3 ms·

Set aside your political bone to pick for a few seconds and think about it. The author isn't "blaming" anything on diversity. Diversity is just the "thing of

Set aside your political bone to pick for a few seconds and think about it. The author isn't "blaming" anything on diversity. Diversity is just the "thing of the minute" in the context in which the author is writing about. In the 1950s he could write the same article and substitute in anticommunism. The "thing of the minute" will probably always be some broadly appealing subset of the culture and politics of the society and time in which the organization exits. It doesn't matter what the virtue everyone is professing is. What matters is that the virtue is at best ancillary to whatever the organization's goals are and resources directed at it are resources not directed at keeping the business running and prepared for the future.

RandomLensman 4y ago
But that is a misunderstanding of the forces acting on a large corporation - they cannot abscond from society so to speak. The resources directed at the thing of the moment are meant to enhance long-term survival probability. Can it become disproportionate, sure. There are also pretty hard elements to this. For example, clients might now start to assume that if your firm cannot attract women then maybe that is a sign of a bigger issue somewhere and that will impede sales.
Werewolf255 4y ago
If this article was written in the 1950s, the author would be blaming people of color and "that damnable civil rights act". I don't think this author is coming from a place of good faith when he starts off the article saying he was among the privileged few who was given a rare chance to possibly be a billionaire, if he just played his cards right. And then frames it as a real shame that his good (if not perfect!!!) ideas were ignored.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  What does he said that makes you think he’s against civil rights?
tom_ 4y ago
Suppose the author wasn't Probably One Of Those People, and didn't apparently have some kind of axe to grind about whatever bee in their bonnet buzzes about, constantly tickling their lips? Then they'd phrase it more like your second paragraph! More meat, less spice. Decent meat doesn't need much spice. But: they didn't. (I also second the other person's comment about anti communism probably not being the example this particular writer would have chosen, were they writing in the 50s.)

RandomLensman 4y ago

But that is a misunderstanding of the forces acting on a large corporation - they cannot abscond from society so to speak. The resources directed at the thing of the moment are meant to enhance long-term survival probability. Can it become disproportionate, sure. There are also pretty hard elements to this. For example, clients might now start to assume that if your firm cannot attract women then maybe that is a sign of a bigger issue somewhere and that will impede sales.

Werewolf255 4y ago

If this article was written in the 1950s, the author would be blaming people of color and "that damnable civil rights act". I don't think this author is coming from a place of good faith when he starts off the article saying he was among the privileged few who was given a rare chance to possibly be a billionaire, if he just played his cards right. And then frames it as a real shame that his good (if not perfect!!!) ideas were ignored.

nonethewiser 4y ago
What does he said that makes you think he’s against civil rights?

tom_ 4y ago

Suppose the author wasn't Probably One Of Those People, and didn't apparently have some kind of axe to grind about whatever bee in their bonnet buzzes about, constantly tickling their lips? Then they'd phrase it more like your second paragraph! More meat, less spice. Decent meat doesn't need much spice. But: they didn't. (I also second the other person's comment about anti communism probably not being the example this particular writer would have chosen, were they writing in the 50s.)