|
|
|
|
|
|
by notyourday
3157 days ago
|
|
|
> Right now we have a fair number of studies that found statistically significant increases in productivity from more diverse teams People (manager/HR/VPs of Diversity/etc) do not understand the implication. Here's an intellectual exercise: Would a team of two people - one being a foaming at the mouth antifa and another being card carrying garb wearing KKK dude be very diverse? Certainly. Would this team be productive? Unlikely. |
|
|
> ... be very diverse? Certainly.
Very diverse?
Okay, for the sake of your hypothetical let's assume that this antifa member has a different educational and socio-economic background to the KKK member. Otherwise they're just differ on one axis and may be identical on every other.
Let's also assume that this anti-KKK person isn't Daryl Davis, who has talked around 200 KKK members into hang up their hoods by engaging with and befriending them. He's an unusual case.
> Would this team be productive? Unlikely.
What's the timeframe? Can we assume that these people have rent to pay and need this job?
Social capital models indicate (and experimental evidence supports) that people in diverse teams feel like they've been less productive (despite actually being more productive). Reduced social capital makes people less comfortable collaborating and more willing to disagree, but the flip-side of that is reducing group-think.
Think how little group-think would be evident between these two individuals, they'd disagree on everything. Yes it would be uncomfortable, but they both need the job so there's a limit
But let's go national with this pairing hypothetical. Southern Poverty Law Center estimates KKK as 5-8000 members. Assuming 8000 and that antifa is similar and all are working-age, that means that in a US-sized of 320,000,000, maybe halved to focus on working age adults, you'd be lucky/unlucky to see many (if any) instances of this type of pairing. Even assuming that all 8000 were paired directly against a mortal enemy that still only represents 0.01% of the total pairs. Even if we assume that each organisation has 100x its official membership in sympathisers that's still only 1% of the pairings (and remember we cheated to make sure they were always matched up).
If we can't assume that these people need their job then that narrows these numbers (and hence the probabilities of occurrence) to include people in well-paid positions or with inherited wealth, or who would rather be homeless than work with someone they disagree with politically.