[slackfan]

>actively hiring under-qualified

Oh it's absolutely been done. I have very strict color and gender-blind hiring standards, because I want to hire the actual best people for the job. My filtering of candidates has absolutely been overruled by (white) upper management, because they needed to make the department I was in more $diverse, for whatever that means.

The punchline is that I'm not white.

I've since moved on from that firm, but I've run into this elsewhere. Really leaves a bad taste in ones' mouth, and hits the demoralization hard. The doublespeak is miserable. But I suppose I have literally these policies to thank for forcing me to strike out on my own to build something actually better.

[hunter2_]

I think the idea is that even if blind hiring makes for the best possible employees on an individual basis in the short term, loosening that optimization in favor of diversity is a worthwhile pursuit because the company actually will thrive more when you look at long term collaboration (conversations and opinions that draw from a larger variety of life experiences can improve user advocacy, for example) and the possibility that amazing potential employees down the road might pass on applying to companies that aren't so diverse.

I see the irony in using protected characteristics for profit, but it's a win-win...

[slowmovintarget]

Thomas Sowell pointed out two problems with the "idea" in Discrimination and Disparities.

First, what evidence do we have that diversity does result in a company performing better, or gaining that amazing employee? He argues that this is an unfounded assumption.

Setting that aside, his second point requires deeper consideration. Disparities are often caused by upstream circumstances, like fewer children having adults in the home that value education, leading to fewer candidates that meet diversity criteria to hire from in the first place. By laying quotas on at hiring time, people are wrongly assuming the problem to be occurring where it is detected (in hiring) and not where it originates (in-home attitudes to education and work).

In the meantime, corporations hire consultants that emplace DEI "initiatives" that train workforces to detect "microaggressions," among similar evidence-free curricula. They do this, not because it solves a problem, but because it allows favorable public relations announcements.

How about initiatives funding scholarships, and contributing to in home book programs? How about funding campaigns for supporting community libraries?

These would go at the root of the issue, rather than the cosmetics of the issue. But then, they couldn't gain the indulgences for failing to actually be diverse as a corporate culture.

[SpeedilyDamage]

> First, what evidence do we have that diversity does result in a company performing better, or gaining that amazing employee? He argues that this is an unfounded assumption.

It's not an assumption.

> Along all dimensions measured, the more similar the investment partners, the lower their investments’ performance. For example, the success rate of acquisitions and IPOs was 11.5% lower, on average, for investments by partners with shared school backgrounds than for those by partners from different schools. The effect of shared ethnicity was even stronger, reducing an investment’s comparative success rate by 26.4% to 32.2%. [0]

> Increased diversity in the healthcare workforce helps reduce or eliminate racial health disparities, according to a 2014 meta-analysis of 25 studies. [1]

> A large-scale study of all Texas schools reveals diversity’s impact in public education systems. They find student performance most-improved when there was greater management diversity, and a closer racial match (representation) between management and student. [2]

> Most of the sixteen reviews matching inclusion criteria demonstrated positive associations between diversity, quality and financial performance. Healthcare studies showed patients generally fare better when care was provided by more diverse teams. Professional skills-focused studies generally find improvements to innovation, team communications and improved risk assessment. Financial performance also improved with increased diversity. A diversity-friendly environment was often identified as a key to avoiding frictions that come with change. [3]

> Our latest report shows not only that the business case remains robust but also that the relationship between diversity on executive teams and the likelihood of financial outperformance has strengthened over time. These findings emerge from our largest data set so far, encompassing 15 countries and more than 1,000 large companies. By incorporating a “social listening” analysis of employee sentiment in online reviews, the report also provides new insights into how inclusion matters. It shows that companies should pay much greater attention to inclusion, even when they are relatively diverse. [4]

> Using data from the 1996 to 1997 National Organizations Survey, a national sample of for-profit business organizations, this article tests eight hypotheses derived from the value-in-diversity thesis. The results support seven of these hypotheses: racial diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater relative profits. [5]

This is just the tip. Study after study shows diversity improves outcomes of group work, it's really hard to justify believing otherwise, in light of the overwhelming data.

[0] https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend

[1] https://www.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider68/default-do...

[2] https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/15/4/615/991022

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30765101/

[4] https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...

[5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000312240907400203

[crackercrews]

I haven't read all these studies but wonder if they claim causality or mere correlation. I see lots of correlation, which could be reverse correlation in disguise. Companies that are on a good trajectory decide to engage in more DEI than companies that are fighting to survive. Analysts conclude that DEI and success are correlated. They don't consider the possibility that the causal arrow runs the other way.

[hunter2_]

True, and it could even be as simple as: well-educated people make companies more successful, and they pursue diversity more, compared to other people -- i.e., one input has these two outputs.

[jensensbutton]

> I haven't read anything, but I have opinions.

Great contribution.

[hunter2_]

A pattern I'm seeing here is the possibility that these beneficial outcomes could be rooted in racism/sexism/etc.: having enough diversity among staff such that you can easily pair up people (provider and patient, fiduciary and client, or whatever scenario) who share personal characteristics can increase trust and synergy between them? Ugh!

[slowmovintarget]

Great! All the more reason to focus on the underlying problem and not just where it's detected.

[slackfan]

Yes yes, that is the sales pitch.

In reality DEI in general doesn't give a shit about diversity of experience. There is zero investment into training programs to actually get people from non-traditional backgrounds into $company, because it's significantly less profitable in the short term. And when the training is set up, it is done in the most mealy-mouthed "equitable" way possible, where everybody gets a gold star, and then people act all surprised when the outcome is unproductive, virtually unfireable workers. And god help you if you are a "diverse" person who doesn't toe the DEI line, that is the fastest way to find yourself a pariah in an org.