My guess (without data, but then again, as you note, Gordon, those claiming positive effects of diversity don't have much real data either) is that IF there in fact is a valid correlation between diversity and performance, it's probably that firms pursuing diversity are pursuing more cutting-edge/reformist/innovative strategies generally, in contrast to their more stagnant peers. And it's the more diverse firms' generally inovative orientation, not the diversity that is merely one correlated aspect of their innovativeness, that produces the better results.

"[P]robably . . . firms pursuing diversity are pursuing more cutting-edge/reformist/innovative strategies generally, in contrast to their more stagnant peers."

Certainly. Everyone knows the Industrial Revolution was fueled by diversity.

Jake, I didn't say that diversity was the "fuel" of all, or even any, innovation. To the contrary, I was saying that it's more likely that diversity simply correlates with, rather than is a cause of, strong performance. So if you could take off your snark hat for a second and actually focus on what I said, you might notice that I'm agreeing with your implicit skepticism of the position about which Gordon expressed skepticism: that diversity generates general corporate improvement.

After all, if there are stats showing a correlation between diversity and performance, there are only three possibilities: (1) diversity was a cause of the performance, (2) diversity merely correlates with performance due to some third causal factor (e.g., my suggestion that companies doing better are more likely to have pursued diversity initiatives), or (3) that the stats are flawed. My comment suggested explanation #2 but indicated that I'm open to explanation #3.

Jake, I totally agree with you -- the industrial revolution had nothing to do with diversity.

Also, the US would have achieved the same prominence in the world if it remained the same WASP country it was initially, instead of admitting immigrants from all over the world.

Ooh, consider me spanked. Scott, I do not even own a "snark hat." And, Marianna, please spare me the condescending sarcasm.

Did either of you spent 10 years working in the construction trades with ordinary black or Hispanic people, helping each other lift heavy loads, laughing, crying, eating, and drinking together, taking one another to the hospital when injured, giving each other lifts to and from work when a car broke down, etcetera?

I did. Accordingly, although my viewpoint is based on anecdotal evidence, it at least has some evidence to support it.

"Diversity" is important. But it also is inevitable, like the weather. Proponents of "diversity" should cease invoking the term in such malleable, elusive terms and try to demonstrate some correlation between "diversity" and success in business, corporate performance, improved allocative economic efficiency, or some other measurable metric.

Neither of you does so. Climb down off the ivory tower, spend a few years living with the common folk, of all colors and creeds, on their own terms, then come back and tell me what you've learned.

All that said, I think Scott and I agree that "diversity generates general corporate improvement." I agree because, as stated, diversity is inevitable. Corporations that ignore the fact are doomed.

Thanks.

Jake

All I have is anecdotal evidence from working with many boards over many years. In my experience, the women on boards have the same general level of cluelessness at about the same rate as their male counterparts when it comes to corporate strategy. It might be a little worse with women since, in the name of reaching for diversity, female directors tend to come disproportionately from non-business backgrounds, e.g., non-profit, academia, government, etc. I'm not saying that's a bad thing overall, but it certainly doesn't argue obviously for business outperformance.