re: Boeing 737 Max - Designed by Clowns

quote:

---

Sounds like business school BS.

---

Except companies around the country and world are realizing the benefits and reaping the profits of workforce diversity. It's just insane to think that all these companies are diversifying even though it reduces profits. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

quote:

---

I'd rather fly in a plane made 100% by Germans or Japanese than one engineered by a Benetton ad.

---

Well yeah, the Germans and Japanese are proud of their work, and they plan for the long term and execute with precision. American business culture is a bit different sometimes.

quote:

---

Keeping something in the air ain't about inclusion, it's purely a matter of discipline and expertise, and of team cohesion.

---

It is certainly not "purely" those things. They are required, but your implication is that including women and non-whites means that discipline, expertise, and team cohesion must suffer. That is just bullshite.

In addition to the factors mentioned, there are several other things required to keep a plane in the air. Near the top of the list is engines that are properly sized to the plane, which the Max does not have. That was a business decision, and that is its downfall.

quote:

---

Please quantify how a diverse workforce is more profitable than a non-diverse one.

---

It can only be quantified by each individual company, but the effects have been studied and diversity has been shown to boost profitability.

Several reasons have been found/suggested for this, and one of them is that a diverse workforce is more innovative. It stands to reason that people from different backgrounds will approach problems in different ways, and that leads to more innovation.

Just do a little reading, don't take my word for it. Obviously it's possible to go overboard with it and hurt the company, and it's not always a great fit depending on industry/etc., but generally diversity = profits.

quote:

---

don't take my word for it

---

Don't worry.

quote:

---

The issues with the 737 Max have frick all to do with diversifying the workforce and everything to do with not listening to engineers and forcing out a product that was in no way ready to fly without pilots getting a heavy dose of extra training the higher ups didn't want to admit was needed

---

First. I doubt you really know how much the fruits of Boeing's 25+ years of promoting diversity (of form) as virtuous really played into the Max's woes.

And I'm not sure anyone within Boeing really knows the whole story.

But the OP quoted one who did NOT speak up. So who was speaking up and who was covering up?

Diversity of their sort does NOT promote camaraderie, transparency, and a commitment to excellence. Rather, it promotes isolation which resists speaking up. Every one is on an island.

Regarding why corporations promote diversity of form unless it increases profits, why do they give away money to charity?

There are other factors beyond raw profits that guide decision making.

If it was known today that LBGT hurts profits, do you really think companies would adopt that position tomorrow and offload them in this day?

quote:

---

Link?

---

LINK LINK LINK LMGTFY

A few magazine articles written by progs

I'm really looking forward to the part where you lay out your argument that these planes crashed because of women and black people.

quote:

---

Obviously diversity for diversity's sake is counterproductive. But it's a real shame that this conversation has revolved around Boeing's diversity initiative. It goes to show the mindset of many people here. The higher-ups at Boeing made a terrible business decision to put engines on a plane that wasn't designed to handle them, and many of you seem convinced that it would have been fine if only there were more white dudes working on the problem.

---

ISO, the issue with these initiatives is that they sell themselves poorly.

They define their existence on a characteristic that doesn’t inherently mean anything.

If you are basing a hiring initiative on diversity, does that mean you are less inclined to make decisions based on qualifications?

If you are focusing more heavily on qualifications, then diversity is an irrelevant concept. Those who are more qualified will be hired, no matter their race or ethnicity.

If you are focusing more on diversity rather than qualifications, it stands to reason that you would take a hit in the qualifications department.

The concept of weighing them both equally makes zero sense as well because it becomes a situation where the most qualified will be hired anyway, despite the concept of diversity.

What I’m saying is, if you are starting a diversity initiative, and basing hiring more heavily on that, it stands to reason that quality would decrease because it isn’t qualifications that you are looking at.

It should be the most qualified individual, and there is nothing to say that that wouldn’t still make a company diverse.

quote:

---

ISO, the issue with these initiatives is that they sell themselves poorly.

They define their existence on a characteristic that doesn’t inherently mean anything.

If you are basing a hiring initiative on diversity, does that mean you are less inclined to make decisions based on qualifications?

If you are focusing more heavily on qualifications, then diversity is an irrelevant concept. Those who are more qualified will be hired, no matter their race or ethnicity.

If you are focusing more on diversity rather than qualifications, it stands to reason that you would take a hit in the qualifications department.

The concept of weighing them both equally makes zero sense as well because it becomes a situation where the most qualified will be hired anyway, despite the concept of diversity.

What I’m saying is, if you are starting a diversity initiative, and basing hiring more heavily on that, it stands to reason that quality would decrease because it isn’t qualifications that you are looking at.

It should be the most qualified individual, and there is nothing to say that that wouldn’t still make a company diverse.

---

I've said a couple times in this thread that I don't care for diversity hires. It doesn't make sense for the reasons you've pointed out. However, many companies still do it, which only makes sense to do if it has a positive or neutral impact on the bottom line. To frame it logically in the "diversity vs. qualifications" context, employee background is treated as a qualification.

But that doesn't matter.

The reason I'm in this thread at all is to at least try to explain to all these knuckleheads that Boeing's hiring procedures have absolutely dick to do with the problems with the Max. Execs insisted on larger engines. The correct engineering solution would be to design a new plane. Execs insisted on using the 737 to avoid all the costs of certifying a new plane and training pilots. The engineers were given a set of parameters that absolutely should not have been attempted. Still, the plane works fine as long as pilots are properly trained on what is an entirely different plane as far as flight characteristics and controls. Execs hid the fact that pilots needed to be retrained from the FAA.

But let's blame the diversity.