Great article. Actually, you can do the same right here at home by hiring minorities, disabled employees, and people who would otherwise not find work. Many of them will be more motivated than the average employee and you also do society a service by doing what most employers still don't.
This is a great point. Frequently, people look to hire individuals that will "match the culture" which is thinly veiled as "people that look, act, and talk like us".
Trying to hire for diversity doesn't mean you can't hire that excellent 20-something white male hacker that impressed you with the latest web-mashup, it might just mean giving other applicants a second chance, even if you don't necessarily feel a natural bond with them.
I wonder how much of the benefit (in technical jobs at least) can be had by actually sticking to the scoring system you decided on before the interviews (let's say X% technical questions, Y% resume, Z% fit) rather than going through the whole process and then just fudging it to go with your gut feeling.
That said, this article specifically mentions "a setting where it was clear that companies were not just hiring women for PR reasons" whereas I've been on hiring committees with specific instructions to favor non-white or non-male applicants here, so the arbitrage opportunity is likely less.
That makes sense. But, based on the article, why couldn't you also conclude that women are better managers than men, in general, and not just because they are a better value due to cultural externalities?
Actually I would probably conclude that having a diverse culture makes better decisions than a monoculture.
Wouldn't a monoculture of yes-men, for example, be less likely to kill a failing project early on, and save money that would otherwise be wasted? Having a diverse team will provide better input on business practices, processes and work ethics, which all impact the product a business produces, and ultimately their bottom line.
>Actually I would probably conclude that having a diverse culture makes better decisions than a monoculture.
I am not sure culture counts matter as long as it is a good culture. Sure a mediocre multiculture is better than a bad monoculture but that just means mediocre is better than bad not multi better than mono.
Actually, I would argue that a varied culture is almost always better than a very homogeneous one if you are shooting for innovation and competitive advantage. New ideas come from the clash of various ways of thinking not from the confirmation of thought paradigms.
This said, if you are running a mining company, an automotive giant, or you are operating in any industry where the priority is on reliability and tradition, I can understand why diversity could make you nervous. But never forget that diversity can become a way of life.
That's very much what hapenned to American culture anyways with the great melting pot, isn't it?
Is that what is going on in America? I am not so sure. Just because I have a group that is mixed race and gender doesn't mean they are multicultural. They could have all grown up in Dallas and gone to SMU. Most of the multiculturalism in the US seems to be the Chinese restaurant verity. So changed from its origins that you couldn't find it in China.
Of course not. That's what you see on the surface but dig in a little bit and you'll find that there are still lots of 1st generation and 2nd generation immigrants with a wealth of unique cultural identities. I lived for years abroad in Europe and Asia and I can tell you that the US, Australia and parts of Latin america are definitely unique in that way. the rest of the world (the old world) is much more culturally homogeneous.
And who is talking about race here other than Stonemetal, here? Culture has a lot more attributes than those related to gender and race.
That's a fine conclusion too, but this article doesn't preclude the alternative conclusion that a monoculture of women would be better than the status quo.
