Note: By diversity I don't mean a team of 30 year old workaholic that graduated from Stanford and then worked at Google/MS for a few years that happen to have different skin colors. I mean a diversity of experience, fresh college student, a 60 year old near retiree, and someone that just spent six months backpacking in South America etc. It might seem like having a bind person on your team will slow you down, but plenty of dumb products get created because everyone has the same exact background and can't see just how tiny the market is.
PS: The world has ~7 billion people and most of them are not like you.
Taking a slightly roundabout example: AFAIK Pinterest was founded by men and the core team is the standard valley profile, however it has primarily a female userbase. In that case the user demographic doesn't match the initial team's demographic. However, one has to wonder whether Pinterest would have happened sooner if there were more women in the startup community, and whether there are other similar opportunities that address a huge need for a demographic not usually represented in the valley. Another example: pigeonly. A really cool company, an idea that springs forth from a different experience in the world.
The benefit of having a particular life experience and point of view is not something you need 24/7. You need it, if at all, at decision points.
As empiricists, though, it's worth asking if there are any real examples of companies exploiting hidden market opportunities thanks to a diversity of viewpoints. A lack of examples wouldn't be quite damning--maybe there's just not enough diversity at all to rise above the noise level--but it'd be a useful test of how valuable diversity actually can be.
This all stands apart from moral and ideological reasons to try to foster diversity, which are in my view more compelling but are understandably less effective when it comes to influencing decision makers.
Here is a simple true fact:
If your hiring pipeline isn't diverse (in a bunch of different ways, but in particular in the ways that represent "the opposite of the approach you just spelled out for building up a team"), then it may be fast and effective, but it is also brittle.
Every team loses people, no matter how carefully designed they are. Companies with huge traction and close-knit management teams where everyone likes each other lose cofounders. People leave, for all sorts of reasons.
On brittle teams, when one person leaves, a whole bunch of people follow.
You want to build a team that is resilient to one or two people leaving every once in awhile. Diversity --- not in the "Benetton ad" sense, but in a more fundamental sense --- is an extremely good mitigating strategy.
You may not care about team resiliency and longevity; "throw it out the window" to get to release and all of that. I think that's a bad plan (getting to a reasonable successful first release only to have your team implode is not a really good use of your very limited window of time to build companies in, is what I think), but that's neither here nor there.
Our industry is seen by outsiders as an old-boys club full of young boys who viciously hate and destroy any attempt at diversifying. Unfortunately, when these sjw types score a small victory, they see it as a big victory. The rest of us see it like a quota system -- we're forced to deal with less talented people just so somebody doesn't get butthurt that there's not enough females or black people or whatever.
Another workplace had 2 female engineers, out of 8 or so. A candidate commented we had, "a lot of secretaries" and was stunned when I pointed out that 2 of the secretaries were engineering peers.
An engineering peer spent lunch speculating about whether the ceo was fucking his secretary until I stopped being subtle and flatly told him to fucking shut up.
I have more stories, but let's stop there for now. Or quietly ask female peers -- most of them will have similar stories.
Further -- like any other industry, the startup / tech world has received enormous dividends from America. From massive investments in early tech, to R&D subsidies, to R&D tax breaks, to the education of the vast majority of the employees at the companies. Demanding diversity is part of fulfilling their social compact with America, and most of the whining is the companies attempting to duck it.
But at the end of the day, what is the founder trying to achieve? His or her personal and broader definition of success might include being inclusive.
Anecdote: working in a homogenous environment can suck for minorities. Maybe starting out diverse makes it easy to stay that way?
Can you back that up?
As has been said many times before, correlation is not causation though, and other studies have shown that the more females you have, the better a team performs so maybe we dont need diversity and just need more women. I do remember reading other articles about the benefits of racial diversity as well but I'm sure you won't have trouble finding them.
But I dislike the studies that suggest diversity improves financial performance, because I find the conclusions are too politically convenient. Most of the ones I read suggest a sketchy correlation at best. Yet people talk as if it's as conclusive as global warming.
Yes, the diversity of founders can be the reason for a startup's success. There are also many examples where it wasn't needed: Apple, Microsoft, Samsung.