they hired for diversity and had diverse people in top roles [1]. The study mentioned that venture capitalism has very particular homogenous in-group culture, which diversity hiring helped firms break out of. In fact many articles seem to push this idea that diversity hiring leads to more perspectives on issues and more out-of-the-box thinking, leading to greater success. While this makes sense, this is very different from the rational pushed by the top-level comment of this thread, which says that diversity hiring is to make up for discrimination at the beginning of the funnel. Because if the goal is just to broaden perspectives by tweaking their hiring process, companies can do this without looking at race or gender. There are metrics that can specifically optimize for this. There's no reason why race/gender needs to be specifically considered in order to end up with more diversity of thought. [1]: https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend