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.
Is it? Many of the companies with board level quotas aren’t particularly efficient.
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.
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.
You're doing exactly the same. You have provided no evidence or facts.
> There has been a staggering amount of research over the decades on this topic
Great, so provide it.
Since introduction of quotas, Italy saw women's representation soar from 8% to 32%, France from 21% to 38% and on average the world saw a growth of 5% from 2012 to 2015.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_government#Quotas
Of the top-ranked 20 countries in terms of female representation in government, 17 of these countries utilize some sort of quota system to ensure female inclusion.
As for the research showing higher profitability for diverse teams: a lot if it is about diversity of thought, not diversity of genders. But even if you take gender into account, you have to also consider economic trends. Businesses that flourish might simply be more able to afford women (who are more costly employees than men, if only because of the sick days and higher likelihood to drop out because of pregnancy). So the correlation would actually be inverse (success would cause more female employees, not the other way round). Or think about oil industry vs tech industry. Fewer women work in mining, but the tech industry was exceptionally successful in recent years. It might just be a random artifact that more women work in tech than in mining, and tech happened to be more successful.
If you look at such papers, always pay attention to the interval they use for claiming "more success". If they say "from 2009 to 2016 diverse companies were more successful", bet you ass that if you look at the data from 2000 to 2018, the correlation fades away.
And how much of this is because of quotas?
Australia (ASX200) went from 8.3% in 2009 to 28.5% in 2018 without a quota system.
Look at political parties which imposed forms of quotas e.g. UK and Australian Labour. They have extremely high levels of female MPs versus alternative parties. Or look at corporate boards and executives across many countries. Almost all have seen improvements in female participation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corpo...
And having more women MPs instead of men has done what exactly for their countries?
I don’t think anyone has particularly great things to say about either countries Labour parties.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a law demand gender quotas for those ~90% of work places. If we assume a linear distribution where the average work place has a gender ratio of 80:20, about 18% of every employed person in Sweden would then get their job through the gender quota law which is then about a half million women and men. That would make for a fascinating social experiment.
I wonder what other outcome one might expect from quotas.
I'm very much interested in reading about this. I'd be very thankful if you were to provide a few references :)
So thank you anonymous guy for trying to prove the opposite with no facts or evidence. And maybe in a century or so when we have eradicated systemic sexism and racism it might be a more interesting conversation to have. But for now I prefer to stick to the facts and methods that are proven to work.