[hamandcheese]

My company did (still does? Not sure) have a policy similar to that, even for IC roles.

We would frequently miss out on opportunities to hire qualified candidates because we couldn't make an offer until satisfying the interview quota. By the time we did, the candidate accepted another offer.

I think it's probably a net positive for underrepresented people (it's kind of hard to argue harm to white people when they just get other offers elsewhere that are good enough to accept without waiting), but I'm really not sure if it's a net positive for the company (pre-ipo, still trying to grow a lot).

[gitremote]

It's not a net positive for underrepresented groups, because it assumes their time wouldn't be better spent applying for real job opportunities. They don't have infinite time, because they are real people. Would you prefer to be rejected because of your resume, or asked to attend an interview and then be rejected because of your resume?

[hamandcheese]

> because it assumes their time wouldn't be better spent applying for real job opportunities.

I suppose this is true, if you believe that hitting the additional quota is entirely performative.

OTOH my company has better representation of women than anywhere else I've worked previously, so I don't think it is entirely performative.

[whimsicalism]

Not commenting on the merits of AA in general, but multiple offers in hand in a timely manner is always better so losing out on that is definitely harmful.