Ugh, another one of these. > There weren’t any quotas around how many of these “diverse” candidates I had to actually hire, but I was pretty sure my corporate

Ugh, another one of these. > There weren’t any quotas around how many of these “diverse” candidates I had to actually hire, but I was pretty sure my corporate vice president would be more likely to promote people who had hired more of them and thus made his contribution to the annual D&I report look good. Correct, there aren't quotas, but of course that doesn't stop the author from speculating that there might be, and basing the rest of the article on that. > Again, there was no quota, but it seemed clear that promoting this person would have made HR and my corporate vice president happy. Missing here is how BIPOC and women have been systemically under-promoted relative to their work output, and yes, although there is no quota, someone is checking in to make sure a manager (i.e., someone who has power over their reports' lives) is aware of systemic biases when approaching their decision-making. What is terrible about this exactly?