Imagine that you ran an electronics manufacturing company. Would you hire someone who has an education in electronics and a few years of experience?

Now, suppose that the applicant instead had no degree, no experience, and, for that matter, no background in electronics at all. Would you still hire him? Odds are, you’d favor the applicant who has the degree and the experience.

So then, why would you hire someone to make decisions for your company who has no experience with electronics manufacturing, or with managing such a business? Such a decision would seem counterproductive.

Yet, that’s what happens when countless businesses hire consultants, and delegate their decision-making to them.

But it gets even worse than that, because such a move would be a betrayal of the trust of each individual who is in the company’s employ, and each of its shareholders.

Think about it: each person employed by the company is dependent upon the company’s continued success. Each employee represents at least one mouth to feed, considering that each of them could hypothetically have multiple dependents who rely upon them to continue paying living expenses. If the company were to fail, then each of these employees and their dependents would face an uncertain future.

And as for the shareholders, understanding how self-defeating it would be to hire someone who would undermine the company, and the effect this would have on investments, would seem a standard feature of a three-digit IQ.

Now, let’s be a bit more specific. One of the trends that’s become evident in consultants is an embrace of the concept of DEI, short for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It has to do with ensuring a certain amount of representation in the workplace. When presented in as many words, this might sound like a noble endeavor.

But it’s not.

DEI focuses on meeting certain quotas in hiring decisions, without respect to actual qualifications. It has to do with making incentives to hire based on characteristics such as race, sexual orientation, religion, sexual identity, and other characteristics.

It sells itself by saying that it’s not racism. But it’s something that might be more damaging, called tokenism.

Ideally, an employer should not be racist or tokenist. Hiring decisions should be made based on qualification and ability, with no regard to immutable genetic characteristic.

DEI does not respect this, and this is its fatal flaw.

Suppose you had to go in to see a doctor. Suppose a team of physicians agreed that you have need of open-heart surgery. Which would you prefer:

• The most qualified and experienced operating physicians in the state? Or,
• A team of less competent physicians, who at least look different?

Does this seem too dire? Okay then, here’s a different example:

Suppose you’re booking a flight from Philadelphia to Houston. Would you prefer that your airline of choice have a team of mechanics who:

• All know what they’re doing, because they’ve been carefully selected from the most qualified, educated, and experienced candidates? Or,
• A bunch of entitled busybodies who can’t turn a wrench, let alone identify a mechanical fault, but at least a few different religions are represented?

That wasn’t much better. Here’s another example, which might be more lighthearted:

You need an electrical repair to your home. Would you rather:

• Have a few experienced, qualified electricians on the job? Or,
• Sleep under a bridge knowing that your house was burned down by people who preferred certain genitals?

I hope that the point is getting across. While racism on its own was bad, the tokenism espoused by DEI has the potential to be far more destructive.

Here’s a real-world example: Last year, a submersible in the Atlantic Ocean experienced a catastrophic failure, resulting in the implosion of the submersible, instantly killing everyone on board, including Stockton Rush, the head of OceanGate, the company that made the submersible.

Previously, Stockton Rush had stated an interest in not hiring white men, saying that he didn’t think this was inspiring. If his focus was more on qualification rather than tokenism, Stockton Rush might still be alive today, as would his passengers.

While tokenism is horrifying in both theory and practice, it’s an ideology that is espoused by a disturbing number of consultants.

Related less to tokenism and more to inappropriate cost-cutting, the McKinsey consulting firm advised Disneyland to cut maintenance costs. Consequently, there have been many ride failures, many involving injuries and fatalities, which could have been avoided with the proper maintenance.

While it’s often said that consultants are economic Marxists, it should be known that most consultants are evidently not economic Marxists. Today, it’s challenging to find any economic Marxist who can be taken seriously.

However, consultants bear the memetic legacy of Marxist ideology. This is particularly relevant as relates to consultants because Marxists teach that there is an adversarial relationship between the collective and the private corporation. Obviously, to hire someone on with an ideological motivation to undermine the company would be counterproductive.

It’s important to understand that no company needs consultants. Consultants don’t exist for the betterment of your company, they exist to draw in a paycheck. And they are excellent at tricking gullible people into hiring them on.

The fact is, you can make your own decisions for your own company. The people in your employ are counting on it. And for that matter, so are your customers and your investors, whether they know it or not.