What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft • Hacker News Board

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#651

Post by forgomonika » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:24 AM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #464

forgomonika wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sincerely confused about this comment. If I reverse it, I end up with the status quo in a lot of settings: everyone is the same, they don't have to worry about finding ways to interact with people that are different from them, and they get the luxury and safety of being who they are at home while at work. Also, what are "bizarre sexual proclivities"? It sounds like you are living with a thick layer of judgement a…

I'm still not sure I see anything wrong with this picture. Yes being different from other people is hard - the more different the harder. People naturally gravitate towards those they can identify with. The solution to this problem is to develop a coping strategy, not to use force to bend the world around you. People should be entitled to seek out and live in homogenous environments. Just because these are not availa…

Wow. Just wow. So you are arguing that people from marginalized communities should just suck it up and stick to their own or constantly have to hide and adjust who they are to make others feel comfortable. I feel sorry for the people that you work with and god forbid you actually end up managing people. This sort of crap creates such a toxic environment for people.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#652

Post by forgomonika » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:25 AM UTC

BryantD wrote: post #448

csmpltn wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But here you have a multi-national corporation, with offices globally and ability to hire from any culture on the planet - and despite waiting months, actively searching for a "diverse" candidate, they were unable to find a single candidate who was "diverse" enough. What conclusions do you draw from this? That "people are racist"? That the pipeline is broken? This feels like ignoring the elephant in the room.

I think that if he had to do the LinkedIn searches himself, you can conclude that his recruiters weren’t all that great. I’d be annoyed at them in his shoes.

Let me guess, you don't work in recruiting nor in a role where you actually have to try to find good candidates? Because you are way off the mark on how these things work.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#653

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:27 AM UTC

telltruth wrote: post #638

Dig1t wrote: post #382

I work at a different FAANG and it seems like more and more the only news that we get from corporate is related to DEI. Also a lot of hiring details are now hidden from ICs. It used to be that you would be apart of the interview panel as an interviewer and then you would get together with your team afterwards and everyone on the team would vote yes/no and that would pretty much be it. Now it’s made by a manager elsew…

There is a silver lining. This DEI thing is now causing massive influx of sub-par employees in big tech. This is not because minority is sub-par but because hiring practices incentivize sacrificing quality over diversity to make your numbers and get your bonuses. Everyone winks at others and they say we don't sacrifice quality but it is not possible when you have limited window for headcount and your VP is sending yo…

Assuming you’re right and not unfairly discounting people who look or think different due to your prejudices, this just hurts mega-businesses profitability right? What’s the measurable material harm to you exactly? Can you prove it or do you just feel it? Still assuming you’re right, and not prejudiced, why is giving historically disadvantaged people a crutch to lean on so bad? Won’t at least some of them thrive and blossom thereby paving the way for others who look, think, act, or worship like them? Is this not corporate welfare in a time when social welfare has been whittled so far down that there are generation long waiting lists for public housing vouchers? What exactly is so terrible about helping people grow into roles instead of following the semi recent practice of only hiring perfectly qualified candidates?

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#654

Post by telltruth » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:33 AM UTC

therusskiy wrote: post #460

I find it puzzling why people are split by their skin color rather than their country of origin. There are only marginal differences between a white and a black person born in US, while myself, being a white male born in Russia, cultural experiences and background have barely anything in common with a white person born in US except for the color of my skin. The same applies for a black guy from US and a black guy fro…

Puzzling thing for me is why people are split by genders. In developed countries like USA, women is as free as men. There are zero cultural aspects like in Saudi Arabia or other countries that prevents women from getting education or apply for jobs they want. Still, vast number of women gravitates to jobs like teachers, nurses, hygenists, hair saloon, waiting staff and so on. It is not that they were forced to take on those jobs. It is what they chose by their own will. Female participation in labor market is now well over 40% so almost everyone has chosen to do some job. But we still complain about lack of women in tech and we blame it on bias. I am certain bias is definitely there for women but is it the only reason, or even most prominent, why we have so few women choosing tech instead of those other very low paying jobs? I think people should be putting much more effort at incentivizing girls to pursue tech career paths than force upon artificial DEI targets on management hierarchy.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#655

Post by forgomonika » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:35 AM UTC

Mezzie wrote: post #435

forgomonika wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't work. There are some really amazing people out there that don't fit the typical tech mold of straight cis (white) guy. They don't stick around if they have to navigate a monoculture that doesn't understand that they are constantly throwing out micro-aggressions to people outside of their view of what acceptable behaviour is. Separating your home life from work life only works for so long before you start…

I currently work in a lingerie store after having spent a fair amount of time in 'professional' environments. I'm less tired coming home from 8 hours on my feet dealing with the public than I was in professional settings. I don't have to hide everything about myself and my background (I'm a first-generation college student with a poorish upbringing) or constantly worry about what all my interactions with colleagues m…

Sorry to hear that. I get it. I've been there. I reached a point where I was in a big company and got promoted to a level where there were no LGBTQIA+ people above my level - and this was at a FAANG company. All meetings were all straight cis guys that were overly aggressive. It was so incredible exhausting to function in that environment. The only reason I lasted as long as I did was because I had a very good female boss that could navigate working with these guys that had no clue the problems they caused for the people around them because they "were just being guys." I learned a ton about all these mental gymnastics you have to do to work with people that made no effort to adjust to work with different types of people. It was painful.

I'm now working at a smaller firm and get to be a major influencer and decision maker in how the culture is getting laid out. It's mind boggling how much trauma/PTSD people bring to the table from working in offices that are really homogenized and lack diversity with them being the one that's different. I still can't get over how common it is regardless if it's gender, sexuality, education background, or disability. What I think a lot of people are missing in the DEI discussions isn't about trying to find diverse candidates but how to create environments where they - along with everyone else - thrives.

It's pretty obvious from the comments in this post how there's a strong vocal minority of people that refuse to engage and constantly battle how broken things are. I just hope they figure it out before it's too late. And if they refuse, I hope they remain ICs with very little influence and not included in significant decision making because this attitude is poison for so many people.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#656

Post by strix_varius » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:37 AM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #456

I shut my mouth at work and go along with this stuff because I have no choice. I have a family to take care of. I've accepted this. But man, why do they always throw in the line about striving to make the workplace a "diverse and inclusive culture where everyone can bring their full and authentic self"? Everyone knows that's a goddamn lie. I almost want to cry when I read that - it makes me so angry. I haven't been a…

> and so do many, many others.

Thank you for saying it.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#657

Post by telltruth » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:43 AM UTC

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #653

telltruth wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a silver lining. This DEI thing is now causing massive influx of sub-par employees in big tech. This is not because minority is sub-par but because hiring practices incentivize sacrificing quality over diversity to make your numbers and get your bonuses. Everyone winks at others and they say we don't sacrifice quality but it is not possible when you have limited window for headcount and your VP is sending yo…

Assuming you’re right and not unfairly discounting people who look or think different due to your prejudices, this just hurts mega-businesses profitability right? What’s the measurable material harm to you exactly? Can you prove it or do you just feel it? Still assuming you’re right, and not prejudiced, why is giving historically disadvantaged people a crutch to lean on so bad? Won’t at least some of them thrive and…

Big tech profitability does not get hurt by hiring mediocre people. They are post-talent businesses. They do not depend on tech talent to drive and keep profit margins but rather depend on established monopoly and maintaining barrier-to-entry to continue their profitability. They show their growth by simply showing more ads or hiking subscription prices or through more sales people - not by developing new ground breaking tech. Apple is likely exception here.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#658

Post by slt2021 » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:47 AM UTC

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #653

telltruth wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a silver lining. This DEI thing is now causing massive influx of sub-par employees in big tech. This is not because minority is sub-par but because hiring practices incentivize sacrificing quality over diversity to make your numbers and get your bonuses. Everyone winks at others and they say we don't sacrifice quality but it is not possible when you have limited window for headcount and your VP is sending yo…

Assuming you’re right and not unfairly discounting people who look or think different due to your prejudices, this just hurts mega-businesses profitability right? What’s the measurable material harm to you exactly? Can you prove it or do you just feel it? Still assuming you’re right, and not prejudiced, why is giving historically disadvantaged people a crutch to lean on so bad? Won’t at least some of them thrive and…

>Still assuming you’re right, and not prejudiced, why is giving historically disadvantaged people a crutch to lean on so bad

this is simply not true. Hiring must be all about merit, not handouts for some noble social purpose.

Secondly, lowering bar for one race while keeping the same bar other races is blatant racism. It is conveniently called affirmative action, but in reality it is racism against more qualified candidates (like asians, jews, etc).

Third, just looking at skin color and handing out jobs does not accomplish intended goal (helping disadvantaged people), instead it only reinforces negative perceptions of minorities as unqualified and not deserving of high paying jobs.

Fourth, a lot of people who take advantage of DEI programs to get into high pay jobs/colleges - are not disadvantaged at all. I am talking about people from middle-class/high income families, kids from medium/high net worth families who also happened to be in a minority race. Also middle class/rich immigrants from Africa/Latin America, who never experienced many disadvantages that under represented minorities face in the US.

If you really really want to help underrepresented minorities get into tech - you should specifically target people from low income/poor neighborhoods, poor rating/high crime school districts - and to help them become qualified and deserving of jobs, not just handing out "Chief Diversity Officer" type token jobs that have no real impact, and are not really bona fide jobs. That also obviously includes white kids from poor neighborhoods, and becomes income targeted program, rather than racial profiling program.

>> What exactly is so terrible about helping people grow into roles instead of following the semi recent practice of only hiring perfectly qualified candidates?

Imagine your son was rejected for a job he perfectly was qualified for, and instead someone from another race was hired who was less qualified. Just because of race. Once you flip the situation to yourself and become on the other end of the "affirmative action" you will understand. You can't fix past discrimination with another discrimination.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#659

Post by chrismcb » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:50 AM UTC

dijonman2 wrote: post #575

paperwasp42 wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also worry that this nonsense will erode support for the kind of diversity I do defend, or worse, prompt some kind of revanchist backlash against visible minorities in general. As a women in tech, I am feeling the backlash. I have seen a huge increase in the amount of skepticism of my abilities that I face from people who haven't worked with me before. And the worst part of it is that there's actually logic behin…

As a hiring manager I have substantial pressure to hire incompetent people to meet quotas. I confronted my recruiter in front of witnesses and was partially shunned. I have been hiring for many years, and I truly pay no attention to gender or ethnicity. Now I am forced to. It’s an insult to those who earned their position. It’s an insult to me as I am less and less likely to get a new job because I won’t fit quotas.…

And that is illegal (assuming you are in the us)

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#660

Post by thegrimmest » Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 2:52 AM UTC

forgomonika wrote: post #651

thegrimmest wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still not sure I see anything wrong with this picture. Yes being different from other people is hard - the more different the harder. People naturally gravitate towards those they can identify with. The solution to this problem is to develop a coping strategy, not to use force to bend the world around you. People should be entitled to seek out and live in homogenous environments. Just because these are not availa…

Wow. Just wow. So you are arguing that people from marginalized communities should just suck it up and stick to their own or constantly have to hide and adjust who they are to make others feel comfortable. I feel sorry for the people that you work with and god forbid you actually end up managing people. This sort of crap creates such a toxic environment for people.

I'm arguing that belonging to a majority does not place implicit responsibilities on people. Wanting to associate with culturally similar people is a natural human behaviour, not something to be ashamed of.

You seem to be arguing that we should force people to deny this quite natural impulse in order to make minorities more comfortable. Seems pretty toxic/controlling to me. Let people be.