[funkah]

> A diverse group is usually more effective.

Does this mean the problem will take care of itself? That is, if it is true that a diverse group is usually more effective, the products and startups that succeed should have teams which tend to be more diverse than the ones that fail. And as that happens, founders interested in succeeding would pay more attention to the diversity of their firms.

[jdp23]

Not necessarily, because it's starting from inequality.

Here's a simple example. Assume hypothetically that due to historical differences the vast majority of investment decisions are made by a non-diverse demographic who prefer to invest in people like themselves. So even though the diverse groups outperform, it may not be enough to overcome the "unfair advantage" of easier access to capital.

[InclinedPlane]

There's also the problem of confounding variables. All else being equal, a diverse group is usually better. However, if you have to fudge those other factors in order to get a diverse group then perhaps you've completely erased that advantage.

[MartinCron]

The bottleneck to success isn't simply the effectiveness of implementation groups. You've heard the old line of it being about who you know instead of what you know?

There are (real and perceived) barriers to entry, entrenched good-old-boys networks, gatekeepers, stereotypes, etc. Even if it's more like a minor obstacle than a brick wall, those tiny disparities add up can make a huge difference.