>More often than not, diversity initiatives come in the form of quotas or penalties for hiring or promoting too many "non-diverse" people.
This is literally not the case for the author. From the article:
>I told HR that I had considered it and I believed my recommendation was correct. HR said “OK, then we don’t need to change anything. I just wanted to check that you had considered them.”
That's literally all the author had to do. He made up the idea that it had an impact on his ability to advance in his career in his own mind.
>Again, there was no quota, but it seemed clear that promoting this person would have made HR and my corporate vice president happy.
It only "seemed clear." Weasel words. Engaging in the hyperbolic. This entire discussion is predicated on the fabrication that there is some racialized penalization system in place. It is scaremongering, nothing more than balking at the requirement to do the bare minimum.
Because explicit quotas are illegal, they're often conveyed ambiguously. "You don't need to hire X% of Y group. But hiring X% of Y group would demonstrate inclusivity, which is one of the core company values. And upholding our core company values is crucial to advancement."
Also, as per "Diversity Slating Guidelines" quotas are indeed being used. They require at least one Black or Latin candidate, and one female candidate. If there's only 4 people
on the slate, this could mean that 50% of the pool is subject to racial or gender quotas.
There's more context behind Microsoft's diversity initiatives. Hiring managers were given bonuses for hiring diverse applicants. Or conversely, they were penalized for hiring non-diverse applications: https://qz.com/1598345/microsoft-staff-are-openly-questionin...
This is literally not the case for the author. From the article:
>I told HR that I had considered it and I believed my recommendation was correct. HR said “OK, then we don’t need to change anything. I just wanted to check that you had considered them.”
That's literally all the author had to do. He made up the idea that it had an impact on his ability to advance in his career in his own mind.
>Again, there was no quota, but it seemed clear that promoting this person would have made HR and my corporate vice president happy.
It only "seemed clear." Weasel words. Engaging in the hyperbolic. This entire discussion is predicated on the fabrication that there is some racialized penalization system in place. It is scaremongering, nothing more than balking at the requirement to do the bare minimum.