4 ms·

Google and workplaces in general are in a very tough spot here. "Diversity & Inclusion" are grenades in the current political environment and more often than no

Google and workplaces in general are in a very tough spot here. "Diversity & Inclusion" are grenades in the current political environment and more often than not any discussion in a non monolithic setting where ideas from both sides will be argued (ie. a large multinational) will probably end up with mudslinging and fire throwing. I've seen it within my own companies forums and I have no doubt this was going on at Google. I definitely understand where HR and senior executives where coming from, I'm sure more than one post went off the fucking rails. I'm all for diversity & inclusion within the work place but in general I would suggest companies do it in a more "covert" manner -- reach out to HBCUs, re-evaluate your interview process, talk to your employees who are "underrepresented minorities" to see how they feel about working for you. In general I think a lot of companies are simply inviting too much scrutiny by plastering diversity on the walls and screaming to high heavens.. press releases and chief diversity officers will not make you a more diverse company.

calculusftw 9y ago
The position Google and other company leaders are in should not be tough at all. Google's VP was right when he said, "Google is not a debate club or a philosophy class. We are a workplace and we have an obligation to make sure our discussions remain respectful. Debates around topics like product excellence can support a wide variety of viewpoints and are great to have. I don’t think the same can be said for debates around sensitive issues such as gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation." If Google's in a tough spot, it's because their leadership is too passively "respectfully asking that everyone stop engaging on this [debate] thread," when they should be more assertive; e.g. like simply informing Googlers that the counterproductive behavior will no longer be tolerated. What's most disturbing to me about this situation at Google is that these adult professionals––the creme of the creme of the crop, right?--whether they're progressives, conservatives, SJWs, liberals, libertarians, librarians, or whatever, can't seem to respect one another, and conduct themselves at work without descending into polarizing debate which is clearly interfering with business operations. Google's situation is also reflective of the country's current cultural crisis. It's so poignantly ironic that in the midst of this ongoing (unending) cultural debate we're having--about equality, diversity, inclusivity, "social justice," in which everyone is so relentlessly (and not so subtly) implying what good people they are--the apparent result of it all is that we're more divided as a nation than we've been in half a century.
emcarey 9y ago
chief diversity officers will make a corporation more diverse - that is their job. companies that do PR around their diversity are not doing it right - D&I is an industry competitive advantage. The most diverse organizations in the Fortune 1000 outperform their industry median financial returns by 35%. I agree the 'covert' manner works but the role of chief diversity officers is critical to the macroeconomic impact of globalizing and increasing market representation in our modern workforces.
- mankash666 9y ago
  Correlation isn't causation. I'm not saying that diversity is bad, but if the most diverse of the fortune 500 did outperform others, diversity as a direct cause of this is what I'd like to see evidence of. Many other factors might have contributed to their better performance, one could attribute one of those to be the cause?
  - T2_t2 9y ago
    Even further to that, what do these companies DO. I doubt that BHP Billiton - or many petro-chemical companies - have a lot of diversity. I bet Wallmart does - especially minority hires. And what even is diversity? Google employs a lot of Indians - both in India and the USA - and that helps diversity along all lines - racial, gender as India doesn't have the same gender tech bias as the west. Is that AMERICAN diversity? Using BS numbers, if US born employees are 90-10 men to women, but overall it is 70-30, then the best means of increasing diversity could be more foreign hires. Does that benefit who people are hoping it does? I'm not for or against any position here, it is just that the history of measures like this is to use euphemistic "statistics", aka "lying with numbers". If companies can find a way to manipulate the numbers - consultants instead of employees, inhousing female dominated positions etc - then this will be easily doable. In fact, I think I might start a consultancy in just that :)
- gaius 9y ago
  I think it is curious that CDOs exist as distinct from the Head of HR position. How does that work on the org chart, are they peers or who reports to who?

calculusftw 9y ago

The position Google and other company leaders are in should not be tough at all. Google's VP was right when he said, "Google is not a debate club or a philosophy class. We are a workplace and we have an obligation to make sure our discussions remain respectful. Debates around topics like product excellence can support a wide variety of viewpoints and are great to have. I don’t think the same can be said for debates around sensitive issues such as gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation." If Google's in a tough spot, it's because their leadership is too passively "respectfully asking that everyone stop engaging on this [debate] thread," when they should be more assertive; e.g. like simply informing Googlers that the counterproductive behavior will no longer be tolerated. What's most disturbing to me about this situation at Google is that these adult professionals––the creme of the creme of the crop, right?--whether they're progressives, conservatives, SJWs, liberals, libertarians, librarians, or whatever, can't seem to respect one another, and conduct themselves at work without descending into polarizing debate which is clearly interfering with business operations. Google's situation is also reflective of the country's current cultural crisis. It's so poignantly ironic that in the midst of this ongoing (unending) cultural debate we're having--about equality, diversity, inclusivity, "social justice," in which everyone is so relentlessly (and not so subtly) implying what good people they are--the apparent result of it all is that we're more divided as a nation than we've been in half a century.

emcarey 9y ago

chief diversity officers will make a corporation more diverse - that is their job. companies that do PR around their diversity are not doing it right - D&I is an industry competitive advantage. The most diverse organizations in the Fortune 1000 outperform their industry median financial returns by 35%. I agree the 'covert' manner works but the role of chief diversity officers is critical to the macroeconomic impact of globalizing and increasing market representation in our modern workforces.

mankash666 9y ago
Correlation isn't causation. I'm not saying that diversity is bad, but if the most diverse of the fortune 500 did outperform others, diversity as a direct cause of this is what I'd like to see evidence of. Many other factors might have contributed to their better performance, one could attribute one of those to be the cause?
- T2_t2 9y ago
  Even further to that, what do these companies DO. I doubt that BHP Billiton - or many petro-chemical companies - have a lot of diversity. I bet Wallmart does - especially minority hires. And what even is diversity? Google employs a lot of Indians - both in India and the USA - and that helps diversity along all lines - racial, gender as India doesn't have the same gender tech bias as the west. Is that AMERICAN diversity? Using BS numbers, if US born employees are 90-10 men to women, but overall it is 70-30, then the best means of increasing diversity could be more foreign hires. Does that benefit who people are hoping it does? I'm not for or against any position here, it is just that the history of measures like this is to use euphemistic "statistics", aka "lying with numbers". If companies can find a way to manipulate the numbers - consultants instead of employees, inhousing female dominated positions etc - then this will be easily doable. In fact, I think I might start a consultancy in just that :)
gaius 9y ago
I think it is curious that CDOs exist as distinct from the Head of HR position. How does that work on the org chart, are they peers or who reports to who?