Support NeoGAF

[kingfey]

Activision Says It Failed To Hire Another Woman For Its Board Due To Microsoft Deal Complications - IGN

Activision Blizzard is claiming that its violation of a California law requiring it to have at least three women on its board of directors by the end of 2021 is due to complications with its upcoming acquisition by Microsoft, despite having three years prior to comply with the law.

www.ign.com

Activision Blizzard claims that its violation of a California law that requires the company to have at least three women on its board of directors by the end of 2021 is due to complications with its upcoming acquisition by Microsoft, despite having three years to comply with the law.

First noticed by Axios, Activision Blizzard's annual report for 2021 includes an acknowledgment that it failed to comply with a California law that requires companies headquartered in the state with at least six members on their board of directors to include at least three women on their boards by the end of 2021. The company currently has two women on a board of ten.

Activision Blizzard attributes its failure to appoint a third woman to its board to its upcoming planned acquisition by Microsoft, which doesn't close until 2023.

"To meet this requirement and improve the diversity of our Board of Directors, the Company retained a search firm and began interviewing potential additional female directors in 2021. However, since the Company’s current directors would cease to continue to serve on our Board of Directors upon consummation of our proposed transaction with Microsoft, we were unable to conclude the process in 2021. We will be continuing our efforts to appoint a new female director."

Notably, however, Activision Blizzard has known it would need to comply with this law for some time. The law went into effect on January 1, 2019, at which time Activision Blizzard had two women on its ten-person board of directors: Reveta Bowers and Elaine Wynn. Wynn departed the board in 2020, at which time the company almost immediately appointed another woman, Dawn Ostroff, to replace her. The company has not appointed any other board members since Bowers' appointment in 2018.

Talks between Activision Blizzard and Microsoft began in mid-November 2021 — just three days after a Wall Street Journal report revealed that CEO Bobby Kotick knew about the sexual assault and misconduct allegations happening at the company, but did not disclose them to the board of directors.

The California law in question has resulted in a dramatic increase in women appointed to board seats in the state. In the two years before the law's enaction, only 208 women were newly appointed to board seats in California. In the two years after, 739 were appointed, and in the first quarter of 2021, women filled 45% of California board appointments.

This news comes while Activision Blizzard remains embroiled in a lawsuit from the state of California alleging the company fostered a "frat boy" culture in which women who worked there were subject to harassment, unequal pay, and a toxic working environment.

Activision Blizzard declined to comment further.

 

[Lukaku's First Touch]

That law is stupid.

 

[Zeroing]

Oh this thread is going to be a mess!

 

[Hellmaker]

Required by law to hire women... They can just say one of the men is trans aaaaand done.

 

[Sosokrates]

Having to hire 3 women for a board is a dumb rule.
People should be hired for there talent and skill not there gender.

 

[Kenpachii]

lamo

 

[just_like_that]

i mean obviously they want more titty milk from them so im not surprised

 

[Sega Orphan]

And California wonders why all those companies are relocating their head offices away.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Having to hire 3 women for a board is a dumb rule.
People should be hired for there talent and skill not there gender.

Its 2022, bigot. /s

Yeah its dumb as fuck.

 

[Sosokrates]

Its 2022, bigot. /s

Yeah its dumb as fuck.

Its actually a sexist policy.
Say of there 3 better qualified men, but they have to employ 3 worse women. Thats sexist.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Terrible rule lol

 

[//DEVIL//]

That law is stupid.

Exactly . What a fucking shitty law by a stupid state.

 

[Captain Toad]

Its actually a sexist policy.
Say of there 3 better qualified men, but they have to employ 3 worse women. Thats sexist.

You can't be sexist against a man. You can't be racist against a white person. And it's impossible to discriminate someone for being straight, no matter what you say or do to them.

Also, this should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway. If a woman says a man harassed, abused or even raped her, no further questions need to be asked and no further proof is necessary. He is guilty.

 

[KungFucius]

Having to hire 3 women for a board is a dumb rule.
People should be hired for there talent and skill not there gender.

Dude, this is board of directors. These are fucking nepotistic bullshit jobs that pay a ton. Chelsea Clinton got one in her early 30s. Talent my ass.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

lol sEXiST policy.

 

[[Sigma]]

Dude, this is board of directors. These are fucking nepotistic bullshit jobs that pay a ton. Chelsea Clinton got one in her early 30s. Talent my ass.

ong

 

[Topher]

California being California.

 

[ethomaz]

I see people things it is a bad rule.

But if there is no rule you can be sure no woman should be in that board even if she has better achievements, talent and skills over all others man in the board.

If everything was equal it should indeed be a stupid rule but it is not… so it is a rule create to be temporarily and to try to change the long term culture that exists in boards with only man even if the woman proved to be more competent.

And to be fair I believe boards that takes decisions should be diversified to have all sides and options to be discussed… just like a popular Jury should be diversified.

Just my take.

 

[melekind]

Its actually a sexist policy.
Say of there 3 better qualified men, but they have to employ 3 worse women. Thats sexist.

If one of these three women is bad, the other two will also be discriminated against

 

[manfestival]

lol I completely forgot this law existed.

 

[Halo is Back]

Yeah sure, it's all MS's fault and not your shit work culture or the very publically known lawsuits aimed at Activision/Blizzard for treating their female employees like shit. Mhm

 

[Tripolygon]

Good law.

 

[Sega Orphan]

I see people things it is a bad rule.

But if there is no rule you can be sure no woman should be in that board even if she has better achievements, talent and skills over all others man in the board.

If everything was equal it should indeed be a stupid rule but it is not… so it is a rule create to be temporarily and to try to change the long term culture that exists in boards with only man even if the woman proved to be more competent.

And to be fair I believe boards that takes decisions should be diversified to have all sides and options to be discussed… just like a popular Jury should be diversified.

Just my take.

If there were women who had the ability to make corporations more money than the male applicant then they would pick the female every time. Look at Lisa Su at AMD. She got the position because of talent. The cream rises to the top.

To legislate that they must have women, and if that means they cannot have a certain man on their board who could improve the company more than without him, then you have the government legislating that companies must lose talent for no other reason.

Black men are over represented in Basketball. Should there be quotas for Asian or Jewish guys because they are very under represented? No. You pick the most talented players who are going to improve your team. There should never be quotas in Basketball. Likewise there should never be quotas in buisness.
How about we have quotas in ditch digging? Let's get 50% women in that field. Or how about 50% representation in cleaning septic tanks? That would mean we need to tell some women who want to work in an office that no, they need to be septic tank cleaners so get that hazmask on.

If me or my family member needed a life saving operation, and the number 1 surgeon in that field was a black trans muslim woman, and the 50th best surgeon was a white Christian cis male, I'm taking the black trans Muslim woman every day.

 

[hemo memo]

Having to hire 3 women for a board is a dumb rule.
People should be hired for there talent and skill not there gender.

Next law: You have to hire 3 women, one black person, 1 asian, 1 gay person, 1 trans.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

I see people things it is a bad rule.

But if there is no rule you can be sure no woman should be in that board even if she has better achievements, talent and skills over all others man in the board.

If everything was equal it should indeed be a stupid rule but it is not… so it is a rule create to be temporarily and to try to change the long term culture that exists in boards with only man even if the woman proved to be more competent.

And to be fair I believe boards that takes decisions should be diversified to have all sides and options to be discussed… just like a popular Jury should be diversified.

Just my take.

Sexism doesn’t exist. Remember ? Only reverse sexism. /s

But for real takes like the ones in here are why sexism thrived for the majority of history. Any attempt at thrawrting it is the real problem. But I was reading how there’s not enough hot woman in video games a few threads ago so these takes not really shocking. Activision is full of shit.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[Dream-Knife]

violation of a California law that requires the company to have at least three women on its board of directors

California

Yep.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

This was a much better song about California.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

That law is stupid.

It is not, but keep on with the hot takes.

What’s with all the misogynists in this thread?

 

[TheInfamousKira]

It's a no brainer. If they hire another woman, that's like...at LEAST two more breasts to creepily leer over. Maybe they're running out of cubicles? Oh, but it's a board member. Office crawls would be so much more work. It makes sense now.

 

[MilkyJoe]

It is not, but keep on with the hot takes.

What’s with all the misogynists in this thread?

 

[IDKFA]

It is not, but keep on with the hot takes.

What’s with all the misogynists in this thread?

Nobody is saying women can't be on a board of directors. They can and have made just as successful leaders as men.

What's stupid is a law requiring at least 3 women as a quota. What happened to hiring the best person for the job. A person who matches all the qualities you're looking for to make your company successful. This rule means that some people who are qualified for the role and might be the best candidates are being rejected just because they're men.

 

[NikuNashi]

Sexism doesn’t exist. Remember ? Only reverse sexism. /s

But for real takes like the ones in here are why sexism thrived for the majority of history. Any attempt at thrawrting it is the real problem. But I was reading how there’s not enough hot woman in video games a few threads ago so these takes not really shocking. Activision is full of shit.

You do know sexism is sexism regadless of which gender it is directed towards? It's not reverse sexism when its directed towards men, its still sexism, exactly the same.

 

[Havoc2049]

..... And the only sunbelt state to have a shrinking population.

And we'll sink with Kalifonia, as it falls into the sea!

 

[The_Mike]

Imagine being hired because of your gender and not qualifications

 

[Lukaku's First Touch]

It is not, but keep on with the hot takes.

What’s with all the misogynists in this thread?

Everyone already knows you're a reeeefuge, so there's is only a small chance to get a reasonable answer, but why is this law not stupid? Don't you agree that people hired should be judged on their skillset instead of there gender/race/beliefs/whatever?

 

[clintar]

Dude, this is board of directors. These are fucking nepotistic bullshit jobs that pay a ton. Chelsea Clinton got one in her early 30s. Talent my ass.

Whatv is your argument here?

 

[GymWolf]

What a clown law.

 

[Leyasu]

Make or female, it’s always more difficult to hire someone for a role which is only temporary.

 

[Whitecrow]

It is not, but keep on with the hot takes.

What’s with all the misogynists in this thread?

I envy you so much if you cant have peace of mind thinking like this : /

 

[ethomaz]

If there were women who had the ability to make corporations more money than the male applicant then they would pick the female every time. Look at Lisa Su at AMD. She got the position because of talent. The cream rises to the top.

To legislate that they must have women, and if that means they cannot have a certain man on their board who could improve the company more than without him, then you have the government legislating that companies must lose talent for no other reason.

Black men are over represented in Basketball. Should there be quotas for Asian or Jewish guys because they are very under represented? No. You pick the most talented players who are going to improve your team. There should never be quotas in Basketball. Likewise there should never be quotas in buisness.
How about we have quotas in ditch digging? Let's get 50% women in that field. Or how about 50% representation in cleaning septic tanks? That would mean we need to tell some women who want to work in an office that no, they need to be septic tank cleaners so get that hazmask on.

If me or my family member needed a life saving operation, and the number 1 surgeon in that field was a black trans muslim woman, and the 50th best surgeon was a white Christian cis male, I'm taking the black trans Muslim woman every day.

She come from IBM, no?

I worked there for around 10 years and they heavy support woman equality and diversity.
That is a result of the change in the company policies that happened in 1995.

The executives had to give opportunity to woman so in the overall performance results have a key item like “reach x% of woman in determined roles”. From there the number of woman in high position increased over 500%.

The reason these law were created are because of the results of companies like IBM that focused in policies like that by themselves to become an internal culture.

Not all companies are like that… in fact most keep that narrative that “womens are not in high position because lacks talent” lol

If Lisa Su had worked in a company with different culture then there is high chances she probably didn’t even have the opportunity to show her talents… and that is exactly the issue.

It is a nice place to work BTW.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

If there were women who had the ability to make corporations more money than the male applicant then they would pick the female every time.

Wrong, and anyone working recruitment / talent acquisition could spend hours telling you how wrong you are. Again, lots of hot takes in this thread from people who are completely removed from the recruitment process.

I don't really want to discuss it with people shouting 'mah skills!', just going to leave it here:

1. It is scientifically proven women will apply while they meet way larger percentage of job requirements than men
2. It is also known in all companies having a 100% or largely skewed male interview panel that it leads to lower conversion during the recruitment process for women (hey, maybe women would like to work with other women as well? CRAZY!)
3. Girls are statistically much more successful with standardized tests with math, but they are also a minority at CS classes - no, it's not because they all want to be mommies

Etc., etc.

To all the 'pick the right person for the job' - educate yourself on how the system is stacked against women, then you can post your hot takes.

 

[Dick Jones]

How is this thread giving out about the law rather than rake Bobby K over the coals for being too much of a cunt to hire one additional woman in accordance with the law?

Fuck him and being the weasel that he is blaming MS for a deal agreed in 2022. He had more than enough time to comply. He could have easily said "if we hire person x will this affect our deal?" and instead blames the most diverse company (who is going to pay that tub of shit off) for his fuckup. What a literal cunt.

 

[ethomaz]

How is this thread giving out about the law rather than rake Bobby K over the coals for being too much of a cunt to hire one additional woman in accordance with the law?

Fuck him and being the weasel that he is blaming MS for a deal agreed in 2022. He had more than enough time to comply. He could have easily said "if we hire person x will this affect our deal?" and instead blames the most diverse company (who is going to pay that tub of shit off) for his fuckup. What a literal cunt.

Is a board choice done by a CEO? I don’t think so.
At best he can influence the board in the choice of the position (politics) but not choose himself.

 

[Dick Jones]

Is a board choice done by a CEO? I don’t think so.
At best he can influence the board in the choice of the position (politics) but not choose himself.

Let's be honest, that company looks like a one man show. We can pretend otherwise but that board has proven itself too weak to put manners on Bobby over the years so in essence it's on Bobby for not sorting this.

 

[Rien]

Having to hire 3 women for a board is a dumb rule.
People should be hired for there talent and skill not there gender.

Yeah about that..

 

[Cyborg]

Having to hire 3 women for a board is a dumb rule.
People should be hired for there talent and skill not there gender.

Well, it would be dumb if the part you talk about would work in real life. But women are ignored (for high positions) and are underpaid even if they perform better than their male colleagues. So when we let the ''best'' person be hired for a job, it won't happen on equal grounds, especially within Activision or other (gaming-related) companies where male culture rules. So you (and others) dismissing this as a ''dumb'' rule are part of the problem. Clearly leaving it to the company to choose a candidate based on ''best'' isn't working.

Here is a recent photo of the meeting with all the CEOs (MSC2022)

 

[DeceptiveAlarm]

Just choose the best man for the job.

 

[RoboFu]

The main reason for laws like this is mainly because at that high of level the established ceos tend to hire “ buddys”.. people they know or went to school with. Since a lot of big companies were already set before the womens rights movement they were already skewed to having more men hiring “buddy’s” than hiring for merit.

It really has nothing to do with some sort fantasy “ keeping women down because men think they are dumb “ bs.

 

[Sega Orphan]

Wrong, and anyone working recruitment / talent acquisition could spend hours telling you how wrong you are. Again, lots of hot takes in this thread from people who are completely removed from the recruitment process.

I don't really want to discuss it with people shouting 'mah skills!', just going to leave it here:

1. It is scientifically proven women will apply while they meet way larger percentage of job requirements than men
2. It is also known in all companies having a 100% or largely skewed male interview panel that it leads to lower conversion during the recruitment process for women (hey, maybe women would like to work with other women as well? CRAZY!)
3. Girls are statistically much more successful with standardized tests with math, but they are also a minority at CS classes - no, it's not because they all want to be mommies

Etc., etc.

To all the 'pick the right person for the job' - educate yourself on how the system is stacked against women, then you can post your hot takes.

Considering I hire for the company I work in, I dont need your hot take.
Talking about how girls score higher on standardised tests at lower levels and trying to link that up to why they arnt more in computer science fields is ridiculous. If they have the scores, and they apply for those positions in Uni etc they will get in to those fields. And saying the reasons people think they arnt in those fields is because they "wanna be mommies" shows a lack of honest intent.
They arnt in those fields because they choose not to be.
Regardless of what you might think, woman have the choice to follow what they want to do. And when they follow a path that is not traditional for women they find employment easier to find and keep due to the wealth of prodiversity hiring practices, especially within the big corporations.
I guess the fact that more men are in prison than women is because of female privilege and a biased judicial system that favours women. No, men just commit more crime.
That's my hot take anyway