Would Apple Computer have been better off if Steve Jobs had been adopted by a black family? Would Microsoft have been better off if Bill Gates preferred to date men? Would Hewlett Packard have been better off if one of its founders was a woman? What about Adobe Systems? What about the United States?

Lots of law firms say so. Seriously. Go to any large law firm’s Web site. Look for the section on diversity. See what the firm has to say about it and you’ll find something like this — “diversity fosters creative thinking and enhances a group’s ability to solve problems.”

____________
Consider what Carly Fiorina had to say about diversity when she was running HP:

The value proposition for diversity is very clear:
Diversity drives creativity.
Creativity drives invention.
Invention drives profitability and business success.

If that’s the case, then India, China, and Japan don’t stand a chance, and neither does Mexico — not when it comes to profitability and business success. If diversity breeds success, then countries with very homogeneous work forces will fail. That’s what most large law firms are saying.

____________

I don’t buy it. I see too many instances of homogeneous groups with great success. I look at Apple and Adobe and Microsoft and HP and plenty of other companies, and I keep seeing instances that refute the claim that diversity drives success. I see India and China making great gains. I look at their work forces, and then I can’t imagine how diversity is essential to success.

What most large law firms say about the benefits of racial and ethnic diversity doesn’t add up.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 16th, 2006 at 09:18 and is filed under Comment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.