As a minority raised thru the corporate rank, as stated below I think it
is offensive too and unfair to historical facts. But overall, I think it
is just the wrong choice of words. All it could suggest is that there
are more different views and experiences in the "synergistic" effect of
final results, and not necessarily imply that wrong decisions were made
by less diverse groups or in fact, in history where non-diversity was
the norm.
--
HLS
On 3/12/2013 4:57 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 11/03/2013 20:02, Dan Harkins wrote:
In addition to the moral and social issues involved, diversity of
leadership across several axes (race, geographic location, gender
and corporate affiliation) is important for three practical reasons:
- It is a well-established fact that diverse groups are smarter
and make better decisions than less-diverse groups.
I would really like to see this statement either backed up by
peer-reviewed apolitical scientific research or withdrawn by the
signatories of the open letter. It is highly offensive.
Speaking for myself, I do not find this statement in the least offensive.
It turns out that there's a book on the topic, for anyone who can
get hold of it:
http://books.google.co.uk/books/princeton?hl=en&q=&vid=ISBN9780691128382&redir_esc=y
Brian