Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The answer is there are no good reasons, but one cycle goes like this:

1. HR gets asked by their employees for statistics on how many non-binary/PoC/women/<insert your label here> people in the organization are represented in management/executive/engineering/<insert your probably under-represented role here>.

2. The org at first responds "We don't know because we don't collect this data".

3. The question-askers respond "How convenient, that's because you know they're under-represented".

4. Company responds with typical "meritocracy" answer, then eventually launches long, drawn-out process because hey, "we're a data driven organization!"

5. Years later, after the original question-asker is long gone they share the data, ideally after a few cycles that show <current under-represented individuals> have grown from small percentage of total to slightly larger small percentage. Company loudly boasts on all social media platforms about wokeness and snowflake status.

6. Times change and society moves on, leading to questions of "why does the company care if I'm <whatever, it's now a non-event, progress!>"

7. Employees respond with lack of giving a sh!t or manufacture false outrage at the violation of their personal privacy.

8. the cycle continues, while data deteriorates, leading to some pretty hilarious options in drop-downs.



This would be slightly plausible if this practice started in 2010, but it didn't, so it isn't.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: