[fipple]

The whole “diversity industry” (and it is a huge industry) is based on a lie... that “diversity” improves a company’s performance. The research on this is so shaky with so much empirical evidence to the contrary, and everyone knows it, which is why companies are trying to do nothing more than “lip service.”

[CM30]

This is something I've wondered about a lot as well. Look at any large company in the world, then look at how diverse they are. Probably isn't much of a correlation between one and the other.

Looking at companies like Google and Amazon and Facebook and what not, you'd suspect any effects from having a diverse workforce are massively outweighed by other factors like selling a product/service more people want, good product design, price, marketing efforts, etc.

[commandlinefan]

> that “diversity” improves a company’s performance.

Hm - well, I agree that there's a lie floating around, but I don't think that's quite the lie in play. More often what they say is that you're hurting yourself by turning away qualified candidates based on their race/geneder/sexual orientation/whatever they're not seeing as many of as they think they ought to be. The problem is that, while this is strictly true, there's no evidence that qualified people of _x_ race/gender/sexual orientation are actually being turned away. For all the digital ink that's been virtually spilled on tech and diversity, I have yet to see _anybody_ claim, even anecdotally, that they, themselves are qualified members of diversity group _x_ but are unable to find employment. Instead, they express bewilderment that although they have no trouble finding employment, they don't see enough other members of group _x_... which they presume must be because all of the other ones are being turned away by prejudiced hiring managers.