4 ms·

So apparently there are "many studies show that companies with gender and ethnic diversity tend to be more creative and more profitable, because varied perspect

by omonra 12y ago

So apparently there are "many studies show that companies with gender and ethnic diversity tend to be more creative and more profitable, because varied perspectives help them design products and services that appeal to a diverse, worldwide audience." Yet somehow this lack of diversity hasn't prevented Google, Facebook and Apple from being very profitable and very creative. Let's take a stab and see what are these "studies" that show how diversity helps. Here is one (from the article NYT links to): "In a study conducted in 2003, Orlando Richard, a professor of management at the University of Texas at Dallas, and his colleagues surveyed executives at 177 national banks in the U.S., then put together a database comparing financial performance, racial diversity and the emphasis the bank presidents put on innovation. For innovation-focused banks, increases in racial diversity were clearly related to enhanced financial performance." So we have exhibit A - the three most successful companies in the US that seem to do a-OK without diversity and exhibit B - a survey of bank executives about how they feel about diversity and innovation. Let's be honest - diversity has nothing to do with creativity or profitability. It's a political construct that the NYT feels needs to be hoisted upon successful American companies. Because diversity. [Edited typos]

skybrian 12y ago
It isn't just the New York Times saying this. Google's management has made public statements saying diversity needs to improve. It's a major initiative. Just maintaining the status quo isn't interesting.
- omonra 12y ago
  You have to realize that most companies can't really say what they think on most issues. It's a lot easier to pay lip service to an idea that you consider stupid than risk public opprobation by saying what they actually think. They care as much about diversity as NBA owners - which is they don't give a toss. That said - I do think they do want to have the best people working for them. So if the best candidate for a position happens to be a disabled black lesbian - they'll gladly take her. But she has to be qualified in the first place - simply having the right 'diversity' points won't help.
  - skybrian 12y ago
    You're right that being well qualified for the job still matters. The goal of diversity initiatives isn't to change that. Even when a company tries to do a good job (and there's lots of room for improvement at most places), hiring is still fairly random. You can lose good people because they happened to have a bad day or be matched up with an unfortunate interviewer, through cultural misunderstandings, and so on. We can't know what top management really thinks in their heart of hearts, but it doesn't necessarily matter for most hires since they're not doing the interviews or making the hiring decisions. They built a system for that. It's the people who actually are making the decisions that you might have to worry about. The point of diversity training is to reach them and avoid losing good people through bias, screwups, and bad judgement.

by omonra 12y ago

skybrian 12y ago

It isn't just the New York Times saying this. Google's management has made public statements saying diversity needs to improve. It's a major initiative. Just maintaining the status quo isn't interesting.

omonra 12y ago
You have to realize that most companies can't really say what they think on most issues. It's a lot easier to pay lip service to an idea that you consider stupid than risk public opprobation by saying what they actually think. They care as much about diversity as NBA owners - which is they don't give a toss. That said - I do think they do want to have the best people working for them. So if the best candidate for a position happens to be a disabled black lesbian - they'll gladly take her. But she has to be qualified in the first place - simply having the right 'diversity' points won't help.
- skybrian 12y ago
  You're right that being well qualified for the job still matters. The goal of diversity initiatives isn't to change that. Even when a company tries to do a good job (and there's lots of room for improvement at most places), hiring is still fairly random. You can lose good people because they happened to have a bad day or be matched up with an unfortunate interviewer, through cultural misunderstandings, and so on. We can't know what top management really thinks in their heart of hearts, but it doesn't necessarily matter for most hires since they're not doing the interviews or making the hiring decisions. They built a system for that. It's the people who actually are making the decisions that you might have to worry about. The point of diversity training is to reach them and avoid losing good people through bias, screwups, and bad judgement.