Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#111

Post by magicalist » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 7:34 PM UTC

whynotminot wrote: post #87

ChromaticPanic wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very basic question. You can meet that by simply treating everyone with integrity and respect. This results in an inclusive workplace. It's not a trick question.

I feel like there’s already HR processes in place for someone who is creating a hostile workplace? I prefer my yearly company expectations to be quantifiable with clear metrics. And instead this is the kind of squishy question that eludes any kind of reasonable metric. And worse, its vagueness could lead to misunderstanding. And even worse, misunderstanding the question in any dimension seems like it could have actua…

> I prefer my yearly company expectations to be quantifiable with clear metrics.

lol, yes, annual tech perf reviews. Known for clear and quantifiable metrics that are in no way based on squishy realities.

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#112

Post by mariusor » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 7:37 PM UTC

guywithahat wrote: post #110

mariusor wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you end up not hiring the best engineer for a project I don't think this has actually been proven as of yet, since "best" is a very loaded word, especially you're required to measure on more than one axis. (But feel free to point me to any source that disagrees with me.)

I think you're misunderstanding; this is a logical exercise. The best is a hypothetical ranking, and to add a independent variable which means we must detract from hiring the best person. To disagree would be to say someone is better strictly because of the color of their skin. It's like if you were tasked with buying the most powerful engine produced for a locomotive. How you define powerful is arbitrary and is an o…

If your logical exercise includes "interacting with other people" as a criterion, it would disqualify a lot of the people that you consider to be "the fastest engine", that's why I mentioned "multiple axis".

I do not approve of DEI methods as they usually get implemented in capitalist tech companies, but the underlying idea, encourage more groups with lower representation to participate in tech is sound, and it is what I'm advocating for in this exchange.

Western tech world is biased in favour of middle-class white men due to the fact that it's made out of mostly middle-class white men. You might not agree that's a problem, but most of the world does.

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#113

Post by tedivm » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 7:41 PM UTC

whynotminot wrote: post #87

ChromaticPanic wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very basic question. You can meet that by simply treating everyone with integrity and respect. This results in an inclusive workplace. It's not a trick question.

I feel like there’s already HR processes in place for someone who is creating a hostile workplace? I prefer my yearly company expectations to be quantifiable with clear metrics. And instead this is the kind of squishy question that eludes any kind of reasonable metric. And worse, its vagueness could lead to misunderstanding. And even worse, misunderstanding the question in any dimension seems like it could have actua…

There's a difference between "inclusive" and "not hostile".

It's weird that you're making up scenarios that would obviously never happen like the 5k thing.

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#114

Post by whynotminot » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 7:56 PM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #113

whynotminot wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there’s already HR processes in place for someone who is creating a hostile workplace? I prefer my yearly company expectations to be quantifiable with clear metrics. And instead this is the kind of squishy question that eludes any kind of reasonable metric. And worse, its vagueness could lead to misunderstanding. And even worse, misunderstanding the question in any dimension seems like it could have actua…

There's a difference between "inclusive" and "not hostile". It's weird that you're making up scenarios that would obviously never happen like the 5k thing.

It’s weird to have vague, non-business expectations built into a yearly performance review.

If you can give me some more examples I’m happy to hear them.

So far, commentators have listed:

(1) dietary considerations for team meals. (2) participation in company ERGs (this has never been compulsory at any company I’ve worked at). (3) making up a series of words they hope will appease managers

None of this seems like it should be part of a yearly performance package?

Personally, if I had celiacs and found out people were using ordering me a gluten-free pizza as a critical input to their yearly performance reviews, I’d probably be a little weirded out. But then maybe I’d be one of the more popular folks in the office come lunch-and-learn day, so pros and cons I guess.

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#115

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 8:40 PM UTC

metajack wrote: post #62

whynotminot wrote: post #12

While there’s a lot of this era that’s deeply unfortunate, this kind of question on my yearly review would be incredibly vexing to me: > What impact did your actions have in contributing to a more diverse and inclusive Microsoft? What does this even mean? How do I show I did this? If I don’t interpret the meaning of this question correctly, do I fail the test and end up some HR watchlist? If I don’t succeed at whatev…

This isn't that hard. There are various employee groups around identities (Women in Tech, Asian Pacific, Black, LGBTQ, etc). Membership is not exclusive to those groups but also open to allies. As an example, I used to participate in the Women in Tech one at both Mozilla and at LinkedIn. Often I just listened, but I also helped organize a few events with them, contributed ideas for those events, and when they started…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#116

Post by rsynnott » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 8:52 PM UTC

alt227 wrote: post #7

RankingMember wrote: post #5

I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to a glorified reality show egomaniac. Allying to price-fix is one thing, but surely they can ally to resist culture war nonsense from making its way into their employee handbooks?

> a glorified reality show egomaniac He is also.... the president of the United States?

For three more years, and at significant risk of being basically neutered in a year (the polls aren't exactly going _great_ for him). Like, it's unclear how much accommodation one should be making to his delicate feelings.

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#117

Post by whynotminot » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 8:55 PM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #111

whynotminot wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there’s already HR processes in place for someone who is creating a hostile workplace? I prefer my yearly company expectations to be quantifiable with clear metrics. And instead this is the kind of squishy question that eludes any kind of reasonable metric. And worse, its vagueness could lead to misunderstanding. And even worse, misunderstanding the question in any dimension seems like it could have actua…

> I prefer my yearly company expectations to be quantifiable with clear metrics. lol, yes, annual tech perf reviews. Known for clear and quantifiable metrics that are in no way based on squishy realities.

True it’s all kind of hand wavy at the end of the day for a lot of this performance review stuff.

This just seems to be especially hand-wavy, with an additional whiff of ideological litmus testing thrown on, which could go sideways in more problematic ways than “this year I reduced the frontend bundle size by 25%”

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#118

Post by nailer » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 9:49 PM UTC

Arodex wrote: post #70

nailer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why is being modden down. I was pressured to hire candidates based on their race and I’m sure the experience was not unique.

Yeah, because you know best. You never made any hiring mistake and you never have any bias whatsoever when you hire people. Who dared double-guess you, after you put all the effort of spending a few hours with each candidate?

You’re not responding to the post you’re replying to. I would’ve been happy to use tools to blind interview candidates. But that wasn’t what was asked - instead I was asked to racially discriminate against applicants.

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#119

Post by stvltvs » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 9:50 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #98

stvltvs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes the status quo ante was a meritocracy. It wasn't, hence the need for actions that promote merit based hiring and workplace inclusion for historically oppressed groups. The efficacy of current DEI efforts is debatable, but the need should be obvious.

> That assumes the status quo ante was a meritocracy. No, it just assumes it was more of a meritocracy than actively hiring based on irrelevant guiding principles like counter-balancing historical wrongs. A blind process would both be neutral to the ideology that caused the wrongs (racism and such bias) and based on far more meritocracy.

Sounds like we kind of agree but you wouldn't include blind hiring under the label of DEI. Also, I wouldn't agree that historically hiring was more meritocratic before DEI programs.

Re: Microsoft is quietly walking back its diversity efforts

#120

Post by croisillon » Mon, Dec 08, 2025, 9:55 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #21

alt227 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP was questioning why these companies are doing what this man is asking them to. I feel the reason is because this man is the president. The fact is relevant to the statement, which is why I wrote it.

The OP was actually not questioning that at all. It was lamenting that they are bending the knee to someone unworthy of it, in furtherance of a culture war spearheaded by said someone. In particular, a glorified reality show egomaniac who treats their current job as a glorified reality show. It certainly isn't useless information that the person is currently president, but that alone doesn't say much, because no pres…

sorry, on HN you get flagged for stating the truth