I've been explicitely told that by other managers who were in the process of hiring. They were literally told that they are strongly, strongly recommended to hire based on "diversity" over merit.
And I'm not incompetent, I manage a team now.
I've been told TO MY FACE by people who hire that there is a 'reverse racism' imposed by HR. there are people who expose this form within companies. It is literaly WRITTEN COMPANY POLICY, but if you mention it, you're treated as if you are imagining it, and that you are the bad guy.
And I'm not incompetent, I manage a team now.
So does my 16 y/o. lol, but I'll take your word for it.
Oh I have zero doubt that it *has* happened, of course it has. But it's
by far not what DEI is designed or intended for, nor how it plays out
most of the time -- Most of the time, it works as intended, which is great.
I've had my superior tell me not to hire a woman before, too, because... she was a woman. But I happen to have a pair and told them where to go.
So there you go, we both have a ancedotal occurance!
So does my 16 y/o. lol, but I'll take your word for it.
Somehow you don't grasp that this is just an ancdeotal incident, though. Statisticlly, this is not the case at all.
Sounds like the company you work for is full of a lot of morons that
need sued into oblivion.
The issue is that it creates an incentive structure which necessitates a racial/sexual bias to remain complaint.
Actually, one way companies increase their female management is to just create bogus "manager" jobs, i.e, rename someone working on their own as a "manager", and then this increases the female manager metric.
If multiple people are reporting the same thing, independently, in different places, that is, seeing the same issue come up and correlate, then "anectode" becomes "Evidence".
I agree fully with you here that it *can* create a incentive structure - but if it has, the company has implemented it wrong.
The same strucutre you cite already exists *without* DEI, but it's the polar opposite, resulting in racism, misogyny, etc. Hell, half the
people here make it VERY clear they would not hire someone they deem as LGBTQ+. DEI combats that.
Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it better than the alternative (ie: nothing)? Hell yes. Instead of being "anti-DEI", be "anti-abuse". ALL of our
systems are abused in some way or another -- that's the game. There is always persons out there ready to exploit/abuse/whatever any system in place. The key is to iterate and revise, not destroy.
On Saturday, June 13th boraxman said...
Actually, one way companies increase their female management is to jus
create bogus "manager" jobs, i.e, rename someone working on their own
a "manager", and then this increases the female manager metric.
I've seen this play out in a million ways over my career, but replace "female" with whatever you like. Bad people game the system to make themselves look good. Nothing new. (Bad) Managers do this with or
without DEI.
If multiple people are reporting the same thing, independently, in different places, that is, seeing the same issue come up and correlate, then "anectode" becomes "Evidence".
The "merit driven" society is over, we are going to become and more and more defined by what group we identify by.
more defined by what group we identify by.
The more you deversify, the less this is true. "Melting pots" have always shown this to be the case while nationalism and the like produces said groups.
And please stop with the politics talk. I was hoping we were done with it.Sadly we are in a polarized society.
So many other nice conversations going on, without any mention of politicians.
discuss focing values on others, I feel forced to respond kindly to
"Thank you
for your service," to maintain societal norms when the truthful response would
be "I didn't do it for you."
| Sysop: | Heisenberg |
|---|---|
| Location: | Kalgoorlie, Western Australia |
| Users: | 12 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 04:02:09 |
| Calls: | 67 |
| Files: | 1 |
| Messages: | 21,258 |