Diversity fatigue
economist.com
economist.com
"Cool, you hired a dynamic Python dev, a static functional Haskel dev and a UX inclined HTML/C# dev?"
"Err... No, we hired a cartesian product of races and genders within Java skillset... But they sure have different worldviews!"
I'm not arguing it's a bad thing.. but why is it a bad thing?
The most notable thing I see in diversity are additional language and cultural barriers that will slow down productivity.
Step back from the color- and gender-counting varieties of diversity for a moment, and just think of the notion of diversity itself: a variation of backgrounds and viewpoints, which can contribute to a wider view and, when done mindfully, more opportunities to serve the community (the same community that buys your products).
Surely you've had that wonderful feeling when a teammate comes up with an idea, and you respond, "Wow, what a great suggestion! I'd never have thought of that!" With attention to diversity (by which I mean, "attracting people of different viewpoints"), you encounter that sense of discovery far more often.
It's a mirage, at best, and a sad state of affairs for racial perception at worst. That trendy cult of diversity is only contributing to kick-start racial consciousness among white people and that fragmented society is going to blow-up in your face, down the road.
Instead, groups benefit when they themselves work to expand their own membership. It's _really_ easy for all of us to look for people who share our outlooks and opinions, a "mini me" in some way. But we grow only when we insert new ideas.
I've been exceedingly lucky, in that I've worked with diverse groups of all sorts. They include people from varied backgrounds (rural vs city, money vs poor, race, gender), and in every instance I can think of a time when that "differentness" caused us to think of a better and different answer. For a lame example, someone who grew up in a rural area is more likely to think about how an online application works in a region with lousy connectivity. It's not that other team members can't think of such things, but the background ensure someone does.
Why is that bad? The barriers in regards to language, religion, customs are close to non-existent and the possibilities of conflicts over gender/race dynamics are greatly lessened. The time that would otherwise be wasted on sorting out these differences can be used to perform actual work.
>That means the group doesn't invent anything new
Really?
I don't know how you would select for diversity in viewpoints when hiring. But I do know that selecting for diversity in race or gender isn't a way to get there.
As an example, let's say you are productizing a consumer UV monitor. For the American market, you sell it to 20 something white men in Cali as a way to work on their tan.
Hey, maybe you succeed! But you are a fraction of the size you should be.
If that team had a parent on it, he or she would ask about using it for babies.
A woman from the south east part of Asia may ask about develop it for use in avoiding UV exposure! A completely opposite use case from the target audience!
As I said, if you consider nothing else, money left on the table.
As for nationalities, I have discovered that companies who look for specific technical skills worldwide usually very naturally become diverse.
Disclaimer: I'm a non-white male.
Why? What makes this inherently better than say, a monocultural group like Japan.
The part about workplaces with more female executives being more profitable is weak evidence for the inherent value of diversity because it could easily be driven by the above effect or any number of other factors.
I mean, the question is 'diversity in the workplace' in western nations pretty much comes down to asking the questions of 'why should your workplace not roughly reflect your hiring pool' and 'why should your hiring pool not roughly reflect your demographics'. There can be good reasons for why either may not the case for specific instances, but unless you can give a good reason, then you're either actively screwing people over, or participating in some sort of systemic activity that's screwing people over.
I think the question about diversity, though, often comes down to "why should you prioritize diversity over other factors", not "why should you not avoid hiring blacks/women etc". I think generally the debate now is about whether a "blind" hiring process would be better than a "diversity-aware" hiring process, where you are actively shooting for a culturally/ethnically/gender diverse team, and about how much "diversity" counts for vs. skill (i.e. person A is a better programmer than person B, but person A is white/straight/male and person B is black/gay/female - how much better than B does A have to be that his value outweighs the diversity value of hiring B).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/1...