[anonytrary]

Having a Chief Diversity Officer to fix a lack of diversity in my mind is no different than having a Chief Culture Officer to fix a poor company culture. Those sorts of problems can only be solved as the collective sum of every individual employee's actions. For example, if a large team of male engineers are all saying no to equally talented female candidates, then you've just hired shitty people. A diversity figurehead isn't going to change the fact that your team doesn't like or respect women.

[HervalFreire]

No this isn't true. Human psychology is much more complicated then shitty people and good people. Aspects of both being a complete ass hole and being a good person exists in the psychology of everyone.

Little rules and arrangements from the top can serve to bring out the best in people. In the same way cities and cultures can be shaped by laws and rules so can people within corporations.

[anonytrary]

That's not how it goes down in practice, where a Chief Diversity Officer's job is to control diversity, rather than to let it flourish. The only "rules and arrangements" that trickle down from the top are the biases, actions, and behaviors of senior leadership. They are the ones who really set the examples. A company with a Chief Culture Officer sounds like one where the leaders are not interested in culture. That's why they hired someone else to "handle" it.

[onos]

In fact, studies find that the current variant of diversity training is making people beHave in more biased ways. So what you’re saying is true: if you want people for be less biased in their actions, avoid today’s en Vogue style of diversity training.