91–100 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a glorified reality show egomaniac He is also.... the president of the United States?
So what?
[1] Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. You [2] voted for it, now you [2] get to keep it.
[2] you as in "We, the People".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to work at Microsoft and I can tell you this was absolutely not true during my time there. As an engineer, you needed to have an answer to that question or else you could not be promoted (at least in some parts of the org chart). It was a box that your skip levels needed to see checked in order to approve promotions. My lead told me as much in exactly those words.
What about now during the current administration and after DEI has just been killed?
Let's call it "token representation not based on merit" and it doesn't sound that back walking them back
The efficacy of current DEI efforts is debatable, but the need should be obvious.
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…
If you remove a reaction to politics and/or management practice, this is quite an obvious question, no? Hypothetically: Substitute Microsoft for a company with “zero downtime” as one of their company values. Now imagine you were asked “What impact did your actions have in contributing to zero downtime at Hostingsoft?” That wouldn’t be a controversial question.
Why are we putting questions that could very easily elicit a political reaction into corporate yearly performance reviews?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, increasing efforts to support DEI and also decreasing those efforts can both be good things. You can fail to recognize a problem, and you can also overreact to it.
There has certainly been an overreaction, and it continues to be the case even after efforts have been walked back. I have yet to hear a good justification for why people who are not interested in programming should be encouraged to become interested purely in the name of equality, yet my institution is still spending huge amounts of public money on trying to achieve exactly that.
Let's call it "token representation not based on merit" and it doesn't sound that back walking them back
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially since when implementing them gets them less capable stuff, hired to satisfy token quotas regardless of actual merit
I don't know why you're being down-voted, I've seen diversity hires placed in charge of projects and destroy them. When you weren't promoted for merit you stop believing merit matters, and quickly build diverse teams with no experience incapable of building things in a timely manor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you're being down-voted, I've seen diversity hires placed in charge of projects and destroy them. When you weren't promoted for merit you stop believing merit matters, and quickly build diverse teams with no experience incapable of building things in a timely manor.
Because it's not impossible that there are non diversity hires that fuck projects up.