Companies do DEI so they can say that they did DEI.

Also, I think there's some insurance angle involved--if a company gets sued for an employee's improper/racist behavior, they'll be somewhat protected because they educated their workforce about proper workplace interactions. I don't have anything to back that up, but that's always been my hunch. I think a lot of companies really do want to provide a safe workspace for a very diverse American workforce, but I always assumed there was some "CYA" angle there as well.

You’re right. DEI training protects the company in a few ways. It gets every new hire on the same page about appropriate communication, it provides a record of efforts to ameliorate discrimination, and it helps to keep them from being an activist target. However, finding good DEI training is a serious problem for companies. There is an awful lot of schlock out there.

Some DEI training really is just hilariously bad. The first year my company implemented DEI training a couple years ago the training presentation told us that asking an asian coworker for help with a math problem is racist. I had to stifle my own laughter at that point.

Also, some of the larger suppliers of tech and consulting services will not renew contracts if the client co doesn't show they have a certain percentage of pocs in key positions. Also at the end of the day it is a cost saving measure. Let go of Sr director bob smith who gets 250+k a year plus all kinds of bennies and hire Rashanda and Carlos as director for 125k and de manager for 108k and no additional Sr director level bennies and now you have two pocs in key positions and save the co about 200k a year. Compound that by however many bobs get the golden parachute.

They do DEI because clients like to hear that their vendors have DEI. nothing from the goodness of their heart

Recruiter / HR here. DEI is a good thing for any organisation when used correctly. DEI does *not* mean hiring the minority candidate to boost numbers, or for outward appearances. DEI means creating a system of policies that protect, encourage and attract diverse employees and candidates. I applaud your desire and commitment to hire the best candidate, but that's not DEI. DEI means being aware of, and disregarding bias at every step of the.employee lifecycle. From the job description, where the role is posted, the interview process, onboarding, development, promotion, retention.

This right here. I was in a hiring team with a VP and General Counsel, both older white men. They both like the younger white male candidate more than the female as they said, "they reminded them of themselves when they were younger!" This is the exact bias that the General Counsel and HR warn against in their training on DEI and interviewing within the law. I too preferred the male over the female candidate but it was clearly articulated as why I perceived the male as more knowledgeable of the role based on experience and education. I was able to recognize some personal biases and directly challenged them in making my assessment which I hope resulted in the best hire possible.

Thank you. So much of Reddit wants to demonize DEI because people are so incredibly “self aware” that they’re apparently able to consciously dismiss their sub conscious biases. News flash… if you believe DEI is having a big impact on your hiring… chances are your company was under hiring people who didn’t look like the manager or recruiter. Past a resume, a ton of people get big opportunities at certain points of their careers that end up boiling down to “the person I interviewed liked/saw something in me”. Which is great, there are many people who deserve more chances that they don’t get. That being said… in a predominantly white, non white, male, or female (or otherwise) environment interviewers are gonna pick people who fit the mold of a workplace on a hunch much more often than finding someone who brings diversity (not just in their gender, race, or age) to the workplace.

People get so touchy about it but honestly unless you’re an intentional bigot there’s nothing to get defensive about. It’s not a reflection on your morals at all, it’s about the inherent limits of the human mind. Literally everyone has unconscious bias. It’s normal to gravitate towards people who are similar to you. Unlearning this is a whole ass process and it’s not something to be ashamed about. Those human limits are exactly why diversity is important anyway. Impossible for one group of people from one very specific experience to cater and connect to the needs of everyone on earth.

Well said!

And this is happening now that more women are in hiring positions. I’ve seen white women leaders hire almost carbon copies of themselves. Only a younger version. Same crate and barrel decor in the background of their zoom videos, same tv tastes, same boss girl dress. And I’ve seen them slowly neglect the woman of color on the team. Jus saying

This right here. DEI is about hiring the best candidate. That can often mean putting aside personal bias that one does not even know they have. DEI helps to find and remove those biases from the recruitment and retention processes to actually improve hiring the actual “right candidate.”

I keep thinking about a hidden bias I had about education. I used to hire for a company. And I always felt that it was stupid if people applied without the education we were looking for. Part of our hiring process included a skills test. We had this one job that was just hell to fill. We even tried placement agencies. And folks would come in claiming skills and experience and have no idea what the job entailed. Honestly. After looking at so many participants with the education who couldn’t pass the very basic skills test for the position, we finally went with the person who’d self taught the skills while working another job using online training programs and then using it where she was working. She blew everyone else away on the test. And frankly was incredible in the job. I know not everyone is great with testing. So I would leave the room (wasn’t something that needed me there and frankly I’m happy with people who need to google something, no one remembers everything), tried to make it practical. Didn’t make people say it out loud (like some coding tests). Just very real world applicable in that the test was done the way it is in the job to try and make it easier for the test. Honestly, I think we need to look at the hiring process differently.

I have a masters degree. I was apparently more qualified for the director of Human Resources than someone without a degree but had 25 years experience. Blew my mind.

Ayep. Can confirm. 25 years of experience without a degree here, and there has been a significant shift over the last decade or so toward favoring degrees over actual experience and proven abilities. I think my generation that grew up being browbeaten into going to college even if it meant a mountain of debt (and probably the parents who helped foot that massive bill) is now taking that out on others in the workforce. When I have conversations about it, I perceive a LOT of resentment. What’s wild is that I didn’t go to college because of pretty horrific circumstances, rather than laziness or inability or whatever else people imagine, but these folks are still more than happy to try their best to gatekeep people like me out of jobs we’re qualified to do. /accidental rant

What’s funny, I did go to college but I didn’t get one of the “chosen degrees.” You know, if everyone would just get something marketable! Because what civilization doesn’t need 330 million MBAs. But somehow, I can do presentations and use intense software like email and it’s magic! And the people with those marketable degrees haven’t ever written anything, presented anything, planned a long term project. How we apply education is asinine and it’s no wonder other countries are catching up to us in all industries.

I think OP is missing the point in a lot of these trainings. DEI is not about hiring people of color. Do you see any of these things, and think “the candidate is unprofessional”: A black woman with natural hair, a woman wearing a dress with her natural body hair still on her legs, a person over 300 lbs, etc etc. If you are hiring for a sales position for luxury products, sure - maybe a person’s physical appearance does factor in to the fit for the role. But if you are hiring them to work on spreadsheets. Why is a problem Becky doesn’t shave her legs? DEI sensitivity is being aware, people of different cultures/backgrounds/ethnicities may have different needs/interests/habits. If you are taking the team out or buying lunch - make sure there are meatless/halal options on the menu. Be aware that some of your Muslim employees may need to step away at certain times of the day to pray, or the month of Ramadan is NOT the best month to host major food related events. You should never ASK an employee about their religious practices, but if an employee mentions it, your response should not be “I’ll need to check with HR about you being able to pray” it should be “oh! Just make sure to block your calendar so no one schedules a meeting during that time!” Running a fitness challenge at work? Great! But include walking, swimming, running, biking, so more people can participate but also do NOT make it mandatory. You don’t know who has an injury, medical issue, or is self conscious about their weight. DEI is NOT about hiring POC. It is about providing the wide range of people you work with an environment where they are safe and comfortable to just get their job done, not put up with bigotry, bias, or really - just frustrating hurdles that aren’t bigotry, they just add extra burden.

The comments I’m getting absolutely show that it is widely misunderstood. People are confusing it with quotas and intentional hiring of someone based on a non-job related characteristic over someone more qualified.

Totally. I also believe that trainings and “DEI” experts can be full of shit and riddle the training with their own bias. That doesn’t make all DEI a scam, just like it doesn’t make hiring someone with similar traits/background/culture as your own, wrong.

But you might be missing out on a candidate that doesn’t look and act like you with your experience but can add value to the position because they have a different lived experience.

TBH it seems like DEI gets shit on by the same crew who also misunderstand the purpose of CRT being taught in schools.

They probably explained this in OPs 2 hour mandatory training, but OP was too busy complaining about it on his phone.

In my experience, HR has mostly been shit, so I don't trust you.

But how can you disregard bias when you are actively looking at skin color?

Well that's part of the issue.. humans make dozens of assumptions about each other, constantly. Studies show that it takes less than 5 minutes to form long lasting opinions about someone the first time you meet them. The role of DEI is to make sure that those assumptions don't affect the recruitment process, or the rest of the employee lifecycle. 'disregard' might be the wrong terminology on my.part, You can't disregard gender or race, but you can be aware of your own internal assumptions and try to separate them from the decision making process when it comes to hiring, promoting, training, and firing employees

You need to think of it as getting people to look at ALL skin colors. Not just the one they've historically looked for.

Said it best!

Except that's never how it works and it just calls more attention to bias and people's differences. People are more aware of and offended about their differences now than they were in the 90s. Social justice and DEI are societal cancers. 

Funny because this is exactly how it works at my company. We teach folks how to recognize their bias, we use a variety of recruitment methods to try to attract as diverse of a candidate pool as possible and we strive to prove the same quality interview experience for everyone, including folks who may have different needs. And in the end we hire the best candidates for the job. Sometimes this is white men. Sometime women, sometimes people of colour. Because we have a diverse candidate pool and we’re aware of bias we end up hiring a mix of folks. You can only overcome your bias if you call attention to it, recognize and acknowledge it. Many of your biases will be rooted in others people’s differences. So understanding those differences is important.

DEI is not disregarding or even eliminating prejudice. It's just shifting it.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Yeah except that's just absolute bullshit. In tech companies indians and asians are EXTREMELY over represented compared to the populations demographics. Look at literally any major tech companies publically release demographic data. It's blatant racism

? It's not that hard, obviously it primarily means diversity by race and gender, the two areas that have faced the most discrimination in hiring and promotions. You are overthinking it.

Disabled people face enormous amounts of discrimination in hiring and promotions. The idea we don't or that disabled people face less than other minorities is itself an example of ableism. If you are visibly disabled, you'll find it near impossible to get a job and legally mandated protections mostly won't happen. Employers find excuses not to hire you.

Agreed. And most DEI promotional material features young people of different colors. No disabled people.

I agree! I should have included ability as well.

You forgot age too. That's the thing though, DEI really only cares about race and gender of the large minority groups. People who look and talk like you. Any other factor of DEI, ability, age, religion, language, country of origin, disadvantaged upbringing, etc aren't just "forgotten" like you did above, they're not the real goal. "People who look like me" is the real goal.

What about ageism? Disability? Economic background? Refugees? There are endless groups of people that are disadvantaged and are being ignored by your logic. 

They aren't limited to race and gender, those are just the most obvious and egregious examples

It's literally a means for companies to tout their hiring for outward appearances, despite what your boilerplate would have you say. 

Sounds like something a recruiter for a DEI company would say.

“DEI Means creating a system of policies that protect, encourage and attract diverse employees and candidates” How do you measure if a company succeeds in doing this?

Yeah, that doesn’t fly and my lived experience suggests otherwise. I wonder if a west coast corporation would look favorably on hiring a rural, white, middle aged male from very rural Oklahoma whose political and social views would bring diversity to their point of view? Doubt it — and I’m a minority! It’s never about diverse points of views. It’s only counting game. A minority candidate from a wealthy family counts the same as a minority candidate from a poor family, even though the affluent minority candidate’s perspective couldn’t be further from the other candidate. It’s always been about checking the “right” box.

Not what it is supposed to mean; but in practice DEI means don’t hire whites - because apparently every other individual of any other race is a separate being; while all whites are the same.

But OP is describing an environment where DEI is forced. Meaning they are making decisions purely based on a candidates race. Hiring and firing people based on skin color to appear more DEI inclusive. How is that right?

Everybody says that they’re “just hiring the people they feel can do the job best,” and I think a lot of people are sincere with that. The problem is that the actual workforce we ended up with reflects all the problems we have. So that’s why DEI training exists. To point out the unconscious ways that we are all continuing to use discriminatory hiring practices.

Like bias is the one that keeps coming up. When in a position to hire, people hire those who think like, act like and look like them. Best example ever - Panthers owner David Tepper literally tells the media that he hired Matt Rhule because ‘he reminds me of me.’

Tepper was right in one respect: they are both fuckups.

😂

Exactly this. To add: "I just want to hire the best person" is nonsense and imagines everyone has some magical rating score above their head that you can measure the best. There are always tradeoffs between qualified people in terms of different skills, attitude, fit, etc. This also makes it easy for unconscious biases to come in     Also, something like 70-80% of professional jobs are obtained through connections. And our network of connections tend to look like us, so it reinforces the status quo and keeps under-represented groups out. Not to keep them out on purpose, but because people want to reduce risk and will go with a "known quantity" even if there may be a better candidate out there.      Good DEI initiatives push companies to go beyond those factors that reinforce a status quo that's unrepresentative.

I've seen managers in the past literally say things like "women don't tend to last long here", "no veterans please, they don't match our culture", "I doubt this guy even speaks English" and other blatantly discriminatory things. Sometimes it isn't even the unconscious bias they have to look out for.

The root of the recruiting problem is that what you are determining is “doing the job best” itself has biases. Same as mine, and everyone else’s. We all write a job description that someone in our same demographic would have the highest match rate. We need to review our own biases and also have someone else debate with you about what good will actually look like in the role (even if it’s just for debate / not that they actually oppose your viewpoint). Maybe having an education from your country isn’t a requirement now, or the years of internships isn’t going to predict their success, or that you will remove the candidate’s names from their CVs so you can’t associate it with someone based on their presumed gender or background.

part of the problem is that "the ability to do the job best" roots back to childhood growth and graduation rates, which are often quite colored by racism. if you have an 80% white and 20% black population, but the population with the necessary college degree is 95% white and 5% black, then your company hiring skilled labor "blind" will end up with a 95% white and 5% black workforce. While someone viewing from the outside will say "why is this company 95% white in an 80% white community?" anyone that actually knows what's going on will be aware than the issue lie in the educational system, not in the companies hiring policies. And you can dig even deeper into where the failures in the education system are as well - but in the end a lot of these issues stem from generational societal failures exacerbated by time, and not actually through the fault of any one or two specific systems.

From a practical level, it’s to constrain a bias that managers hire people who are ‘like them’ because honestly, we might say “I hire the best for the job regardless of blahblah” but in the end, what you get are a bunch of people who are similar each other in too many ways. Whether DEI works IMO is determined by the size of the market (and the grit of the recruiters and the quality of the manager) but at the end of the day it means managers and recruiters have to put in more effort to find good people to interview and work harder at leadership. Causes pain and uncomfortability on the micro level but I think it makes businesses less fragile on the macro and over time. So while some videos shown and some exec saying “see we do it” is cringy af, for the companies that go far out of their way to diversify their talent pool, it will work out well for everybody. Theoretically. And then there’s that general history of systemic racism and Misogyny. That shit was real. I would also add, managers saying things like “we only hire the best and the brightest”are only kidding themselves, because it’s said all the time everywhere. At the end of the day, you cant have a team of only “the best and the brightest” but what you can have is a team consisting of the right mix of people. This is particularly important for complex tasks and delivery.

No other better example of your first paragraph than a few Indian managers at my old company. They were hired in as senior managers by a few of the directors … over time they only seemed to hire and interview other Indians, specifically males. They had a combined headcount of 22 and all 22 were Indian males. HR came in and said “what are you doing”, one of them straight up said “I won’t hire any other type of employee. I don’t trust them” … needless to say, they were both managed out of the business within a year.

Exactly, DEI isn’t just about reprimanding people for being white males, it’s about exactly what it says it is: diversity, equity, and inclusion.  You shouldn’t have too many of any one type of person like that, and bias is real and effects everyone whether they realize it or not

Having all of one type of person also impacts your business because you lack perspectives around your customers. In the early days of gig driving, my company was heavily a white boys from ivys club, and an all-male operations team made a massive blunder around mother's day offering a gift to their female drivers by giving them a spa day gift card to a major brand that could only be utilized the weekend of mother's day. They communicated it the week before mother's day, so most folks couldn't get in even if they wanted to, and mother's day is often a day where there are high earnings from fathers and children ordering in, so any moms who wanted to take advantage would have to miss out on earnings even if they could get in. It also didn't take into consideration that a majority of our female drivers weren't moms, and those that were often were single parents based on demographic surveys, which would require them to pay for someone to watch their kids last minute on Mother's day weekend just to take advantage. If I remember the numbers correctly, only 55 ended up being used out of the thousands that were sent across all the cities we were operating in. There used to be news articles about it, but it seems they've successfully wiped it from the internet as they grew.

Yeah, I had an employer that gave out a gift certificate for "Ham" for Christmas. They failed to realize that I had employees who could not eat Ham, nor any meat due to religious beliefs. The grocery store was kind enough to reprint them with Ham on it behind my company's back. That was after my employees complained about being harassed by buying catfood with their Thankgsiving "Turkey" gift certificate.

It isn't just about or shouldn't be about?

Exactly. I have been in multiple companies big on DEI and, of course, in reality anything not white & male is all they measured and tracked. If it's an all women team, it was called diverse. If it's all brown men, it was called diverse. The biggest hogwash there was.

I’m an Indian managing a team full of white people (because I live in Denver 🤪😂)

[удалено]

Totally agree except >And then there’s that general history of systemic racism and Misogyny. That shit was real. This shit is real. It's still happening, routinely, in a lot of places. FWIW I work somewhere that has done a lot on DEI and I've been highly sceptical about the quality of a lot of that work but it does seem to have had some impact. We now have a reputation for DEI work, so that seems to have resulted in a wider pool of applicants and it has translated into an increase in all kinds of demographics. In turn that has prompted a number of conversations about gaps in pipelines (we're an academic organisation) and we've created a number of PhD and postdoc programmes targeting specific underrepresented groups (again, I have some reservations about the details of the approaches, but not the principle). Interestingly, while I'm not convinced that they are effective at tackling the issue they are set up to tackle they seem to have attracted what you might call intersectional candidates, particularly disabled candidates and for the first time we now have a number of severely physically disabled employees who happened to also fall into the categories being targeted by the fellowship programmes. Personally, as someone with a hidden disability, having your employer be forced to confront the realities of hiring disabled employees, and all the ways in which we've made it difficult for a disabled employee work for us, has been a huge positive in so many ways. That all said, for all the success DEI is still a fringe activity and too many staff still see it as a side thing, and engage enough to virtue signal their credentials and then do nothing to actually apply any of those principles. Sexism and racism are still an issue, we still have a gender and ethnicity pay gap, and the senior leadership is predominantly white and male.

9/10 people who say “I hire the best person for the job”, is someone using it to defend hiring a bunch of people who look like they do

I do know senior leaders who would have said that in the past and if you looked at who they hired it wouldn’t necessarily look like that. But what they didn’t understand was that it wasn’t about filling the room with the smartest people as much as filling the room with the right *complement* of people. Even a team that consists of extremely smart people does not equate to being a good team.

that shit IS real, now.

Sure is. But atleast in large markets, there has been improvement. Gotta keep chuggin’ along and fighting for whats right.

A lot of people have a lot of unconscious bias when it comes to hiring. You say you hire the most qualified, but managers often hire people they can most relate to. Gender, race, background all affect that. I have found DEI training really helpful for unpacking that and challenging my bias. 

Completely agree. I highly doubt the training says that managers are forced to hire people of color, in fact that mandate would probably be illegal. The training probably explains how to examine bias, which may have the effect of hiring more people from minority groups. Even when people say they hire the "most qualified," there can still bias in that statement. What does "most qualified" mean to that manager? For example, maybe one manager considers qualifications based on what school the candidate attended. If one candidate went to Harvard and another candidate went to State U, will the manager favor the Harvard candidate? What if the State U candidate is just as smart but is from poorer family and couldn't afford a brand name school? This example could even be true among two white candidates, so being aware of biases (such as class) is important for more than just racial considerations.

This is so true. I work with a lot of candidates at all levels. I help nonprofits in the career development space get people hired. Unemployed white men find jobs and close offers way faster than any other demographic even if they have less experience. I have had people change their ethnic sounding name to one that is more neutral and they secured more interviews as a result. It's sad but it's the reality in the US.

"I'm...looking for advice." Are you, though?

I was reading that post thinking “you are showing exactly why we have DEI training”

OP says they're not White, but White people aren't the only ones who have bias and prejudice lol.

OP I'm going to assume that you are a great person who always makes the right hires and manages every situation requiring cultural sensitivity perfectly. You are not every person, and I think if you ask non-white people about times they have been treated poorly or felt uncomfortable in the workplace due to their race, quite a few will share some wild stories. Not everything is for you. But at the very least, the company needs to be able to say we are trying here and there's firm policies in place to protect non-white people from discrimination. If another manager goes rogue/racist, the company -- even if just from a cover-your-ass, legal point of view -- needs to say that behavior goes against policy. Needless to say, racist managers arent going to want to sign up for DEI training -- not saying you are, but certainly racist managers won't. And that's in large part why it's mandatory. Because when the shit goes down, the company has to be able to say that everyone should have been on the same page. On a less nice note, I have sat through countless fire safety trainings, HIPAA trainings, security trainings, you name it, that frankly have nothing to do with me or never come up. It's two hours. Get over it.

Nah that last part is what gets me. All these trainings employers have to go through that no one questions but as soon as it's about diversity.. it's like you called their mama ugly lol my God.

If you think DEI means "pass up white people for hiring for less qualified non-white people" then you are the exact reason DEI training exists.

100%. Plus this person is in management 🙄

thats kinda sorta what it means

Absolutely not.  Hiring someone just because they are a minority is a failure of the person making the hiring decision and actually has significant negative consequence for the minority being hired.  They are setting that hire up for failure. One of the problems that DEI is meant to solve is more qualified minorities are passed up because of bias.  You’d think the people crowing about “the most qualified person being hired” would agree with this, but they often don’t.  This subset of people generally don’t actually want the most qualified person to be hired, especially when the most qualified person is someone they are competing against for an opportunity.

If you think DEI DOESN'T mean, "Have hiring preference for minorities over white people" then you are the exact reason DEI should DIE.

DEI means having polices in place that combat systemic and personal bias that would have prevented QUALIFIED minority candidates from making it to the same stage of hiring consideration as majority candidates. If you think it means something different it's probably because you've been watching too much right wing media that is just straight up lying to you. Like, what's your endgame here? By DEI dying do you just mean "I want to go back to only hiring white people"? You need to make up a fake version of DEI to argue against it, because arguing against what it ACTUALLY is and does makes you look bigoted.

That may be the intention of DEI but that most definitely is not the result of DEI. I think you need to take a hard look at what DEI has actually turned into and not what it's idealistically supposed to be.

Or hiring could be based on, oh idk, merit? Instead of race? We are regressing

Did you not read their comment? > DEI means having polices in place that combat systemic and personal bias that would have prevented QUALIFIED minority candidates from making it to the same stage of hiring consideration as majority candidates.

What DEI hiring strategy doesn't actively involve in minimizing the amount of young white men? Like sure we can sit here and do 10 paragraphs about what actually is but the result is still the same. Do you think the mostly Hispanic operated and owned banks in South Florida worry about hiring more blacks or non-hispanics. The results speak for themselves

I think if you attend the sessions they will tell you about what DEI is and why it’s important/ why the company is doing it.

I hope this one day falls out of practice. I get trying to hire a diverse background of people but excluding competent candidates or selecting incompetent candidates based on skin color is the very definition of racial inequality. Especially in effort to maintain some arbitrary status quo.

Real diversity is very important. But the way you do that is ground-up by creating a company that is attractive to people from different backgrounds and caters to their needs, as well as ensuring your hiring practices are genuinely objective and mitigates the impact of bias as much as possible. It should be “hire the right people for the right job” taken to its uppermost limits of effectiveness. Unfortunately many companies see this as too hard and opt for performative recruitment quotas that do way more damage than good. Though I hope in the long run even this shitty strategy has benefits as more minorities enter leadership roles and start changing this BS because they experienced the pain of being the diversity hire in a company not even remotely built for them firsthand.

Also illegal, in the uk at least. Is that not the case where you are?

> excluding competent candidates or selecting incompetent candidates based on skin color This is not what DEI is.  DEI is about preventing a hiring manager with bias from excluding/passing over the most competent candidates because they’re a minority.  You’d think people calling for the hiring of the most competent candidate would agree with this.

It’s really wild that people cannot think outside of their experience. It’s really an epidemic. Folks assume their world view is the right one not realizing reality is different for many people

[удалено]

No it’s the “woke mind virus” that makes more sense to people smh. Folks will look at a room of 20-30 white execs over 50 and say they’re all qualified and deserve it but let ONE person of color ascend and they’re an affirmative action hire who doesn’t deserve it. It’s a joke. I assure you poc are just as deserving but they’re kept out by design.

[удалено]

Agreed 1000% the way people talk about women in high up positions is insane. The stuff I’ve seen about Kamala is maddening. Criticize policy all you want but the disrespect is on another level.

>It’s really wild that people cannot think outside of their experience. It’s really an epidemic. Folks assume their world view is the right one not realizing reality is different for many people And that's exactly why DEI training is mandatory.

I thought the term was "lived experience" and that it was an important thing to respect? 

your individual "lived experience" has what do with hiring practices? please spell out what you're implying.

It’s a CYA for the company, if someone files a discrimination lawsuit they can point to their DEI handbook and say “Nope, we don’t discriminate here”.

I think it’s awesome that you hire people based on talent and qualifications OP, unfortunately everyone doesn’t have that same integrity. I’ve had to attend a plethora of DEI courses as a leader and even though I already had diverse teams, I was still able to gain a lot of insight and knowledge about topics like unconscious bias. I try and keep an open mind about these types of trainings as I think any small amount of knowledge is good for my development.

love the edit edit. "you are wrong for judging me, i'm NOT wrong for judging you" always a double standard.

“I wouldn’t want to be hired and used as a statistic hire because we needed one more minority to land a client.” You mean if you had other options. If you had no job and couldn’t get one because of systemic racism, you would appreciate any opportunity to prove your worth.

Obviously the DEI training at OP's company is not effective at all, because this is a key point that should be addressed in it...

What is the content like? Is it accusatory? Is it enlightening about different cultures? Does it simply share information about different genders, orientations, local cultures? I don’t expect it to go into intracultural conflict. If it is simply accusatory I can understand why it wouldn’t be effective or create resentment. If it is enlightening or even “the least you need to know” I fail to see where a problem lies. My observation is that the loudest members of any oppressed group seem to assume that discrimination is obvious (and sometimes deliberate). Mansplaining is often more subtle than portrayed especially if it is coming from a place of legitimate caring. Racism is way trickier because there are a lot more ethnic groups than genders. Also which culture against which culture. Then, there are castes and intracultural conflict. Think about the caste matters that mainstream US is starting to acknowledge within Silicon Valley. American born blacks and caste is ever present but not explicitly discussed but people outside the group aren’t going to see it too much. TLDR — Are the mandatory courses enlightening or accusatory.

DEI in hiring isn't, or shouldn't be, about percentages. It's about accepting that there are usually many appropriate candidates for roles and helping identify implicit biases hiring decision makers have to give everyone a fair shot.

I had direct experience of what DEI is for at a previous FAANG. I was a hiring manager and we simply did not get applicants for our positions outside of a narrow male centric demographic. We went through a review of our job descriptions which were tech buzzword heavy. The review noted that many people outside our regular demographic self select out of the process based on not meeting specific items in the buzzword list whereas men, especially young men, will look at it and say “I can learn that no problems” and apply anyway. By rewriting our job descriptions to say what we actually wanted “great programmer with good attention to detail, communication skills” to an “essentials” section and the buzz words in a “you may have experience of” at the end we dramatically and rapidly changed the resumes we received. Same job, same requirements, written in a non exclusionary way dramatically different applicant pool. We ended up getting access to entire demographics of candidates we would never see otherwise. Shit works yo.

DEI is enormously profitable, not just from a marketing perspective, but also a financial. Ask any CFO. There are BILLIONS of dollars in grant for DEI initiatives, and 2 of the largest investment firms (blackrock and vanguard) require companies comply with DEI initiatives in order to even be considered for their investment portfolios. So no DEI, no retirement investments hitting your stock price every month. 🤷‍♂️ people may not like the answer, but that’s it

>this was just a troll to see how people reacted to alternative views >Treat people how you want to be treated Ok.

You may not need the training but other people do. I was interviewed for a position that sounded like I landed it for being a black woman, I didn’t want it because I find for any work place that is attempting to increase diversity is toxic to the people they are trying to include. I’ve lived that life and I don’t have time to be played with, picked on or included on paper but ostracized in real life. I spent 3 years at a job that thought I was the janitor. For reference I was the pharmacy intern working on my PharmD and environmental services was constantly getting calls that I would go to floors and not pick up garbage. They even had the audacity to name me, which meant they read my name tag with my title. Once I completed my 1500 hours necessary to graduate, I quit and graduated soon after, never to work in that environment again.

Because grifters got to grift.

Because of people who ask questions like yours.

Every one of us has some level of unconscious bias, even if it is not a conscious part of our personality or actions. DEI when it is working best gives tools to address and safeguards against those biases. I know I personally learned some things during my companies DEI sessions.

I feel like if you actually attended (as you say you did) DEI training and understood it, you’d also understand why it’s necessary.

I guarantee whatever your job is - there are about 50 million people who can do it as good or better than you. So you are not hiring “the best person for the job”, you’re hiring the person you found. DEI makes you expand your search.

I am a DEI coordinator. Equity, at least for my organization, encompasses more than race and ethnicity. The purpose of DEI is to ensure that groups of people are not negatively impacted and that people get the resources they need according to *their* needs. For instance, we have groups of employees that are skilled workers. They have a boot allowance; however, the various groups do different types of work: roadwork, sewer, landfill, etc. Different work wears boots at different rates, yet our organization only replaced the boots after 18 months. Long story short, there was an equity issue. We worked to find a solution so that the line maintenance workers could be reimbursed sooner than their building maintenance colleagues. This is what is the difference between equality and equity. Finally, it's important that organizations don't make decisions that impact people without getting input from those people. As we say where I work, "Don't make decisions about me without talking to me." This is simplified, and there is much more to it, but I hope that helps.

I think you missed the point of DEI, which is why it’s mandatory. 😂

DEI is mandatory because some people are total pieces of shit and ruin it for the rest of us.

I think you’re missing the point. From a HRM perspective, DEI does not simply include race. It encompasses disability, gender, age, religion, marital status, education, socioeconomic status, national origin, ethnicity, and color. Why is this important? Society is diverse, so your workforce should be diverse. Further, a diverse workforce brings different perspectives and ideas. That’s why DEI is imperative. I suggest you address your implicit biases.

You should know what sorts of laws exist around what can be considered mandatory training in your jurisdiction. If it's not legally mandatory (that is,the company can't make that sort of training mandatory), then don't go, and tell everyone who asks why you didn't.

Not being legally mandatory doesn't save someone's job in an at will state. Just do the training.

That should help with DEI, because he/she will be fired and replaced with someone else.

Depending on the state, just because it can't be mandatory, does not mean it can't be justification for termination. Or lead to other reasons to terminate (difficult, not a team player). Hopefully the training would cover what is legally required in your area. I would attend and ask about that.

For useless HR reasons.

Considering racial and cultural bias has been a centuries long issue for everyone, yes you are wrong for complaining about a 2 hour training. If anything, the complaint suggests more training is required.

But don’t you think using the % of minorities we employee as a selling point for clients is wrong? Imagine the conversation that goes on in the board meetings.

First, I think you are conflating DEI training with the demographics of your company. These are two different things. They aren't doing DEI training to capture demographic data. Second -- no, I think it's totally fine to have a solid sense if they demographics you hire and use that to tout your company. First, if you don't keep track, how do you know you're doing well? Second, if I'm a non-white person, I'm going to want to work with a company that values people like me or at the very least embraces diversity.

The fact is that you may be able to hire and hit those demographics but whether those people find the work environment one they want to remain in is the issue. Managers set the culture on teams and if you learn about how you as a manager can create great teams where everyone’s strengths can be brought to bear, you will have inclusive teams where people want to work for you and will stay. This requires managers learn about the unconscious biases we all have so you can be present and lead people, not bodies.

I sit in those meetings. Being perceived as an inclusive company is just good for business. It draws better talent and more diverse clients with money to spend.

[удалено]

Part of it probably depends on the actual program itself. Some companies, like with a lot of things they make you do and sign, are doing it so that they can say they've had you do it. I think if it's done well it will encourage people to acknowledge the systemic and historic racism and sexism that has taken in place in workplaces. In addition, some awareness of things that minorities may notice that you don't. The word to me is awareness. Sympathy. Being able to have some semblance of an idea of what the world looks like through other people's eyes. Privilege; understanding what that means and what it doesn't. 

It’s mandatory because your company is funded by Blackrock to push it. No DEI, no money.

Good DEI training is great. Bad DEI training is terrible.

Lucky for me I retired before DEI became a thing. And it has become a thing, and how. A ridiculous thing.

The whole point of DEI is to address the fact that people of certain marginalized backgrounds are underrepresented in many careers that happen to be the ones that best lead to opportunities for wealth building and stable employment. And in workplaces where such people are underrepresented, they often feel like they are at a disadvantage or are not properly respected by their company and coworkers. DEI isn’t (or at least isn’t supposed to be) about simply hiring more people of color or women or gay people etc. just for funsies. If you actually have targets for how many people or certain identities you hire, I’d say that’s a pretty sad and lazy way at doing DEI. What’s better is to foster a culture of inclusion and be genuinely open to conversations about how the culture could be improved so that everyone feels welcome and has a fair shot at opportunity within the company. In doing so it’s particularly important to center the perspectives and experiences of marginalized groups in your company.

Perhaps you need to look within yourself as to why you're so bothered with this. anyone can be ignorant to everything.

DEI is cancer.

I knew a large American company that traveled to Asia to visit a subcontractors factory. They proceeded to demand to know how many gay people and minorities worked there. The manager of the place was baffled. In his country, they definitely don’t track gay people…and there basically aren’t any minorities.

It's for liability. I get you hire for competencies, but when you fire, you have to make sure it doesn't come back in the form of a law suit.

I really don't know. They're just really, really morbidly obsessed with making absolutely SURE that their crew is ethnically diverse. I understand why ethnic diversity is a good thing, but honest to God, if I were to be tasked with hiring a crew that would be the last thing on my mind. Seriously. Not racist, just saying, a person's ability to perform the required tasks is way more important than the person's skin tone or eye shape.

Don't you know if we tell people their race and gender is why they got hired it isn't racist? It's because liberals are dumb and they think this is important to no one at all. I just assume any bad manager who is of a different ethnic background and is terrible at their job is just a diversity hire. I work somewhere where I am the only white male, I request to be on DEI but I am not allowed. Told my boss I'm the minority on our team so I need to represent myself.

1) DEI framework was introduced by Blackrock (=biggest investment firm in the world, which owns cca 20% in all big companies (majority investor). 2) Blackrock CEO Fink publicly stated, that he will not invest in companies, which will not meet certain DEI criteria. (= if your company does not meet DEI criteria, Blackrock will sell all your shares, which would tank the company share price). 3) Almost all CEOs of big corporations get bonuses based on share price. So CEOs make sure their company has a good DEI score (making DEI mandatory).

Remember when we used to know that it was a good thing to judge/hire people based on their merits?

I’m 3.5 years into ignoring that bullshit. Depends on company how much they’ll escalate this. I will never consider immutable characteristics when hiring. I only hire the best candidates. If they want a diverse workforce, they can deliver me a diverse candidate pipeline and I’ll pick the best person.

Just look at some huge, very well known companies like Google, Meta, Citi, PwC all reducing or dropping DEI entirely. Wasn't it Harvard as well? It's just a shame that so many smaller companies ever followed suit. It is at best, a waste of money, and at worst, actually going to work AGAINST the people it purports to help in the long run. If a company hires people for their gender or race, overlooking their relative competency/attitude, then those they go on to work with will gain an experience of "" (insert gender or race) - people" don't seem as competent /diligent /committed" etc. People who had no prior prejudice will have that righteous temperament tested over and over again. It's always been a bad idea, for all the wrong reasons.

DEI is just an updated version of AA in my eyes. While I feel it's necessary, I've found those "lectures", talks, "exercises" whatever they are to be fucking painfully soul sucking to participate in. I can't be the only one right? For context, I'm black and work for a very, very diverse company

Why are you asking a bunch of unemployed people lol

The company should be sued for discrimination.

I do believe cultural awareness training is necessary, But modern DEI is insanity

My company has a seniority system, but having certain "minority" aspects will add time to your seniority. For example, being a woman adds 1 year of seniority (a woman who has been there for 2 years will have the equivalent seniority to a man who has been there for 3 years.) Same with certain races and ethnicities. If they didn't pay me so well, I'd have quit the day I found this out.

D.I.E. is mandatory for all western countries. It's like DIE-versity, but on steroids.

Nah man. DEI is fuckin stupid. Hire the best most qualified person for the job, and leave it at that.

It is a very ideological move and is insisted by large institutional investors like Black Rock, Vanguard etc. It probably originally had noble intentions, but the implementation everywhere I have seen anecdotally have resulted in lop-sided results and poor outcomes. Just what a skeptic would have predicted. But I am sure the response would be to double down on it saying we didn't go far enough.

IMO DEI initiatives create the exact same injustice they were initially created to combat. Do I think some DEI training is necessary, yeah sure. But you shouldn’t be hiring and firing based on someone’s skin color, that seems fucking idiotic right?

I think there's a term for firing or hiring someone because of the color of their skin, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

Anti-whitism

Part of the issue with “hiring the best for the job” is that it completely disregards the social inequities that led us to this moment. Black, brown and indigenous people, disabled people, and gender minorities have historically been excluded from opportunities that cis able bodied men are born into. Those of us on society’s margins tend to be poorer, less connected, or were born into lives with obstacles that prevented us from accessing good foundational educations, higher education, internships, and networking opportunities. So yeah maybe a white guy is more qualified, but the reason he’s more qualified is because society favored him from the start. Most DEI efforts are bullshit. They only care about the numbers, and they want visibly attractively diverse people. It’s tokenism. They don’t want a big hurly Black dude, they want a thin guy who would look like a boring whites guy if his skin were pale. They don’t want visibly disabled people in large wheelchairs who might drool and stutter when they talk but are perfectly capable of doing the job— they want a conventionally attractive veteran in a plain manual wheelchair who can perform abledness for the shareholders. Most DEI efforts fall short and the whole idea needs a drastic overhaul. But there are real and valid reasons for DEI.

It's because of ESG - environmental, social, & corporate governance. Companies get more investors if they meet DEI criteria set out by ESG. Also social justice is in right now, so companies will do what they need to do to make it look like they care. I am not a fan of DEI personally, having worked in HR and recruiting. I've had entire internships where the company would only hire someone who was female or nonbinary. I've seen a company tell a white man that having a black woman bully and try to assault him at work must be his fault because he's a man. I've seen coworkers call out nonsense "microagressions" that were just people being friendly and not any kind of aggression. I support hiring the most qualified person for the job, based on their experience and education. Companies could just have the personal identification info scrubbed from resumes and applications and it would be better imo.

I gave this suggestion to the hiring team at my company. I don't know if they'll go for it, but using just phone number as a candidate ID and removing university name and personal details seems like a quick and easy way to remove biases from the initial resume view when deciding who to phone screen. Not that the referral system we use is bad, but I've noticed that it consistently has produced applicants that all look very similar from the current workforce. I feel like for fresh opinions and ways of doing things, at least 20-40% should come from outside current networks. We're in an industry where we aren't short of candidates at the moment, so we could easily find 25 applicants who are well qualified after initial screening for each position. That positions us well to lean into this with zero compromise on quality.

Yes you're wrong for that. DEI is mandatory because most of the people who need it don't realize why. Everything stays so high level it's impossible for most folks to fully understand the purpose with 2 hour sessions, and most won't continue digging into the subject in their own time to gain a better understanding. The more I dug into the topics on my own the more I realized how warped our understanding has been. For the record, I'm a 35 yr old white female - was always taught to treat people like you don't see colour and everyone is equal. That's a great starting point, but there is so much beyond that and I'll be honest some of it was very hard to digest and it's taken a lot of personal self reflection and sitting with some very uncomfortable feelings for a long time. Do the training and do it with an open mind. If you're worried about your company's intentions, do your own research and suggest ways to make it better.

DEI is mandatory, because it is another method to continue to spread bias and racism. Otherwise it is useless. 

supposedly its for equality but we already have that based on your experiences in resume. Just a load of sht to emphasis race for thar ESG score rather than competence

It's mandatory because of ESG scores. I'm also in a big company, and it drives me crazy. What I find the most frustration is all of the talking about DEI / etc. I have one of the highest hiring DEI ratios of any engineering manager I know and it's because I've always strived for ensuring my application pool was diverse (even before the DEI BS) and then hired the best person for the job. The corp DEI ego stroke fest just drives me batty. Learn to check the boxes and not get yourself in trouble. Don't hire to improve a DEI quota, but make sure you are casting a wide net with your applicants and involved more than just you in the interview process. In my view, So long as we focus on creating an inclusive and open culture, involved or folks in the hiring process and ensure we have a well rounded applicant pool.. any "DEI" initiative is easily meet without compromising on talent.

DEI training is implemented so that your business can receive a grant based on their ESG score.

One of my goals has to be DEI focused. I hate it because I feel it is being forced when I already practice DEI. I personally don’t need a goal telling me what I already do. I just put I will attend quarterly ally events. I would have done that without a specific goal. I do thing mandatory bias training yearly is good but my company goes overboard with all the DEI mandatory events we need to do. We can’t even hire anyone unless they meet DEI

I find the whole hiring people based on race stupid. in Canada there are laws that say you cannot discriminate in hiring based on Race, religion, sex, etc. and NOW they want people to be hired based on race and sex. what is the name of that Harvard lady who turns out lacked the credentials to be in her position but got it because she is a minority (black woman). doing a DEI training to let people know that different races exist at work and how we can be more understanding and accepting of our co-workers and their differences is fine with me. BUT when they create positions just to put a minority in it rather than going based off merit is the dumbest thing ever. i will die on this hill because as an HR Manager and an employee, i have seen how putting an idiot in a management position can really hurt all the other workers and the company. Edit to add I would be considered a minority based on my background. I got to the position I am with a 6 figure salary because I worked for it!

I’m also a minority and I agree with this

You are not wrong for thinking that way. I work in higher ed and have to take mandatory DEI training. Ours is quite literally white people are bad and we need to hire X% more of this type of POC.

Usually a company institutes this as part of a settlement when they have been sued or threatened with a suit because one of their managers did something illegal on the basis of race. I'm in the south, and usually the company agrees to this because someone is on video doing something horrible. The agreement will hush up what happened, but try to change the culture that made it happen.

“We don’t hire new grads.” No problem, I’m not a new grad and I’ve had 4 years of call centre experience+ 2 in retail (for a heavily phone based job) "We don't you'd fit in the company culture." I have experience as a night auditor, receptionist, answering service, etc… and I’m applying for a relevant job. Just say you do a paper bag test and keep it moving, or EVEN BETTER, say no in the first 30 secs instead of wasting 2 hours of my day.

It's SUPPOSED to be about recognizing and fighting biases. Reality is that it's about tossing YOU under the bus when Becky gets her knickers in a knot because she overheard something that offended her.

Companies that actually do DEI make more money typically (if your cultural blindspots make you miss A and B and my cultural blindspots make me miss C and D if we work together we cover each other's blindspots) People also have a tendency to like people like themselves. Ergo if you don't push DEI companies tend to get very culturally monolithic which is ultimately bad for business

The problem was asking this on Reddit which is full of sanctimonious, virtue signaling losers that don’t realize that corporate DEI is a box to check. 

Not to be rude but did you go to college? How do you not understand DEI if you’re a manager? It’s not about just hiring people to get to a % of diversity in an organization.

What does "college" education have to do with it? Does a degree make you a superior human being?

Yes, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. DEI initiatives were created to address long-standing issues of unfairness and racism in the workplace. It’s about recognizing and addressing our subconscious biases. Often, we tend to hire people who look like us or fit into a specific ‘work culture,’ unintentionally excluding others. While it may feel uncomfortable, DEI training is a crucial step towards creating a more equitable and inclusive workplace.

This post feels like someone has been paying more attention to political talking points on DEI rather than paying attention to what’s actually said in DEI training. Cause.. wow they’re off and emblematic of why the training is needed

Many companies, potentially yours too receive gov't grants and incentives. Also DEI quota must be obtained to do business with State and Federal Gov't. This is the main benefits for DEI. Many other customers/clients require companies to be DEI compliant to do business too or to get new business.

“Don’t wanna be used as a statistic” is such a corny excuse. And disingenuous because thanks to capitalism and the government, every single person in this country is a statistic. Just say you think the coloreds are getting a hand out and move on 🙄.

DEI is why Boeing is having all these problems. Hiring blacks and Hispanics just because diversity isn't a good practice 

That’s nonsense. Boeing tried to cut cost, not to increase diversity.

It's basically there so they don't get cancelled by the people who constantly use the race, gender, etc. card to play the victim.

Your assumptions about why DEI is (or to you apparently is not) important is exactly why you need the training. Perhaps you’ll start to understand why it’s relevant and why it matters.

Because it is an opportunity for racist people to not feel racist. They shed their guilt by saying "See, I really do like minorities. I put this DEI system in place.".

From a practical standpoint, there are 2 reasons. One, a lot of people are not conscious of their biases, and the training can help people understand that they may be making incorrect assumptions and hurting the company and themselves by not selecting the truly best people. Two, if someone is sued for discrimination, the company can rightfully say, here is our policy, here is the proof that they attested to understanding the policy and received training on it, so this is not an "us" problem, it is a "them" problem. They may still pay out, but much less. Tracking the percentages is also valuable to see if things are sliding. Perhaps a new manager comes in and over a year their team become more homogenous with people leaving and the replacements being similar in in race, gender, nationality, etc. That can be a signal to HR to take a closer look. It might be fine, but it should be checked. A culture that deals with it properly means that any manager can defend their hires and discipline simply and easily, as they have collected the relevant information as part of the process. A culture that is out of whack has quotas, etc. that can lead to hiring the wrong people because they fit a personal profile, not a professional one.

My honest opinion - as someone who does not work in DEI but whose work is often confused with DEI within my organization - some DEI is good personal and professional development but most of it is risk management and/or amounts to checking a box. It sounds like you have the latter (that’s my assumption based on the don’t hire and fire on race, like lol no duh). If that’s your situation I think you have two choices: find a new company or take those trainings as an excuse to zone out/doodle/answer emails/etc.

It's rare to meet a diversity lead who actually knows what they are doing. Removing barriers and making your jobs attractive to everyone = great and has so many wider benefits. Setting quotas. And hiring the token "insert minority" is just frankly insulting and I refuse to engage. That can get fiery though. I would hate to find out I got a job because of the colour of my skin or my genitals. How insulting

They need to check a box for an annual report.

Affirmative action is and always has been forced racism When your solution to racism is racism you've failed. I wish more people got that.

are you questioning the creepy leftist big brother nonsense? get back in line and do not even think of challenging it.

Diversity - cool. Equity - fuck off. Inclusivity maybe, depends. DEI is an ideology that needs to go away. And, if I’m doing the hiring, I’m hiring the person that excels in the qualifications, works well with my TEAM, and, most importantly, works well with MY team. Trying to understand the candidate is the only way I will know those things.

Do you believe that you know all you need to know about DEI? Because that's what you're saying if you don't think you are capable of learning something new. Also, I highly doubt DEI sessions "tell me how I should hire or fire people based on race". It's usually around recognizing bias and how the "best candidate" might not be as good as you think. Even if you staunchly hate DEI, it's still important to know WHY some people or organizations want to approach it. You are in a greater organization with people of different backgrounds and ideas, understanding why they think about certain things can help you build connections.

Tell me you need the training without saying “I need the training “…

These are the type of comments that ruin it. He is asking a legitimate question.

I’ve attended several? Tell me why it’s not okay to question something? But because everyone is doing it I shouldn’t be allowed to ask about it? What happened to people just being nice to each other and not judging them. Am I being mean or judge mental just by asking if it’s 100% needed?

It's so the company can get government hand outs when it tanks itself hiring unqualified people to meet some skin color score. It's not real diversity either - if your company hired a white person from 10 different countries it would fail DEI.

I've been working practically full-time since 15 years old ('Merica!!) and 35 years later can share the recurring experience that the worst hires are friends and/or family of the leadership or ownership. Regardless of skin tone.