How this particular new “tying” of one thing to another impacts the overall state of things is anyone’s guess.
> There weren’t any quotas around how many of these “diverse” candidates I had to actually hire
> Again, there was no quota
>My sole motivation is to get things to where merit and merit alone determines who gets hired and promoted
The problem is that "merit" is an incredibly loaded term. It _sounds_ nice. But reality is messy.
For example, how do you explain the incredibly tight and consistent correlation between the income group you're at by 30 and the one you were born into? Where is the merit in that?
Sounds racist. And illegal?
the ceo of ibm was on camera saying things exactly like this to everyone in the meeting, no idea where they get these ideas from
Because you’re literally pulling that out of your ass. Even the article you link never mentions that and mentions multiple times that there was no such thing.
Quote: “Tying senior leaders’ compensation to diversity gains in their respective organizations.”
If you think that an increase from 6.5% to 7% in Hispanic employees or from 28.6% to 29.7% in women is all driven by requiring exec approval for straight white men, then you’re delusional.
Note that I’m not necessarily tying years of hardcore DEI quota hiring per se to their recent failures. For all I know the two things might be unrelated. I’m just saying they already tie exec compensation to all sorts of other things some of which might conflict with one another.
DEI is about inclusion (that's the I) of people who have traditionally been excluded from opportunities. It's not about keeping anyone else out or down. Try actually educating yourself instead of repeating brain dead nonsense.
You’re simply dismissing others’ experience, but I’m not lying to you when I say that many of us have direct experience with this. At the big tech companies this is normal practice. Also race questions are standard in the application process, even if optional, and even if you don’t answer them, internal diversity teams will guess at people’s races where they don’t have data. In hiring decision meetings, people definitely discuss protected traits as a reason to say yes. In promotion meetings, these diversity metrics are reviewed and tweaks are made based on protected traits. If you’re a junior manager you are not going to be in the room when that happens, to keep things secret.
> Try actually educating yourself instead of repeating brain dead nonsense.
Read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I wish DEI groups had as much power as right wingers fantasize. Maybe we'd see more under represented communities in C-suite, instead the head of DEI trots everyone out for a meeting to talk about what they want to do and then "mysteriously" leaves 8 months later when they realize "wait, I don't actually get to do anything".
Anyway, I read as much of the linked article as I could stomach, but I gave up at this point:
> When I began my career, I believed that the systems for determining who got a job or a promotion at a company like Microsoft at least aimed at an ideal of meritocracy
I have had these conversations with fuckhead managers in the past. How the hell can we have a meritocracy when non-cis-white-males have far less opportunity to gain the resume points necessary to compete? “Meritocracy” in this sense is, at best, nothing more than a cover for conservatism.
A historical lack of diversity obviously has a compounding effect on the skills of a population and the only way to fix that historical wrong is to promote people who would not otherwise have had that opportunity.
Instead of railing against diversity quotas, maybe instead you could think about why the fuck they are necessary in the fist place?
Could it be that the biggest company in the world benefits from these policies? By acknowledging that a resume might be affected by lack of opportunity, Microsoft gets to sample from a larger pool of potential excellence.
It’s pretty simple really. Isn’t the success of Microsoft proof that diversity is actually beneficial to private industry?
I’ve come to the conclusion that “meritocracy” - when used in the context of diversity - is just another code word for “racist fuckhead”, and honestly I’m sick of hearing about it.