Dark Reading’s article on the Frost and Sullivan report above confuses “identity diversity” with “cognitive diversity.”
Put simply, identity diversity creates problems. Cognitive diversity solves them.
Cognitive diversity has a positive return on investment. Identity diversity does not.
Males and females have stereotypical cognitive styles but reality frequently differs from type — hence the disutility of identity diversity.
The referenced article and report mistakenly play into that disutility by failing to focus on the cognitive styles suitable to the disciplines in question.
Yes, females may be more likely to have the desired cognitive style for certain activities, but that should be a rather mundane footnote, not the main point.
And yes, I understand why casting the findings in terms of male versus female is a good way to attract readers, but doing that would seem to encourage decision makers into faddish and inept solutions — better to focus on the thing that matters versus the things that don’t.