Hacker News Reader

Comment by k___ | Hacker News Reader

A cursory google search that took 30 seconds.

FT: Diversity bring boost to profitability: https://www.ft.com/content/1bc22040-1302-11e7-80f4-13e067d50...

McKinsey: Why Diversity Matters https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our...

Academic paper based on multiple case studies: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SHR-10-2017-...

It is head-smackingly obvious that a wide variety of experiences at senior management level leads to broader market fit, which leads to better products, which leads to larger number of sales targets which leads to greater profitability and growth and has the side effect of reducing HR complaints, increasing inclusivity and making work more enjoyable for everyone.

View on HN

> It is head-smackingly obvious that a wide variety of experiences at senior management level leads to

Is it? Many of the companies with board level quotas aren’t particularly efficient.

The first link is behind a paywall so I couldn't access it.

The second link is some good research, demonstrating a correlation between diversity and profitability. I was hoping to find within it an analysis of possible confounding factors - for example, what if profitable companies can afford to initiate "diversity and inclusion" campaigns and institute quotas, which would turn the causality the other way around(higher profits -> more diversity), rather than the researchers' explanation(more diversity -> higher profits). Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any such analysis in the paper.

Is this the full text of the third link? https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/SHR-10-20...

The link is more of an article on what diversity and inclusion is, and how to measure its benefits, rather than research that shows those benefits.

So you've picked a metric "profitability".

First one paywall, third one no evidence, second one correlation causation. It's head smackingly obvious that the most profitable companies tend to be the largest/most publically visible, and the most vulnerable to lobbying for quotas, and with the most ability (since their profit is based on being a big boy who can extract rent) to implement whatever is socially desired at the time.

Take tech, look at the most profitable companies, they're also the biggest, they're also the most lobbied.

Per your final comment, the job of senior executives is not always, (or even normally?) focussed on market research/product. Old Apple being the famous exception.

There's gap between your prose and how watertight the evidence you presented is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com