[gracenotes]

It's better to try to understand what's happening than handwave and say "it's all bunk". That is way more political of an action than trying to determine causality through data. The social sciences are valuable in that they're trying to figure things out about the world which are critical to making good policy, rather than winging it and accidentally or intentionally screwing over people who are different than you.

> Some of these articles are implying a size of an effect that is completely ridiculous, there is just no way that diversity "could increase revenue by 41%" - we'd see way more diversity in work places if this was true.

This seems to be rejecting data and substituting and a handwave. From the original study, 41% is the actual coefficient, controlling for a ton of things. Likely there are latent factors that make workplaces both gender-diverse and performant, so just swapping out half of a workplace would not hit all of these, which the paper acknowledges. We are seeing more diversity thanks to studies like these and explicit diversity initiatives, but given all of the biases that can exist in hiring pipelines, I can't think of any reason why it would happen naturally.

The paper you link is trying to measure firm productivity (could not 100% figure out what this means) based on data from Denmark, mainly non-white-collar jobs. It notes that demographic diversity promotes "better problem-solving abilities and more creativity and knowledge spillover" and can be a "substantial competitive advantage", limited by people not trusting/communicating with each other (i.e. integrating effectively).