I wonder how that sits with the diversity and inclusion directives that are everywhere now. Maybe they turn a blind eye when it suits them, or use other teams to offset the difference.
From what I've seen from the outside, it looks like US companies focus on what they view as "non-core" departments to reach their overall diversity goals. So, for example, in a software company, the coders might largely be of one or two ethnicities, and then the company's diversity goals are met by hiring diverse candidates in, say, HR, legal, payroll, etc.
idk, but there's always a question of how big a unit you look at when computing ethnic percentages. Does a group of 10 have to have 5 women, 3 POC's, and one LGBT? Or can you measure DEI only for very large groups, like the whole company?
Probably for the government, it's the entire company, or maybe each large strata of it.
For a team of 10 I absolutely agree that you're probably not going to get that fine-grained, and you'll probably look at larger groups of 100 or more.
But it still can be useful to spot-check smaller teams. If that team of 10 is, say, 100% male, or 100% Chinese, maybe that's something that deserves a second look. Not with guns-blazing, "you all are obviously sexist/racist", but... a second look, nonetheless.
What if they were 100% Gelgameks? It's a nonsense question because at any large tech co, there aren't any engineering teams that are 100% women or Black. I don't believe that's a reflection the skills of race or gender lacking, just that there aren't any tech co execs that would feel comfortable with that due to their own bias and overall corporate culture..
that's the nonsense question. This isn't 100%, but there were Google managers who prided themselves on having very disproportionately large numbers of black or female employees. SRE groups, especially.
In addition, there are plenty of teams that are almost all Chinese. Or Indian. Or, of course, white male.