4 ms·
Fun fact: for many years now executive (and manager) pay at Microsoft has been tied to meeting diversity quotas, and hiring straight white men when you’re under
by ein0p 3y ago
Fun fact: for many years now executive (and manager) pay at Microsoft has been tied to meeting diversity quotas, and hiring straight white men when you’re under quota required exec approval: https://www.cspicenter.com/p/what-diversity-and-inclusion-means https://www.cspicenter.com/p/what-diversity-and-inclusion-me....
How this particular new “tying” of one thing to another impacts the overall state of things is anyone’s guess.
- lcvw 3y agoThat seems highly illegal. I’m not sure I believe that.
- mikestew 3y agoYou don’t have to believe, I read the whole goddamned linked “article”, and parent misrepresented even that. There was a VP that approved promotions, but no particular requirement just for straight white males. That’s just one example of parent’s BS. They got other stuff from the link wrong, too.
- ein0p 3y agoStraight white males are the only “non-diverse” demographic. So they aren’t mentioned specifically in diversity quotas, of course. But if you hire too many of them, you can kiss some part of your bonus goodbye on account of not meeting quotas. How this is legal IDK
- eddythompson80 3y ago> But if you hire too many of them, you can kiss some part of your bonus goodbye on account of not meeting quotas. How this is legal IDK 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.
- ein0p 3y agoStraight from the horses mouth, some 8 years ago: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2016/11/17/global-diversity-inclusion-update-microsoft-deepening-commitment/#sm.00001r1jhf1b20dotxnsak3ffbwkb https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2016/11/17/global-diversity... Quote: “Tying senior leaders’ compensation to diversity gains in their respective organizations.”
- eddythompson80 3y agoYeah, because it’s bullshit. How would you even know the candidate’s sexual orientation? Even the article they link doesn’t say that, and mentions multiple times that there were no quotas. The most it says is “it seemed it would make HR happy” which as an interviewer I don’t know why I would give a shit about. Other than asks to throw another random candidate in the loop, which happens all the time for all sort of reasons, there is no more “push” because yeah that would be illegal. 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.
- greenthrow 3y agoThat would be grounds for class action lawsuits. Microsoft would have to be super, super dumb for this to be true.
- ein0p 3y agoAh but that’s not how they’re selling it. None of this is sold as “we discriminate against white men” - too crude. Instead it’s “we hire more women and minorities”. Same thing, but sounds admirable. 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.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- greenthrow 3y agoDEI is not the same thing as "you can't hire straight, cis white men without explicit approval." A policy like that is illegal. The fact that you would conflate them tells me you don't know what DEI actually is, and are just repeating right wing talking points.
- ein0p 3y agoYes. And you only need approval if you aren’t already meeting the quotas. I know what DEI is. It’s discrimination
- greenthrow 3y agoRequiring approval to hire someone due to any protected characteristic is illegal. That policy would result in massive lawsuits. You are making things up.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
- doctor_eval 3y agoWell “the state of things” is that Microsoft is the world’s most valuable company by market cap. So clearly they’re doing something right, even if they have a history of poor security going back decades - way before any kind of diversity bias was the norm. 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?
- rangestransform 3y agoIt’s not the job of private industry to fix the past and current mistakes of government, namely segregation, property-tax-linked school funding, redlining, urban highway construction, etc etc etc
- nxobject 3y agoIf only reparations had a remote chance of becoming policy in this country… not a chance.
- doctor_eval 3y agoso why are they doing it? 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.
- hosteur 3y ago> hiring straight white men when you’re under quota required exec approval Sounds racist. And illegal?
- stainablesteel 3y agoyeah its super racist and illegal and somehow these companies keep doing it 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
- greenthrow 3y agoIf they were really doing racist and illegal things they'd be getting sued. This "don't hire white men" thing only exists in the fever dreams of right wingers.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y agoThis is absolutely false. Speak to any higher level manager at big tech companies and you’ll hear the truth about various hiring and promotion programs that these companies never put in writing or talk about publicly. The reason these companies don’t get sued is those individuals are afraid of social and professional retaliation that may affect their careers, even though they’re on the right side of history.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y agoRacist and illegal yes. But common. All of FAANG use discriminatory quotas behind the scenes for promotion and hiring, and often the lower level employees have no idea because these actions are done quietly by individuals or only discussed in verbal meetings to leave no records. Individuals make decisions that are discriminatory because rewards for them (senior managers and executives) are based on quotas (diversity goals). For example, in a few of these companies you aren’t eligible for a senior promotion unless your team has certain minimums on protected traits.
- whoknowsidont 3y agoI think you need to reread the article and seriously evaluate your motivations for how you've framed it.
- ein0p 3y agoI know people who work there, too. Some of them are execs. Let’s just say I don’t need help framing the article. My sole motivation is to get things to where merit and merit alone determines who gets hired and promoted. Not genitalia, sexual identity/orientation or color of the person’s skin.
- theragra 3y agoAccording to the book The origins of woke, you can't, because corporations mostly do DEI to avoid being sued by the government.
- whoknowsidont 3y agoYeah I don't think the government has any involvement in this area.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago"lol trust me bro." >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?
- jovial_cavalier 3y agoI don't take it as an axiom that, whatever "merit" is, it's not heritable. Show me that your interventions un-correlate them.
- 3y ago
- nitwit005 3y agoYour linked article says rather the opposite of your claim of a quota: > There weren’t any quotas around how many of these “diverse” candidates I had to actually hire > Again, there was no quota