I have had several occasions to discuss Robert Putnam’s recent research indicating that “diversity” leads to distrust and other bad things. (See here, here, here, and here.)
Here’s another interesting discussion of that research. (HatTip to reader Paul) It is widely recognized that the case for “diversity” often rests much more on faith than evidence; it is less widely recognized that Putnam’s is not the only research suggesting that “diversity” may actually do more harm than good. Some of that research is referenced in this article, such as:
Putnam’s findings should not come as a surprise. For instance, studies from business, which has been one of diversity’s greatest champions, have shown that diversity produced few if any positive effects on business performance. One major study even concluded that industry should move beyond trying to build a business case for the benefits of diversity and multiculturalism, since there was no empirical evidence to support such a case.
In part this is due to the fact that homogeneous teams tend to outperform diverse groups because diverse groups often suffer from communication and process problems. As psychologists Katherine Williams and Charles O’Reilly have noted “The preponderance of empirical evidence suggests that diversity is most likely to impede group functioning.”
Wouldn’t it be nice, and poetically just, if the biggest champions of “diversity” were the most impeded by it?
Sadly, I see the potential for this being used as “evidence” for increased “diversity training” and “education,” especially in higher education circles. Rather than say promoting assimilation or a single official language, or calling for American cultural competency, I picture diversity “champions” calling for more programs and policies to increase diversity to “prepare” (ie, indoctrinate) students for diverse workplaces.
John,
No, this only gives more fuel to the diversiphiles.
Can’t you see that because diversity impedes productivity, we need more diversity training, more chief diversity officers, more etc…..
The argument is that “in order to compete in a World economy” (one of many empty phrases from the diversiphiles), we need “diversity.” Otherwise, we won’t be able to sell things to people overseas. Of course, why we need more American blacks (=diversity) to sell to any of the other 150 countries in the world is beyond me. An alternate argument is that we need “diversity,” otherwise we will not be able to hire enough people. That is, we need more blacks (who already don’t have jobs I guess) and/or women who are stay at home moms to have “careers” (meaning report to a boss and make money for a company for 30 years). Of course, basic economics would say that if demand for labor exceeds supply, then salaries should increase to bring demand and supply in balance. (Instead, employers argue to hire more foreigners on H1B visas so they can pay lower wages instead of inducing training of american workers for higher paying jobs.)
Yes, none of this makes sense, but the diversiphiles would celebrate the wonderful news in your post.
“…homogeneous teams tend to outperform diverse groups because diverse groups often suffer from communication and process problems.”
That is probably due to the fact that creativity, focus, and effective communication are impeded by considerations other than the problem at hand. This is becoming even more of a problem on the college campus, where complex, yet ambiguous, speech codes and harrasment policies leave all parties in a “diverse” group anxious about interaction.
No No No, ACF. In trying to understand how a diversiphile applies his tools you correctly adjusted your thinking temporarily to accept confused logic (“increase Diversity” was pretty good)… but you did not make a full transistion. I have *much* more experience using confused logic (ahem) and I have come up with the correct diversiphile reaction to John’s observation:
Diversity has not failed to increase productivity. We have just not yet reached the *critical mass* of divesity needed to trigger the greater productivity effect.
I am so proud of myself.