7 ms·

The Rise and Fall of the Chief Diversity Officer

49 points by EvgeniyZh 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
resolutebat 3y ago
https://archive.is/dokfe https://archive.is/dokfe
Paul_S 3y ago
How do the companies justify spending money on diversity executives to their shareholders? Genuinely asking. Do they say it will make them more money?
- programmer_dude 3y ago
  "It will help us not loose money due to bad optics"?
  - commandlinefan 3y ago
    “Let me in so I can save you” “Save me from what?” “From what I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in”
- jl6 3y ago
  1. Companies whose staff are not representative of their customers risk becoming out of touch with their customers. 2. ESG credentials attract investors with ESG goals. 3. Diversity is associated with positive goodwill, so it can be exploited to gain an edge in marketing. I’m not saying I agree these are valid justifications (#1 particularly could be spun as an argument against diversity), but these are some of the reasons that get deployed.
  - akomtu 3y ago
    2 is a big one. There are large ESG funds with very political agenda. Shareholders don't care about the agenda, but want the ESG money, and if all it takes is creating a "diversity officer" role, they'll do it. But right now the ESG funds are experiencing financial difficulties, and so the shareholders are dumping them.
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    It also doesn't cost that much compared to other things, so there probably isn't that much to justify.
- enteeentee 3y ago
  I hate all these oh they’re just being a woke company articles, blah, blah, they completely misunderstand the point of diversity from an HR perspective. Yes there is a good reason to promote diversity in a company that isnt necessarily an immediate make more money thing, but does contribute. Basically companies have a lot of problems with recruiting and retaining talent, having good talent will increase performance. Showing you are accepting of a diverse set of people is on some levels a recruitment marketing exercise. The amount of money spent on diversity executives, well yeah probably a bit high, but about the amount you’d pay an HR exec at that level As a gay man, if I have 2 similar job offers, one with a company that shows they are accepting and dont accept prejudice, and another that says nothing. Which one do you think I’ll choose? Not just in diversity, but I’d far more prefer to work for a company that has values that align with me, eg I wouldnt want to work for a company that is involved with arms dealing, sure this will make you a lot of money for shareholders, but do you want to hand out pain, misery and death? Not all of us work for the bottom line. I recognise I am working for a business, but Id much prefer to think of my job as creating something, making things easier for people rather than just making money as a mission, that sounds like a miserable way to live.
  - epups 3y ago
    > As a gay man, if I have 2 similar job offers, one with a company that shows they are accepting and dont accept prejudice, and another that says nothing. Which one do you think I’ll choose? I honestly don't know. Do you seriously think that a company that has a diversity officer "believes" anything differently than one that doesn't? We should not confuse promoting diversity with enshrining this into bureaucracy in a very specific and, in my opinion, misguided way. There are plenty of examples of these officers making the problem worse.
    - pg_1234 3y ago
      I'd go with the one that hasn't lied to you yet ... ... the one that said nothing.
      - projectazorian 3y ago
- didntknowya 3y ago
  it's pretty much just another HR role. I don't think you'll get much pushback if HR isn't making money, most people ignore it to be avoid being cancelled.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Yes. There’s enough stats out there showing diverse companies do better. Stock price is a commonly cited metric. It’s not hard to find. That is the justification. What isn’t clear is whether these analyses are well controlled. E.g. is it over indexing on companies flourishing in wealthy coastal cities. I doubt it’s a causal effect personally. But I don’t have numbers either way.
  - commandlinefan 3y ago
    I tried to look into this once, and it’s hard to find these studies. It’s easy to find studies that _cite_ these studies, but it’s hard to actually find the studies themselves, and even harder to figure out exactly what they mean by “diversity”. Where I could find data, it was significant that the studies took place before diversity included sexual orientation (and _long_ before it included gender identity), but those both seem to be the main driver of diversity initiatives these days
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Eh… I don’t think there’s anything to say there. Companies tend not to have data on the sexual orientation of their employees. Such studies are not possible to do. Promoting inclusivity for sexual orientation and gender is different from trying to improve diversity. I think it’s pretty rare to see the latter relative to racial diversity efforts.
      - dolni 3y ago
        It sounds to me like what you're saying is "data isn't important as long as I agree with the conclusion." These diversity "studies", as the grandparent points out, are light on data and heavy on marketing. Several years back when I looked up the McKinsey 2012 (or 2013, whichever) study that started all this, it was a marketing flyer with zero data. It's really convenient you can make such a hefty claim and provide essentially no evidence to back it up.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
jl6 3y ago
> He estimates that 60% of diversity roles he is currently filling combine the title with another position, such as chief human resources officer, up from about 10% five years ago. Seems to be a natural optimization. A new type of role comes along, experiences rapid initial growth, then orgs figure out that it’s really just another spin on an HR role, so they get merged into mainstream HR. I expect the same thing to happen to “Chief AI Officer” roles - they will be absorbed back into CIO/CTO roles.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- huijzer 3y ago
  And Chief Ethical AI back into the Sales Department.
zer8k 3y ago
It's difficult to talk about the problem of these diversity efforts without sounding like a bigot. But I'll give it a shot. In the last 3-4 years the amount of, what I will term, "bullshit diversity" has spiked dramatically. The internal politics involved (at least where I have worked) do nothing but create division among the employees. No one will voice it but the term "diversity hire" gets thrown around in one of several reworded forms regularly. I have been at two companies with Chief Diversity Officers whom I lovingly refer to as "Chief of Racism". It's not uncommon for these people to go into company meetings throwing around all sorts of language implying preference of one race over the other. They never say it outright, but imply it with "poorly performing diversity metrics" and "efforts to reach out to marginalized communities". It's nonsense in the strictest sense. Perhaps it's some savior complex. I think these diversity efforts are doing the exact opposite of what they intend to do. I, and likely many others, view these bullshit positions as manifestations of identity politics. Due to the riots in 2020 companies are focused on driving home this non-sense language about inclusion wherever they can. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like other diversity initiatives, and personally I'm glad to see this position being rendered moot. I have no idea how to say "diversity of thought doesn't exclude diversity of traits". I've tried before and have been labeled everything from right-wing extremist to white supremacist. The zeitgeist effectively prevents actual discussion on what diversity means. I am puzzled how simply selecting on race/sexuality/whatever somehow brings better engineering/sales/leadership to a company. All I know is I never hear this charlatans talk about how this improves the quality of the product. The metric they appear to be chasing is putting brown people in company photos (for the optics) and this seems like the opposite of the alleged intention. I've worked with engineers from all background, races, and other traits. A common thread seems to be everyone is tired of this. It would be nice if this noise was relegated to Tumblr and Twitter where it belongs.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  > I think these diversity efforts are doing the exact opposite of what they intend to do. They intend to neuter any opposition by ensuring every organization is riddled with politically-approved agents. Prove you don't discriminate by having a chief diversity officer, then that officer makes sure only the like-minded can get/keep jobs. It is after all their job description - the not like-minded contribute to a "hostile atmosphere".
morelisp 3y ago
These CDOs are, sorry, dumb as bricks. They were hired so the real executives didn't have to hear complaints anymore; the whole existence of the position is a blatant attempt to reabsorb and deflect any material changes back into the standard hierarchy of capital. If they had any clue and desire for change they'd be forming unions. My company started sending out "Eid Mubarak" letters the same year they announced they would no longer have the resources to sponsor MENA visas. They're offering anti-harassment training at the same time the sales team is chasing down far-right orgs with huge contracts. It's all a farce. The rank and file know it, the executives know, the minorities who can't get hired and promoted at real jobs know it; the only people who don't are the DEI teams.
Simulacra 3y ago
The problem with these positions is that they are all diversity hires themselves, and create animosity between employers and employees.
pipeline_peak 3y ago
Low demand for the professional windbag.
- morelisp 3y ago
  Nah, still plenty of space for it - if you're a tall man with western European ancestry.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pipeline_peak 3y ago
    “Let’s fight bigotry by targeting inherent groups of people” Yass kween!
    - morelisp 3y ago
      You were assigned windbag at birth? I’m so sorry.
      - pipeline_peak 3y ago
        Now you’re just doubling down on your own bigotry, sad.
knorker 3y ago
They were brought in as a panic reaction to "omg, we need to show we're not racist!", but it didn't take long to realize that they are the most resource diverting (into waste), agitating, and destroyers of psychological safety of anyone they've ever hired. Like "AI ethicist", it seems these roles only attract the most unethical and toxic people in the world. Neither role is even inherently evil. It just seems that only evil people want to (or get to?) do them.

49 points by EvgeniyZh 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

resolutebat 3y ago

https://archive.is/dokfe https://archive.is/dokfe

Paul_S 3y ago

How do the companies justify spending money on diversity executives to their shareholders? Genuinely asking. Do they say it will make them more money?

programmer_dude 3y ago
"It will help us not loose money due to bad optics"?
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  “Let me in so I can save you” “Save me from what?” “From what I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in”
jl6 3y ago
1. Companies whose staff are not representative of their customers risk becoming out of touch with their customers. 2. ESG credentials attract investors with ESG goals. 3. Diversity is associated with positive goodwill, so it can be exploited to gain an edge in marketing. I’m not saying I agree these are valid justifications (#1 particularly could be spun as an argument against diversity), but these are some of the reasons that get deployed.
- akomtu 3y ago
  2 is a big one. There are large ESG funds with very political agenda. Shareholders don't care about the agenda, but want the ESG money, and if all it takes is creating a "diversity officer" role, they'll do it. But right now the ESG funds are experiencing financial difficulties, and so the shareholders are dumping them.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  It also doesn't cost that much compared to other things, so there probably isn't that much to justify.
enteeentee 3y ago
I hate all these oh they’re just being a woke company articles, blah, blah, they completely misunderstand the point of diversity from an HR perspective. Yes there is a good reason to promote diversity in a company that isnt necessarily an immediate make more money thing, but does contribute. Basically companies have a lot of problems with recruiting and retaining talent, having good talent will increase performance. Showing you are accepting of a diverse set of people is on some levels a recruitment marketing exercise. The amount of money spent on diversity executives, well yeah probably a bit high, but about the amount you’d pay an HR exec at that level As a gay man, if I have 2 similar job offers, one with a company that shows they are accepting and dont accept prejudice, and another that says nothing. Which one do you think I’ll choose? Not just in diversity, but I’d far more prefer to work for a company that has values that align with me, eg I wouldnt want to work for a company that is involved with arms dealing, sure this will make you a lot of money for shareholders, but do you want to hand out pain, misery and death? Not all of us work for the bottom line. I recognise I am working for a business, but Id much prefer to think of my job as creating something, making things easier for people rather than just making money as a mission, that sounds like a miserable way to live.
- epups 3y ago
  > As a gay man, if I have 2 similar job offers, one with a company that shows they are accepting and dont accept prejudice, and another that says nothing. Which one do you think I’ll choose? I honestly don't know. Do you seriously think that a company that has a diversity officer "believes" anything differently than one that doesn't? We should not confuse promoting diversity with enshrining this into bureaucracy in a very specific and, in my opinion, misguided way. There are plenty of examples of these officers making the problem worse.
  - pg_1234 3y ago
    I'd go with the one that hasn't lied to you yet ... ... the one that said nothing.
    - projectazorian 3y ago
didntknowya 3y ago
it's pretty much just another HR role. I don't think you'll get much pushback if HR isn't making money, most people ignore it to be avoid being cancelled.
jncfhnb 3y ago
Yes. There’s enough stats out there showing diverse companies do better. Stock price is a commonly cited metric. It’s not hard to find. That is the justification. What isn’t clear is whether these analyses are well controlled. E.g. is it over indexing on companies flourishing in wealthy coastal cities. I doubt it’s a causal effect personally. But I don’t have numbers either way.
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  I tried to look into this once, and it’s hard to find these studies. It’s easy to find studies that _cite_ these studies, but it’s hard to actually find the studies themselves, and even harder to figure out exactly what they mean by “diversity”. Where I could find data, it was significant that the studies took place before diversity included sexual orientation (and _long_ before it included gender identity), but those both seem to be the main driver of diversity initiatives these days
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Eh… I don’t think there’s anything to say there. Companies tend not to have data on the sexual orientation of their employees. Such studies are not possible to do. Promoting inclusivity for sexual orientation and gender is different from trying to improve diversity. I think it’s pretty rare to see the latter relative to racial diversity efforts.
    - dolni 3y ago
      It sounds to me like what you're saying is "data isn't important as long as I agree with the conclusion." These diversity "studies", as the grandparent points out, are light on data and heavy on marketing. Several years back when I looked up the McKinsey 2012 (or 2013, whichever) study that started all this, it was a marketing flyer with zero data. It's really convenient you can make such a hefty claim and provide essentially no evidence to back it up.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago

jl6 3y ago

> He estimates that 60% of diversity roles he is currently filling combine the title with another position, such as chief human resources officer, up from about 10% five years ago. Seems to be a natural optimization. A new type of role comes along, experiences rapid initial growth, then orgs figure out that it’s really just another spin on an HR role, so they get merged into mainstream HR. I expect the same thing to happen to “Chief AI Officer” roles - they will be absorbed back into CIO/CTO roles.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
huijzer 3y ago
And Chief Ethical AI back into the Sales Department.

zer8k 3y ago

It's difficult to talk about the problem of these diversity efforts without sounding like a bigot. But I'll give it a shot. In the last 3-4 years the amount of, what I will term, "bullshit diversity" has spiked dramatically. The internal politics involved (at least where I have worked) do nothing but create division among the employees. No one will voice it but the term "diversity hire" gets thrown around in one of several reworded forms regularly. I have been at two companies with Chief Diversity Officers whom I lovingly refer to as "Chief of Racism". It's not uncommon for these people to go into company meetings throwing around all sorts of language implying preference of one race over the other. They never say it outright, but imply it with "poorly performing diversity metrics" and "efforts to reach out to marginalized communities". It's nonsense in the strictest sense. Perhaps it's some savior complex. I think these diversity efforts are doing the exact opposite of what they intend to do. I, and likely many others, view these bullshit positions as manifestations of identity politics. Due to the riots in 2020 companies are focused on driving home this non-sense language about inclusion wherever they can. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like other diversity initiatives, and personally I'm glad to see this position being rendered moot. I have no idea how to say "diversity of thought doesn't exclude diversity of traits". I've tried before and have been labeled everything from right-wing extremist to white supremacist. The zeitgeist effectively prevents actual discussion on what diversity means. I am puzzled how simply selecting on race/sexuality/whatever somehow brings better engineering/sales/leadership to a company. All I know is I never hear this charlatans talk about how this improves the quality of the product. The metric they appear to be chasing is putting brown people in company photos (for the optics) and this seems like the opposite of the alleged intention. I've worked with engineers from all background, races, and other traits. A common thread seems to be everyone is tired of this. It would be nice if this noise was relegated to Tumblr and Twitter where it belongs.

NoRelToEmber 3y ago
> I think these diversity efforts are doing the exact opposite of what they intend to do. They intend to neuter any opposition by ensuring every organization is riddled with politically-approved agents. Prove you don't discriminate by having a chief diversity officer, then that officer makes sure only the like-minded can get/keep jobs. It is after all their job description - the not like-minded contribute to a "hostile atmosphere".

morelisp 3y ago

These CDOs are, sorry, dumb as bricks. They were hired so the real executives didn't have to hear complaints anymore; the whole existence of the position is a blatant attempt to reabsorb and deflect any material changes back into the standard hierarchy of capital. If they had any clue and desire for change they'd be forming unions. My company started sending out "Eid Mubarak" letters the same year they announced they would no longer have the resources to sponsor MENA visas. They're offering anti-harassment training at the same time the sales team is chasing down far-right orgs with huge contracts. It's all a farce. The rank and file know it, the executives know, the minorities who can't get hired and promoted at real jobs know it; the only people who don't are the DEI teams.

Simulacra 3y ago

The problem with these positions is that they are all diversity hires themselves, and create animosity between employers and employees.

pipeline_peak 3y ago

Low demand for the professional windbag.

morelisp 3y ago
Nah, still plenty of space for it - if you're a tall man with western European ancestry.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pipeline_peak 3y ago
  “Let’s fight bigotry by targeting inherent groups of people” Yass kween!
  - morelisp 3y ago
    You were assigned windbag at birth? I’m so sorry.
    - pipeline_peak 3y ago
      Now you’re just doubling down on your own bigotry, sad.

knorker 3y ago

They were brought in as a panic reaction to "omg, we need to show we're not racist!", but it didn't take long to realize that they are the most resource diverting (into waste), agitating, and destroyers of psychological safety of anyone they've ever hired. Like "AI ethicist", it seems these roles only attract the most unethical and toxic people in the world. Neither role is even inherently evil. It just seems that only evil people want to (or get to?) do them.