I know they mentioned something about it being performance based, but what does that actually mean? Is it looking at trimester reviews? Annual reviews? Leadership input?
18 replies (most recent on top)
@143 diversity is fine and great. The problem is giving people extra or passing up on other quality people for immutable differences and not performance.
When you say “we will give 10% extra if you give your business to a woman or minority”, that is blatant discrimination.
When you say “our goal no matter what is to have 50% women and minority leaders”, you might say “well yea this white male has the best qualifications, but our objective is to be 50% woman and 50% minority, and we already have 4 of our 6 leaders as white males, so we will choose a minority woman, even though only one with questionable qualifications applied so that we closer meet our objective” it’s a problem.
I have absolutely no problem with hiring and potentially targeting those demographics. But giving incentives and actual % goals behind that I believe is a problem.
While I haven’t had any problems personally with women/minority leaders and all have been great, I know many potentially great advisors who have been passed up on for the 10% bonus and blatantly been told as much.
@125 I'd say your attitude and the need to clap back and put people in their place is exactly what DEI doesn't need. Your multiple replies with the same condescending tone really show why DEI is failing... You're rejecting people's lived experience and then smacking them down. You're not better than anyone else. Perhaps you'd like to post your real name along with your diss tracks rather than hide since you are clearly so much in the right.
@125 with all due respect, I was getting exceeds for quite some time and then dropped to meets and told I needed to be more engaged with DEI. I’m not playing a blame game, I was responding to the OP regarding if the ISP is performance based, which I don’t believe it will be.
@aa ...with all due respect; it's tough to get exceeds. Branch scores are relatively pretty high if ones nice to the person, answers the question presented properly during a call or live chat.
DEI has absolutely nothing to do with your reviews. Nice blame game though.
@je if you want fair- get rid of Nepotism also. It’s out of control.
The problem is the most companies took DEI too far like setting quotes and goals (hiring based on physical attributes), and broadcasted them on the main stage as critical firm goals. In its pure form, I’m sure most would support DEI. If your systems are fair, inclusive, and focused on real potential, not just polished resumes, you’ll naturally move toward diverse leadership without needing to force it. That’s the goal. Not quotas. Not tokenism. But a genuinely level field where talent from all backgrounds can rise.
These DEI comments blow my mind, man. Grow up and quit blaming DEI for everything. Do you actually hear yourselves? Unbelievable.
@gm They also quietly changed the Goodknight payout policy in March 2025 where they provided additional compensation explicitly based on physical attributes of the receiver such as gender and race. This was in response to a class action lawsuit. Baby steps but moving in the right direction.
@g8 the firm has relaxed some on its DEI stances. those figures are still out there more as just ideal targets rather than as goals that are tied to development objectives
@g5 Agree with this take. Hire the best person for the job. We don’t need gender goals in 2025. Are they seriously still out there?
@g0 Agreed, we can’t blame everything on DEI. But why encourage promotions and set a firm-wide leader goals based on gender and not merit? I’ll wait.
@fg -For ISPs, I heard they are prioritizing low performers who blame others for their failures. So, looks like your number is up.
It is immature to blame DEI for everything.
I heard they are prioritizing ISPs with white males where possible to improve DEI and reduce the risk of lawsuits.
It’s NOT performance based. It’s who has the most LP. They want us to liquidate.
@OP If it’s performance based, they have been setting us up the last couple of trimesters. I went from Exceeds Expectations for a few years to Meets Expectations all of a sudden. Branch View Scores 100%. But I’m not “engaged” in enough DEI BS.
@a2 This is blatantly incorrect.
The ISP criteria is weeding out all those who were offered the VSP and did not accept. Very simple. So that would be the remaining Rule of 70 and leaders they no longer want working here.