Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

"I have seen zero solid scientific evidence proving that diversity is a strategic advantage."

It depends on what you define as solid. There are some compelling case studies on diversity effects, at least when going from almost zero diversity to a little diversity. I don't think there's any solid research on what levels of diversity are beneficial or detrimental.

In additon to your points, one thing about DEI initiatives that I don't like is how they ignore other types of diversity, including people with disabilities. It seems to be all about gender and ethnicity.

View on HN

Yes, there are a lot of kinds of diversity that can have value in an organization. For example: People whose native language is not English. A mix of people from different continents, where different kinds of items are common in hardware stores. People from rural and urban areas. Introverts, extroverts. People from countries with different social norms. People with different understandings of the term "football field". People from countries that don't use US dollars and US-formatted zip codes. People who write their family name first, followed by their given name. People who have lived in areas without reliable internet access or electricity. People who have worked in blue collar jobs. People who don't drive a car. People who did not attend university. People who have spent time homeless. People who have taken care of aging parents. People who have raised infants.

There are all kinds of diversity, and it's really valuable to have someone in the room who realizes that your product will be offensive in India or unusable in Brazil, or dangerous to young children. It's way more than skin deep.

> In additon to your points, one thing about DEI initiatives that I don't like is how they ignore other types of diversity, including people with disabilities

This varies. I've led DEI initiatives and one of the points I make is "there's diversity in diversity". Meaning it isn't just gender and ethnicity. I do believe that actually caring about people is the most important thing, and I've found that people who do care about others generally share the trait that they want diversity in their environment -- at least certain types of diversity that aren't inherently detrimental to the work they do (e.g., you probably don't want small/light offensive linemen). The reason for this is because I think most rational people who care realize they have major gaps in their understanding and want to bring in more people, in whatever capacity makes sense.

While I don't have anything near conclusive data, the people most against DEI tend to be the most insular in general. That said, often those the most extreme for "DEI initiatives" aren't really pro-DEI -- rather they are just pro their specific group, which just reduces to being the same as those that are against DEI.

I've seen people say this sort of stuff, even within/leading the programs. But actions speak louder than words. The organizations specifically track ethnicity and gender without tracking other diversity factors.

My own organization contracted with Auticon for an extremely small number of roles and made a huge publicity push about it. When asked what programs or assistance they have for neurodivergent employees, they had none. Any sort of career pathing or placement assistance for candidates with this issue - no.

The people leading the efforts or training might care, but the people in power don't.

The people in power in your company may care more than you think. The issue is that the folks that track this stuff outside of the company probably don't care.

The reason for this is because there are certain classes of diversity that are legally protected (at least in the US). And there is historical context that generally increases sensitivity around those issues. At least for us, that resulted in us having to make sure we had tracking data for, race, sex, age, and disability. But other types of diversity we still cared about, but didn't spend the same amount of time on.

It's not a perfect system, but the intent was there.

Unfortunately, believing that Diversity isn't just "visual diversity" will get you fired at the world's finest corporations: https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-j...

The studies that claim benefits from diversity are almost always correlation, not causation. It's easy to see how reverse causation could be at play. Companies that are more profitable can afford to have diversity programs. This fact can be reframed to make it look like the diversity came first and caused the higher profitability.

When DEI studies were first being touted I used to ask to read them. I thought that perhaps I would eventually find one that actually had any rigor behind it. After reading dozens, I stopped asking. It seems that rigor is not required. Just a headline that resonates with key constituencies.

The case studies we reviewed in classes had causative mechanisms behind them, such as changes in strategy, design, or marketing suggested or implemented by the minority group. It's a lot more involved than "added x number of minorities and revenue went up x%". Many of the diversity studies are junky though if they aren't as granular as a case study due to how the data is reported and the lack of context.

This type of case study could be valuable but it could also just be cherry picking. Did they look at all changes suggested by minority employees? Or did they just look back and reflect on the changes that worked out?

I have seen posts on social media by journalists looking to write about DEI. Instead of asking open-ended questions they were just soliciting success stories. That doesn't lead to the truth. It leads to the preferred narrative.

How did you organization create its case studies? Would it have actually written up a case study showing that the net effect was negative?

I understand it's hard to control for bias.

If we approach this from a different direction, can we disprove that having people from different backgrounds and perspectives who can point out things the others missed are not beneficial or provide a negative? Perhaps focusing on the claimed mechanism of benefit can shed some light on the effects.

Quite some re-framing there. I'm all in favor of viewpoint diversity. But suggesting that this is achieved by hiring based on skin color is not the right way.

Also it is very easy to show how a team is hurt when normal hiring standards (GPA, other numerical prerequisites) are ignored in order to hire someone based on sex or race. I first experienced this when I sat in a classroom and worked on group projects with people who were clearly admitted via AA preference. AA was not functioning as a tiebreaker in close cases. It was used as an enormous boost, and everyone could tell.

Sorry, I was talking about actual diversity and not what diversity programs have become (the problems you listed).

Diverse groups trust each other less, that is often framed as a positive (your workers are less likely to unionize!!) but you can clearly see why it can also be a very negative thing for teamwork.

So in general you want diversity when you want weak subordinates that are easy to control, that is the main advantage companies are really after. The other thing is if you want a group of people that holds each other accountable, since diverse groups are less trusting they are less likely to conspire, so useful on boards etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com