Support NeoGAF

[StereoVsn]

That’s a crock a shit.

Affirmative action gives less qualified people hired for a job or school admissions entry due to race. Asians in US university admissions getting hosed despite higher marks because according the the school wants to balance the ratios out as the notice the skew is too high to Asians.

Getting admitted into a school has to do with race and a DEI thing. No different than companies trying to fudge their employee check box ratio %’s for PR or qualifying for federal bids on government contacts which can mandate DEI quota splits.

Nobody anti-DEI says anything about wanting more whites people in. It’s all about whomever qualifies best (along with being within budget and and having a good attitude). And whomever gets it gets it.

The highest level jobs, avg salary and education marks all skew Asian. Nobody cares if a minority group who scores highest because if Asians get the best marks and jobs due to merit that’s ok. They earned it. Nobody says let’s get rid of Asians and put more whites in.

What people don’t want are less qualified dumbasses getting the golden bag over someone else who should get it. But due to politics and ratio boxes on a clipboard the hiring process and school admissions get borked.

There are also some interesting statistics out of CA of all places that showed when they stopped affirmative admissions to Universities there (way before Supreme decision), it didn’t materially affect minorities in a significant way.

What was even more interesting is that it improved graduation rates as folks weren’t going into high pressure top colleges when not being ready for them. Drop out rates for minorities actually got a lot better as folks went to Colleges they were ready for instead of necessarily trying to push for Berkeley or such.

And in time admission rates into top Universities also evened out. And that’s CA which is as liberal as it gets in US.

 

[StereoVsn]

Well at least in a few weeks time we will know what Americans think of diversity hires.

The issue is that Trump has so much baggage it really skews the actual results.

I firmly believe if someone normal from Republican Party like Hailey or Hogan won the nomination, they would have wiped the floor with Harris. But we have Trump which brings a lot more parameters into voting.

 

[Woopah]

We can just go to wikipedia and have a looksy:

Notice how it says variety needs to be present. What matters is the end result, not efforts or goals. People who are not part of a minority identity will eventually be disadvantaged in some way to achieve "presence of variety."


See how they're already dividing people into groups who will get less or more resources or authority based on identity? All with the grand goal of achieving an "equal end result." Equal according to whom? Disadvantaged according to whom? I'll let you answer those questions.

So the tenets of DEI (or rather the ideology it came from, DEI is more like a tool) are clear. They're facts, I don't decide them. As for how I can know if a company adheres to those tenets? All I can do is make an educated guess based on the info available to me.

But humanity is already diverse. You don't need to disadvantage any particular group in order to have people of different age/culture/class/sexual orientation in a company.

Let's say an organisation had both men and women present in it. It also has people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s present. Who needs to be disadvantaged in order to achieve that?

I don't think any disadvantages are required.

See how they're already dividing people into groups who will get less or more resources or authority based on identity? All with the grand goal of achieving an "equal end result." Equal according to whom? Disadvantaged according to whom? I'll let you answer those questions.

People have always been divided into groups based on identity and been given less or more authority based on that for decades.

Tradionally, men have been given more authority than women. Therefore to achieve balance, you need to invest in boosting the authority given to women so it reaches the same level as men.

Similar for skills. If you see one half of the population is gaining coding skills at a much higher level than the other, then you can broaden your talent pool by upskilling the people who aren't tradionally getting those skills (this is what CDPR is doing).

 

[InterMusketeer]

But humanity is already diverse.

Now you're getting it. If humanity is already diverse, we don't need DEI initiatives to promote or ensure it.

You don't need to disadvantage any particular group in order to have people of different age/culture/class/sexual orientation in a company.

"We hired some people" is not DEI. But if you want to force an end result where your employees are diverse (according to DEI), then eventually it will lead to disadvantaging certain groups who are not deemed (as) diverse.

People have always been divided into groups based on identity and been given less or more authority based on that for decades.

Since WW2 western societies have been trying to combat this tendency. Let's not revive it.

Tradionally, men have been given more authority than women. Therefore to achieve balance, you need to invest in boosting the authority given to women so it reaches the same level as men.

Disagree. You should invest in talent. And if that leads to a woman getting promoted to a position of authority, then great! If it doesn't, also great! You don't have to force an equal outcome for all identities. They're not important.

Similar for skills. If you see one half of the population is gaining coding skills at a much higher level than the other, then you can broaden your talent pool by upskilling the people who aren't tradionally getting those skills (this is what CDPR is doing).

Why does every population group have to be equally good at coding? As long as people are given fair opportunities there's no need to force an end result. You could argue for more legislation to deal with nepotism and discrimination, but that's clearly not what DEI is.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

There are also some interesting statistics out of CA of all places that showed when they stopped affirmative admissions to Universities there (way before Supreme decision), it didn’t materially affect minorities in a significant way.

What was even more interesting is that it improved graduation rates as folks weren’t going into high pressure top colleges when not being ready for them. Drop out rates for minorities actually got a lot better as folks went to Colleges they were ready for instead of necessarily trying to push for Berkeley or such.

And in time admission rates into top Universities also evened out. And that’s CA which is as liberal as it gets in US.

Makes sense.

If a city gave everyone school admissions saying anyone can try graduating med school to be a doctor and earn $500,000+ per year, I highly doubt the graduation rate % would be equal or better than if it's the traditional way of hardcore admissions based on science and and marks. You'd have so many people failing in year one science courses, the graduation rate % would drop like a rock across 1,000,000s of students in a country all trying to be docs.

I think we all know why companies and gov do this (for various business and societal reasons hoping to artificially prop up PR pts or money), but just because it's jammed in doesn't mean it leads to great results.

If I got admitted to med school and tried to be a doctor, I'd probably fail too. I dont like science courses, and going by my niece who is in med school right now it sounds like a hardcore pain in the ass studying. While I like business and it's a lot more lax to graduate and do tests and group projects which are pretty much impossible to fail unless you literally dont show up.

 

[Woopah]

Now you're getting it. If humanity is already diverse, we don't need DEI initiatives to promote or ensure it.

Correct. What the goal of DEI to be is to remove the barriers to diversity that have existed for decades.

The fact that senior leadership across companies have consistently not had the humanities diversity is not just a giant coincidence.

We hired some people" is not DEI. But if you want to force an end result where your employees are diverse (according to DEI), then eventually it will lead to disadvantaging certain groups who are not deemed (as) diverse.

We agree that humanity is diverse. So why do you have to force any kind of end result?

Disagree. You should invest in talent. And if that leads to a woman getting promoted to a position of authority, then great! If it doesn't, also great! You don't have to force an equal outcome for all identities. They're not important.

As above you don't have to force anything. But you do have to remove the barriers that have affected women's careers because of their gender.

Promoting women and investing in talent are not mutually exclusive. You just need to ensure that people have an equal opportunity to be promoted, regardless of gender.

Why does every population group have to be equally good at coding? As long as people are given fair opportunities there's no need to force an end result. You could argue for more legislation to deal with nepotism and discrimination, but that's clearly not what DEI is.

Because as a company you want as large a talent pool as possible. You don't want half the population thinking "this profession/industry won't be welcoming to me because of my gender".

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Because as a company you want as large a talent pool as possible. You don't want half the population thinking "this profession/industry won't be welcoming to me because of my gender".

And if anyone thinks that's preventing them from applying for a job, they already sound like a nitwit not worth hiring. Right off the bat, the candidate lacks confidence which is a red flag. Just make a good resume, apply, get hold of recruiters online and right there is a first step to scoring a job without even knowing anyone. Scored me jobs. Make a good Linkedin profile and you'll have recruiters finding you.

I bet a lot of people struggle because right away they got a shit resume, put little effort and are terrible prepping for interviews. The probably also have a crap Linkedin profile or perhaps zero profile. And a bad resume will immediately bork someone's chances at even getting that HR Assistant 15 minute screener chat, unless it's for a shitty job the hiring manager doesn't expect that person to even have a Linkedin (or other job board) profile.

Companies are naturally skewed to hiring for performance so they can hopefully max out good work leading to sales and profits. But the candidate also needs to within budget and have a good personality who can answer questions properly during interviews. Is it perfect? No. For example, there might be lots of candidates who can do a job very well, but the company wants to promote from within to give a worker a chance at a promotion. Or an uncle pulls some strings to get his niece or nephew a job. It happens. But most hires are externally driven and not some kind of sneaky shadowy hiring process as if everyone in that office tower knows each other like good buddies from high school.

Looking for as large of a pool of candidates is fine. Who doesn't? That's like a sports team saying they only want to look at college athletes from the west coast USA, instead scouting all of America and other countries too. Of course not, they'll do their best scouting athletes even from overseas.

But where DEI fails is purposely hiring less qualified people for sake of hitting hiring ratios or school admissions demographic ratios because there's too many Asians doing well in high school, or too many XYZ people. Funny how, there's always ZERO DEI quotas for jobs with already more minority skew or female skew. Those seem OK to be like that.

How anyone can say with a straight face to someone who performed great who got canned because the company wants to hire or admit into college a random person to play with racial or gender splits is absurd.

If companies want peak success. Do what sports do. Given their budget and scouting skills, they try to find puzzle pieces to make as good a team as possible with the budget they got filling the roles. No team brings up DEI ratios purposely fudging the team with gender or racial charts.

 

[Crystal Winters]

We will know for sure the next time they have a game come out and all the women look like Ogres. If they still look as hot as they do in W3, they might be safe still.

 

[Sinfulgore]

Correct. What the goal of DEI to be is to remove the barriers to diversity that have existed for decades.

That isn't the goal of DEI at least not in practice. In practice, most DEI programs/initiatives exist to force an end result. The Academy wants to "encourage equitable representation on and off screen to better reflect the diverse global population" so to achieve that they created a Representation and Inclusive Standard that any movie must follow to be eligible to be nominated for Best Picture. A university wanted more women in their engineering program so they lowered the requirements for women to be accepted into the program in an attempt to achieve their goal. A company wanted more women at the company so they fired a man and hired two women to replace him to achieve their goal. The man ended up suing the company for discrimination and won. This is what DEI in practice actually looks like and it's why people push back on it.

 

[Bernardougf]

That isn't the goal of DEI at least not in practice. In practice, most DEI programs/initiatives exist to force an end result. The Academy wants to "encourage equitable representation on and off screen to better reflect the diverse global population" so to achieve that they created a Representation and Inclusive Standard that any movie must follow to be eligible to be nominated for Best Picture. A university wanted more women in their engineering program so they lowered the requirements for women to be accepted into the program in an attempt to achieve their goal. A company wanted more women at the company so they fired a man and hired two women to replace him to achieve their goal. The man ended up suing the company for discrimination and won. This is what DEI in practice actually looks like and it's why people push back on it.

This is removing the "barriers".. DEI supporters just want to paint this shit as being something good for society. As I said before is the same theory x reality used for the socialism utopia.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That isn't the goal of DEI at least not in practice. In practice, most DEI programs/initiatives exist to force an end result. The Academy wants to "encourage equitable representation on and off screen to better reflect the diverse global population" so to achieve that they created a Representation and Inclusive Standard that any movie must follow to be eligible to be nominated for Best Picture. A university wanted more women in their engineering program so they lowered the requirements for women to be accepted into the program in an attempt to achieve their goal. A company wanted more women at the company so they fired a man and hired two women to replace him to achieve their goal. The man ended up suing the company for discrimination and won. This is what DEI in practice actually looks like and it's why people push back on it.

This is removing the "barriers".. DEI supporters just want to paint this shit as being something good for society. As I said before is the same theory x reality used for the socialism utopia.

What's happened is DEI is the latest attempt at evening things out. Affirmative Action has been around for decades I dont think it helped census metrics one bit, but DEI seems more loosey goosey and more touchy feely. AA is more hardnosed with numbers, while DEI policies may or my not be.

But both systems try to funnel people to a similar end result. Not by naturally just letting people do it. But with policies, quotas, federal contract requirements etc.... try to get everyone to a similar result.

It's like instead of letting students do their own thing and some get As, Bs, Cs and some Fs, everyone below an A grader gets boosted even if they dont deserve it. And if that means the A student gets burned because he's been passed on for a C student boosted to an A+ surpassing him, then so be it. Give the C student a chance for once because he's kind of getting forgotten the A students get the awards. The A grade guy will find his own way of success kind of thing regardless.

So everyone kind of knows what the point of all this is, but it's outright discriminatory.

That would be like a company purposely only hiring and keeping healthy people, while avoiding people with medical conditions. Or firing them if they hear the guy is going on a cancer leave. You cant do that. So going the other way and purposely bypassing hires or school admissions based on something like "theres too many white people or guys here" is just as discriminatory.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

 

[Woopah]

That isn't the goal of DEI at least not in practice. In practice, most DEI programs/initiatives exist to force an end result. The Academy wants to "encourage equitable representation on and off screen to better reflect the diverse global population" so to achieve that they created a Representation and Inclusive Standard that any movie must follow to be eligible to be nominated for Best Picture. A university wanted more women in their engineering program so they lowered the requirements for women to be accepted into the program in an attempt to achieve their goal. A company wanted more women at the company so they fired a man and hired two women to replace him to achieve their goal. The man ended up suing the company for discrimination and won. This is what DEI in practice actually looks like and it's why people push back on it.

And I think what both The Academy and that university is doing is really stupid.

I've been seen / supported various DEI initiatives in practice and not one of them involved quotas or lowering standards.

For example, I want to my company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse. Doesn't mean I'm going to hire people just because they have those or other characters.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

And I think what both The Academy and that university is doing is really stupid.

I've been seen / supported various DEI initiatives in practice and not one of them involved quotas or lowering standards.

For example, I want to my company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse. Doesn't mean I'm going to hire people just because they have those or other characters.

If you are purposely aiming for diverse people like disabilities, over 50 and such it sounds like you are trying to check off boxes on quota sheet.

If you really care about performance, good natured people, and they fall within your company's salary budget who really cares if all 10 best fit hires are able bodied, or all in wheelchairs? Dont get me wrong, there's always many other factors like if the person has ambition to do more, or wants to coast at the same job for 10 years (you might be hiring for someone to move up the ranks to fill in for people who leave or retire soon) , but in general under normal situations just trying to find a good person to hire who really cares what demographic or skin deep attribute they have.

Now if you (or anyone else) wants to say you are purposely cherry picking based on demographics, that's fine. It happens. It's appreciated by all if anyone admits that instead of some cloak and dagger hiring methdology. Maybe someone wants to hire certain demographics to prop up the neighbourhood, maybe they require a certain quota to qualify for federal bids for large projects (absolutely true), etc... There's always reasons for not gunning for the best person who fits the budget.

For example, at one of my old summer jobs working in a food plant, one of the people working there was a mentally challenged guy. He wasnt totally nuts or anything. But kind of off. He was hired as a goodwill kind of job and he did really basic tasks like general labourer and getting and prepping cardboard boxes and such. Anytime he got near the forklift wanting to try it, everyone told him not too. A really nice guy who also kind of drooled(!), but of course an able bodied person can do his job way better and have more skills to do other stuff (like me learning to drive a forklift with no license). But in a situation like that, ya everyone can understand offering the guy a job.

 

[Woopah]

And if anyone thinks that's preventing them from applying for a job, they already sound like a nitwit not worth hiring. Right off the bat, the candidate lacks confidence which is a red flag. Just make a good resume, apply, get hold of recruiters online and right there is a first step to scoring a job without even knowing anyone. Scored me jobs. Make a good Linkedin profile and you'll have recruiters finding you.

I bet a lot of people struggle because right away they got a shit resume, put little effort and are terrible prepping for interviews. The probably also have a crap Linkedin profile or perhaps zero profile. And a bad resume will immediately bork someone's chances at even getting that HR Assistant 15 minute screener chat, unless it's for a shitty job the hiring manager doesn't expect that person to even have a Linkedin (or other job board) profile.

If people don't get job opportunities because of their shit CV or terrible Linkedin then that's completely fine.

But if a barrier to their career development is their gender, that's a bad thing. If someone doesn't want to join my company because their gender will be a barrier, then that's bad for the company because we lose out on that talent.

Companies are naturally skewed to hiring for performance so they can hopefully max out good work leading to sales and profits. But the candidate also needs to within budget and have a good personality who can answer questions properly during interviews. Is it perfect? No. For example, there might be lots of candidates who can do a job very well, but the company wants to promote from within to give a worker a chance at a promotion. Or an uncle pulls some strings to get his niece or nephew a job. It happens. But most hires are externally driven and not some kind of sneaky shadowy hiring process as if everyone in that office tower knows each other like good buddies from high school.

It's not always nepotism that's issue. It's also other types of barriers like bias. One of my friends was told that he'd never advance in his career unless he changed his appearance, because he "looked too Arab". A colleague of mine was building a new Finance team two months ago and was told "hire people with European names".

Those sorts of barriers get in the way of hiring/promoting based purely on merit.

Looking for as large of a pool of candidates is fine. Who doesn't? That's like a sports team saying they only want to look at college athletes from the west coast USA, instead scouting all of America and other countries too. Of course not, they'll do their best scouting athletes even from overseas.

But where DEI fails is purposely hiring less qualified people for sake of hitting hiring ratios or school admissions demographic ratios because there's too many Asians doing well in high school, or too many XYZ people. Funny how, there's always ZERO DEI quotas for jobs with already more minority skew or female skew. Those seem OK to be like that.

Which is why I don't believe in quotas or purposely hiring less qualified people. None of the DEI work I've been involved in did that.

If companies want peak success. Do what sports do. Given their budget and scouting skills, they try to find puzzle pieces to make as good a team as possible with the budget they got filling the roles. No team brings up DEI ratios purposely fudging the team with gender or racial charts.

But sports teams do have DEI initiatives. It doesn't require ratios, or even have to relate to hiring at all.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If people don't get job opportunities because of their shit CV or terrible Linkedin then that's completely fine.

But if a barrier to their career development is their gender, that's a bad thing. If someone doesn't want to join my company because their gender will be a barrier, then that's bad for the company because we lose out on that talent.



It's not always nepotism that's issue. It's also other types of barriers like bias. One of my friends was told that he'd never advance in his career unless he changed his appearance, because he "looked too Arab". A colleague of mine was building a new Finance team two months ago and was told "hire people with European names".

Those sorts of barriers get in the way of hiring/promoting based purely on merit.



Which is why I don't believe in quotas or purposely hiring less qualified people. None of the DEI work I've been involved in did that.



But sports teams do have DEI initiatives. It doesn't require ratios, or even have to relate to hiring at all.

If a person doesnt want to join your company because they think theres something fishy going on, that's the company having some kind of weird shit or lousy image preventing people from applying. That's not the norm.

As for people limiting their career based on looks, hey that's life. No different than everyone at a bank expected to be neat and business casual. I've never seen someone at a bank working in shorts or a grubby tshirt or have wacky hair or face tattoos like they hang out at biker bars. And thats how I want it. Last thing I want is someone who looks like they got out of bed getting me to sign mortgage documents. As for outright discriminatory things like last names or vagie stuff like "too arab", then his company is acting like jerks. You dont even need DEI to fix that. Just common sense and typical HR code of conduct policies that have been round for decades.

What DEI policies do teams have when filling a roster, making trades, or drafting players?

 

[Woopah]

If you are purposely aiming for diverse people like disabilities, over 50 and such it sounds like you are trying to check off boxes on quota sheet.

But I just said I wasn't purposely aiming for that. When I hire I have no quotas or boxes.

If you really care about performance, good natured people, and they fall within your company's salary budget who really cares if all 10 best fit hires are able bodied, or all in wheelchairs? Dont get me wrong, there's always many other factors like if the person has ambition to do more, or wants to coast at the same job for 10 years (you might be hiring for someone to move up the ranks to fill in for people who leave or retire soon) , but in general under normal situations just trying to find a good person to hire who really cares what demographic or skin deep attribute they have.

I don't care, that's why I need to ensure we get DEI right.

For cases where the best person for the job is colour blind / partially deaf / needs a wheelchair etc. I need to have the policies and process in place to attract, retain and develop

When I hire someone for a job, I want them to feel welcome and well treated regardless of their skin colour.

Now if you (or anyone else) wants to say you are purposely cherry picking based on demographics, that's fine. It happens. It's appreciated by all if anyone admits that instead of some cloak and dagger hiring methdology. Maybe someone wants to hire certain demographics to prop up the neighbourhood, maybe they require a certain quota to qualify for federal bids for large projects (absolutely true), etc... There's always reasons for not gunning for the best person who fits the budget.

I'm not doing that. I don't hire based on demographics.

For example, at one of my old summer jobs working in a food plant, one of the people working there was a mentally challenged guy. He wasnt totally nuts or anything. But kind of off. He was hired as a goodwill kind of job and he did really basic tasks like general labourer and getting and prepping cardboard boxes and such. Anytime he got near the forklift wanting to try it, everyone told him not too. A really nice guy who also kind of drooled(!), but of course an able bodied person can do his job way better and have more skills to do other stuff (like me learning to drive a forklift with no license). But in a situation like that, ya everyone can understand offering the guy a job.

For disability, its about what steps you need to take to support that particular talent. For example, we had a guy from Coca Cola come talk to us about what steps his company and boss had taken to help him be successful.

That was helpful for us to learn from.

 

[Crystal Winters]

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of YouTube accounts that I was recently subscribed to, is that even if/when they are right, it's a near endless bombardment of negativity from them. in every upload. I had to tone it way down and unsub from most of them because that much negativity in my inbox was too much.

 

[Woopah]

If a person doesnt want to join your company because they think theres something fishy going on, that's the company having some kind of weird shit or lousy image preventing people from applying. That's not the norm.

It was because our senior leadership was almost entirely men. Which actually was the norm for a lot of companies.

As for people limiting their career based on looks, hey that's life. No different than everyone at a bank expected to be neat and business casual. I've never seen someone at a bank working in shorts or a grubby tshirt or have wacky hair or face tattoos like they hang out at biker bars. And thats how I want it. Last thing I want is someone who looks like they got out of bed getting me to sign mortgage documents. As for outright discriminatory things like last names or vagie stuff like "too arab", then his company is acting like jerks. You dont even need DEI to fix that. Just common sense and typical HR code of conduct policies that have been round for decades.

A lot of DEI work is around people acting like jerks or not acting in the right way, and building a culture where that kind of thing doesn't happen.

I don't know why you're talking about grubby clothes or tattoos when I never mentioned anything about that.

What DEI policies do teams have when filling a roster, making trades, or drafting players?

Why does it have to be related to that? DEI is much broader than that.

Here's a bunch of DEI initiatives that a English football club is doing - https://www.mancity.com/annualreport2023/edi/

None of those policies prevent the club from being a meritocracy.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of YouTube accounts that I was recently subscribed to, is that even if they are right, it's a near endless bombardment of negativity from them. in every upload. I had to tone it way down and unsub from most of them because that much negativity in my inbox was too much.

I agree.

I think a lot of these sites run with it for laughs longer than usual because it's a pushback on politics being jammed into stuff. Which in this case (and this board: video games out of all things).

If one of these sites had to analyze why a brand of apple juice failed and all they can come with is it tasted lousy and had a bland label, there's only so much to go on. But if the juice maker had that AND had politics injected into it, and had employees or CEOs mouthing off on social media to customers, and this failed juice cost $100M putting the company in dire situation, it gives them more ammo to run with it for months.

What also fuels it is a lot of games and movies have sunk together, and all seemingly similar with a DEI or SBI slant. Bad sales, studio hardship, lousy reviews. So it's actually the same message poking fun, but stretched out across a new flop every month.

What will stop it is if the flops stop. Concord was a laugher, but it's moved on to SW Outlaws, or Unknown 9, or Disney movie/show XYZ etc...

 

[David Ricardo]

We will know for sure the next time they have a game come out and all the women look like Ogres. If they still look as hot as they do in W3, they might be safe still.

And you know it

 

[jason10mm]

If a person doesnt want to join your company because they think theres something fishy going on, that's the company having some kind of weird shit or lousy image preventing people from applying. That's not the norm.

As for people limiting their career based on looks, hey that's life. No different than everyone at a bank expected to be neat and business casual. I've never seen someone at a bank working in shorts or a grubby tshirt or have wacky hair or face tattoos like they hang out at biker bars. And thats how I want it. Last thing I want is someone who looks like they got out of bed getting me to sign mortgage documents. As for outright discriminatory things like last names or vagie stuff like "too arab", then his company is acting like jerks. You dont even need DEI to fix that. Just common sense and typical HR code of conduct policies that have been round for decades.

What DEI policies do teams have when filling a roster, making trades, or drafting players?

A lot of this stuff (like dress, appearance, names) is because there is a specific culture in the workplace, often reflecting the dominate culture of the area. Who really bears the responsibility to adapt and adopt the culture around them? Is it the business' task to be flexible enough to accomodate every possible world view? Or is it the minority's task to integrate into the culture they are now in, at least enough to fit into and cooperate with the culture of their new country? Used to be pretty common for people with difficult to pronounce names (and this isn't just a "you must learn my name" thing, some regions have phonetics IMPOSSIBLE to pronounce correctly if you were not born to it) to take a common name from their new culture. Spanish people can not pronounce my name correctly. If I were to work in Spain or some spanish speaking country, I would just adopt a name they can say because why would I expect everyone to adapt to me when I can easily adapt to all of them?

The notion that ANY cultural variance MUST be accepted, that ANY cultural practice must be accommodated, that ANY cultural behavior must be tolerated, is just ludicrous. Unless a company MUST get those employees (for example, a meat packer plant needs those cheap working immigrants for labor or a software company that wants the best coders from India) then why is it some grand expectation that the business has to adapt to a small population? Now a government entity of course, they have a vested interest in creating jobs, not really being economically efficient.

 

[Sinfulgore]

And I think what both The Academy and that university is doing is really stupid.

I've been seen / supported various DEI initiatives in practice and not one of them involved quotas or lowering standards.

For example, I want to my company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse. Doesn't mean I'm going to hire people just because they have those or other characters.

It's not about quotas. It's about trying to force an outcome and that can be done in many different ways. It's like a father who is a high school football coach who tries to force his sons to play football just because he wants to be able to coach them one day. The father doesn't care if his sons even like football because it's not about them or what they want, it's all about the father and what he wants. Ideally, the father would let his sons choose what sport to play or what hobbies they want to have but people today don't want that because when people make their own choices it might not lead to the "correct" outcomes. This is what DEI is all about, trying to force an outcome. When you think about it it's really selfish. In the context of gaming, we see this all the time. Why do modern game devs focus on representation and making female characters less sexualized? Is it because gamers are asking for it? Nope. Does it make games better? Nope. It's because this is what the game devs and other people within the industry want to see. This is why so many people push back on DEI, it is poison for any company because it is something that brings no value to a company and in some cases makes a company worse.

Why do you want that? I want my company to hire people who can do what they are being paid to do and they pay everyone what each employee agreed to be paid. Thats about it, I dont really care about all that other stuff.

 

[Woopah]

It's not about quotas. It's about trying to force an outcome and that can be done in many different ways. It's like a father who is a high school football coach who tries to force his sons to play football just because he wants to be able to coach them one day. The father doesn't care if his sons even like football because it's not about them or what they want, it's all about the father and what he wants. Ideally, the father would let his sons choose what sport to play or what hobbies they want to have but people today don't want that because when people make their own choices it might not lead to the "correct" outcomes. This is what DEI is all about, trying to force an outcome. When you think about it it's really selfish. In the context of gaming, we see this all the time. Why do modern game devs focus on representation and making female characters less sexualized? Is it because gamers are asking for it? Nope. Does it make games better? Nope. It's because this is what the game devs and other people within the industry want to see. This is why so many people push back on DEI, it is poison for any company because it is something that brings no value to a company and in some cases makes a company worse.

DEI doesn't require anything of the sort. The DEI initiatives of my company, or of the sports club I linked to above, have nothing to do with sexualisation of women in video games.

Even in the game industry, CDPR's DEI page doesn't talk about that and Nintendo's own D&I policies didn't reference in-game sexualisation either.

Why do you want that? I want my company to hire people who can do what they are being paid to do and they pay everyone what each employee agreed to be paid. Thats about it, I dont really care about all that other stuff.

Because I want my company to attract, retain and develop the best possible talent, regardless of their identity. I want the company to be a place where everyone feels included and treated well.

That's what DEI is helping us with.

 

[InterMusketeer]

It was because our senior leadership was almost entirely men.

You're basically admitting here that the amount of men in senior leadership needed to be reduced in order to achieve your goals. So you had/have a vested interest, and probably a bias to go along with it, to hire and promote women to certain positions. The way is open for discrimination. If too many men are hired/promoted through meritocracy, your DEI initiatives will be in danger. It would be hard to attract that diverse talent. Then what?

And can I just add how sexist this way of thinking is in the first place? You're talking like men are talent repellents. How bigoted are the people you're trying to hire anyway? Sounds like you'd be better of without them.

 

[Sinfulgore]

DEI doesn't require anything of the sort. The DEI initiatives of my company, or of the sports club I linked to above, have nothing to do with sexualisation of women in video games.

Even in the game industry, CDPR's DEI page doesn't talk about that and Nintendo's own D&I policies didn't reference in-game sexualisation either.



Because I want my company to attract, retain and develop the best possible talent, regardless of their identity. I want the company to be a place where everyone feels included and treated well.

That's what DEI is helping us with.

It doesn't matter how DEI initiatives are being used at your company. I'm not even sure why you keep bringing this up, your company doesn't determine how DEI is being used at every company. DEI initiatives are being used in the video game industry now and it has resulted in bad products which is why people push back on it. We won't know how DEI has truly impacted CD Project Red until we see their next game. Like I said before what matters is how DEI is being used in practice not just some written policy or a page on a website. We already know Nintendo games and pretty much all big games nowadays are making their female characters less sexualized whether or not it's part of a written D&I policy is irrelevant.

How does wanting your company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse lead to attracting, retaining, and developing the best talent? Wouldn't just hiring the best people for the job and offering a competitive salary do that on its own? Why does a company need to be a place where everyone feels included? What does that even mean in this context? Wouldn't you already feel "included" if you were already an employee of the company?

I find all this DEI stuff to be silly, its just people trying to find a solution to something that isn't a problem.

 

[JayK47]

Lots of 500 word minimum book reports in here. You all get an A+.

 

[Woopah]

You're basically admitting here that the amount of men in senior leadership needed to be reduced in order to achieve your goals. So you had/have a vested interest, and probably a bias to go along with it, to hire and promote women to certain positions. The way is open for discrimination. If too many men are hired/promoted through meritocracy, your DEI initiatives will be in danger. It would be hard to attract that diverse talent. Then what?

We have an interest in getting the best possible team. If 50% of the population are women, then it's very unlikely that 100% of the best potential talent are men.

We were a meritocracy before, but clearly there were barriers that were preventing female talent from being in senior leadership. Through DEI, we are becoming a meritocracy where those barriers don't exist and we get the best talent regardless of identity.

And can I just add how sexist this way of thinking is in the first place? You're talking like men are talent repellents. How bigoted are the people you're trying to hire anyway? Sounds like you'd be better of without them.

I never said men are talent repellants or that the people we are hiring don't like men.

What I said is that women don't want to join a company where their career opportunities are going to restricted by their gender.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Most executives are men because it's men who create new companies. Obviously, the founders and their inner circle are the ones who make it to the board of directors. Likewise, companies funded by women feature mostly women on their boards, but there are no parity arguments in those cases.

This should be elementary common sense, but in the current era that has gone out the window.

 

[Woopah]

It doesn't matter how DEI initiatives are being used at your company. I'm not even sure why you keep bringing this up, your company doesn't determine how DEI is being used at every company. DEI initiatives are being used in the video game industry now and it has resulted in bad products which is why people push back on it. We won't know how DEI has truly impacted CD Project Red until we see their next game. Like I said before what matters is how DEI is being used in practice not just some written policy or a page on a website. We already know Nintendo games and pretty much all big games nowadays are making their female characters less sexualized whether or not it's part of a written D&I policy is irrelevant.

I'm bringing it up because people are saying it's not possible for CDPR to have DEI policies and be a meritocracy. I'm saying that it absolutely is possible.

How does wanting your company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse lead to attracting, retaining, and developing the best talent? Wouldn't just hiring the best people for the job and offering a competitive salary do that on its own? Why does a company need to be a place where everyone feels included? What does that even mean in this context? Wouldn't you already feel "included" if you were already an employee of the company?

I find all this DEI stuff to be silly, its just people trying to find a solution to something that isn't a problem.

If we hire people who are colourblind or dyslexic and we don't offer the proper support, then we risk that talent leaving and going somewhere else.

That's bad for the company.

If we miss out on developing great talent because they are considered "too old", then that also is bad for the company.

 

[PeteBull]

Lots of 500 word minimum book reports in here. You all get an A+.

And dont forget they all gotta speak in corporate, aka politically correct language, godforbid some1 offends one or the other clown who has insane unnatural worldview

Reality tho doesnt give a damn about their corporate fully pc tone, coz if product sucks no amount of sleazy asslicking will help here- low sales will lead to lay offs or even studio clousure, as we experienced so many times, those coloured hair activists wont fork up 70$ on the game at launch, same thing with "professional journos"- they get them for free to produce biased preview then review.

U know who forks up and buys games at full price- those damned straight males.

So devs out there- u better make sure game panders to us and doesnt look offputting, or ur ass gets fired like so many wokesters before u

 

[CliffBronger]

My company has no DEI crap, we just hire the best talent available and we have a naturally diverse workforce.

It's been like this from the day the company was founded back in the 60s

 

[Sinfulgore]

I'm bringing it up because people are saying it's not possible for CDPR to have DEI policies and be a meritocracy. I'm saying that it absolutely is possible.



If we hire people who are colourblind or dyslexic and we don't offer the proper support, then we risk that talent leaving and going somewhere else.

That's bad for the company.

If we miss out on developing great talent because they are considered "too old", then that also is bad for the company.

Losing one employee is not bad for a company. If an employee was valuable to the company they would offer them whatever support they needed so they wouldn't leave. Investing in older employees is not a good investment for a company. If you are going to spend thousands of dollars in training to develop talent it makes way more sense to do that for someone in their 20s or 30s than someone in their 50s who will most likely retire in less than 20 years. This is exactly the kind of thinking that destroys companies, focusing on things that don't matter and is why DEI is poison. Do you know what is actually bad for a company? Losing money.

 

[Woopah]

Losing one employee is not bad for a company. If an employee was valuable to the company they would offer them whatever support they needed so they wouldn't leave. Investing in older employees is not a good investment for a company. If you are going to spend thousands of dollars in training to develop talent it makes way more sense to do that for someone in their 20s or 30s than someone in their 50s who will most likely retire in less than 20 years. This is exactly the kind of thinking that destroys companies, focusing on things that don't matter and is why DEI is poison. Do you know what is actually bad for a company? Losing money.

I was giving an example, but large companies are going to come into contact with note than one disabled or neurodiverse person during their existence.

It's not the case that every business was offering the best possible support for all disabilities. Organisations like the Business Disability Forum can help achieve that.

On the age part, even if people are only working for us for 10 or 15 more years, the quality of that work still matters. Investing in that talent matters. Because it helps us make money.

 

[Sinfulgore]

I was giving an example, but large companies are going to come into contact with note than one disabled or neurodiverse person during their existence.

It's not the case that every business was offering the best possible support for all disabilities. Organisations like the Business Disability Forum can help achieve that.

On the age part, even if people are only working for us for 10 or 15 more years, the quality of that work still matters. Investing in that talent matters. Because it helps us make money.

Your entire argument is based on assumptions. You assume losing a disabled or older potential employee would be bad for a company but there is no actual proof of this. I wish you would be honest and just admit that this has nothing to do with the company. It's all about you. You want to see more older or neurodiverse people at your company because that's what you personally care about.

 

[jason10mm]

What I said is that women don't want to join a company where their career opportunities are going to restricted by their gender.

I'm curious what career opportunities are limiting to women, assuming they are allowed to apply at all?

If its offering months of paid time off for maternity leave, then you ARE saying that the earning power of a woman is worth an additional cost to the company, unless you extend an equal leave opportunity to men and childless employees. If its requiring a dedicated breastfeeding space in all workspaces, who pays that additional cost? What equivalent is extended to having a dedicated private space for other employees? What about a dedicated mosque for prayer with the proper washing facilities? Or a chapel? Or specific meat only option for folks on a carnivore diet as opposed to vegan options? Or eliminating peanuts, latex, shell fish, or other allergens from the dining areas due to allergies? Does someone with sensory issues have to wear headphones or does EVERYONE ELSE have to stay quiet around them?

There are reasonable accomodations because the employee provides value to the company and justifies the accommodation, then there are just excess costs that just drain company coffers of funds that could be spent on useful things. For example, there were requirements for ADA approved bathrooms in every building for powerline operators and existing facilities has to be renovated at great expense. Powerline operators CAN NOT BE HANDICAPPED by default, as they have to drive vehicles, use the cherrypicker, use ladders, etc. So having to renovate bathrooms to accommodate a population that simply can not ever use them is a good example of waste. Having ADA facilities, ramps at the doors, and even handicap capable trucks isn't going to open the floodgates for disabled folks to become linemen, its simply a job they are not suited for. The job is also 97.5% men, so even having female facilities at EVERY office is a waste, versus just having a policy that if the very rare woman needs to use the bathroom, she can lock the door and use the same john as the men. Barring a major war that draws off all the men and FORCES women into the job of course.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm curious what career opportunities are limiting to women, assuming they are allowed to apply at all?

If its offering months of paid time off for maternity leave, then you ARE saying that the earning power of a woman is worth an additional cost to the company, unless you extend an equal leave opportunity to men and childless employees. If its requiring a dedicated breastfeeding space in all workspaces, who pays that additional cost? What equivalent is extended to having a dedicated private space for other employees? What about a dedicated mosque for prayer with the proper washing facilities? Or a chapel? Or specific meat only option for folks on a carnivore diet as opposed to vegan options? Or eliminating peanuts, latex, shell fish, or other allergens from the dining areas due to allergies? Does someone with sensory issues have to wear headphones or does EVERYONE ELSE have to stay quiet around them?

There are reasonable accomodations because the employee provides value to the company and justifies the accommodation, then there are just excess costs that just drain company coffers of funds that could be spent on useful things. For example, there were requirements for ADA approved bathrooms in every building for powerline operators and existing facilities has to be renovated at great expense. Powerline operators CAN NOT BE HANDICAPPED by default, as they have to drive vehicles, use the cherrypicker, use ladders, etc. So having to renovate bathrooms to accommodate a population that simply can not ever use them is a good example of waste. Having ADA facilities, ramps at the doors, and even handicap capable trucks isn't going to open the floodgates for disabled folks to become linemen, its simply a job they are not suited for. The job is also 97.5% men, so even having female facilities at EVERY office is a waste, versus just having a policy that if the very rare woman needs to use the bathroom, she can lock the door and use the same john as the men. Barring a major war that draws off all the men and FORCES women into the job of course.

I remember reading an article years ago about a garbage pick up company (I dont remember if it was a private company or a government department), but they stated that they were purposely on a hiring binge for women to balance out the ratio. But even after gunning for it, they admitted they cant really move the needle because the only people applying to be a trash collector are guys. And they sounded surprised by this. I got the impression that as long as you are female and able bodied you'd probably get the job automatically. Should be a slam dunk to balance out ratios as long as tons of fit women apply.

Well, I could had told you right off the bat, a job like that will skew guys so it's zero surprise.

Is that discrimination? Doesnt sound like it to me. Maybe it's as simple as women dont want to pick up trash, lift and dump smelly bins and do all this during cold winter and summer heat, which to me does sound like a pain in the ass job unless youre the guy who coasts in the truck with a robot arm that does all the work for ya. Or maybe it's not even that complex. Maybe women in general dont like driving giant heavy trucks that stink all day.

 

[jason10mm]

I remember reading an article years ago about a garbage pick up company (I dont remember if it was a private company or a government department), but they stated that they were purposely on a hiring binge for women to balance out the ratio. But even after gunning for it, they admitted they cant really move the needle because the only people applying to be a trash collector are guys. And they sounded surprised by this. I got the impression that as long as you are female and able bodied you'd probably get the job automatically. Should be a slam dunk to balance out ratios as long as tons of fit women apply.

Well, I could had told you right off the bat, a job like that will skew guys so it's zero surprise.

Is that discrimination? Doesnt sound like it to me. Maybe it's as simple as women dont want to pick up trash, lift and dump smelly bins and do all this during cold winter and summer heat, which to me does sound like a pain in the ass job unless youre the guy who coasts in the truck with a robot arm that does all the work for ya. Or maybe it's not even that complex. Maybe women in general dont like driving giant heavy trucks that stink all day.

I was listening to a podcast and a woman said that in the past 100 years, the only one of the top 20 jobs for women that has changed is farm work for HR. So its still child care, nursing, waitress, etc after ONE HUNDRED YEARS of the womens movement.

So clearly the issue isn't that women want to do ALL the jobs men do, just the nice ones They want to be lawyers, doctors, movie stars, and academics. They do NOT want to be welders, mechanics, plumbers, landscapers, or electricians.

Now a guy like Woopah would probably say that if A/C install companies just removed barriers to women then they would increase their applicant pool by 100% (i.e. they would now have equal women applying as men if ALL barriers were removed) but we all know that isn't the case because it would almost be a cultural shift starting in grade school to accomplish this task. Just like removing all barriers for men to being a waitress (eliminating tipping, for example) or seamstress or pre-school teacher isn't likely to get more men to apply. About the only real shift I saw like this was after 9/11 when flight attendants (previously called a stewardess) suddenly had a big male spike as a security measure. Nowadays is back to almost all women though, at least the domestic flights I take.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I was listening to a podcast and a woman said that in the past 100 years, the only one of the top 20 jobs for women that has changed is farm work for HR. So its still child care, nursing, waitress, etc after ONE HUNDRED YEARS of the womens movement.

So clearly the issue isn't that women want to do ALL the jobs men do, just the nice ones They want to be lawyers, doctors, movie stars, and academics. They do NOT want to be welders, mechanics, plumbers, landscapers, or electricians.

Now a guy like Woopah would probably say that if A/C install companies just removed barriers to women then they would increase their applicant pool by 100% (i.e. they would now have equal women applying as men if ALL barriers were removed) but we all know that isn't the case because it would almost be a cultural shift starting in grade school to accomplish this task. Just like removing all barriers for men to being a waitress (eliminating tipping, for example) or seamstress or pre-school teacher isn't likely to get more men to apply. About the only real shift I saw like this was after 9/11 when flight attendants (previously called a stewardess) suddenly had a big male spike as a security measure. Nowadays is back to almost all women though, at least the domestic flights I take.

Yup.

Even within a company environment, some jobs skew men and women even if the overall office is 50/50ish.

Across many companies and 25 years working, it's very similar from what I've seen:

Blue collar/warehouse roles
Facility manager, onsite maintenance/handymen crew - 100% guys
Company fleet truck drivers - 100% guys
Anything to do with the warehouse and shipping - almost all guys

Office roles
Supply chain jobs in the office like demand planning, logistics and traffic - more guys than women
Sales, marketing, finance, legal - pretty evenly split
HR - almost all women (in fact it's two guys I remember. So few I even remember both)

I bet my example across many large companies skews similar to most people. It's going to be rare to see a company with an opposite pyramid where physical jobs are mostly women and HR is almost all guys.

Is that discrimination? Dont think so. People have different interests and skills. But you'll notice (similar to your examples), typically anything more physical, dirty, pain in the ass to fix all skew guys. While the easy peasy clean desk job will have more women going for those roles.

 

[InterMusketeer]

What I said is that women don't want to join a company where their career opportunities are going to restricted by their gender.

Yeah, and that was a direct result of men in senior leadership positions. Your words, not mine. Now you're adding that that very fact (men in senior leadership) is somehow restricting to women. So the cat's out of the bag. Thanks for reinforcing our skepticism of DEI.

 

[Woopah]

Replies below, appreciate all your effort in the conversation.

Yeah, and that was a direct result of men in senior leadership positions. Your words, not mine. Now you're adding that that very fact (men in senior leadership) is somehow restricting to women. So the cat's out of the bag. Thanks for reinforcing our skepticism of DEI.

Because if men are making it into senior leadership and women aren't, that indicates that the two genders are not being treated equally.

Having 100% male leadership is a symptom, not the cause.

If women aren't getting the same opportunities as men because of their gender, then yes that is restricting to women's careers.

What cat is out of the bag?

Your entire argument is based on assumptions. You assume losing a disabled or older potential employee would be bad for a company but there is no actual proof of this. I wish you would be honest and just admit that this has nothing to do with the company. It's all about you. You want to see more older or neurodiverse people at your company because that's what you personally care about.

When an employee leaves, we have to spend time and money replacing them, which is bad for the company. That's not an assumption that's a fact.

It's much better for us when colleagues stay and develop with us for a long time.

Maybe i'm not explaining well enough, but neither me nor the company are thinking "I wish more older people worked here" or "I wish more of our colleagues had a disability".

What we are thinking is:

1. We want to hire and develop the best possible people, regardless of whether they have a disability or are neurodiverse.

2. We want all employees to be happy, engaged and working hard for the company, regardless of whether they have a disability or are neurodiverse.

Does that make things clearer?

 

[Woopah]

I'm curious what career opportunities are limiting to women, assuming they are allowed to apply at all?

So the main barrier for us was indeed children. When women said they were having a child, all career conversations and actions would stop. They would never be offered anything during this time, and that could lead to miss opportunities.

Women didn't want to tell their boss they were having a child, because of the negative impact on their career. That's not good for them or the company.

I'm not saying I'm this happened to every single woman who had a child, but it was quite a common complaint. On top of this, we has some examples of blatant sexism.

The fix to this wasn't building anything, but instead changing the culture and policies.

One change was indeed to increase the amount of paternity leave and adoption leave we offered. Another was allowing people to bring their babies with them to job interviews.

Now we have had women offered new roles while on maternity leave. That never happened before.

If its offering months of paid time off for maternity leave, then you ARE saying that the earning power of a woman is worth an additional cost to the company, unless you extend an equal leave opportunity to men and childless employees. If its requiring a dedicated breastfeeding space in all workspaces, who pays that additional cost? What equivalent is extended to having a dedicated private space for other employees? What about a dedicated mosque for prayer with the proper washing facilities? Or a chapel? Or specific meat only option for folks on a carnivore diet as opposed to vegan options? Or eliminating peanuts, latex, shell fish, or other allergens from the dining areas due to allergies? Does someone with sensory issues have to wear headphones or does EVERYONE ELSE have to stay quiet around them?

In terms of extra accommodations, our offices do have multi-faith rooms but we just used existing rooms, we didn't build any of them. I'm not aware of anything we've done around people with sensory issues.

The only places where I belive we built things is in some factories in Africa that didn't previously have women's bathrooms and changing rooms. Now they do.

Hope this helps explain!

 

[InterMusketeer]

Because if men are making it into senior leadership and women aren't, that indicates that the two genders are not being treated equally.

No it doesn't. We don't know the circumstances under which those people got those positions, so it's impossible to infer equal treatment from that.

Having 100% male leadership is a symptom, not the cause.

What do you mean it's a symptom? If those men were promoted to those positions fair and square, without bias, without nepotism, without sexism, then it's not a symptom for anything. That's what meritocracy is.

What cat is out of the bag?

You claimed your company's DEI was different from the others. That it was actually a meritocracy and it was just some small things you implemented to make people feel welcome and safe, to remove barriers.

But then you basically stated it is unnatural and undesirable to have too many men in senior leadership positions. With that, you've exposed that your DEI is no different from the 'bad one' mentioned before. It's not about equity, it's not about fairness, but forcing a certain end result. After all, how could the company be fair and equitable if the end result doesn't visually reflect that? That possibility doesn't even enter your mind it seems! Now you have a reason to prevent those undesirable results. There's your foundation for bias and discrimination.

You have proven your version of DEI is also toxic, stemming from the same discriminatory rhetoric, which you've been defending in this thread. That cat is out of the bag.

 

[Woopah]

No it doesn't. We don't know the circumstances under which those people got those positions, so it's impossible to infer equal treatment from that.

If all or the vast majority of your leadership are coming from only one gender, you need to look into why that is.

30-40% of the office employees were women, yet less than 5% of the senior leadership were women.

What's your alternative reason for that situation? That its one massive, ongoing coincidence?

What do you mean it's a symptom? If those men were promoted to those positions fair and square, without bias, without nepotism, without sexism, then it's not a symptom for anything. That's what meritocracy is.

Because if everyone is treated fair and square without bias, the senior leadership would be more reflective of the company.

If 30-40% of your office employees are women, why are so few entering senior leadership? That is a symptom of some barriers.

You claimed your company's DEI was different from the others. That it was actually a meritocracy and it was just some small things you implemented to make people feel welcome and safe, to remove barriers.

But then you basically stated it is unnatural and undesirable to have too many men in senior leadership positions. With that, you've exposed that your DEI is no different from the 'bad one' mentioned before. It's not about equity, it's not about fairness, but forcing a certain end result. After all, how could the company be fair and equitable if the end result doesn't visually reflect that? That possibility doesn't even enter your mind it seems! Now you have a reason to prevent those undesirable results. There's your foundation for bias and discrimination.

I said DEI was about removing barriers. We were in a situation where there were barriers to women's careers that were preventing them moving into senior leadership.

These barriers applied to women but not to men.That's not fair and not equitable.

You have proven your version of DEI is also toxic, stemming from the same discriminatory rhetoric, which you've been defending in this thread. That cat is out of the bag.

I'll explain it through a scenario. Hope this helps:

A man and a woman have been discussing with their line managers about upcoming positions that would be a promotion for them. During this time, they both tell their manager they are expecting a child (not with each other).

Scenario A - The career conversations with the man continue and he applies. The woman stops hearing about this position and is unable to apply.

Scenario B - The career conversations with both people continue and both are able to apply.

We wanted to move from A to B. Do you consider B to be toxic or discriminatory?

 

[Stooky]

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If all or the vast majority of your leadership are coming from only one gender, you need to look into why that is.

30-40% of the office employees were women, yet less than 5% of the senior leadership were women.

What's your alternative reason for that situation? That its one massive, ongoing coincidence?



Because if everyone is treated fair and square without bias, the senior leadership would be more reflective of the company.

If 30-40% of your office employees are women, why are so few entering senior leadership? That is a symptom of some barriers.



I said DEI was about removing barriers. We were in a situation where there were barriers to women's careers that were preventing them moving into senior leadership.

These barriers applied to women but not to men.That's not fair and not equitable.



I'll explain it through a scenario. Hope this helps:

A man and a woman have been discussing with their line managers about upcoming positions that would be a promotion for them. During this time, they both tell their manager they are expecting a child (not with each other).

Scenario A - The career conversations with the man continue and he applies. The woman stops hearing about this position and is unable to apply.

Scenario B - The career conversations with both people continue and both are able to apply.

We wanted to move from A to B. Do you consider B to be toxic or discriminatory?

If what you are saying is true, your company act like it's from the 1970s.

Your company somehow didnt realize that DEI kind of stuff you posted (being fair to men and women about possible promotions coming up) isnt new. You dont need modern day DEI labels. Your company just needs standard policies which any company could have implemented the past 30, 40 or 50 years even when the term DEI wasnt invented yet. The type of stuff you posted is the kind of code of conduct policies every big company I've worked at has since I got my first office job out of university in the late 90s. And goes beyond hiring policies and fairness. But also, anti-bribery, corruption, conflicts of interest etc... It's the type of stuff every office worker goes through unless it's a small company that doesnt bother with this stuff, or they are a poorly managed company with archaic hiring practices.

You and your company hiring people seem to have done a lousy job if it takes to end of the year 2024 to act on it.

 

[InterMusketeer]

If all or the vast majority of your leadership are coming from only one gender, you need to look into why that is.

Because if everyone is treated fair and square without bias, the senior leadership would be more reflective of the company.

With this, I think your position is pretty clear. I happen to fundamentally disagree with you, and I don't think any more clarification or arguing is going to change that. Thank you for your time and attention, but I will not be posting in this thread anymore.

 

[Woopah]

With this, I think your position is pretty clear. I happen to fundamentally disagree with you, and I don't think any more clarification or arguing is going to change that. Thank you for your time and attention, but I will not be posting in this thread anymore.

Fair enough. I'd still be interested to know your answers to the questions I asked you so feel free to dm.

 

[Woopah]

If what you are saying is true, your company act like it's from the 1970s.

Your company somehow didnt realize that DEI kind of stuff you posted (being fair to men and women about possible promotions coming up) isnt new. You dont need modern day DEI labels. Your company just needs standard policies which any company could have implemented the past 30, 40 or 50 years even when the term DEI wasnt invented yet. The type of stuff you posted is the kind of code of conduct policies every big company I've worked at has since I got my first office job out of university in the late 90s. And goes beyond hiring policies and fairness. But also, anti-bribery, corruption, conflicts of interest etc... It's the type of stuff every office worker goes through unless it's a small company that doesnt bother with this stuff, or they are a poorly managed company with archaic hiring practices.

You and your company hiring people seem to have done a lousy job if it takes to end of the year 2024 to act on it.

We didn't start DEI in 2024, but actions that happened many years ago still have an effect today.

And it's not just my company and not just something happening in the 70s.

For example, in 2017 54 of the UK's biggest companies had Executive Committees that had no women at all. 15 of the 350 biggest companies had female CEOs.

It's not because these companies lack basic compliance policies that have existed for decades. Clearly those polices don't sort the issue.

That's very unlikely in a situation where the 50% of the population who are women have exactly the same opportunities as the other 50% of the population.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

We didn't start DEI in 2024, but actions that happened many years ago still have an effect today.

And it's not just my company and not just something happening in the 70s.

For example, in 2017 54 of the UK's biggest companies had Executive Committees that had no women at all. 15 of the 350 biggest companies had female CEOs.

It's not because these companies lack basic compliance policies that have existed for decades. Clearly those polices don't sort the issue.

That's very unlikely in a situation where the 50% of the population who are women have exactly the same opportunities as the other 50% of the population.

Maybe one reason why there's s many guys is due to natural experience.

More men work, more men dont go on mat leave, and a lot of execs are old white haired guys who have 50 years of experience.

50/50 population doesnt mean much because not all jobs are 50/50 in applications and interest. That's like saying teaching, nursing and shipping and receiving workers should be 50/50 because the general population is around 50/50.

Part of working up the chain in an office environment is being aggressive. That's why guys do better. No different then reading on salary negotiations and guys are more likely to ask for more. There's no law that says only guys can ask for more. So IMO a reason why women do worse in the office roles is lack of confidence. Which is what I said to you in an early post where if a woman thinks just because a company has lots of guys they get scared off or think something dubious is happening. If that's how she (or anyone feels), she's going to be queasy at a lot of things in life because there's lots of things that skew to guys. Just as there's some things that skew to women.

If she feels uneasy being around guys, but seemingly ok with women she's not acting normal. That's actually a bigoted gut feeling. I've had my share of men, women, white people and minority background all being my boss at some point in my career. Didnt care or think of it weird one bit. I've also had bosses who are a bit younger than me. Some people feel weird about that because they dont want a younger boss. Who cares. As long as he's a good guy thats all that matters.