What $$ incentives do companies have to promote dei?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. At my old org about three yrs ago prior to dei. I had three openings. I interviewed several candidates for the three roles. I ended up hiring one white person and two black people. I didn't hire them bc they were white or black. I hired them bc they were competent, met my certification requirements and were polished in the interview. I had quite a few choices to hire other people who were white, and one was latino. But i just chose to go with the best. Don't really care what the colour of your skin is.

I just think it's very controlling to have orgs mandate things. Just let us choose the best. candidate. I also think dei and the consequences of not drinking the koolaid seems borderline flirting with neo-marxism.

Nobody is mandating hiring unqualified people.

If you announce a job and only white makes show up to interview you might want to announce jobs in a way that is going to get you more, diverse people to interview to increase your chances of finding highly qualified staff.

Thats it, that’s what diverse hiring is about. It means stop limiting your announcements to low diverse areas.

Except don't diversity can be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Black people are only 13% of the population, yet these days try to push for diversity like they want half the staff to be black. It's literally a mathematical impossibility for organizations to hire that much diverse staff because the numbers in the overall population simply aren't there. On top of that,.you have to consider less than 20% of all black men have a college degree. That means less than 20% of only half (i.e.. black men) of 13% of the entire US population has enough education to meet most job requirements in the corporate world in order to meet DEI initiatives.

Companies get so desperate due to lack of numbers available to meet DEI goals that it ends up being a push to hire unqualified or under qualified individuals simply due to the need to meet race based quotas. It's simply a numbers game that makes DEI an impossible task to do fairly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I mean the obvious financial incentive is that brilliant POC, women, and people with disabilities aren’t going to be interested in going to work at a company where the leadership looks like the U.S. senate. So other companies get the talent and you lose out.

Yes, but smart, talented people (regardless of skin color, body parts, or disabilities) are not going to want to work for a company that regularly hires sub-optimal candidates, either.

Yes that is why we stopped just hiring the bosses cousin's son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. At my old org about three yrs ago prior to dei. I had three openings. I interviewed several candidates for the three roles. I ended up hiring one white person and two black people. I didn't hire them bc they were white or black. I hired them bc they were competent, met my certification requirements and were polished in the interview. I had quite a few choices to hire other people who were white, and one was latino. But i just chose to go with the best. Don't really care what the colour of your skin is.

I just think it's very controlling to have orgs mandate things. Just let us choose the best. candidate. I also think dei and the consequences of not drinking the koolaid seems borderline flirting with neo-marxism.

Nobody is mandating hiring unqualified people.

If you announce a job and only white makes show up to interview you might want to announce jobs in a way that is going to get you more, diverse people to interview to increase your chances of finding highly qualified staff.

Thats it, that’s what diverse hiring is about. It means stop limiting your announcements to low diverse areas.

Except don't diversity can be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Black people are only 13% of the population, yet these days try to push for diversity like they want half the staff to be black. It's literally a mathematical impossibility for organizations to hire that much diverse staff because the numbers in the overall population simply aren't there. On top of that,.you have to consider less than 20% of all black men have a college degree. That means less than 20% of only half (i.e.. black men) of 13% of the entire US population has enough education to meet most job requirements in the corporate world in order to meet DEI initiatives.

Companies get so desperate due to lack of numbers available to meet DEI goals that it ends up being a push to hire unqualified or under qualified individuals simply due to the need to meet race based quotas. It's simply a numbers game that makes DEI an impossible task to do fairly.

The goal of most pushes to expand hiring is to match the demographics of the eligible population (and to try to expand that eligible population). You will not find a single diversity/hiring policy that has a goal of 50%.
The goal is also to be very thoughtful about the "job requirements" for positions. What is *really* necessary to be successful in the role, and what is just something we have always done...

[Anonymous]

Federal and local funding (tax dollars) for DEI hires, training and programs in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. At my old org about three yrs ago prior to dei. I had three openings. I interviewed several candidates for the three roles. I ended up hiring one white person and two black people. I didn't hire them bc they were white or black. I hired them bc they were competent, met my certification requirements and were polished in the interview. I had quite a few choices to hire other people who were white, and one was latino. But i just chose to go with the best. Don't really care what the colour of your skin is.

I just think it's very controlling to have orgs mandate things. Just let us choose the best. candidate. I also think dei and the consequences of not drinking the koolaid seems borderline flirting with neo-marxism.

Nobody is mandating hiring unqualified people.

If you announce a job and only white makes show up to interview you might want to announce jobs in a way that is going to get you more, diverse people to interview to increase your chances of finding highly qualified staff.

Thats it, that’s what diverse hiring is about. It means stop limiting your announcements to low diverse areas.

Except don't diversity can be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Black people are only 13% of the population, yet these days try to push for diversity like they want half the staff to be black. It's literally a mathematical impossibility for organizations to hire that much diverse staff because the numbers in the overall population simply aren't there. On top of that,.you have to consider less than 20% of all black men have a college degree. That means less than 20% of only half (i.e.. black men) of 13% of the entire US population has enough education to meet most job requirements in the corporate world in order to meet DEI initiatives.

Companies get so desperate due to lack of numbers available to meet DEI goals that it ends up being a push to hire unqualified or under qualified individuals simply due to the need to meet race based quotas. It's simply a numbers game that makes DEI an impossible task to do fairly.

The goal of most pushes to expand hiring is to match the demographics of the eligible population (and to try to expand that eligible population). You will not find a single diversity/hiring policy that has a goal of 50%.
The goal is also to be very thoughtful about the "job requirements" for positions. What is *really* necessary to be successful in the role, and what is just something we have always done...

In theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. At my old org about three yrs ago prior to dei. I had three openings. I interviewed several candidates for the three roles. I ended up hiring one white person and two black people. I didn't hire them bc they were white or black. I hired them bc they were competent, met my certification requirements and were polished in the interview. I had quite a few choices to hire other people who were white, and one was latino. But i just chose to go with the best. Don't really care what the colour of your skin is.

I just think it's very controlling to have orgs mandate things. Just let us choose the best. candidate. I also think dei and the consequences of not drinking the koolaid seems borderline flirting with neo-marxism.

Nobody is mandating hiring unqualified people.

If you announce a job and only white makes show up to interview you might want to announce jobs in a way that is going to get you more, diverse people to interview to increase your chances of finding highly qualified staff.

Thats it, that’s what diverse hiring is about. It means stop limiting your announcements to low diverse areas.

Except don't diversity can be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Black people are only 13% of the population, yet these days try to push for diversity like they want half the staff to be black. It's literally a mathematical impossibility for organizations to hire that much diverse staff because the numbers in the overall population simply aren't there. On top of that,.you have to consider less than 20% of all black men have a college degree. That means less than 20% of only half (i.e.. black men) of 13% of the entire US population has enough education to meet most job requirements in the corporate world in order to meet DEI initiatives.

Companies get so desperate due to lack of numbers available to meet DEI goals that it ends up being a push to hire unqualified or under qualified individuals simply due to the need to meet race based quotas. It's simply a numbers game that makes DEI an impossible task to do fairly.

Nobody is requiring a 50% black staff.

You make up insane metrics nobody is asking for and say they are insane … yes you’re right your metrics are insane and …. NOBODY IS REQUIRING THAT METRIC.

[Anonymous]

Corporate financing depends on their ESG score. It’s a manipulation of the market.

https://unherd.com/2023/03/blackrocks-tyrannical-esg-agenda/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. At my old org about three yrs ago prior to dei. I had three openings. I interviewed several candidates for the three roles. I ended up hiring one white person and two black people. I didn't hire them bc they were white or black. I hired them bc they were competent, met my certification requirements and were polished in the interview. I had quite a few choices to hire other people who were white, and one was latino. But i just chose to go with the best. Don't really care what the colour of your skin is.

I just think it's very controlling to have orgs mandate things. Just let us choose the best. candidate. I also think dei and the consequences of not drinking the koolaid seems borderline flirting with neo-marxism.

Nobody is mandating hiring unqualified people.

If you announce a job and only white makes show up to interview you might want to announce jobs in a way that is going to get you more, diverse people to interview to increase your chances of finding highly qualified staff.

Thats it, that’s what diverse hiring is about. It means stop limiting your announcements to low diverse areas.

Except don't diversity can be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Black people are only 13% of the population, yet these days try to push for diversity like they want half the staff to be black. It's literally a mathematical impossibility for organizations to hire that much diverse staff because the numbers in the overall population simply aren't there. On top of that,.you have to consider less than 20% of all black men have a college degree. That means less than 20% of only half (i.e.. black men) of 13% of the entire US population has enough education to meet most job requirements in the corporate world in order to meet DEI initiatives.

Companies get so desperate due to lack of numbers available to meet DEI goals that it ends up being a push to hire unqualified or under qualified individuals simply due to the need to meet race based quotas. It's simply a numbers game that makes DEI an impossible task to do fairly.

Nobody is requiring a 50% black staff.

You make up insane metrics nobody is asking for and say they are insane … yes you’re right your metrics are insane and …. NOBODY IS REQUIRING THAT METRIC.

+1

[Anonymous]

There is no financial motivation, it's all optics.

Stockholders are likely to object to prioritizing social type goals over improving financial metrics which directly increase stock prices. It is sometimes posited that more diverse companies perform better financially, but without a direct company-to-company comparison of all factors which affect financial performance that is nonsensical. Higher performing companies may be incidentally more diverse, but may not be and probably are not higher performing because they are diverse.

Unfortunately, if a company pushes hiring and promotion quotas to advance the optics they want to project for non-financial performative reasons, there's little you can do about it apart from seeking employment with a more enlightened employer. Over time, if the legal landscape continues to evolve as is has recently, such quotas are likely to go away, and will be replaced with unrepresentative photographs in annual reports of a carefully chosen group of real or imagined employees from every conceivable racial group, ethnic background, and possibly gender, Bud Light excepted where just males and females are likely to be portrayed going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I mean the obvious financial incentive is that brilliant POC, women, and people with disabilities aren’t going to be interested in going to work at a company where the leadership looks like the U.S. senate. So other companies get the talent and you lose out.

Yes, but smart, talented people (regardless of skin color, body parts, or disabilities) are not going to want to work for a company that regularly hires sub-optimal candidates, either.

Which is what you get when you’re always hiring from the VP’s frat buddies, or the CEOs nephew needs a summer internship, or you take the low GPA candidate because he went to the same MBA program as this other guy.

It’s well known women out-perform men in university. So a firm where most entry-level are men? Everyone sees the red flag that they’re hiring sub-optimal candidates. The talent goes elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there financial incentives to promote dei? I work for a large org. I am mixed race poc (asian). I clearly look like a poc and am not white passing. I attend mandatory trainings and frankly find them offensive.

We are told that when we interview for candidates and narrow down our top 3, that we must make sure one is a poc. They used another word like meets diversity and equity criteria but then went on about how the org is really pushing recruitment from historically black colleges. The unsaid message was hire a black person. What about asians? What about Arabs? What about people with other types of diversity such as disability or sex? What about reverse discrimination against whites?

In the past I was openly discriminated years ago during a job interview. It was 15 yrs ago before this whole thing and I was younger and frankly mortified to be asked racially charged questions about my race and ethnicity. But I have a real problem choosing a candidate bc they check a box. I want to hire the best person for the job.

Even as a mixed poc person I find the whole thing unsettling. Thoughts? How do white people feel? Also someone at my org posted a criticism of dei on their social media page (stupid move) and got fired within three days based directly on the post. Even though they didn't name the employer. I personally never post inflammatory stuff on social media. But i wonder if everyone is truly drinking kool-aid.

I do value diversity. But I don't want to be hired bc I check a box. Flip side is I'm a Director and I work with lots of white people. One white person in particular has said that ethnic people are only getting hired bc they are ethnic. Her choice of words were ethnic. I found that offensive and wonders what she thought about me. I got my job bc I had certain certs and qualifications specific to my industry. I got the job on my own merits. Not bc I checked a box.

Anyway I just wish we could be colour blind and not have corporations force things on us.

The financial incentives are that it's good for business to have your management look like your customers. This is especially true for a global company. It's nothing more than that -- there are also talent concerns given labor shortages. That's enough incentive: DEI is great for business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The incentive they have is that research shows that better diversity = better performance and profits.

This is regurgitated often, but is patently untrue. Show me that research-you can't.

There’s a now discredited McKinsey study that is often cited.

McKinsey was eager to build the grift and then take advantage of the grift. It worked since half the F500 hired them to the tune of high six figures just to send each of the same recycled slide deck. What a scam.

[Anonymous]

Many workplaces used to have some really exceptional talent who were both black and white (and other races). They also had a ton of dead weight, grifters, and empty suits whose most noticeable skill was confusing people with jargon and nonsense. Those jobs typically went to white people. Now we have more minorities that are dead weight, grifters, and empty suits but approximately the same number of minority high performers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The incentive they have is that research shows that better diversity = better performance and profits.

“The research” shows no such thing. The DEI profession’s most successful manipulation of reality was to convince an entire generation of professional and academic America that this claim is barely this side of an immutable law of physics. It’s complete crap and entirely made up.

The only remaining financial incentive is that blue chip corporates are mostly still too risk averse to challenge their own internal DEI bombthrowers, so most counterparties and vendors still have to count all their Blacks and Gays and whatever else, then populate a little scorecard for every RFP. Because the corporate requires it. So you always need enough of each group around, plus a bevy of affinity groups and some charitable contributions you can point to to win business.

Thankfully this is all winding down. 20+ years of mass hysteria. Good riddance.