That's very condescending. I'm asking because I don't see why my colleagues would be any better than they are if they were black, brown, jewish, muslim, female in various combinations, maybe I hold my colleaguestoo high?

> That's very condescending

You're right. I apologize. Often times in tech, the people asking questions like that are uninterested in the answers.

My own view is that I have been blind to the advantages that my background (white, male, straight, upper-middle-class) has given me for my entire life over other friends and colleagues. And I'm trying to learn more, read more, and pay more attention to these things.

Ijeoma Oluo, who I mentioned above, comes from tech. She saw a lot of things that you and I wouldn't notice. Things that matter, and we don't even see it. So she writes, she talks, and she makes a lot of great points. And it's really hard to read and listen to her sometimes because she makes points that part of me does not want to hear.

So that's the ethical reason why it matters.

As to the original question: Diversity of backgrounds can lead to diversity of ideas. Not on every problem. Not every day. But often enough that it can matter. And it can happen in many cases that you and I would not expect or predict. More diversity of ideas leads to better solutions being found. That's the premise- you don't have to believe it and many don't.

In the 1980s, Frito-Lay's CEO, who had never imagined the Latino market, put out a call for ideas. A Latino janitor answered the call with his idea- Flamin' Hot Cheetos. It was a huge hit. Imagine how many markets they (and others) were missing because of a lack of diversity of ideas.

Thanks for this reply.

The Cheetos idea was good indeed. But this is a 1B$ company. Where i work we turn about 7M$ around a year. We're not going global and we're not delivering software. We're an MSP.

I intentionally left out those facts that we're not ever going to operate on a global scale, and that we're not from the US, rather Sweden with 9M inhabitants. The reason i left this out is because i wanted to question the "truth" that a diversified workforce is the always the best. I'm not saying it isn't important, but I'm also not saying that it always is.

I'll add Ijeoma Oluo to my to-read list, i hope you got my point though. WHY is something true, when you know the why you also know when it is and isn't applicable to your situation, giving you the upper hand.

Now this is what I call a tone deaf question! You shouldn’t be asking if a minority or person of color would perform the job any better? The real question is whether there are competent workers who are not white? And if your workforce is entirely white, you should be asking if you’re mixing up competence with familiarity. People usually trust what is familiar.

There's barely any non-white workforce available where i live and we operate. I stand by my question being perfectly valid, what does a diverse workforce that doesn't deliver software to the globe do better than one that isn't diverse? If the answer is as you're suggesting: that we're missing out on competent workforce because we're racist, then I don't see the importance in a diverse workforce, but rather importance in not being racist and hiring whoever's best. I'm not tasked with reqruitment, but I don't believe my colleagues responsible for this are racist. And we're short on people right now so if we had a !whitemale presenting himself with a skillset we need, we'd hire him/her in an instant I'm sure.

I don't think it's a personal slight against your colleagues. It's not that they would be better. They're fine.

I think the idea is that the company overall would be better with a more diverse set of thought patterns, opinions, and experiences contributing to its success. One way to achieve this is through diversity of identity, gender, or culture.

Please. Those studies are a joke. Imo those competitors will go down the drain just like google is doing right now. Time will tell which one of us is right. ;)