[ALittleLight]

Obviously white and Asian men are capable of realizing that customers might feel like they are stealing items (or will be accused of stealing) in the Go store. It is ridiculous to think such an obvious concern would be invisible to people based on their race or gender.

It's also very strange to think that team members should be responsible for speaking for their race. Imagine if your team had a black engineer and your team expected him to explain to everyone "the black perspective" or "how will black people think about this". An individual doesn't represent anyone beyond themselves and, ironically, it is racist to think otherwise. A black engineer is there to do the job of an engineer, not tell you what his racial group will think. If you want to know what a demographic will think of something you use surveys, focus groups, and market research - DEI is not relevant.

[thrashh]

No one is responsible for representing any of their background but you work with a diverse group of people because different people bring different ideas to the table

You cannot do focus groups for issues you don’t even know about. Race isn’t the only factor here — someone who grew up on a farm is going to have different things to say than someone that grew up in the city.

[ALittleLight]

My impression is that you are trying to be racially sensitive or politically correct. You are using terms like DEI and saying it is important. But what you are writing comes across as very racist. "We have to have a black person on the team because black people think different!" No, your race and gender don't determine your beliefs or perspectives.

The way to find out what different groups will think about your product is to survey representative samples - not to hope that the person of background X on your team could speak for all X.

You can use focus groups for issues you don't know about - absolutely. That's one of the main benefits. Get a group to use the Go store. Ask about what they thought. Ask the people who used it a lot and those who used it a little - why did you use it so much/little. You find that some people are made uncomfortable because it feels like stealing. There - if you didn't realize that was an issue before, now you do.

[deepdriver]

>You are using terms like DEI and saying it is important. But what you are writing comes across as very racist.

This as DEI working as designed. The latent condescension in the corporate propaganda is apparent and offensive when verbalized. If you speak it aloud like the GP did, you are chastised. In a professional setting that's an effective humiliation ritual. It strongly discourages you from speaking up again in the future. Eventually you notice more flaws in the DEI sales pitch, but by then you've learned your lesson. You stay quiet. Thus the worker is controlled and the corporate propaganda is shielded from criticism.

As posted below, Amazon has been caught measuring workplace diversity and correlating it negatively with unionization and worker solidarity. To them, forced diversity is a net benefit. But the downsides of forced diversity are never to be mentioned by the workers themselves, who are irredeemable racists if they say what Amazon internally acknowledges to be true:

https://archive.ph/1khJw

[deepdriver]

>you work with a diverse group of people because different people bring different ideas to the table

This is sometimes true, but quite often it is ownership-class propaganda to depress wages and prevent worker solidarity. For example:

>Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims, according to [Whole Foods'] documents.

https://archive.ph/1khJw