> The effect of shared ethnicity was even stronger, reducing an investment’s comparative success rate by 26.4% to 32.2%.
Right, so any diversity of ethnicity - including Asians - was associated with this "diversity boost".
> They find student performance most-improved when there was greater management diversity,
And again, what was the criteria used to measure diversity? Did it count Asians as diverse? You keep citing excerpts from these studies, but don't include anything relevant to my comment: are Asians considered diverse or not?
> Most of the sixteen reviews matching inclusion criteria demonstrated positive associations between diversity, quality and financial performance. Healthcare studies showed patients generally fare better when care was provided by more diverse teams.
And for the third time are Asians considered diverse? That's the crux of the question that you continuously fail to answer.
> Using data from the 1996 to 1997 National Organizations Survey, a national sample of for-profit business organizations, this article tests eight hypotheses derived from the value-in-diversity thesis. The results support seven of these hypotheses: racial diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater relative profits.
And again, were Asians included in the definition of "racial diversity"?
> All of your links are either paywalled studies, or lead to 404 pages, except for the first one.
That's false.
> Right, so any diversity of ethnicity - including Asians - was associated with this "diversity boost".
Can you cite a specific reason a) why that matters or b) where it says what you're claiming specifically?
> And again, what was the criteria used to measure diversity? Did it count Asians as diverse? You keep citing excerpts from these studies, but don't include anything relevant to my comment: are Asians considered diverse or not?
Find it! You keep posing these questions, but refuse to do the work of arriving at the solution yourself, which you are entirely capable of doing. Go answer your own questions!
> And for the third time are Asians considered diverse? That's the crux of the question that you continuously fail to answer.
Why are you discriminating against Asians this blatantly and obviously? It's wild, how you think this is okay.
I can't find it because most of your links are either broken or paywalled. Go post the excerpts that say "we define racial diversity as...".
Here's an example of mismatch between one of your working links and our diversity policies:
> To draw an example from this study, if all of the teachers in a given district were white, the Blau index would be 0, indicating perfect homogeneity. If 25 percent of the teachers were white, 25 percent were black, 25 percent were Latino/a, and 25 percent were Asian or Native American (grouped as “other” for my purposes here), then the Blau index would be 0.75, indicating the highest level of heterogeneity achievable in a situation with four categories. As the number of categories increases, the highest possible Blau score increases.
By comparison, my company's diversity policies target equity. So Asian representation of 25% is not considered diverse, as they are only 6% of the population and thus 25% is nearly a 5x overrepresentation.
> Why are you discriminating against Asians this blatantly and obviously? It's wild, how you think this is okay.
I'm not! DEI policies are. But the research showing the benefits of diversity overwhelmingly do count Asians as diverse, hence the mismatch between the research and our DEI policies.
I didn't edit my comment to fix my links, what are you talking about?
And your company misimplementing DEI is not a reflection of DEI itself, just a reflection of how difficult it is to get these kinds of things right.
> And your company misimplementing DEI is not a reflection of DEI itself, just a reflection of how difficult it is to get these kinds of things right.
Exactly the point I was making all along. The criteria for "diversity" used in research does not match what's almost always used in company DEI discrimination.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...
It worked earlier today, IDK what to tell you.
And it's fine to criticize specific DEI implementations, and to look at the research and call out issues. But that's not what you're doing; you're saying that DEI as a whole is ineffective, which is objectively false.
I also removed "https://" in addition to substituting (dot) to trick HN formatting.
This one works because it points to the full link: "www(dot)mckinsey(dot)com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters"
You can't just drag-select links on HN, since it truncates links. Do right-click, copy link address.
Anyway, the McKinsey study just examined the representation of "ethnic minorities" which would include Asians:
> Similarly, the representation of ethnic-minorities on UK and US executive teams stood at only 13 percent in 2019, up from just 7 percent in 2014. For our global data set, this proportion was 14 percent in 2019, up from 12 percent in 2017 (Exhibit 2).
Rgr that re: links. HN is a terrible, terrible platform implementation, for many reasons. It was not meant for this kind of discussion.
But what I'm still not getting here is any justifiable reason for why "this study includes Asian people" is a problem. Maybe DEI has a problem where Asian folks don't get evenly represented on both sides of the measurements, but you'll have to show that's specifically happening in each study I've cited, as well as any others I might cite, in order for that to be valid criticism. Further, you'd have to demonstrate that it totally negates the positive effects found, as that's not a given either.
Edit: UC Denver (and this one is a really good resource): https://www.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider68/default-do...
If science showed that DEI were bad for company outcomes, would you oppose it?
Yeah, probably. Would depend on what "bad" meant here, and what specifically "science" was showing.
The key thing though is that I want to help people, and I want others to want to help people. If DEI wasn't it, we'd find something else to help people with, but DEI is helping, so let's figure out how it works and put more effort into the effective aspects of DEI and less effort into the ineffective aspects of DEI.
Can you back that claim up by actually citing... literally anything?
Can you prove Asians were included-then-excluded from the studies I've cited, as you're claiming?
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
This is a false statement, and considering you have no clue what studies I'm citing, completely speculative.
Here, I challenge you to be specific in your criticism:
> Along all dimensions measured, the more similar the investment partners, the lower their investments’ performance. For example, the success rate of acquisitions and IPOs was 11.5% lower, on average, for investments by partners with shared school backgrounds than for those by partners from different schools. The effect of shared ethnicity was even stronger, reducing an investment’s comparative success rate by 26.4% to 32.2%. [0]
> Increased diversity in the healthcare workforce helps reduce or eliminate racial health disparities, according to a 2014 meta-analysis of 25 studies. [1]
> A large-scale study of all Texas schools reveals diversity’s impact in public education systems. They find student performance most-improved when there was greater management diversity, and a closer racial match (representation) between management and student. [2]
> Most of the sixteen reviews matching inclusion criteria demonstrated positive associations between diversity, quality and financial performance. Healthcare studies showed patients generally fare better when care was provided by more diverse teams. Professional skills-focused studies generally find improvements to innovation, team communications and improved risk assessment. Financial performance also improved with increased diversity. A diversity-friendly environment was often identified as a key to avoiding frictions that come with change. [3]
> Our latest report shows not only that the business case remains robust but also that the relationship between diversity on executive teams and the likelihood of financial outperformance has strengthened over time. These findings emerge from our largest data set so far, encompassing 15 countries and more than 1,000 large companies. By incorporating a “social listening” analysis of employee sentiment in online reviews, the report also provides new insights into how inclusion matters. It shows that companies should pay much greater attention to inclusion, even when they are relatively diverse. [4]
> Using data from the 1996 to 1997 National Organizations Survey, a national sample of for-profit business organizations, this article tests eight hypotheses derived from the value-in-diversity thesis. The results support seven of these hypotheses: racial diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater relative profits. [5]
[0] https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend
[1] https://www.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider68/default-do...
[2] https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/15/4/615/991022
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30765101/
[4] https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...
[5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000312240907400203