[rramadass]

> The argument that culturally homogeneous teams perform better due to more efficient communication (more is "already understood" at the outset, so there's less need to communicate explicitly, and fewer misunderstandings) is also sound.

False Equivalence.

Efficient Communication is secondary to Different Whats and Whys which is what a diverse collection of people from different cultural backgrounds bring to the table. A single idea communicated however imperfectly can change the world. This is the reason "equal opportunities" should be guaranteed to all even though "equal outcomes" cannot be guaranteed.

So define a "suitable standard requirement" for a specific role and try and collect a diverse group of people who meet those criteria.

[tbrownaw]

> This is the reason "equal opportunities" should be guaranteed to all

Oh silly me, I thought the reason was that it follows naturally from everyone having equal moral worth.

[rramadass]

Yes, silly you; my comment was in the context of the parent/grandparent talking about "team composition" (presumably w.r.t. an objective/goal/job) and not a judgement on ethics/morals (different discussion).

[akoboldfrying]

Non-sequitur.

I'm not claiming any "equivalence", only that performance is a function of (among other things) these two mutually exclusive things.

[rramadass]

> only that performance is a function of (among other things) these two mutually exclusive things.

You can have efficient communication even in culturally/racially/whatever diverse teams. Your original implication that somehow only homogeneity leads to more efficient communication is not quite correct.

[karparov]

Exactly. If I want to hire a group of people who are good at communicating I should focus on that aspect during the interview process rather than ensuring that they are all homogeneously white or brown or black or asian or men or women or catholic or middle class.