FYSM 120 – Leadership, War, and Hollywood
November 13th, 2019
Writing Prompt #10
The article that argues that diverse teams in the work area are more beneficial is, in my opinion, a clear and compelling argument. The argument in the article is simple, a group of people, a team, or a workforce that involves more diversity regarding race, ethnicity, or gender will outperform against different groups of people with more similar races, ethnicities, or genders. A good argument has a clear thesis, one that fights for one side of the argument. In this case, the two different arguments that could be made are that diverse teams are better or worse when it comes to success. What makes it compelling is the reasoning and evidence that back up the argument. A good thesis that is clear is necessary, but without satisfactory reasons with proper evidence, an argument means nothing besides a useless opinion. Multiple times throughout the article, the author uses statistical evidence to back up their claim, “… ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean, and those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have returns above the industry mean” (Grant & Rock 1). Facts always defend an argument adequately and could never hurt the author’s reasoning. The fact that the author had a clear thesis picking one side of an argument and backed it up with compelling and factual reasoning and evidence made this article successful.
I agree with the article’s conclusions and recommendations. The article is saying that if a team or workspace is lacking diversity, implementing it would only help their success. Nobody in this world would want to start a business and not be willing to be the most successful they can be. If getting more diverse people into a group helps its success and makes it smarter then, of course, someone would take that recommendation. The article does not just state different percentages proving the success of diverse groups, it also delves into why they are more successful. For example, the article states that these teams focus more on facts, process these facts more carefully, and are also more innovative (Grant & Rock 2-4). The article also states that diversity adds different ideas and opinions and causes everyone to think differently because of these differing ideas. Groups with the same type of people tend to think similarly and not disagree as much with one another. More originality and change are a direct cause of more success. Even in my own life, I can say that when I’m with or working with a more diverse group of people my ideas tend to differ and I think more factually rather than stating certain opinions. So yes, I would agree with the conclusions and recommendations that the article states because of its facts and reasoning.
I would say that these findings would apply to military leaders as well. Diversity, as much as we would like to say that we have adapted to it fully and are not affected by it, does change the way we act and think. Any leader with any group of people thinks a certain way and would direct and act a certain way based on the group of people they have. The finding that diversity would change the way leaders and groups of people think does apply, but will it change how the military acts and fights? I don’t think it would have that much of an effect. War tactics and training would not really change based on the differing races, ethnicities, and genders. Maybe the type of race or ethnicity in the opponent would change tactics, but tactics and fight training within the group would maybe have a small effect, but not enough to prove success based on statistics.