Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

[madires]

A friend of mine is a fairly senior manager of a very large, very well known software company. He told me a while back that they have an official policy that he cannot hire a white male unless he can demonstrate that he tried to find a qualified diversity candidate. Bonuses are in some way tied to the level of diversity on the teams, with "diversity" meaning specifically race and gender. The company I work for has a similar policy in that people of certain races and gender are given a shortcut to the head of the line in the interviewing process.

So the management tries to enforce diversity by discriminating white males. Maybe white males should start suing those companies for discrimination.

[paulca]

Did not do managerial work long because it did not agree with me that well. Can work with others but rather work alone

Interesting to hear.  I am being politely "herded" towards management.  I stated quite a while ago that I would like to remain firmly on the "technical ladder", which every company I've worked in has had, the 'technical practices ladder' and the 'management ladder'.  You are of course free to hop either way, if you can meet the requirements.

In the new company (we got bought a year ago).  Seem to blur this a lot, by attaching company values to roles and even as you go up the technical ladder, management topics like "delivery contract awareness, commercial awareness, team leadership, people management, business stakeholder meeting involvement, business case documentation".... etc.  So at the level of senior architect you need to basically be pen pushing an agile team or several, while spending the rest of your time in management meetings on contracts, commercials and delivery of said teams, with net 0% time actually available to technically involve yourself enough in those teams day-2-day to even provide technical mentorship, except in the broadest academic sense.

I can work WITH people.  I can drive people towards a technical goal.  I can mentor people.  I love mentoring people, I love passing on information, knowledge, skills, experience.  I love broadening people and making them better engineers.  But, I can't MANAGE people.  I can't manage myself!  My private life is a complete bomb site, my profressional self management can best be described as "How did I get to where I am?".  I forget things, I over context switch when given more than 2 tasks of equal priority, I hate deligating tasks I don't know how to do!  I hate estimating, I hate being timeboxed, I hate that management do NOT understand that engineering is not a mechanical machine you put requirements in the top, pull a handle a fixed number of times and a product pops out.  We don't know how long it's going to take, because we've never done it before.  If we HAD of done it before we would have 'canned' the code as a library and written patterns so we don't have to do it again, that's the whole core ethos of the past 30 years, "Never write the same code twice!", so how are we meant to know how long it's going to take?  It's not a science it's a creative art.

Management should be see us as customers, not be our masters (used in the academic sense of above in hierarchy).

So... you see why pushing me into management is pushing me into failure.

EDIT: For incorrect gramar spoiling meaning

[tszaboo]

On the economics of equity in the workplace.  "Equal job", "Equal pay".

I don't think anyone disagrees with it. Let me ask you this question then:
You have a company, that's goal is to make as much profit as possible.
They claim, that woman make 70% of the pay of men.
So a company's best interest would be to hire as many woman as possible, since they are cheaper. Or offering equal pay, and getting better candidates. They would make it a policy, since they can save money on HR.
So something just doesn't add up. Either the job is not equally done, or maybe it has something to do with the facts that men work longer hours. Or that 92% of workspace injuries are men.
How about equal pay to equal value, instead of equal pay to equal job title.

[paulca]

So something just doesn't add up. Either the job is not equally done, or maybe it has something to do with the facts that men work longer hours. Or that 92% of workspace injuries are men.
How about equal pay to equal value, instead of equal pay to equal job title.

You could have just left it at: "it has something to do with the facts that people aren't equal". 

Certainly if you equate the word equal with the concept of identity and if you don't, then you have to define your equality operator and define it's meaning, it becomes a filter for a predicate comparison and not one of try equality.  In code we might use a "Comparator" pattern for this, not an equality operator.

It's amazing how much of my trade involves discrimination.  It's probably 90% of the actual day, to day patterns I handle and solve.  I handle the concepts of comparableness, equality, identity, uniqueness, correlation, classification, categorization, set analysis, venn analysis, distribution analysis, collections theory, information theory, daily.

So I get awfully confused these days when I read a DEI email or a news report and I'm and 100% bound to screw up somewhere these days.

I had a mentoring session with 4 developers the other day discussing child process management.  How to handle termination of child processes, avoiding patricide as it will result in zombies and discussing how to find said orphans and kill them before they call join on their parent and go zombie.  It went on for an hour and the number of times someone said something like "kill all the children", such as in the example.... "If you kill the parent, we need to be sure that it first kills all of it's children, allows them to join it before terminating itself."

I wondered how that meeting would have gone if a DEI rep was in it.

[pcprogrammer]

Interesting to hear.  I am being politely "herded" towards management.  I stated quite a while ago that I would like to remain firmly on the "technical ladder", which every company I've worked in has had, the 'technical practices ladder' and the 'management ladder'.  You are of course free to hop either way, if you can meet the requirements.

.....

I can see that being a big burden. On the other hand also stupid of the people "herding" you when it ain't your forte. Look to me they are a bit blind, or you hide it very well.

The managerial role was within a company that hired me while being self employed. Did not make a big difference and they thought I was fit for the job. There was still a fair balance between technical and managerial work, but the endless never to the point meetings, ugh

I left due to us moving to the south. The Rotterdam region was getting more and more crowded and we did not like that. New work came along from another direction. Writing software from home for an English company, and later system management for another company. Liked the first hated the latter, but it brought me where I am today.

The only advise I can give here is to try and stay on the technical side of work, the stress will eat you up otherwise. Make sure to take time for yourself. I did not and it might be the base of my illness (CFS/FM), but that is something the doctors can't confirm.

[EEVblog]

Did not do managerial work long because it did not agree with me that well. Can work with others but rather work alone

Interesting to hear.  I am being politely "herded" towards management.

*snip*

So... you see why pushing me into management is pushing me into failure.

I suspect that's the idea. You are being handed your hat.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxOxuSyovEy7f0JbC0AFIVnNl0VCQfvRe0

[james_s]

I don't think anyone disagrees with it. Let me ask you this question then:
You have a company, that's goal is to make as much profit as possible.
They claim, that woman make 70% of the pay of men.
So a company's best interest would be to hire as many woman as possible, since they are cheaper. Or offering equal pay, and getting better candidates. They would make it a policy, since they can save money on HR.
So something just doesn't add up. Either the job is not equally done, or maybe it has something to do with the facts that men work longer hours. Or that 92% of workspace injuries are men.
How about equal pay to equal value, instead of equal pay to equal job title.

That's a paradox that I've been pointing out for years, and it really drives a certain group of people nuts because they don't have an answer for it. If women could be hired to do the same job as men for less money then companies wouldn't hire any men to do that job. Yet there is a "problem" that most of the people in those jobs are men.

[rsjsouza]

(...)They do quote “There are plenty of women qualified for top jobs: they should be able to get them.” which indicates the jobs need to be filled with qualified women, not just women.

So maybe the assumption is that "qualification only is required to so the job" is wrong.
(...)

This is what I find the most idiotic of all this - governments and entities trying to force an equilibrium artificially. Even if one is qualified for a job on academics and personal traits, there is also another factor that activists and proponents of these equality measures always forget: free will. What makes one think they actually want the job and its immense weight on personal life? That is somehow completely swept under the rug when doing these pseudo-analysis

The DEI can be beneficial but, if applied indiscriminately and punitively across the board, it is very detrimental. I've been seeing this for more than a decade and know through friends how this is part of the internal regiments of HR departments.

So something just doesn't add up. Either the job is not equally done, or maybe it has something to do with the facts that men work longer hours. Or that 92% of workspace injuries are men.
How about equal pay to equal value, instead of equal pay to equal job title.

Indeed. I will be much more convinced that activists are actually interested in closing the gender gap when they start rallying up for equal opportunities in the blue collar segment of the infrastructure, energy and utility sectors.

[fourfathom]

Did not do managerial work long because it did not agree with me that well. Can work with others but rather work alone

Interesting to hear.  I am being politely "herded" towards management.

*snip*

So... you see why pushing me into management is pushing me into failure.

I suspect that's the idea. You are being handed your hat.

Or perhaps they value paulca's insight into the product line and the engineering process.

I'm a good engineer, and pretty good team leader, and an adequate manager as long as the group is smart and motivated. 

My last real job was at a startup where I was a founder.  I was Director of Systems Engineering, where the system was a telecom/datacom switch with optical and electrical interfaces.  I was also system architect, and took on the task of designing a couple of the ICs (gate arrays).  I did the management because we needed it done and we needed someone who could manage and guide the technical design process.

As the company grew and the management became more "pure management" I was less and less enthusiastic (and I wasn't motivated to do my best at it).  Fortunately, given my status in the company and our plans for future developments, I was able to move into an "Advanced Development" role, with a much smaller team.  Warning though: any job with "Advanced" in the title is pretty tenuous (which suited me just fine.) 

When our company was acquired, I was able to move back onto the "Engineering Track".  The company actually had senior, well-paid technical positions, where we mostly worked on forward-looking products and technology, worked with Business Development, etc. (not much soldering-iron stuff).  If you wanted to maximize your income and influence you were still better off in upper management, but just as not everyone is cut out to be an engineer, so it is in management.  Often the "dual track" system is a fraud, but this one was actually pretty good, and I was much happier.

But not all companies have room for more than a few senior engineers, so you eventually reach a plateau.  Management is a way to extend yourself, especially if you can have a blend of technology and "people" tasks.  At least in my field, the days of pure management (MBAs and "a good manager can manage anything") seem to be waning.  A good technical manager needs domain experience.

[ebastler]

So... you see why pushing me into management is pushing me into failure.

I suspect that's the idea. You are being handed your hat.

That is far-fetched. And writing this to a guy who seems prone to overthink things and worry a lot -- just for the sake of a punchline and a cool film reference -- is also rather insensitive.

I am with fourfathom here and would assume good intentions on the employer's part. Nevertheless paulca's reservations are justified. While it is flattering to be offered a management position, one may be better off declining the offer if it does not feel right.

[SiliconWizard]

Did not do managerial work long because it did not agree with me that well. Can work with others but rather work alone

Interesting to hear.  I am being politely "herded" towards management.

*snip*

So... you see why pushing me into management is pushing me into failure.

I suspect that's the idea. You are being handed your hat.

While we don't know the particular situation here, promoting an employee to a management position for no clear apparent reason (including, they didn't ask for it) can be a red flag indeed. It's a common way for a company to push someone out gently when it has no solid ground for sacking them.

[John B]

The goal wouldn't be to get into management.....it would be to get into the HR department. Whoever controls the hiring decisions, controls the social landscape, the direction of the company and it's political bent.

[EEVblog]

So... you see why pushing me into management is pushing me into failure.

I suspect that's the idea. You are being handed your hat.

That is far-fetched. And writing this to a guy who seems prone to overthink things and worry a lot -- just for the sake of a punchline and a cool film reference -- is also rather insensitive.

I am with fourfathom here and would assume good intentions on the employer's part. Nevertheless paulca's reservations are justified.

IIRC he said that he's told them multiple times he's not interested in such a management role.
Combine that with him having rocked the boat a bit on the DEI stuff, I certainly would not rule out hat handing.
Being one of "trouble maker" employees myself that speaks up about stuff, I can tell you that this kind of thing happens.

Could be completely wrong of course.

[fourfathom]

OK, important career tip:  Don't rock the boat unless you can afford to.  If it's that important to you, be prepared for the consequences.

[EEVblog]

OK, important career tip:  Don't rock the boat unless you can afford to.  If it's that important to you, be prepared for the consequences.

Yes, this is the "screw you money" I've talked about many times. Work yourself into a position where you are not afraid to lose your job or simply tell them to shove it and leave.
Having your job held over your head like a sword of Damocles is no way to live.

[sokoloff]

Indeed. John Goodman does a great explanation in the Gambler. (Search “the position of f you”. R-rated language.)

I don’t have “screw you” money, but I have (the slightly lesser) “I don’t have to take your crap” money. Makes work life a lot less stressful.

[IanB]

I just came across a Benny Hill gag from many decades ago. It seems amusingly relevant:

    A woman has to do a job twice as well as a man to be thought half as good.

    Fortunately this is not difficult.

[EEVblog]

I don’t have “screw you” money, but I have (the slightly lesser) “I don’t have to take your crap” money. Makes work life a lot less stressful.

For those who want a baseline on how much "screw you money" you need, I'd say around 6 months of frugal living expenses in liquid assets. That gives you enough buffer to quit your day job on the spot and have plenty of time to find a better job, not just "another job".

[MT]

I don’t have “screw you” money, but I have (the slightly lesser) “I don’t have to take your crap” money. Makes work life a lot less stressful.

For those who want a baseline on how much "screw you money" you need, I'd say around 6 months of frugal living expenses in liquid assets. That gives you enough buffer to quit your day job on the spot and have plenty of time to find a better job, not just "another job".

Said from the stand point of "living in a reasonable large city where there is a reasonable large job market to hunt on". Btw in many European countries you cant ,"by law" quit on the spot, nor can you get fired on the spot.

[tom66]

1 months savings for every $10k salary or close equivalent has always been my rule.

The worst thing is having to accept an inadequate offer because your finances dictate it. 

[fourfathom]

And it depends on the economic / business cycle.  Sometimes the recruiters are at your door, other times it's the wolves.  Looking for work in the 1970s recession was painful.  The last time I changed jobs was in 1997 when networking tech was booming. I had multiple job offers and my boss offered me a 50% raise to stick around.  I ended up helping found a startup, thinking if that one failed there would be plenty of other opportunities (and there were, but fortunately we didn't fail.)  A few years later it all went to shit -- for a while.

Is there an active forum thread where old-timers and newbies can share stories and advice?  That would be fun, and we're dragging this one into major thread-drift.

[Bud]

, promoting an employee to a management position for no clear apparent reason (including, they didn't ask for it) can be a red flag indeed. It's a common way for a company to push someone out gently when it has no solid ground for sacking them.

I do not know who would do it this, it seems to be a really weird way to get rid of someone.

[Bud]

OK, important career tip:  Don't rock the boat unless you can afford to.  If it's that important to you, be prepared for the consequences.

But if you can, it is so much fun. Do not ask how I know.   

[fourfathom]

, promoting an employee to a management position for no clear apparent reason (including, they didn't ask for it) can be a red flag indeed. It's a common way for a company to push someone out gently when it has no solid ground for sacking them.

I do not know who would do it this, it seems to be a really weird way to get rid of someone.

Perhaps this is done in other areas, but in California you don't need a reason to fire  / lay off someone, unless they are in a union.  You can't fire them because of race, sex. religion, etc, and it's less likely to result in a "protected class" lawsuit if you can show cause, but it's still pretty easy to get rid of someone.

I was fired from my first real tech job.  I'm pretty sure it was because I was too good (?!), but it could have been because I looked like a dirty long-haired hippie.  It was one of the best things that happened to me -- it was a formative experience.

[KaneTW]

, promoting an employee to a management position for no clear apparent reason (including, they didn't ask for it) can be a red flag indeed. It's a common way for a company to push someone out gently when it has no solid ground for sacking them.

I do not know who would do it this, it seems to be a really weird way to get rid of someone.

Firing in Europe is *hard*