It's not economically beneficial this diversity stuff

It’s one of the mantras of our times, that diversity is a good thing. Which it may well be of course. But that’s not then to say that we have proven that diversity in a workforce or organisation is an economically good thing. We might also think through this in a rather different manner, that diversity of viewpoint is a good thing but that’s not the same thing as what the modern world calls diversity. In fact, there’s a good point to be made that the two different versions conflict with each other, that diversity of view and of person.

One thing we do know is that the following two statements are wrong:

We know that gender-balanced teams create better financial returns. We also know that businesses with teams made up in the likeness of their customers – a wide variety of ethnicities, sexualities, strengths, faiths, ages and genders – provide better products and richer customer services.

We don’t know either of those things at all.

For example, banking returns have fallen as banking has become more gender diverse. The point being that sure, men are generally more risk taking than women. But mixed gender teams make the men more risk taking than an all male team, also makes the women more risk taking than an all female team. A mixed gender environment in banking increases risk taking. And it is some time now since banks generally even managed to cover their cost of capital.

As to production teams doing better then they match the customer base, we’ve good evidence against this too. In fact, we’ve a campaign insisting the opposite, about “Black Twitter.” The point being argued is that penetration of Twitter into the black US population is higher than it is in the white. Yet there are near no blacks who work at Twitter, certainly very many fewer than the ratios in the general population. Thus Twitter should hire more blacks.

But look at what the statement actually is. A near all white team is producing something especially successful among blacks – the workforce fitting the customer base idea has just been exploded, hasn’t it?

There is also a fascination with the underlying logic here. Everyone should have a fair shake – which of course they should – and that fair shake is to be measured by group occurrence. We’ve also this insistence that we’ve better results when all groups are represented. But that must mean – otherwise, why would group representation matter? – that the different groups bring something different to the table. That’s the benefit of diversity. But now we’re insisting that the groups are different, aren’t we? Therefore it should be no surprise that group representation is different in different areas.

If we’re all the same whatever melanin content, cultural background, gender, sexual flavour, then sure, why not have those equally mixed groups and representations. But as soon as the argument is that we should have the mixture because members of different groups are different then we’ve just insisted that not all are the same, haven’t we?

There is a resolution to this, which is that diversity of view does aid an organisation. But that diversity of those who hold the same views is not. Multi-hued Marxism doesn’t aid an organisation at all, two gammons like myself and Chris Dillow would. But then that’s an idea that’s just never going to take hold today, is it? Even the explanation will be rejected as patriarchal logic, even white mansplainin’.

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

6
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Bloke in North DorsetTDChernyyDrakonSpikeHallowed Be Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhoda Klapp
Member
Rhoda Klapp

How happy I always am when I call up a call centre to find that the agent is diverse. Surely such diversity only works for the company when they can match a caller with an appropriate agent. But no, they must be randomly diverse. Where then is the advantage to the consumer?

Hallowed Be
Member
Hallowed Be

I’ve always felt the culture of the company is far more influential than the culture of the employee. Not for how they eat breakfast but how they get the job done. There’s just no comparison in the working life between a Scotch engineer and a Scotch A&R rep. Now if the A&R rep changed job and wanted to bring a little bit of the party life into their new role in the engineering firm, it ain’t going to turn out well.

Spike
Member

We don’t know those two things, but neither do we know the opposite. Banks have tended toward gender inclusivity, and toward greater risk-taking, but in an era of governments bailing out banks for taking bad risks. Yes, exactly, the “diversity” of a workplace would not matter except that the races are culturally different. No one feels revulsion at seeing brown skin, but many see brown skin as an indicator of refusal to accept the prevailing culture. Different cultures do not all do work equally well. The call for “diversity” is a call for racism, measured by enforced equality of outcomes.

ChernyyDrakon
Member
ChernyyDrakon

I’ll start listening to this diversity cr*p when they start arguing that we need 50% male midwives, more female sh*t shovellers, a white man to play Shaft, a male Wonder Woman.

I don’t want any of those, just them to be at least consistent.

TD
Member
TD

Being in my mid 60s I’m of an age when I heard racial epithets spewed regularly when I was young, as it was pretty common way back then especially living in a small very white town in the NW. However, there weren’t many minorities around besides a small Indian rancheria, a few Mexican families and various European immigrants who still referred to the “old country”. I never met a black or a Jew until I went to college. So, certainly there was fairly open racism even if there weren’t many other races around to be racist about. However, living now… Read more »

Bloke in North Dorset
Member

I’ve posted it before but there’s an element of IQ here. Lower IQ workers are less trustworthy of different cultures, races, of whatever groups we’re talking about. This is why higher IQ people really don’t get the issues around immigration raised by those in the lower social orders and we got Brexit.

http://economicsdetective.com/2016/07/costs-ethnic-diversity-garett-jones/