A 2015 McKinsey study was used by investors, lobbyists and regulators to push for more diversity on boards, and to justify investing in companies that appointed them. There are obvious benefits to diverse leadership, but the McKinsey study was fundamentally flawed- a number of folks have tried to replicate the study and haven’t been able to do so. As someone who worked in consulting in my 20s, I can say that a lot of times the partner “knew” what the answer should be and we had to find data to make the case. I assume that’s the case here. McKinsey released their methodology but not the companies used in their study. They did acknowledge an obvious flaw in their methodology- giving credit for past profits when a board became diverse at the end of the period… meaning more profitable companies add diversity to their boards rather than the other way around. This is such a glaring error that it’s hard to imagine a McKinsey consultant making it unintentionally. FWIW- in replications, others have found that diversity is neither good nor bad for profits. McKinsey suggested that diverse teams had a ~40% higher likelihood higher than average profit margins. Article is worth a read. Btw the takeaway should not be that diversity is bad- what McKinsey gives as reasons in its paper sound reasonable: “more diverse companies are better able to win top talent, and improve their customer orientation, employee satisfaction, and decision-making, leading to a virtuous cycle of increasing returns” My takeaway is more - how can you take any consulting study seriously? Those of us who worked in consulting don’t, because we remember working on these studies! My wife - once a 21-year old liberal arts major who worked at McKinsey says “you should always be skeptical of any complicated model that might’ve been made by a 21 year old liberal arts major!”