Do you ever consider the possibility that the best candidate is the one with the highest potential?

I believe that a candidate with unique perspectives and experiences might be able to contribute more over the long-term than the person who ticks the most boxes right now?

A lot goes into choosing a candidate, my point was that we do not just pick someone because we need to meet a certain quota of diversity. I will add that we are diverse more than everyone might be thinking from my statement above. But allowing the diversity to be organic, natural, and not hand crafted leads to a much better work environment and culture (at least in our case).

> But allowing the diversity to be organic, natural, and not hand crafted leads to a much better work environment and culture (at least in our case).

How can you know this to be true when you don't seem to have tried "hand crafted" diversity at your current workplace?

You don’t need to jump off a tall building to know it’s a bad idea. Even with less obvious things you can infer outcomes based on available data. Available data in social science and reported experiences suggests successful hiring is done based on two criteria: merit and cohesion with the team. That’s it. Outside of a few very particular jobs, diversity of workplace has no intrinsic value that somehow makes up for not hiring based on merit. On the contrary, some studies suggest that “diversity” can actually reduce team cohesion and trust.