911–920 of 1001 posts
Are they rolling back Chinese and Indian managers only hiring Chinese and Indian folks, too?
Folks from a given country tend to network with and feel more comfortable with people from said country, affecting their hiring and promotion practices. That’s only natural.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd recommend listening to the first hour of the podcast this is taken from just as he was more candid than I thought he would be. Zuckerberg at points brings up how the EU as is very defensive and has taken social media companies to court for the sum of 30 billion (never mentioning why). He laments how the US government need to be more protective of US tech companies overseas specifically naming the EU. When talking…
I wonder where that 30 billion figure comes from, could you have misheard? Meta was fined for €1.2 billion (the largest fine ever) for mishandling user data in violation of GDPR. The other fines they had add up to less than two billion: 1. $800M for antitrust violations with Marketplace 2. $400M for collecting children's data on Instagram 3. $200M + $180 in Ireland for forcing users to accept new advertisement/person…
https://gizmodo.com/apple-30-billion-violating-eu-digital-ma...
I'm a PoC, and stuff like this reads extremely bizarre to me. On the one hand, you're acknowledging rolling back DEI initiatives in part because of the "political landscape," and that you were already committed to diversity on your teams. That's all well and good, but then, why the initiative in the first place? It seems to me you're doing at least 1 thing here, and acknowledging that such DEI program was performativ…
This is one company I know very well, but I have friends and former colleagues in similar companies. Especially in non-IT companies, this happens a lot - check FMCG companies, for example, where innovation does not exist because most jobs are fake jobs but well known activist shareholders are strongly pushing for it, they don't care about profits in the pursue of political agenda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd recommend listening to the first hour of the podcast this is taken from just as he was more candid than I thought he would be. Zuckerberg at points brings up how the EU as is very defensive and has taken social media companies to court for the sum of 30 billion (never mentioning why). He laments how the US government need to be more protective of US tech companies overseas specifically naming the EU. When talking…
> When talking about Dana he says how he will explicitly help with them work with difficult foreign governments Isn't this what Nick Clegg was an expert at?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. What too few people realized was that the rollout of DEI was driven by what was trending at the time, designed to win political points with the groups that were politically ascendant. These programs were never a victory for the principles or the people, they were marketing. So it should come as no shock whatsoever that now that another political group is politically ascendant the marketing that is valuable has c…
If DEI was only marketing, why has the number and proportion of women in tech been increasing over that time? I'm not trying to challenge you, I'm just curious if you have any insight. ETA: and do you think that number will increase, stagnate, or decrease with DEI gone, and why?
I wrote about my experience working as a software developer and being black in the industry and I was lucky to have it published on BBC [1]. What immediately followed, every large company reached out to have me work as a consultant for their diversity program. I found it fascinating that they had a team of DEI experts in place already. Like what makes one an expert? In addition to my job, I spent nights developing pr…
I wrote about my experience working as a software developer and being black in the industry and I was lucky to have it published on BBC [1]. What immediately followed, every large company reached out to have me work as a consultant for their diversity program. I found it fascinating that they had a team of DEI experts in place already. Like what makes one an expert? In addition to my job, I spent nights developing pr…
Yes. What too few people realized was that the rollout of DEI was driven by what was trending at the time, designed to win political points with the groups that were politically ascendant. These programs were never a victory for the principles or the people, they were marketing. So it should come as no shock whatsoever that now that another political group is politically ascendant the marketing that is valuable has c…
I've worked in Wall Street tech for 20 years, and while the demographics of my coworkers have changed, it largely had nothing to do with DEI or other recruitment efforts.
In the late 90s/early 00s it was FSU Russians&Ukrainians living in South Brooklyn & US born and/or raised Cantonese speaking Chinese from downtown. By late 00s, percent of Indians started to tick upwards. In 2010s, mainland Chinese students on visas ticked way up, and in 2020s one of the fastest growing groups was actually female mainland Chinese students. Campus recruiting may pat themselves on the back about finally growing the % of women, but this was largely downstream of enrollment & degree choices made by these women many years before.
In many ways it's gotten a lot better as all these different groups largely work wherever in the organization. 15-20 years ago there was a big problem with the Indian UI guy loading his team with Indians, the Chinese data guy loading his team with Chinese, and the Russian backend lead hiring all Russians. You could guess what team people were on by their face, and they'd often slip into their native languages at work. Not the best for collaboration.
Also agree that real change of hearts & minds is slow going over generations, and can't be legislated. That said we have made and continue to make a lot of progress. Anyone who has been alive more than 20 years should be able to recognize US culture in 2020s is so different than even 2008, 1999, 1990, or the 1980s..
I think some people mix 1) cultural change (acceptable words people use / ok jokes people make) with 2) legal changes (gay marriage rights / expanded legal protections from discrimination) and finally 3) outcome changes (higher % of group going to college / lower % of group being poor / etc). 1 moves faster than 2 which moves faster than 3. I think that's because each is downstream of the preceding change. You can't directly change outcomes in a short time span.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the most egregious hiring practice I've actually seen. The white/black/hispanic/asian american managers all hire teams with multiple ethnicities based on the most qualified candidates for the job, while Indian born managers frequently seem to end up with teams that are 80+% Indian. I don't think I've ever seen a team that's 80% white, even in roles that require US Citizenship, but 80% Indian happens frequently…
There’s a simpler non malicious explanation for this. Asians know other Asians in tech and hire based on who they are familiar with rather than their ethnicity. It’s also why women managers tend to have more women in their teams. It’s not malicious. Just a side effect of people’s network. Should that change? Yes. You want a heterogenous team. And this is exactly why DEI is important hahaha
I wrote about my experience working as a software developer and being black in the industry and I was lucky to have it published on BBC [1]. What immediately followed, every large company reached out to have me work as a consultant for their diversity program. I found it fascinating that they had a team of DEI experts in place already. Like what makes one an expert? In addition to my job, I spent nights developing pr…
It was in the middle of a hiring spree. Why not spend that time interviewing black engineers instead?
DEI programs typically implemented in US companies are considered constitutionally illegal in other parts of the world, such as in France. Giving preferential treatment based on protected characteristics is not allowed in France, for ex. preferring a female hire over male, to meet female quotas.
| No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [...]
and then the courts have interpreted this to mean that the Federal government does have the right to "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". I.e., the Federal government may discriminate on the basis of race (as one example of that which is forbidden to the States), but only subject to statutory authorization (i.e., a bill passed by Congress which then becomes law).
This is because in the aftermath of the Civil War the Radical Republicans in the North expected they'd have to force some discrimination against {White, Democrat} Southerners / for Black Southerners as part of Reconstruction. But statutory authorization for racial discrimination is still required, and by and large there is not much such statutory authorization left on the books. That means that almost every DEI program in the U.S. that uses racial discrimination is suspect if not outright illegal. With an incoming DoJ that's likely going to be sympathetic to that view, suddenly all these DEI programs have become a major liability.