First, research on organizations, such as the work of Barbara Reskin, suggests that outcomes are better for women and minorities when hiring and promotion procedures are formalized and not left to informal processes, which are vulnerable to abuse. Not only does this run the risk highlighted by the research on organizational processes, but also seems to endanger the criteria of transparency and fairness that Sturm and Guinier lay out in their attack on traditional affirmative action and their sketch of the characteristics of a more desirable system. I think much more careful thought is needed to reconcile these concerns with the advantages of the approach advocated by the authors and those being adopted by cutting-edge firms. For all these reasons, Sturm and Guinier fail to make as compelling a case as they might wish for their conclusions. Nevertheless, I must say that I basically think that their bottom line is right.
Outcomes are unfair.
So are the processes that generate them. Diversity has very substantial payoffs both for individuals and organizations. We need to find ways to legitimize diversity as one consideration, among others, in school admissions and in job market decisions. What we also need to do, however, is to think through carefully how to get there. Paul Osterman is professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and the author of Securing Prosperity .