4 ms·

At least a portion of the DEI officer job decline was caused by major investors becoming intolerant of DEI. I don't personally have a causal link for the change

At least a portion of the DEI officer job decline was caused by major investors becoming intolerant of DEI. I don't personally have a causal link for the change in investor's minds, but it happened at about the same time that fighting against DEI became a republican policy. And for what it's worth, DEI's environmental cousin - ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) - reporting for investors is still going quite strong.

SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
Also DEI officers are a thing only at companies large enough to have an HR department. Their entire purpose is to ensure that the company doesn't get sued or fined for making illegal race-based hiring decisions. Once all the big companies have filled that new title there's not much reason to expect lots of job postings for the title: the market is saturated. Even if no company eliminated their DEI officer position you'd still expect the number of job postings to drop! Hiring for new positions follows a sigmoid curve, not an exponential or even linear one.
ravenstine 2y ago
Is it really intolerance of DEI, or the fact that those jobs are basically horseshit? It's one thing to incorporate aspects of DEI into company culture and to have policy around it, but do you really need a role dedicated to DEI? I really doubt it. I've worked at a few companies with these DEI officers, and the value they bring to a company is extremely dubious, if existent at all. My last company let theirs go, despite the administration being highly leftist at the time, and it was painfully obvious why. It's insulting to everyone that a DEI officer makes more than a burger flipper considering their cushy duties. DEI-based roles were destined to fail.
- slau 2y ago
  My partner chaired a D&I board for a while. The amount of work she had to put in was astonishing. She organised events, had to find speakers, find venues for said events, wrote internal SM posts, etc. And this was all unpaid, effectively. There was no policy, no obligation to participate, no forced anything. It was just about creating space that can either accommodate discussions or promote awareness, or workshops to help some people be inspired, feel supported or encouraged. There were culture cafés, mentoring programs, etc. Said company seems to have had a reduction in DEI efforts/positions, but that seems aligned with a general cost reduction, not because DEI was a failure. (I do an exceptionally poor job of summarising what she did, but then again, I wasn’t directly involved in it).
  - sickofparadox 2y ago
    And yet, for all of that work - is the company in any better of a position? By what measures did the company culture improve? How many people attended those events? How many of those people felt they were worthwhile? Just because something is a lot of work does not mean it is worth that investment. I can dig a giant hole in my backyard, but I'm probably not going to get much out of it aside from dirt and stone for all my efforts.
- razakel 2y ago
  DEI in practical terms is basically HR, compliance and auditing so the company doesn't get sued for using slave labour or something.
  - BizarroLand 2y ago
    And, for the companies that drop their DEI groups, that information is going to be marked as exhibit #1 in any relevant lawsuit. The instant it becomes obvious that the company only hires young straight white males when there are applicants that don't fit those categories and are equally or better qualified were not hired, they'll spend far more than a couple of DEI employee's annual salaries either paying the victims or paying the lawyers.
  - sickofparadox 2y ago
    This would be the "motte" in the "motte and bailey" bad faith argument.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
ESG sadly is pretty popular in my country, but at least they have dropped their racism and sexism grift. Perhaps their other ambitions can be useful, but their language manipulation seriously had to go and it will take time until it is gone completely. It simply caused more problems than it solved. Also those responsible for ESG do not have any disciplinary power over other employees, which was different with DEI. PR of course has slightly different rules. Still, it should be under scrutiny to not mutate into something more authoritarian again. As a dev I can ignore ESG completely now and I don't believe I will ever become friends with it. I certainly do not change my language for them, they caused enough damage and I believe polite silence on certain topics on their part would be quite adequate.
- collingreen 2y ago
  Who is "they" in this? Are you saying all ESG is just a grift to further racism and sexism? And that ESG is authoritarianism? I don't even understand your argument.

SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago

Also DEI officers are a thing only at companies large enough to have an HR department. Their entire purpose is to ensure that the company doesn't get sued or fined for making illegal race-based hiring decisions. Once all the big companies have filled that new title there's not much reason to expect lots of job postings for the title: the market is saturated. Even if no company eliminated their DEI officer position you'd still expect the number of job postings to drop! Hiring for new positions follows a sigmoid curve, not an exponential or even linear one.

ravenstine 2y ago

Is it really intolerance of DEI, or the fact that those jobs are basically horseshit? It's one thing to incorporate aspects of DEI into company culture and to have policy around it, but do you really need a role dedicated to DEI? I really doubt it. I've worked at a few companies with these DEI officers, and the value they bring to a company is extremely dubious, if existent at all. My last company let theirs go, despite the administration being highly leftist at the time, and it was painfully obvious why. It's insulting to everyone that a DEI officer makes more than a burger flipper considering their cushy duties. DEI-based roles were destined to fail.

slau 2y ago
My partner chaired a D&I board for a while. The amount of work she had to put in was astonishing. She organised events, had to find speakers, find venues for said events, wrote internal SM posts, etc. And this was all unpaid, effectively. There was no policy, no obligation to participate, no forced anything. It was just about creating space that can either accommodate discussions or promote awareness, or workshops to help some people be inspired, feel supported or encouraged. There were culture cafés, mentoring programs, etc. Said company seems to have had a reduction in DEI efforts/positions, but that seems aligned with a general cost reduction, not because DEI was a failure. (I do an exceptionally poor job of summarising what she did, but then again, I wasn’t directly involved in it).
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  And yet, for all of that work - is the company in any better of a position? By what measures did the company culture improve? How many people attended those events? How many of those people felt they were worthwhile? Just because something is a lot of work does not mean it is worth that investment. I can dig a giant hole in my backyard, but I'm probably not going to get much out of it aside from dirt and stone for all my efforts.
razakel 2y ago
DEI in practical terms is basically HR, compliance and auditing so the company doesn't get sued for using slave labour or something.
- BizarroLand 2y ago
  And, for the companies that drop their DEI groups, that information is going to be marked as exhibit #1 in any relevant lawsuit. The instant it becomes obvious that the company only hires young straight white males when there are applicants that don't fit those categories and are equally or better qualified were not hired, they'll spend far more than a couple of DEI employee's annual salaries either paying the victims or paying the lawyers.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  This would be the "motte" in the "motte and bailey" bad faith argument.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

ESG sadly is pretty popular in my country, but at least they have dropped their racism and sexism grift. Perhaps their other ambitions can be useful, but their language manipulation seriously had to go and it will take time until it is gone completely. It simply caused more problems than it solved. Also those responsible for ESG do not have any disciplinary power over other employees, which was different with DEI. PR of course has slightly different rules. Still, it should be under scrutiny to not mutate into something more authoritarian again. As a dev I can ignore ESG completely now and I don't believe I will ever become friends with it. I certainly do not change my language for them, they caused enough damage and I believe polite silence on certain topics on their part would be quite adequate.

collingreen 2y ago
Who is "they" in this? Are you saying all ESG is just a grift to further racism and sexism? And that ESG is authoritarianism? I don't even understand your argument.