[bitL]

Do you really want to work for a company where world-class work might not be that important for your career progress? Do you think a super talented high-achieving person with wrong gender/race should be expected to sacrifice their achievements for "common good" as defined by internal diversity officers? Do you think those diversity hires would be happy staying at junior positions and not pushing beyond their capabilities by non-merit related ways, not exploiting prevailing winds? I think second world countries would love to talk to you about how this turned out.

Obviously, interviews aren't that great indicator of success, especially in a company that tries to hire the best according to their criteria, so the overall medium-term effect might be small, but they do risk losing those people that could knock them out of the ring in the future, and making those people forever negative towards them. But maybe that's already taken into account and weighted in their internal decision tooling and they are fine with that.

[jccalhoun]

"Do you really want to work for a company where world-class work might not be that important for your career progress?"

I think pretty much every company has employees who would say that there are definitely people who get promotions and bonuses for reasons that are not related to "world-class" work.

[bitL]

Yeah, which is sad to observe with increasing probability in what should be one of our industry's flagship. It's double sad as there is literally nowhere else to go as a regular employee with high ideals; our industry could have done better.