Diversity Was Supposed to Make Us Rich. Not So Much.

Wall St Journal ^ | James Mackintosh

[RoosterRedux]

When management consulting firm McKinsey declared in 2015 that it had found a link between profits and executive racial and gender diversity, it was a breakthrough. The research was used by investors, lobbyists and regulators to push for more women and minority groups on boards, and to justify investing in companies that appointed them.

Unfortunately, the research doesn’t show what everyone thought it showed.

...

Since 2015, the approach has been tested in the fire of the marketplace and failed. Academics have tried to repeat McKinsey’s findings and failed, concluding that there is in fact no link between profitability and executive diversity. And the methodology of McKinsey’s early studies, which helped create the widespread belief that diversity is good for profits, is being questioned.

...

The trouble is that McKinsey behaves as though the studies do show causation, constantly talking of the corporate benefits of diversity.

Even the correlation is in doubt. Academics can’t replicate McKinsey’s study precisely, because it keeps secret the names of the companies it used. But a paper published this year finds that McKinsey’s methodology doesn’t show benefits from diversity for S&P 500 companies for a range of profitability metrics. It isn’t that a lack of diversity is good for profits either, it’s just there’s no link.

...

Finally, correlation is not causation! McKinsey repeatedly says in its study that it only found a correlation. The Aztecs mistook correlation for causation with tragic results, cutting out the heart of a victim to rekindle fire every 52 years in order to ensure the world’s survival. There was a strong correlation between the human sacrifice and the world not ending—but no causation.

Investors don’t risk having vital organs removed, but they should pay more attention to the studies they rely on.

[Vaduz]

When any company needs a management consulting firm to come up with good ideas re=staff asap.

[fuzzylogic]

I’m a software engineer by trade. Moved on to software architect, and then director level.

There’s no way I could effectively do my job without my background. When doing embedded systems I’d have to write device drivers for silicon; display controllers, ethernet devices, ASIC’s, USB, etc.. The silicon, if programmed incorrectly, just doesn’t do what you want. It doesn’t care about my skin color. It doesn’t care what is between my legs, or what I like or dislike about what is there. It doesn’t care about age, height, religion, marriage status, or anything else. If a single bit in a single byte in a single device register is wrong, the device won’t work correctly.

Rinse repeat in many, if not the vast majority of, jobs.

I *can* see that certain position, like customer service or marketing, could see a benefit. They need to relate to their customers, what their offering is and their interactions with the customer.

Outside that, it’s pure discrimination - especially against straight, older, white men.

[x]

The causation is the wrong way. If a company is already rich it can afford to waste money on DEI.

[RoosterRedux]

Good point(s).

I think the original intention regarding diversity might have been "to hire the best people for a job regardless of race or ethnic/cultural identity." Then some affirmative action types with Marxist inclinations perverted that idea to give "preference" to certain minority races regardless of their abilities.

[Diversity Is Our Weakness]

that 2015 study was a lie financed by china - she wants to destroy america. Diversity is a horrible idea. Mixing races and languages and cultures always leads to trouble.

[Jonty30]

It means that we could send advisors into their country to teach them to build up their institutions and economy rather than accept their refugees and let them be responsible for themselves.

[noiseman]

Yet the imposition of diversity on many African nations and India through colonialism lifted those nations out of dire poverty and backwardness. They never view that diversity as beneficial. Instead, they excoriate that diversity.

I thought about mentioning that. There is a big difference, though: India and the African nations were colonized by Europeans. That brought a measure of civilization, and its benefits, to these otherwise backward nations, even where it was imposed upon them. That’s far different than today’s brainless promotion of simple racial “diversity” as a magical recipe for success.

What made these colonies successful wasn’t a sudden injection of racial diversity, but rather imposition of Western principles and the order and productivity they bring. Since that era, India has managed a certain level of success with their own democracy (though their primitive culture still causes them many problems), but the former colonies in Africa went right back to being primitive, unproductive, crime-ridden, and corrupt.

I agree with your general point, though. If racial diversity is some magical power when applied by bringing more “people of color” into majority white nations, then it should work the same in reverse. But leftist diversity advocates never want to talk about that because they’re not really in favor of “diversity”, they really just want to eliminate white people and dominate the areas they inhabit. That’s also why you never see them concerned about the obvious lack of diversity in the NBA, and why they’re up in arms over Caitlin Clark bringing a tiny bit of “diversity” to the WNBA.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

You are right, of course, and you wrote a good summary of the differences between injecting mainly white Western Civilization into backwards, primitive non-white countries and today’s mindless “diversity” goals. Thanks for expanding on that and the differences.

If “diversity” were good of its own sake, you’d think the leftists would at least make passing recognition to the benefits that colonialism and adding white diversity to the local populations brought to those backwards African nations.