[mankash666]

Correlation isn't causation. I'm not saying that diversity is bad, but if the most diverse of the fortune 500 did outperform others, diversity as a direct cause of this is what I'd like to see evidence of. Many other factors might have contributed to their better performance, one could attribute one of those to be the cause?

[T2_t2]

Even further to that, what do these companies DO. I doubt that BHP Billiton - or many petro-chemical companies - have a lot of diversity. I bet Wallmart does - especially minority hires.

And what even is diversity? Google employs a lot of Indians - both in India and the USA - and that helps diversity along all lines - racial, gender as India doesn't have the same gender tech bias as the west. Is that AMERICAN diversity? Using BS numbers, if US born employees are 90-10 men to women, but overall it is 70-30, then the best means of increasing diversity could be more foreign hires. Does that benefit who people are hoping it does?

I'm not for or against any position here, it is just that the history of measures like this is to use euphemistic "statistics", aka "lying with numbers". If companies can find a way to manipulate the numbers - consultants instead of employees, inhousing female dominated positions etc - then this will be easily doable. In fact, I think I might start a consultancy in just that :)