> The growing diversity of the workforce should be a cause for celebration.
Why? What makes this inherently better than say, a monocultural group like Japan.
Why? What makes this inherently better than say, a monocultural group like Japan.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/1...
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).