131–140 of 158 posts
Curious..is DEI purely a western phenomenon? Are there many examples of DEI policies being implemented in non-Western countries?
See the Employment equity act, BEE, BBBEE in South Africa
Curious..is DEI purely a western phenomenon? Are there many examples of DEI policies being implemented in non-Western countries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Challenge any DEI tenet and your are immediately met with threats of excommunication. Get in line or you're out. The one that continually upsets me (as someone who grew up in a predominantly Hispanic community, is married to a Hispanic person, has Hispanic children, and speaks Spanish as a fluent second language and in the home) is the use of the term "LatinX" which has spread through the DEI community and now gene…
As a Hispanic PoC person, I agree 100% with you about LatinX. It's the result of white people with a high school understanding of Spanish trying to fix a language they really don't understand. The Spanish language is not broken and does not need to be fixed.
Seriously, I would be surprised if there is not a broken spoken language.
English is completely messed up. I don't know how anyone learns it.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our... > Gender diversity is correlated with both profitability and value creation. In our 2017 data set, we found a positive correlation between gender diversity on executive teams and both our measures of financial performance: top-quartile companies on executive-level gender diversity worldwide had a 21 percent likelihood of outperforming their fourth-quarti…
Once again, it is necessary to point out the difference between correlation and causation. Is it possible that simply bringing in people of different ethnicities into your company leadership somehow leads to more profitability? Yes. But it seems far more likely the reverse is true. In a world where corporations want to demonstrate they are diverse and inclusive, and systemic forces are limiting the number of minoriti…
> minority leadership becomes a scarce commodity
... one capable of attracting very good offers. An unsuccessful company is unlikely to be able to hire them.
"Instead, he said companies should consider race, gender and ethnicity when deciding who to let go." I understand what this meant in the context of the article, but without context, this seems like a potentially dangerous statement.
Once the numbers (quotas, designated equity proportions, etc.) are reached, are DEI administrators then thinned out ? I'm talking a future, theoretical situation. In order to answer 'what happens when the goals are met' we first need to establish what are the goals and then see if they are transparent from the outset or loose and forever adapting. If not then the risk is a future self-important bureaucratic arm that exists for its own sake.
The answer can't possibly be, "they will forever be needed due to the racist and sexist nature of society" because now we're saying something interesting and possibly self-contradictory about our natures (we're not supposed to have natures, we're products of society/class/culture, is the foundational belief of the DEI ideas as they must be).
Therefore an end goal is a must-have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean honestly, you can't possibly think that just adding people of other gender / skin colors just magically improves profitability. There's clearly some lurking variables here that McKinsey purposefully ignored in order to draw this specific conclusion.
I believe viewpoint diversity adds value to product ideation, design, execution, etc.
What is the end goal, end state of DEI programs ? Once the numbers (quotas, designated equity proportions, etc.) are reached, are DEI administrators then thinned out ? I'm talking a future, theoretical situation. In order to answer 'what happens when the goals are met' we first need to establish what are the goals and then see if they are transparent from the outset or loose and forever adapting. If not then the risk…
I agree, but this will never ever happen, which is one of the many reasons these programs are unethical money pits that only benefit people who make a career out of DEI.
If you're head of DEI at a fortune 500, you're likely getting at least $500k a year in total compensation; more at some companies. Given that reality, it's only human nature to convince yourself that doing that particular job in perpetuity is massively important.
Here's what will happen instead. If they start to hit their initial goals, they'll just move the goalposts. Mostly likely these will be in the form of slicing and dicing workers into ever smaller groups - you can always find a group within a group.
Let's say that the DEI group at $BIG_CORP gets it so that workers from group X are represented at the company in a way that matches the proportion of the overall population they comprise. The folks in DEI will just say, "Oh no, we've made great progress with group X, but we don't have enough people in group X from the LGBTQ community; more work must be done, more money must be spent!" So, they get the LBGTQ numbers up for group X. "Oh, No!", they say, "We don't have enough people from group X who are disabled; more work must be done, more money must be spent!".
The point is not, and never was, to accomplish a goal. It's to make it appear that progress toward a vaguely-state goal of diversity is continuously being made, while also making sure never to actually accomplish the goal; less the make-work jobs and juicy consulting contracts dry up.
And honestly, I can't blame these folks. If I had a half million dollar a year job, I'd also find a way to keep it as long as I possibly could.
"Instead, he said companies should consider race, gender and ethnicity when deciding who to let go." I understand what this meant in the context of the article, but without context, this seems like a potentially dangerous statement.
To be honest, the context doesn't really help much.