Jump to content

 

 

stewarty

  • Posts

    8,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by stewarty

  1. Would also endorse the Bluebells Bar for any bears heading to Lanzarote
  2. The point being that there are DEI initiatives in those countries.
  3. You sure about that? https://www.ceibs.edu/new-papers-columns/evolving-diversity-dynamics-china https://www.japan.go.jp/diversity/index.html
  4. There's lots of studies and research on the topic - google it and take your pick. But here's a decent summary of some key arguments about how diversity can support business growth : https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/11/12/how-diversity-can-help-with-business-growth/ From my perspective, having done a lot of reading into corporate failures, as I referenced above, lack diversity in senior management is often cited as one of the root causes. Here's some discussion on Enron: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=fac_pubs But whether we like it or not, the diversity agenda will continue to evolve. As I mentioned above, the FRC are tightening the requirements of listed companies in relation to monitoring corporate culture and behaviours, of which diversity and inclusion will be an ongoing component.
  5. Diversity isn't an absolute and varies in maturity/depth depending on the organisation . It is also not a substitute for good management. Diversity and inclusion can be done badly, even if it was with good intentions - I know I've worked places where it has felt like a tick-box exercise. I have also participated in some really interesting discussions on unconscious bias. So for me the DEI agenda is important, but its of more importance how that translates to organistional culture and behaviours, something of a hot topic in governance debates, and one that the regulators (FRC) are seeking to strengthen with their updates to the UK Code of Corporate Governance.
  6. I gave you a direct answer and you pretend otherwise. My prediction that you wouldn’t recognise the arguments and thus made replying to your question pointless, was bang on.
  7. There are and will always be people who disagree. Criticise a research paper if you want but there’s a body of evidence in terms of research, which to my mind is persuasive. I also come at it from the point of view of corporate failures. One of the common weaknesses in larger failures particularly, is a lack of diversity in senior positions. This can lead to groupthink, poor culture and behaviours, and all manner of negatives. It’s not to say that on its own, having a diverse leadership is going to prevent any of those things, merely that its existence reduces the likelihood.
  8. If nothing else you've just underlined why I didn't bother previously. I'll leave it there.
  9. Ah yes, back to the false argument you were trying to have with me. The reason it’s false is because I wasn’t arguing about individuals, what parties they represent, their individual views, whether I agreed with them, or what their their track record is. I was in fact talking generally about the diversity of political leaders being a positive. The reason I couldnt be bothered outlining the different reasons, as I said to you already, is that I don’t believe you would recognise them as being positive. In fact, I’m certain you would simply find things about each of them you personally dislike as a reason to dismiss what I had to say. But perhaps I’m wrong? All of those leaders have made an impact in their own way. They’ve signalled to people from minority backgrounds that politics isn’t something that excludes them, it shows there is a path for anyone to not just get involved, but to meaningfully help improve public services for everyone. There’s been lots of research that shows that organisations with more diverse workforces perform better. That extends to political leadership too. There’s many other reasons for my view, but that should be enough to get the gist.
  10. Since all you've got is ad hominem, you literally couldn't be more wrong.
  11. Lol. Those hurty words really did stick with you, eh?
  12. You could have leaned in a bit harder though. I had gifs lined up and everything.
  13. You got me. I'm mortally wounded.
  14. Diomande for that bit of quality to get us ahead - St J were really stodgy
  15. Still butthurt because someone doesn't agree with you?
  16. As usual, you’ve got hee haw. Nice try though.
  17. It’s a label that anti-globalists use to attack people they don’t like because they don’t buy their rhetoric. It also has an anti-Semitic element to its use historically. Which when you examine those people who use it constantly, starts to help explain where it comes from.
  18. Tell me you’re triggered without saying it. 😂😂😂
  19. Lots of false assumptions then, if you’re attempting to attach those traits to me.
  20. Perhaps for some. But as I said, I’m not convinced it does outside of social media. The opposite: isolation, protectionism, etc, are far less desirable for me.
  21. I was referring to globalist rhetoric. I explained the cope also. It’s just another meaningless slur, like the weaponisation of other words like “woke”. Whether labour or the conservatives are globalist in their outlook isn’t an issue to me.
  22. It really wasn’t. But I’m not arguing whether globalisation exists. I suggest you re-read my first post.
  23. You’re being disengenuous. You know that I know the answer to your question, so there’s a point you’re trying to make. So make it!
  24. It means that I don’t think it stands up to scrutiny. It usually conflates a whole bunch of things that the user dislikes, with an epithet that they use as a comfort blanket to soothe their empty rage. Some might call it a “cope”.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.