Speaking as a 60-year old (later this year) Anglo-saxon male, I agree with her.
The business I am in is dominated by people who might be characterised as pale and male (though not always stale).
Because that demographic dominates, most managements are less aware of the needs and desires of their customers who are different from them, whether that is women, ethnic minorities, or other groups who are under-represented in the management structures. Those people (especially women) are the main buyers of their products.
More critically, if management does not understand how and why their customers make purchasing decisions, then they run the risk of sending the business down the pan.
That's intrinsically a risk for the business.
But more than that, it means the recruitment and promotion decisions are made by that same restricted demographic, which perpetuates the imbalance.
So diversity is a business imperative - or should be. Have you seen the board of Carillion?
Chairman is that brilliant financier Sir Philip Green (pale, male, very stale)
See here:
https://www.carillionplc.com/about-us/our-leadership/the-board/
or the leadership team?
https://www.carillionplc.com/about-us/our-leadership/leadership-team/
9 men, four women and not a single person from an ethnic minority
And yet this bunch of idiots have driven the company into the ground, despite receiving billions from government for contracts and now want more billions from the magic money tree to prevent further damage.
Pale and stale? Absolutely!
I'm of the opinion that politicians should represent their electorate. Sometimes, a street-smart woman of colour with few formal qualifications knows more about her electorate than an Oxford-educated privileged dynastic remnant (Honourable member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, I'm looking at you)
It may be that an all-white, male selection panel believes that a white 55-year old public-school-educated, golf-playing male is better for the job than a 35-year-old gay, hippie Jewish person of colour.
They are not necessarily correct in their judgment.
Plenty of research shows that selection panels are biassed toward people who look and sound like themselves.
Those decisions over recruitment and promotion are frequently made not on objective evidence of performance, or even competence, but on other less relevant factors, such as which candidate looks and sounds most like the panel.
(It's an opinion, right? But can be backed up by research)