>>11633728>Is it scientifically advantageous to encourage diversity in the workplace?Depends on the circumstances, if your company touches anything service sector related (regardless if it's tech affiliated or not) then absolutely. Your company requires consistent cash flow and the best way to secure it is reach out to as many people as possible. Which means your work place should have some level (doesn't need to be excessive) of diversity. This way you have a good sum of different view points that helps you with interpreting the market flow and develop application for it. If your company doesn't touch service and is strictly behind the closed doors (aka some research lab) then no, it's not that advantageous.
>>11633737>best thing to do would be hire the most qualified personYeah no, that shit only works if you have the budget for it. Reminder that the most ""qualified"" people are workers with +15 years of experience, college/military with several certs all demanding +100k salaries (or at least asking for 25% more than most are comfortable with giving in a smaller business). So for the average company the most qualified is usually already out of the picture because you either can't afford them or they're already taken.
Knowing this you're most likely working with a candidate pool comprised of kids fresh out of college or mid-tier workers 3-10 years of experience. So now your most ""qualified"" is in fact just the most competent within financial reason/constraint. Which means you've already been compromised and it's about managing standards via opinion. And opinion is usually in-part formed by observation of what's normal/acceptable not necessarily what's best.
For example what's "best" for smaller businesses is to hire single people with no children because you can capitalize on their time and they have no obligations. But that is not normal or acceptable considering that's discrimination and can get your company in a lot of hot water with the public.
