I don't want to do "DEI Work" at work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because having a diverse and equitable workforce IS good for the bottom line and will ultimately result in a better workplace and product for your clients.

Also and most importantly but I don't think will sway you, people deserve to work in places that are fair and equitable. And for the most place they don't. So, places are trying to change that as they should. Ultimately if it works, it's better for everyone.

I agree that having a diverse and equitable workforce is good. We have a very diverse staff, and people are treated pretty fairly overall. That's not what I'm referring to. Our company is having external facilitators come in and force us to have awkward and uncomfortable conversations with probing questions that I truly don't feel comfortable sharing with my colleagues. I don't want to share "the moment that I felt discriminated against" or "the moment I did something discriminatory to someone else" or "my family background and structure". None of these things contribute to me doing my job well.

We did this. I initially was also very uncomfortable and didn't see the point. It fostered some great discussions and helped folks connect on a different level. I still apply a lot of what we discussed and learned when I interact with the employees I manage and when I hire. In one case, it resulted in us making a different hiring decision that we probably would have otherwise. Open your mind, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't is supposed to be that you are not precluded from being hired due to your race, background, age, etc if you are qualified? Not that you are automatically disqualified if you are white? Or old? Old is still a popular reason for discrimination.

Older white women get discriminated against a lot in hiring.

They do! I know more than a few older white women who essentially retired post 55/60 because of this. Professional educated women who just couldn't find a reasonable job. Not trying to be the director or big boss. Usually found some type of part time work for which their over qualification greatly benefited the position at the woman's financial sacrifice.

Not to mention a lot of them get hit with the "Karen" stereotype.

+1

Plus, add in resentful women in the office, and you really have a sh*tstorm. Women generally don't know how to support each other, and very few at the top - who got there by being a woman (!!!), do not bother to help other women up - instead of being humble and grateful, they tend to kick downward - as if someone will find out they don't belong at the top.

Because you don’t get the top by being kind and empathetic. You get there by being ruthless and narcissistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI is a gaslighting cult along the lines of Q-Anon or Scientology, not a management tool or some type of mechanism for social justice. Just ignore it.

+1. Cult is absolutely right. As a federal employee suffering through a deluge of DEI initiatives under this administration, it is stunning to watch. I'm so tempted to raise my hand at one of these ridiculous meetings and ask for evidence or data in support the outlandish statements our diversity officers routinely make, but it would be professional suicide to do so.

This is absurd. I would in financial services. There is a ton of data that shows that diverse portfolio management teams do better than than their all white male counterparts.

Companies would diversify naturally if it truly benefited them financially. Except if doesn’t. It’s a red flag if a company is promoting based on skin color instead of talent.

The idea that diverse teams do better always reeks of manipulated cherry picked data and forced memes than anything factual. It may go back to a single study by one consulting firm. In the real word this obviously makes no sense. There are enormously successful portfolios that are effectively all white, or all Asian or whatever because those countries are white or Asian or whatever. But we all know DEI is really about getting the right quota of blacks. It's not about South Asians or East Asians or even Latinos.

I don’t think anyone said they always do better. There definitely is evidence that interviewers can have inherent biases so they subconsciously seek out people who are like themselves. And groupthink is definitely a thing, especially in non diverse teams. However, none of this is a given and it depends on how you define diversity. Look at the UK government in recent years. Very diverse in terms of skin colour and gender - black, brown, women, etc. but also completely incompetent. If you look at their diversity closer, they all went to private schools, especially Eton, then Oxford. Ironically, a white person who went to a state school and was raised by a single parent in public housing would be diverse in that case.

Many years ago, I joined the graduate recruitment program of another country’s foreign service. It was hard to get into - about 38 positions with 10,000 applicants. The group ended up being incredibly diverse - an ICU nurse who had retrained in finance, a motorbike courier who had studied an accounting degree at night school, a poet, etc. The level of diversity was amazing in terms of academic and professional experience and life experience. There was also a range of ethnic backgrounds and half were women. If it had been a box ticking exercise, I suspect they would have ended up with a cadre of 24 year olds of various colours who had all completed a masters in international relations. True diversity can be amazing.

yes, but diversity for diversity's sake does not guarantee SME or qualifications. I'm sure this recruitment process looked at quals....?

[Anonymous]

I was stunned when I got an email from CEO Update (association job newsletter) today where they reported an executive search panel was talking about " diversity fatigue". I didn't think anyone in DC would be dumb enough to say that out loud on a panel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI is a gaslighting cult along the lines of Q-Anon or Scientology, not a management tool or some type of mechanism for social justice. Just ignore it.

+1. Cult is absolutely right. As a federal employee suffering through a deluge of DEI initiatives under this administration, it is stunning to watch. I'm so tempted to raise my hand at one of these ridiculous meetings and ask for evidence or data in support the outlandish statements our diversity officers routinely make, but it would be professional suicide to do so.

This is absurd. I would in financial services. There is a ton of data that shows that diverse portfolio management teams do better than than their all white male counterparts.

Companies would diversify naturally if it truly benefited them financially. Except if doesn’t. It’s a red flag if a company is promoting based on skin color instead of talent.

The idea that diverse teams do better always reeks of manipulated cherry picked data and forced memes than anything factual. It may go back to a single study by one consulting firm. In the real word this obviously makes no sense. There are enormously successful portfolios that are effectively all white, or all Asian or whatever because those countries are white or Asian or whatever. But we all know DEI is really about getting the right quota of blacks. It's not about South Asians or East Asians or even Latinos.

I don’t think anyone said they always do better. There definitely is evidence that interviewers can have inherent biases so they subconsciously seek out people who are like themselves. And groupthink is definitely a thing, especially in non diverse teams. However, none of this is a given and it depends on how you define diversity. Look at the UK government in recent years. Very diverse in terms of skin colour and gender - black, brown, women, etc. but also completely incompetent. If you look at their diversity closer, they all went to private schools, especially Eton, then Oxford. Ironically, a white person who went to a state school and was raised by a single parent in public housing would be diverse in that case.

Many years ago, I joined the graduate recruitment program of another country’s foreign service. It was hard to get into - about 38 positions with 10,000 applicants. The group ended up being incredibly diverse - an ICU nurse who had retrained in finance, a motorbike courier who had studied an accounting degree at night school, a poet, etc. The level of diversity was amazing in terms of academic and professional experience and life experience. There was also a range of ethnic backgrounds and half were women. If it had been a box ticking exercise, I suspect they would have ended up with a cadre of 24 year olds of various colours who had all completed a masters in international relations. True diversity can be amazing.

Can you say which country this was? This sounds very diverse. And you are right ethnically diverse 24 year olds who all got the same degree in the same elite universities is not diverse; no matter whom we are dealing with at my agency's UK counterpart, they went to Oxbridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't is supposed to be that you are not precluded from being hired due to your race, background, age, etc if you are qualified? Not that you are automatically disqualified if you are white? Or old? Old is still a popular reason for discrimination.

Older white women get discriminated against a lot in hiring.

They do! I know more than a few older white women who essentially retired post 55/60 because of this. Professional educated women who just couldn't find a reasonable job. Not trying to be the director or big boss. Usually found some type of part time work for which their over qualification greatly benefited the position at the woman's financial sacrifice.

Not to mention a lot of them get hit with the "Karen" stereotype.

+1

Plus, add in resentful women in the office, and you really have a sh*tstorm. Women generally don't know how to support each other, and very few at the top - who got there by being a woman (!!!), do not bother to help other women up - instead of being humble and grateful, they tend to kick downward - as if someone will find out they don't belong at the top.

Because you don’t get the top by being kind and empathetic. You get there by being ruthless and narcissistic.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't is supposed to be that you are not precluded from being hired due to your race, background, age, etc if you are qualified? Not that you are automatically disqualified if you are white? Or old? Old is still a popular reason for discrimination.

Older white women get discriminated against a lot in hiring.

They do! I know more than a few older white women who essentially retired post 55/60 because of this. Professional educated women who just couldn't find a reasonable job. Not trying to be the director or big boss. Usually found some type of part time work for which their over qualification greatly benefited the position at the woman's financial sacrifice.

Not to mention a lot of them get hit with the "Karen" stereotype.

+1

Plus, add in resentful women in the office, and you really have a sh*tstorm. Women generally don't know how to support each other, and very few at the top - who got there by being a woman (!!!), do not bother to help other women up - instead of being humble and grateful, they tend to kick downward - as if someone will find out they don't belong at the top.

Because you don’t get the top by being kind and empathetic. You get there by being ruthless and narcissistic.

Yup.

And insecure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI is a gaslighting cult along the lines of Q-Anon or Scientology, not a management tool or some type of mechanism for social justice. Just ignore it.

+1. Cult is absolutely right. As a federal employee suffering through a deluge of DEI initiatives under this administration, it is stunning to watch. I'm so tempted to raise my hand at one of these ridiculous meetings and ask for evidence or data in support the outlandish statements our diversity officers routinely make, but it would be professional suicide to do so.

This is absurd. I would in financial services. There is a ton of data that shows that diverse portfolio management teams do better than than their all white male counterparts.

Companies would diversify naturally if it truly benefited them financially. Except if doesn’t. It’s a red flag if a company is promoting based on skin color instead of talent.

The idea that diverse teams do better always reeks of manipulated cherry picked data and forced memes than anything factual. It may go back to a single study by one consulting firm. In the real word this obviously makes no sense. There are enormously successful portfolios that are effectively all white, or all Asian or whatever because those countries are white or Asian or whatever. But we all know DEI is really about getting the right quota of blacks. It's not about South Asians or East Asians or even Latinos.

I don’t think anyone said they always do better. There definitely is evidence that interviewers can have inherent biases so they subconsciously seek out people who are like themselves. And groupthink is definitely a thing, especially in non diverse teams. However, none of this is a given and it depends on how you define diversity. Look at the UK government in recent years. Very diverse in terms of skin colour and gender - black, brown, women, etc. but also completely incompetent. If you look at their diversity closer, they all went to private schools, especially Eton, then Oxford. Ironically, a white person who went to a state school and was raised by a single parent in public housing would be diverse in that case.

Many years ago, I joined the graduate recruitment program of another country’s foreign service. It was hard to get into - about 38 positions with 10,000 applicants. The group ended up being incredibly diverse - an ICU nurse who had retrained in finance, a motorbike courier who had studied an accounting degree at night school, a poet, etc. The level of diversity was amazing in terms of academic and professional experience and life experience. There was also a range of ethnic backgrounds and half were women. If it had been a box ticking exercise, I suspect they would have ended up with a cadre of 24 year olds of various colours who had all completed a masters in international relations. True diversity can be amazing.

Can you say which country this was? This sounds very diverse. And you are right ethnically diverse 24 year olds who all got the same degree in the same elite universities is not diverse; no matter whom we are dealing with at my agency's UK counterpart, they went to Oxbridge.

It was in Australia. Of course, it's one thing to get diversity into your recruitment and quite another to reconfigure your work practices and environment to ensure those diverse candidates can thrive. When I joined, women occupied about 10% of senior management and ambassador positions whereas that is now 40%.

Interesting point about your UK counterparts. I have a number of friends who went to Oxbridge who ended up in government agencies. Some went to selective state schools and some went to privates. They all graduated about 30 years ago when there were almost no tuition fees so many graduates weren't compelled to seek out high paying jobs to pay down massive student debt. This could be why you see so many in the public sector. Oxbridge has definitely improved on the diversity front as about 70% of students now come from the state school system. Of course the remaining 30% are from private schools which only account for 7% of the student population so they are definitely still overrepresented. One interesting way you get some diversity in the UK workforce is through recruitment of graduates from a wide range of disciplines. I worked in an investment bank with colleagues who had completed undergraduate degrees in things like archaeology, paleontology and languages and then joined the bank as graduates. That was quite common then, not sure if it has changed with the times.

[Anonymous]

We got rid of that diversity crap at work last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of that diversity crap at work last year.

Yes, there must be more productive workplace activities than spending two hours talking about black hairstyles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of that diversity crap at work last year.

Truth is, the only people who care anything about black women's hairstyles are other black women. I don't want to talk about anyone's hair. Period. Don't hit me in the face when you flip your beaded braids, because you think I'm a natural blonde, and we cool. Yup, it actually happened. More than once. Some people are taught hate from an early age, and have some point to prove. Truth is, they are only proving their hate.

LOTS of judgement going on in the workplace by people who look different than you do. If there were more talk at the start of employment about tolerance, education/training provided to everyone (not just some people), a minimum level of professionalism and what is expected of everyone (again, not just some people) - we would not need these "diversity" diversions. Companies/institutions do not need to be taking time away from what should be the common cause and purpose of the company/institution. Checked boxes should not be that goal. Employees who cause problems should get the same treatment, no matter their color. Period. The issue is, too many people think they can get away with doing bare minimum, and being racist on the sly. There are a couple places known for this.