Debate revived on workplace diversity (study debunks benefit)

USA TODAY ^ | Posted 7/20/2003 11:29 PM | By Stephanie Armour

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Diversity programs are coming under intensified scrutiny amid a weak economy and new research showing that racial and gender diversity has virtually no impact on bottom-line performance.

A non-profit group set up in 1996 by CEOs and human resource professionals asked a team of researchers from a cross section of universities to embark on a large-scale field research project on the relationship between gender and racial diversity and business performance.

Researchers initiated discussions with more than 20 Fortune 500 companies. Ultimately, all but four declined to participate. Based on those initial discussions, researchers found none of the 20 companies had ever conducted a systematic examination of the effects of diversity efforts on bottom-line performance.

An analysis of the four participating companies found there are few direct effects of a diverse workforce on performance — positive or negative. The study was led by Thomas Kochan, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management. Researchers on the study say those findings raise questions about the value of the diversity-training industry.

Researchers also found a more diverse workforce doesn't necessarily have a positive effect on team performance. In some cases, racial diversity actually inhibited group process. And they found that communities with more whites, blacks, Hispanics or Asians didn't buy more from stores with similar employees.

The findings — published in the spring 2003 issue of Human Resource Management Journal — are touching off a debate over diversity. The April issue of Workforce, a magazine for human resource professionals, had an article about the study titled "Diversity's business case doesn't add up."

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Meanwhile, as science shows that diversity has no effect on the bottom line, the Supreme Court decides to declare it a worthy goal as a matter of law.

Sigh...

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Reverse discrimination ping

[general_re]

Everyone who's surprised by this, raise your hands.

[camle]

it does carry a negative effect on the bottom line because it costs money to staff, devise and run these programs, nto to mention productivity lost whilst attending the requisite sensitivity training.

[Maceman]

These diversity programs are there for one reason -- to protect businesses from the scourge of trial lawyers eager to earn big $$$ on discrimination claims.

I'm guessing by that standard, these programs may actually save companies money in the long run -- although not by actually increasing revenues or the value they provide to customers.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Not to mention possibly hiring a less qualified applicant simply to achieve some sort of numerical quota.

[Spok]

When affirmative action was being pushed in the 60's and 70's,the argument was that it was a temporary measure that would be ended when minorities "caught up" with whites in the higher income levels. There's no longer a pretense that it will ever be abolished. It's typical liberal flex-logic.
Like in the 70's when environmentalists opposed nuclear power plants with the argument that we could rely on safe and environmetally friendly hydropower-now they want to tear down all the dams. Their basic anti-capitalist agenda is always shrouded in nebulous, fuzzy logic which is subject to constant revision.

[upcountryhorseman]

We have to make a distinction between "cultural
diversity" and "ethnic diversity". Ethnic
diversity is fine, but cultural diversity causes
balkinization.