Diversity means diversity of thought, or experiencing a different culture. It's not about race or color, which is the focus of most anglo world.<p>I've been working with people from Italy, the Balkans and Ukraine for a product. That has been the most true diverse project I've have ever been involved. And this people's input in the product actually mattered.<p>But of course this didn't allow for clear virtue-signaling because everyone was white, and we had balkan sick jokes involved.<p>For most companies diversity is just a checklist.
Diversity is statistical evidence that a group (team, company, whatever) is not making the mistake of prioritizing "just like us" over quality. Similar for having too-narrow experience, and being prone to group-think, and having some nasty bigotry baggage, and weak recruiting, and ...<p>But 99.9% of humanity doesn't understand statistics. And if offered a cheap way to virtue-signal, most large groups are happy to fake it.
I see diversity (appearance) as a signaling tactic, and it's not always bad.<p>For example, I'm looking for a friendly kickboxing gym. I scroll through photos of various gyms and if I see a wall of tough looking men, I, a fellow man, am intimidated. If I see some women sprinkled in there, I think hey maybe this place is open and friendly and they won't punch my face off.<p>Same could apply to jobs. Of course we do want diversity of thought and experience but that's harder to measure upfront.
I never understood this fad, as a diverse person myself. It is hard to believe that a profit-driven organization would not hire minorities or women if it <i>truly</i> helped advance their business. The fact that they have not suggests the market has priced the value of these classes of people accurately (or those classes of people are self-selecting into different occupations).
Ehm... Diversity do makes richness because makes different ideas, confronting them, mixing them etc BUT we are in very little diverse world... Did you see Chinese, Arab, African, South American leaders all wearing the same suit, at maximum with some obscene different tie? Is that diversity? Did you breathe the conformism of the modern era?
Another nonsensical zero interest rate phenomenon which should have stopped along time ago.<p>Go after hiring the best person for the job instead of finding the most oppressed and hiring them to improve 'quotas'.
I'm finding it hard to believe that BlackRock doesn't understand Goodhart's Law. Surely they wouldn't be where they are without being able to rationally optimize for the objective of profit.<p>Presuming competence, it seems that one of the following must be true: either (1) external coercion plausibly threatened profits enough that a more controlled sacrifice of profit (call it a tribute or blood money) was objectively preferable, or (2) profit is no longer the objective.<p>One doesn't have to presume competence, but I don't know enough about BlackRock's leadership structure to meaningfully comment on that.
The entire premise of this article is complete rubbish.<p>Companies have been pushing for more women and minorities to be in leadership positions since well before 2015.<p>And nobody was doing it because there was some tenuous connection to profits.
You'd think serious business people would know that a "relationship" is not "causation".<p>> The research was used by investors, lobbyists and regulators to push for more women and minority groups on boards, and to justify investing in companies that appointed them.<p><a href="https://archive.ph/woefd" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/woefd</a><p>Where they imply that some people thought there was causation.<p>> While correlation does not equal causation (greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership doesn’t automatically translate into more profit) ...<p>From the actual report.<p><a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters" rel="nofollow">https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizatio...</a>