I think that's a popular way of thinking because people like the word 'diversity,' not necessarily because it makes any sense. If you wanted to write the next Digg, say, would you hire a chemist, a programmer, and a doctor? Or would you hire three programmers? Would you hire programmers that use different languages or three who use the same language?
In practice, you get so much accidental diversity between any two intelligent individuals (we are all quite different) that its rare that you have to go looking for more. Diversity is the great good and ideal of our time, but a rather flimsy idea when you get right down to it.
There are other types of relevant diversity, however. The authors speak directly to "functional" diversity, which they describe as "differences in how people represent problems and how they go about solving them".
In the context of wanting to write the next Digg, I would propose that a better application of their conclusions would be, e.g., to favor hiring programmers from different schools over hiring programmers who went to the same school and studied under the same professors. In this way you might get some diversity in terms of how your programmers approach solving problems versus having a group of programmers who each approach a given problem in the same way and presumably reach the same conclusions / solutions.
I agree. And it's not just types of analytical processing. How about hiring programmers who represent major different personality types, which have an innate difference in how they both perceive and respond to problems? Language knowledge, social skills, and algorithm construction is a given.
Why would you want to write the next Digg? Another social news site, huh? Maybe they could actually come up with something useful. I'm sure a good chemist, programmer, and doctor could come up with something of greater utility. You need to expand your mental diversity.
I recall seeing a photo of the Clinton cabinet (I believe), with some caption about diversity.
There were blacks, whites, hispanic, men, women, but as I looked over the faces I thought, "Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, not sure, lawyer, ..." and wondered where, exactly, was the diversity?
Arbitrary or superficial diversity is not a good goal.
In practice, you get so much accidental diversity between any two intelligent individuals (we are all quite different) that its rare that you have to go looking for more. Diversity is the great good and ideal of our time, but a rather flimsy idea when you get right down to it.