| Solving social issues by having companies try heavy handed "just hire those people" or "just give them a space" doesn't change much of anything. Companies are not good at social change. The second order effects are terrible too. People assume someone was hired because they're X, Y or Z (and I've seen companies say exactly that, talk about undermining). These segregated groups as the writer describes are ... segregated. At one place I worked a special group met multiple times a week. Those people weren't working and the teams they worked on had to pick up the slack (this was highly time sensitive work). That created resentment. No matter your policy or how much finger wagging training they did, that resentment did not go away. There's sometimes a weird add on expectation too. Person A who is type X is expected to speak for all people of type X. In an absurd way that's to some extent why they're there, but that doesn't mean they're qualified to do that, or even right, or would even want to speak up. I'm reminded of a lot of the sexual harassment cases where HR predictably takes the side of the higher ranking employee (often a man). HR jobs are by a good % often staffed by women, but that as far as I know hasn't put an end to HR siding with the company. Of course it doesn't, because it isn't about man or woman, it's about incentives and demographics don't change that. Truth is companies aren't good or even competent in solving complex social issues. |
Which is not to say that ham-fisted companies can't make themselves look worse, while spend far too much in the process. Sounds like you've seen that.