So the science, she says, is in: an ethnically diverse company performs better than a non-diverse one.
Which leads me to the question. If this is the case, then why not just happily watch as the diverse companies outcompete their not-so-diverse outdated counterparts? If they are more profitable, in the free market economy, wouldn’t they simply win out? Wouldn’t their less successful competitors try to increase their own diversity simply in order to get back in the game?
But her message is different. She is suggesting the “real consequences” for the companies that do not get diverse (according to her "real numbers" section). It is not quite clear what the real consequences should be, but something in the vicinity of firing someone is hinted at.
And her line close to the end of the talk: imagine a company, she says, where the employees are "expected to bring their authentic, unassimilated selves" to work. Unassimilated selves! What’s wrong with assimilation? How come the progressive discourse became so keen on not assimilating?