> homogenous teams are less effective in some measurable ways
And more effective in other, measureable, ways. This is very much not settled science. There are many ways to measure effectiveness - idea diversity is only one of them.
Surely you would agree that hiring a white American as a waiter in a Chinese restaurant where only Mandarin is spoken by the kitchen staff (not uncommon) would hinder the effectiveness of the restaurant?
The fellow may bring a new perspective on how to run things, but if the owners are not interested in his perspective (which they are entitled not to be, right?), then all they're left with is the communication difficulties he would face performing his function.
> Plus our society is not homogenous, so from what mechanism does the homogeneity of the team emerge? Is it completely benign and spurious?
Generally the mechanism has been that many people actively seek to associate with people similar to themselves, people they can easily relate to. This generally includes hiring. I think it's perfectly benign and quite natural for people do cluster around cultural similarity. It's why we have things like Chinatown.
Most other behaviour, to me, seems to be in this category: people preferring the (professional) company of those they can relate to. If it's OK for a Chinese restaurant to only hire Chinese people, why is it wrong for an investment bank or programming firm to only hire people similar to the founders? It seems to be the same mechanism at play.
> Surely you would agree that hiring a white American as a waiter in a Chinese restaurant where only Mandarin is spoken by the kitchen staff (not uncommon) would hinder the effectiveness of the restaurant?
This isn't the position though. This is adding additional hypotheticals like language barriers. It would be more like hiring a white american waiter of a chinese restaurant, where both the white american waiter and the chinese kitchen staff don't have significant language barriers. In that case it might actually be helpful depending on the demographics of people eating at the restaurant.
Culture and language are inexorably intertwined. Just ask anyone who has tried to learn a foreign language. A cultural barrier is just a softer communication barrier, where language has to be much more formal than speakers are typically accustomed to, in order to be understood and not to offend.
When I'm speaking to people whom I relate to well (including colleagues), half of it is movie quotes, rude jokes, varyingly subtle digs, etc. I suspect most people are the same. In order to write for a wider audience, I have to add rather a few more layers of thought and consideration to what naturally comes to me - to formalize my language.
This burden of formalization is in fact exactly what Google is trying to help with. It is only required when people don't relate to each other well. Having a homogeneous team eliminates the problem.
And more effective in other, measureable, ways. This is very much not settled science. There are many ways to measure effectiveness - idea diversity is only one of them.
Surely you would agree that hiring a white American as a waiter in a Chinese restaurant where only Mandarin is spoken by the kitchen staff (not uncommon) would hinder the effectiveness of the restaurant?
The fellow may bring a new perspective on how to run things, but if the owners are not interested in his perspective (which they are entitled not to be, right?), then all they're left with is the communication difficulties he would face performing his function.
> Plus our society is not homogenous, so from what mechanism does the homogeneity of the team emerge? Is it completely benign and spurious?
Generally the mechanism has been that many people actively seek to associate with people similar to themselves, people they can easily relate to. This generally includes hiring. I think it's perfectly benign and quite natural for people do cluster around cultural similarity. It's why we have things like Chinatown.
Most other behaviour, to me, seems to be in this category: people preferring the (professional) company of those they can relate to. If it's OK for a Chinese restaurant to only hire Chinese people, why is it wrong for an investment bank or programming firm to only hire people similar to the founders? It seems to be the same mechanism at play.