• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

A year of Riot's diversity and inclusivity efforts mean it now employs 1% more women

Bullet Club

Banned
A year of Riot's diversity and inclusivity efforts mean it now employs 1% more women

And US operations have 1% more underrepresented minorities

Riot Games, the developer behind League of Legends, has released a report on its efforts to improve the diversity and inclusivity of its workforce following a 2018 exposé into its toxic work culture.

A recent blog post described 2019 as a "foundational year" in its efforts to diversify its staff but recognises there is still work to be done.

The post featured a lengthy report on measures Riot has taken to improve its hiring processes, as well as the conduct among established employees, and showed a slight uptick in two key areas.

Overall, the number of women working at Riot around the world has risen by 1%, accounting for 22% of all staff by the end of 2019.

Meanwhile, underrepresented minorities at Riot US made up 9% of the workforce, also up by 1%. Riot defines underrepresented minorities as black or African America, Native American or Alaskan Native, plus people of Hispanic, LatinX or Spanish origin.

Delving deeper into the two graphs offers more insight into this growth.

Women made up 21% of all leaders across Riot's global operations by the end of last year and 19% of all managers, up 1% from 2018. There is no data on how many female leaders there were two years ago.

The number of women among new hires rose from 27% to 31%.

At Riot's US arm, underrepresented minorities represented 9% of leaders by the end of 2019 -- again, no 2018 data available -- and 9% of managers, up from 8%. The percentage of new hires doubled from 6% to 12%.

Elsewhere in the post, the company reports that over half of its director-level hires improved the studio's diversity, with the executive leadership team now 27% female and 18% underrepresented minorities.

However, Riot notes "we still have progress to make."

Results from a recent global survey of its staff showed "there are still gaps for certain populations when it comes to our inclusion efforts," which the company plans to work on.

Back in January, this case ran into another obstacle as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing suggested the studio was trying to minimise the amount it would have to pay by colluding with the plaintiff's counsel -- something Riot has denied.

Riot Games' increased diversity and inclusivity efforts were prompted by a Kotaku exposé in 2018 about an male dominated internal culture that opened female staff to abuse and harassment.

At the time Riot insisted it has a "zero tolerance policy on discrimination, harassment, retaliation, bullying, and toxicity" and pledged to improve the company's culture. A year later, both Riot and Kotaku reported things were improving.

Priorities for 2020 include diversity and inclusivity action plans from each member of the leadership team, more work on improving its recruitment processes, and the introduction of a Women@Riot initiative to "develop, retain, and engage women leaders." More detail on the latter is expected soon.

Riot also mentioned that it will continue to defend against the class action lawsuit it faces from former employees. The company says it finalised a proposed settlement at the end of last year.

Source: Games Industry
 

H4ze

Banned
Who cares? This is a male dominated buisness, there just aren't enoughe women who would like to work in the game industry, just like there are 90 % male workers in other work places.

Funny thing how you never see a "minority" cry that they can't have more women or whatever working on a fucking assembly line in some factory.
 
Last edited:

Fbh

Gold Member
I still don't quite get how this "inclusive" hiring is supposed to work.

So you have some perfect candidates for different jobs: They have the right education, skill set, experience, they all come well recommended and during the interview you can tell their personality will fit in well with the team/company.

And yet you don't hire them because of their race and/or gender? Isn't that by definition racist/sexist?
 

Phase

Member
I still don't quite get how this "inclusive" hiring is supposed to work.

So you have some perfect candidates for different jobs: They have the right education, skill set, experience, they all come well recommended and during the interview you can tell their personality will fit in well with the team/company.

And yet you don't hire them because of their race and/or gender? Isn't that by definition racist/sexist?
Yes. Wonderful world we're living in.
 

llien

Member
How about just employing whose talented?

Well, and what if you end up with 35% of your staff being Asian males? (true story: Google)

I still don't quite get how this "inclusive" hiring is supposed to work.

So you have some perfect candidates for different jobs: They have the right education, skill set, experience, they all come well recommended and during the interview you can tell their personality will fit in well with the team/company.

And yet you don't hire them because of their race and/or gender? Isn't that by definition racist/sexist?

You do: "that candidate looks great, but that's because they have penis and their skin are white, so I should hire less of xim, to compensate for my bias"
 
Last edited:

Velius

Banned
Isn't this the company that's owned completely by China? If so they should only hire women
 
Last edited:

nightmare-slain

Gold Member
Well some people were pissing and moaning for MORE...you got 1% more :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Seriously, in a industry where skills, talent, and experience matter you can't really be selective. Hire the people who can do the job best! Doesn't matter if they are male, female, any of the other 400 genders, black, white, young, or old, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I still don't quite get how this "inclusive" hiring is supposed to work.

So you have some perfect candidates for different jobs: They have the right education, skill set, experience, they all come well recommended and during the interview you can tell their personality will fit in well with the team/company.

And yet you don't hire them because of their race and/or gender? Isn't that by definition racist/sexist?

Inclusive hiring is affirmative exclusion.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
The fairest system is hiring based solely on merit, and the most productive system is hiring based solely on merit. There are differences between men and women, but there are absolutely women who can succeed at technical positions without affirmative action. Affirmative action damages relationships between groups and paints all members of the recipient group as too incompetent to succeed on their own, which is a terrible burden to bear for anyone who worked hard to get up to the real standard and could've made it on even terms.
 

Darkmakaimura

Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
How about just employing whose talented?
I swear all these diversity initiatives are why there's so much more incompetence in workplaces nowadays.

I don't give a Neogi's ass what race, religion, gender, sex preference, political leanings, what star system you come from, etc. If you have the ability to do the job and do it well, you should be the one hired. I don't care if you're a transgender autistic Muslim from Zeta Reticuli. You're hired if you're the best at what you do.
 

shaddam

Member
It sound like an old 4chan greentext with the indian diversity hire techsupport who can only update adobe reader, but it solves all the problems :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 
For those like me that never heard of this guy, can you please elaborate a bit?
He basically went and rerouted a bunch of people from a competitor / business colleague to their site by using a similar URL. His knowledge and teaching methods are apparently just mediocre, and the refund policy is shady in a way you have to prove why you did not like the product. He talks a lot of game, but a lot of people started noticing how he is just a run of the mill product peddler. You can see on his info he is EX Everything , so either he sucks, or teams just hate him
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
For those like me that never heard of this guy, can you please elaborate a bit?

He promoted an apparently garbage/worthless product he made to help with software engineering technical interviews, and stated he offered refunds but no one’s been able to get their money back.

Another software engineer YouTuber was sponsoring his channel for a while with his own product (same premise, interview prep, though apparently not as worthless), and “TechLead” actually bought the .com name of that product and used it to redirect to his own (similarly named) one. That guy had to lawyer up and take action to put a stop to the domain scam.

You’d think a self-proclaimed multi-millionaire ex-Google tech lead wouldn’t need to scam and exploit his YouTube viewers who are trying to get a job in the tech industry.
 

-Plasma Reus-

Service guarantees member status
When they say that gender is only a social construct. Isn't that literally from a Matrix line? I could have sworn one of the characters says something along the same lines.
 

PocoJoe

Banned
It is stupid to hoard workers by gender/ethnicity, unless you are building a whore house.

Talent should matter, skills should matter.

Not which genitals you have and what is politically sexy.

If women dont have skills or desire to do thing x as much as men, then let them do other things.

if talented&skilled person is chosen above less taltented&skilled one, that should be all that matters.


Diversity cry always forgets men, white men. Because it isnt sexy enough. Like men wont have to compete against other men and rest of the world too. By discriminating men they just hurt the "quiet type of a men" and same noisy and out going men are still on charge.

Kind of what this #metoo campaing did:

Assholes and ladiesmen didnt care at all, they continue to use women as they like

Normal/nicer guys started to be even more careful as women said that men are all pigs and even looking at women is raping!

And then women can continue to rage how men are pigs while normal/shy guys wonder why being super polite doesnt work while it is what they were asked to do, and assholes continue to fuck every woman around them.


So fill companies with less talented people and continue to complain how it is mens fault, I guess
 
Is this supposed to make the products better? Because it never has, probably the opposite is true.

Some places have diverse workplaces because they go out of their way to find the right people, it can be difficult to get women to apply for tech jobs and so going and giving talks at female-centric events about your company and help encourage that.

As a guy I'll only get an interview if my skillset is a good fit, so I know if I get an interview I'm in with a decent chance of getting the job.

But for women, the recruitment process takes the piss, as the moment a woman applies for a job in a male-dominated field, they'll be given an interview almost every single time just to see "if they are hot" and because of the novelty factor of "ooh a girl programmer!", and so they are constantly going to interviews, but also constantly getting rejected (because they were not fit for the job to begin with), and eventually the attrition of constant rejection makes some leave the field entirely.

I've worked in teams which were entirely white guys and didn't give a fuck, and I've worked in the polar opposite where people have been hired by affirmative action. at one rather big studio, the HR stance was the minority candidate should always get offered the job by default, unless you can provide a valid reason not to hire them, regardless of the quality of other candidates.

My 2 cents. My favourite teams to work with were the diverse teams, as you had more interesting inter-personal dynamics, women would arrange things like bake-off days, or yoga breaks etc which benefited everyone and raised morale, and having a lot of migrants was also just fun, they would cook weird food for the rest of us to try out, tell us stories about their homeland and culture etc, did you know Romanian tradition is to kidnap the bride at a wedding?

However, when it came to our actual output, the diverse teams were usually the worse; far less productivity and a lot of in-fighting due to the differences in ability between co-workers. Generally in the diverse teams, when shit hit the fan they would gather an A-team squad to sort it out, and that squad would be a bunch of white guys led by the bitch female account manager who knew how to get "get stuff sorted".

And that's the catch when a man puts his foot down and sorts shit out he's a hero. but if a female account manager does the same she gets called a bitch behind her back and given a warning. Humans are not inclusive creatures, and often the people we bring into a company to make it more diverse, are the ones we just end up shitting on the most when things go badly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
But for women, the recruitment process takes the piss, as the moment a woman applies for a job in a male-dominated field, they'll be given an interview almost every single time just to see "if they are hot" and because of the novelty factor of "ooh a girl programmer!", and so they are constantly going to interviews, but also constantly getting rejected (because they were not fit for the job to begin with), and eventually the attrition of constant rejection makes some leave the field entirely.

Australia did a study on gender bias in hiring, and found that recruiters were biased in favor of hiring women, not against women, compared to blind hiring:


"We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist."
 

Paracelsus

Member
Oh my sweet summer child...

Meritocracy during these woke days is a more of a dream...


  • We do not believe that our value as human beings is intrinsically tied to our value as knowledge workers. Our professions do not define us; we are more than the work we do.
  • We believe that interpersonal skills are at least as important as technical skills.
tl;dr my hurt feelings make up for your superior skills.
 

ZehDon

Gold Member
Australia did a study on gender bias in hiring, and found that recruiters were biased in favor of hiring women, not against women, compared to blind hiring:


"We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist."
I remember that, caused a wave or two back in 2017. You cut short my favourite lines from that article:
"We anticipated this would have a positive impact on diversity — making it more likely that female candidates and those from ethnic minorities are selected for the shortlist," he said. "We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist."
It's almost like just point-blank assuming that literally everyone is always misogynistic and racist and is in desperate need of systemic correction is itself a flawed premise that doesn't align to the real world. It's almost as if most people are kinda decent human beings... but nah, what do I know.
 
Last edited:

lock2k

Banned
I said it before and I'll say it again: diversity is a fallacy. If you put 12 white men in a room each will you have a different brain, different hobbies, different tastes in music, food, movies, everything. If anything, those woke groups are such an insufferable hivemind they end up being less diverse because they have to think like a bunch of cardboard imbeciles without having their own opinions. My closest co worker is similar to me ethnically but our ways to see life couldn't be more different That IS diversity.
 

Like nails on a chalk board.
UtYoUxM.gif
 

Ten_Fold

Member
Hiring more women and POC is always a good thing, I'm sure most who are even trying to apply have a decent understanding of the job.
 
Hiring more women and POC is always a good thing, I'm sure most who are even trying to apply have a decent understanding of the job.

Why would hiring more women and PoC be a good thing, automatically?
You're sure" they have a decent understanding"?
How would you possibly know that?
Please.

You making stuff up is just the poignant illustration of how clumsy and irrational your side of the argument is.

There's a finite number of open positions. If hiring PoC and women is deemed a good thing in and of itself, that necessarily means they'll get a leg up that is not tied to their skills but to their complexion or genitalia. And that necessarily means that if there are more qualified candidates who don't fill that bill, they won't be hired. Not hiring the most qualified is both unfair and irrational.

Imagine passing on the best candidates just because they're neither female nor black and going with people with " decent understanding" instead. Choose the best. If the best are women or PoC, by all means, hire them all. If not, don't.

Capitalism is wonderful. Over time, capitalism will tend to sink businesses guided by your vacuous irrationality. It's a wonderful self-correcting mechanism.
Poetic justice will be served.
 

petran79

Banned
Do they get more government funds if they are more inclusive? If so, they do not do it from the bottom of their heart.
 
Apparently software companies are now supposed to take women & minorities from the street with no coding background and teach them while paying 6-figure salary. That's the only way they'll make their 'diversity targets'.
 
Top Bottom