Why diversity training does not work? Ask the right question

Of course it doesn`t. and it should not work. But the bigger, underlying issue is, why care? Diversity advocates would say all the nice, feel-good stuffs about promoting diversity in corporations, and will conclude that it would boost companies` profits. Really? Is there any statistics to prove that? Any statistics that is controlled for all the external variables that would affect companies performance and that can point to the pure economic benefits of promoting diversity? I`ve never seen that.

Most of the articles on this topic simply tout the virtue of having more women in senior jobs and praise how it boost companies` performance, but almost always without hard statistic to prove that. Even if they show the stats and they seem to support the claim, you need to be careful and need to consider a few points;

Did the performance gain occur after the gender affirmative action proramme was instituted or did it take place before?

Is the performance gain a direct result of gender quota or was it brought about by different factors, e.g. improved management, cost cutting, etc. and that gender quota programme simply coincided with the period of performance gain?

These kinds of hard questions may not really be amenable to feminists-inspired advocacy articles.

The most interesting thing about this kind of article for me is not that nobody really ask this kind of hard-nose question. It is rather that the initial question (why diversity training does not work) is not considered at all in the article, but quickly transformed into brainstorming session on how to increase women and minority at senior levels. The diversity training and gander/race balance are not the same; the latter is only one of several benefits that the former is supposed to bring, according to official party line of diversity advocates. But now you know what they care about the most (or the onky thing they care about) when advocates tout virtue of diversity.