It'd worry me that, although this guy says you need to increase behavioural diversity but minimise value diversity, that you're effectively just minimising the pool of potential employees, rather than figuring out ways that a larger pool of people could fit. Or in other words, whether it's Myers-Briggs, Belbin's roles, IQ tests etc, it seems that evaluation tools are trying to quantify the diversity of people, and pick off, with increasing accuracy, the exact archetype that aligns with organisational goals. But if you assume that people are diverse, and that employment roles are diverse, and that there's a large pool of both, would it not be a better idea to focus on quantifying the differences in attributes required for your employment roles, so as to maximise your pool of potential applicants?
I'm willing to bet that someone who's slobbish and lazy and unpleasant could play a valuable role if you could quantify the requirements and goals of positions in your company, for example. And does value alignment matter for all roles in all companies, or is it just a phenomenon arising in the last decade, being an intuitive way to maximise employee investment and increase profit? Why would financial staff need to want to 'change the world' or some bullshit to work at crappy Startup X?