A majority of Americans across nearly all demographic groups said DEI initiatives have made no impact on their personal careers, according to a newly released Harris Poll/Axios Vibes survey.
Why it matters: Republican lawmakers and activists have vilified DEI, a term for diversity, equity and inclusion policies used by employers. Companies have responded by rolling back programs.
- Yet Americans — and businesses — have a generally positive to at least indifferent view on the subject.
- On balance, most demographic groups were more likely to say DEI benefited their career than hindered it.
Never underestimate the degree to which corporate management believes that they already do everything they need to and have no blind spots, or how much they resent any cost which is not directly revenue-generating.
Being in enterprise IT I’m intimately familiar with this mindset.
I’ve always felt bad for IT. They hire enough and give you just enough resources to limp along, but never enough to actually do your job well. And I feel like every few years they have to run a skeleton crew so small that something major happens to remind them why they pay you at all.
At my last job, we had to get CFO approval to buy a bag of zip ties, and the PO was denied. It was like $3.
But yeah, we had offices in India with an IT team there, and one of the C-suite assholes loved to tell us how he could replace us with 10 Indians for what they paid us.
At one point, a coworker stopped giving a fuck and said, “You’re full of shit. If you could do that, you already would have.”
At my last job, I had three meetings to discuss why we needed SSDs instead of rotational hard disks for a build server. The cost of the employees attending the meetings several orders of magnitude exceeded the cost of the purchase.
The cost of the CFO taking the time to look at that approval was more than the zip ties.
Yup, it was ridiculous.
But that’s my point. DEI generates more revenue because it broadens customer bases.
WFH also increases revenue, yet most companies are doing RTO
RTO is about power and control. People who work from home realize that work is just a part of life. There are pros and cons to both office and home working situations, but corporate mandates are not based on what is best or most efficient. It’s about who chooses their working style.
same with corporations not hiring diverse staffs unless they’re forced. none ofethis is actually about money, the economy, or the price of eggs. it’s all about colonialism, genocide, and hate
Jesus fucking Christ. No. The vast majority of corporate hiring decisions are ultimately made based on subconscious biases held by individual HR employees, DEI initiatives primarily serve to break those biases. Yes, subconscious biases can still be racist and/or sexist or otherwise harmful, but they’re not intentionally harmful, nevermind hateful, colonialist (the fuck?) or genocidal (where on earth did you even get that from?!).
I mean, it’s always about money. It’s just that it’s the big money that the oligarchs make by profiting from colonialism, genocide, and fostering hate. The small money, the money businesses make and spend, the millions in operating costs and profits, that’s not the money that matters.
And that’s exactly the same reason why many companies are ditching DEI
Nowadays more and more businesses are built to rot (or bought by private equity and converted to this model), spending only a very brief period of their life cycle trying to attract customers and talented workers. Or put another way, they’re increasingly being fattened up as quickly as possible for slaughter.
Most will die quickly while clawing as much value back from both customers and workers as possible, while a few winners are monopolies that do the exact same thing but get away with it for longer because there isn’t strong enough competition for people to stop doing business with them (such as Adobe, from what I’ve heard).
As long as investors and executives keep getting the big payoffs they do by gaming the system, it keeps getting worse.
Ahh, but they are already convinced that they have the best people to broaden their customer base because those are the people they picked, and therefore there is no need to spend any money on staff and initiatives to tell them they are wrong, when that money is better spent on bonuses and marketing. Business nerds at Wharton may spot some general trends, but they don’t know Company X, which has the best management team ever assembled.
Not necessarily. A lot of recent TV shows, movies, and video games have had their creators publicly blaming “anti-woke backlash” for poor performances. The creators themselves are saying this so I would assume they’ve got some basis for it, and if that’s the case then in those instances implementing visible DEI efforts is narrowing the customer base.
This has become a front on a “culture war” and it wouldn’t be a “culture war” if there weren’t contesting sides. So if you align yourself clearly with one side or the other you’re cutting off a part of the customer base. I can see it as plausible that companies would decide “let’s just continue to not be racist but not make a big deal out of it and hopefully not offend anyone in the process.”
It’s a lot easier to point at online trolls’ anti-woke criticism of your art than to admit you made shitty art.
It’s also very easy for a loud but small group to control the narrative about a movie and get people to assume it isn’t a good movie. Even before the movie comes out, it’s already box office poison. It happened with Captain Marvel. The minute that movie was announced, the anti-woke brigade went into high gear and found every reason to badmouth the fact that Disney dared to make a movie where a woman was the hero.
It’s true that that can happen, but you can’t assume it’s the case for all criticism. For example, I agree that Captain Marvel was a bad movie for a lot of reasons. However, The Marvels avoided these issues and consequently I think it was a solid movie. Both movies received hate online, although interestingly I think The Marvels got less hate despite having 3x as many women protagonists. So, how do you know which criticisms are anti-feminist and which are legit? It’s a case-by-case thing, really. Some movies definitely get the anti-woke backlash more than others though. The only analysis I’m confident is incorrect is “all criticism of [movie] is [legit / just anti-woke hate]”, because there are always a variety of takes being lumped together inaccurately.
Well for one thing, you can check and see if the criticisms were made before the movie even came out.
For another, you can check and see who is making them.
Neither of these are difficult, but people don’t bother.
That doesn’t seem reliable. For one, we know information about the movie before it comes out. This means you can make preliminary judgements about the movie. They may be proven wrong later, but they are not baseless. And I don’t trust most people on the internet to judge a stranger’s character accurately enough to determine their motives behind a movie review.
This is what is known as “judging a book by its cover.” It used to be that people were warned against it.
I would bet you think movie trailers aren’t trustworthy. You should if you don’t.
Yes, their basis is they wrote a shitty show, hoping the diversity would make up for their bad writing, and decided to blame the diversity for it instead of their own failures.
In my unprofessional opinion: yea
FTFY
Just because the upper class is using their influence to encourage conservative hate, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t currently hateful.
Regardless of why there are contesting sides, the contesting sides are still there.
I’m not arguing for or against any of this, I should note. I’m just pointing out that this division exists. If a company advertises “we’re DEI!” Then that may attract some new customers but it may also repel some existing ones, so it’s something that needs to be done with care.
Personally, I wish that companies would just go ahead and do their best to not be biased in who they employ and who they cater to, and that that would be enough.
You are seriously exaggerating here. A few have said that. Not a lot. And the entertainment industry is a tiny slice of American business and one that relies less on speaking directly to individual customers like, say, AT&T or Kroger.
Budweiser also experienced a backlash-based boycott over issues like this, it’s not just the entertainment industry.
My point is just that “DEI generates more revenue because it broadens customer bases” is not necessarily true. It’s an overly broad statement, there are cases where that’s not the case and so companies should take that into account and perhaps be cautious about advertising their DEI initiatives. It’s become political, which means taking one side necessarily puts you at odds with the other side. That’s potential customers.
What are you even talking about? DEI has nothing to do with either the entertainment industry having more diverse characters in movies or about Budweiser contracting a transgender spokesperson for what should have been an insignificant media campaign.
But your objection to people who are not white and heteronormative in the media is noted.
And here’s why this is such a dangerous topic to touch on, it instantly becomes “us vs them” and you see a fight to be fought even when it’s not actually there.
I made no such objection.
This is what you said:
So you’re saying [what you think is] DEI causes poor performances but you don’t object to it?
Yes.
It’s a true fact that a hospital could cut its costs tremendously if they were to secretly euthanize people with terminal illnesses. Stating this fact does not mean that I am in favor of secretly euthanizing people with terminal illnesses. It happens to be quite the opposite.
In one of my other comments in this thread I said what I’d like to see:
That seems consistent. Why would they care if companies lose money on DEI? It’s about what’s right, not what’s economically viable.