Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Popcorn: Always the clever one… not.

On the other hand:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-ways-dei-harming-your-company-how-resolve-brian-dapelo/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/13/business/diversity-equity-inclusion-belonging.html

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-things-i-hate-diversity-inclusion-anthony-d-mays/

The proof is in the pudding!

@6gqv Buddy, how am I supposed to take you seriously when you don't even know the difference between "antidotal" and "anecdotal?"

Does Female Representation in Top Management Improve Firm Performance? A Panel Data Investigation
Robert H. Smith School Research Paper No. RHS 06-104

Cristian L. Dezso
University of Maryland - R.H. Smith School of Business

David Gaddis Ross
University of Florida

Date Written: March 9, 2011

Abstract
We argue that female representation in top management brings informational and social diversity benefits to the top management team, enriches the behaviors exhibited by managers throughout the firm, and motivates women in middle management. The result should be improved managerial task performance and thus better firm performance. We test our theory using 15 years of panel data on the top management teams of the S&P 1,500 firms. We find that female representation in top management improves firm performance but only to the extent that a firm’s strategy is focused on innovation, in which context the informational and social benefits of gender diversity and the behaviors associated with women in management are likely to be especially important for managerial task performance.

OP here. This HBR article is typical of business publications that are written to forward some opinion rather than reporting a peer-reviewed academic study. They claim a relationship between diversity and the ability of organizations to change, and also a relationship between the ability of organizations to change and their profit, but these statements are directly supported only by antidotal examples. Neither the article cited by @6cqy, nor the original article that is cited by the referenced article, shows any data (None!, Not one graph, Not one table, Not one equation, Nothing). Neither describes the “ability to change” metric specifically, nor how it was measured in practice, but rather lists parameters the investigators think might be important in such a definition. Thus, the investigators do not provide any means of reviewing their findings or methods, nor for reviewing the validity of their conclusions. Far from “proving” their thesis, they don’t even really define their conjecture well enough to be analyzed. That HBR would publish this clap-trap reflects poorly on their editorial review, and that the business community would reference this type of study as anything but opinion reflects poorly on them also. I am sure many large companies have very good data scientists and statisticians who could help develop and test links between D&I and profit (Chevron does!), but I expect they are not consulted because the D&I champions don’t want to be proven wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, in the extreme it would seem obvious that companies with toxic cultures, inflexible working environments, and a$$hole managers would have a hard time attacking and keeping good employees. What is more tenuous is that repetitive rank-and-file D&I training (indoctrination?) and the types of social engineering activities championed by some D&I proponents are useful to the bottom line. There are only so many hours in the day, and while, as I said before, outcomes are generally maximized by seeking balance, for the most part I suggest time spent on staff competency development and getting the job done leads to better corporate economic outcomes than having staff sit in a circle and sing kumbaya in the lunch room. Convincing me otherwise will take more than cheery-picked antidotal references.

Harvard has proven DEI improves business performance.

https://hbr.org/2023/05/how-investing-in-dei-helps-companies-become-more-adaptable

OP here. In reply to @5gmc. Business folks are well known for their bogus studies used to push an agenda based on push poles and cook-the-books reports, so I take your “quantitative” references with a grain of salt (or ten grains!). That said, ok I will play. I looked at your first study (McKinsey & Company's Diversity Matters report, 2015). Here they develop a metric for diversity based on the ethnicity and gender of each corporation's top executives and board members and compare that metric to corporation profit. Not sure the results from this can justify making rank-and-file technical staff sit through repetitive D&I training and diversity moments, but it is at least a real quantitative measure. The report only shows a comparison of top- and bottom-quartile profit sums (showing at a top, a difference of 30%) and repeatedly states these results are “statistically significant”. Wait a minute. Where is the data? Why not a simple cross-plot showing data? What exactly is their statistical measure of significance? I suspect the reason the are not showing their data is that the numbers are dominated by a few large (tech?) that achieved very high valuations and then decided to make their E-suite more diverse for PR reasons (Is there a cause-and-effect relationship here: questionable at best!). Who is McKinsey & Company? I just Googled that and they are a very high-priced New York City business consulting firm that expects its younger staff to put in 60-80 hours a week, working 12 hours a day, every day except Saturday. Are these really the folks we want to reference for D&I and work-life balance issues? Do I suspect they cooked-the-books on their study as support of their consulting recommendations (rather than this being a scientific study) ABSOLUTELY!

Let’s get real here. Most people are happy that they work for a company like Chevron that supports D&I: Recognizes staff might have diverse families to support, that some staff might require special accommodations due to health or handicaps, and has complaint ombudsman office within HR. This, however, does not justify all this time wasted on social engineering and the focus on social networking in promotion evaluations. This is a business, not a social club, and the focus is better placed on staff competency development and rewarding business contributions.

Here are some quantitative measures and findings that support the idea that DEI can lead to better business outcomes:

Financial Performance:

McKinsey & Company's Diversity Matters report (2015) found that companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 35% more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians.
A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (2016) showed that companies with 30% female leadership could add 1 percentage point to their net margin compared to companies with no female leaders.
Innovation:

Research conducted by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that diverse teams lead to more innovative ideas and products. Companies with above-average diversity scores generated 45% of their total revenue from innovative products and services, compared to 26% for companies with below-average diversity scores.
Problem-Solving and Decision-Making:

A study published in the Harvard Business Review (2016) showed that diverse teams are better at solving complex problems faster than homogeneous teams, due to a broader range of perspectives and ideas.
Talent Acquisition and Retention:

A Glassdoor survey (2019) found that 67% of job seekers consider workplace diversity an important factor when evaluating job offers.
Companies that prioritize DEI are often seen as more attractive to younger generations, who value diverse and inclusive workplaces.
Market Share and Customer Base:

Deloitte's "The Diversity and Inclusion Revolution" report (2018) suggested that organizations with an inclusive culture are 1.7 times more likely to be innovation leaders in their market.
Diverse organizations can appeal to a wider range of customers and communities, potentially leading to increased market share.
Employee Engagement and Satisfaction:

A study by the Center for Talent Innovation (2014) indicated that employees in inclusive workplaces are more engaged, feel higher job satisfaction, and are more likely to stay with their current employer.
Reduced Turnover and Recruitment Costs:

Companies that prioritize DEI can reduce turnover rates, saving on recruitment, training, and onboarding costs.

As long as others are writing manifestos, here is my take. Corporations, much like governments, start initiatives that address real problems, but once started these programs tend to expand out of control unless they are carefully monitored for overgrowth and at times trimmed back or even terminated. Two quick older examples within Chevron show the point. 1) BBS is introduced to improve safety. The initial training and reporting system seems to improve safety focus and a few real issues are addressed. Managers start requiring everyone to file multiple BBS reporters every quarter and place compliance as an evaluation metric on par with job performance. So many reports are filed that real issues can no longer be identified within the barrage. The system is largely forgotten, so time spend on all these efforts was wasted and less real work was completed. 2) RSI is a problem. A system is installed to help employees monitor computer breaks. Some managers make the system mandatory, but you are allowed to override the system up to 20% of the time when it does not make sense (like during meetings). One pinhead manager decides his group is going to do one better, only 10% overrides. The next pinhead manager decides her group will do better, 0% overrides! From then on we find ourselves sitting in huge town halls watching someone else take a workpace break, with all the managers nodding their heads in approval.

What do these examples have to do with D&I (now JEDI and soon to be yabba dabba doo JEDI 2+)? They started as a good idea and then continued to grow until ridiculous. Yes, we all want an inclusive workplace and for people to be civil, but that does not mean the company needs to provide people with their entire social support structure: That is the job of family, friends, community groups, churches, etc. I am not convinced there are realized productivity gains when Chevron has people spend more time doing paternal social engineering activities than building core competencies to get the job done.

Good grief can't you guys who sit around for hours on end wasting company time at least do a little better than copypasta that's too long, anyone can google, and no one's going to read anyway? referring to the "how to waste company time on D&I initiatives instead of doing the job you were hired to do" manifesto.

@4uhw: Thanks for a reprint of the D&I manifesto, but I am not buying it. Where are the quantitative measures proving all these positive outcomes. More to the point, life is all about balance. Can’t I get most of the benefits listed simply by being reasonably inclusive and demanding reasonably civil behaviors from my coworkers? These things start as a good idea, but then the champions keep pushing and pushing to enlarge their own statue until it begins to push out the real reason we are together as a group… to get the job done so the company makes money!

Diversity and inclusion (D&I) offer numerous benefits to corporations that go beyond mere compliance with legal requirements. Embracing D&I can lead to positive outcomes that enhance the overall success and sustainability of a corporation. Some of the key benefits include:

Enhanced Creativity and Innovation: A diverse workforce brings together people with different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences. This diversity of thought can lead to more creative problem-solving and innovative ideas, as employees bring unique viewpoints to the table.

Improved Decision-Making: Diverse teams are better equipped to consider a wide range of factors and viewpoints when making decisions. This leads to more well-rounded and informed choices that can lead to better outcomes.

Broader Talent Pool: Embracing diversity expands the potential talent pool from which a corporation can recruit. This can lead to the hiring of highly skilled individuals from various backgrounds, helping the company to attract the best talent available.

Increased Employee Engagement and Satisfaction: When employees feel that their unique identities are respected and valued, they are more likely to be engaged and committed to their work. Inclusive environments promote job satisfaction and reduce turnover rates.

Better Customer Understanding: A diverse workforce can better understand and connect with a diverse customer base. This understanding can lead to more effective marketing strategies, product development, and customer service.

Positive Reputation and Brand Image: Corporations that prioritize diversity and inclusion are often viewed as progressive and socially responsible. This can enhance the company's reputation and attractiveness to customers, investors, and potential employees.

Global Reach and Adaptability: In an increasingly interconnected world, diverse teams are better equipped to navigate the complexities of global markets and adapt to cultural differences.

Reduced Bias and Stereotyping: A commitment to inclusion can lead to increased awareness of unconscious biases and stereotypes. This can result in fairer hiring practices, more equitable opportunities, and a more respectful work environment.

Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Many jurisdictions require corporations to adhere to diversity and non-discrimination regulations. Prioritizing D&I helps ensure legal compliance and minimizes the risk of lawsuits related to discrimination.

Innovation in Problem-Solving: Diverse teams can bring a wider range of perspectives and experiences to the table, leading to more comprehensive and effective approaches to problem-solving.

Enhanced Employee Performance: Employees are more likely to perform at their best when they feel valued and included. D&I initiatives can lead to increased motivation and productivity.

Reduced Groupthink: Diverse teams are less likely to fall into groupthink, where individuals conform to the prevailing opinion and fail to consider alternative viewpoints. This can lead to more thorough and critical decision-making.

It's important to note that reaping these benefits requires more than just hiring a diverse workforce. Companies must also create an inclusive environment where all employees feel valued, respected, and empowered to contribute their best. This involves fostering open communication, providing training on unconscious bias, offering career development opportunities, and addressing any systemic barriers that may exist within the organization.

5dri: While I agree with you to a point, I don’t think the current social networks and kumbaya diversity moments have any real impact and they waste a lot of time. Why do all the “moments” last a half hour?. How about instead full circle peer reviews of team member performance and behaviors as part of annual evaluations, and most importantly make all evaluations fully 360. Break the increasingly top down management style that breeds bad behavior. Clearly state behavior expectations, define criterion to evaluate outcomes, and then return the focus to getting the real job completed. I think we should be able to develop a process that encourages D&I that does not take up half the workday! While I don’t accept bad behavior, I also do not value folks focused on being D&I champions on my team as much as the solid technical contributors.

If you don’t need DEI initiatives to be empathetic, respectful, and supportive of your fellow coworkers - awesome! I am sure though that you’ve had experiences with some team members that aren’t as empathetic, respectful and supportive as they could be. We all spend the majority of our waking hours with our coworkers and just want to make the best of our time together to contribute, feel safe and part of a great team. DEI may not solve the true a--holes on the group, but they may remind some in the group of the skills to help make a better functioning team where everyone pulls their weight. Be curious, not judgemental

Troll alert! Why event respond?
As far as I can tell all this trolling today is by some D&I champion trying to divert any discussion away from criticism of their agenda. So my question, is it RM? …. Maybe we overpay some of our VPs!

What are the negative aspects of DEI?
They undermine meritocracy: This argument rests on the claim that companies that invest in DEI initiatives end up promoting employees based on their race, s-x, or other “DEI-privileged” characteristics, rather than on their skill and competence. In addition, opponents object to “identity politics,” arguing that DEI initiatives create divisions among racial and ethnic groups, undermining a sense of unity in society. Lastly, opponents object to what they see as ideological or political perspectives guiding DEI efforts.

My guess is the JEDI champions are trying to prove their services are indeed still required: This demo before justifying their next week of mandatory training stand down (so the rest of us should also give up on the idea of getting any real work completed!)

There wasn't any racial animosity in the OP or any reference to any particular demographic being good/bad, incompetent or otherwise. It seems that some on here have taken it personally and apparently assumed that it was "obviously" their own race that was being considered incompetent so they found it necessary to attack the "other side". Why make such an assumption if it was not even remotely hinted at?

I see some colleagues who have very low productivity bht spend a lot of their time on councils and DEI initiatives and they get a lot of recognition yet not many results. It’s discouraging honestly

The E stands for equity, not equality btw

D&I is the scourge of large companies, those whose momentum and market share can absorb such nonsense - for a while, until it starts to affect their performance, or the competition catches up to them. Look to Chevron's smaller competitors, and you will see nothing like the D&I monolith MW and RM created. Of course, in the ultimate competition environment, sports, D&I is completely unheard of.

@xgl, Sure there are, but just not almost every single one of them, as is with those referenced in the OP. And the OP did not make the claim that your strawman argument does, it just referenced those who championed the movement. Hope that clears thing up for you.

I have a problem with the E (equality) in DEI. If one person is going above and beyond to get the job done they should be rewarded relative to another who has a lot of personal distractions (e.g., at home, with health, etc.): Maybe not higher rewards day to day, but certainly over the long term. At some basic level advancement should reflect talent and effort rather than there being an expectation all will get equal rewards.

OP here: "Compassion and empathy does not have a correlation with lack of technical skills". While I agree with this, I am not speaking of those with compassion and empathy (vs. without) but rather of those who spend a significant amount of their workdays focused on championing D&I. A respectful work environment should simply be expected and not be something that needs a significant time commitment to maintain. Most tech leaders simply focus on getting the job done, despite management headwinds related to a whole list of side issues (including D&I).

D&I and ESG have been top-down investor driven agendas from the likes if Black Rock and others. Companies who want higher stock prices try to appease these investors. Management would rather succumb to outside forces rather than protect the concept of meritocracy among their professional employees. Of course, continued abused of dedicated and hard working employees leads to lower morale and resentment. Only when management realizes that the work product and productivity they are paying for isn't acceptable will things revert back to meritocracy, if ever.

I started a business with an ex-colleague and a good friend after leaving Chevron in 2016. As equal partners, we have grown the business from us 3 and two hires to now having 29 employees. We pledged to hire only the best professionals we can find. We have 25 men and 4 women, all with a minimum of 17 years of experience in their technical skill. The average age of our employees is 57. It also so happens everyone in our firm is White, but it’s not because we are racists, but because we pledged from the very beginning to only hire the best personnel we can get. The only diversity we embrace is having the diversity of excellent talent. We will never look at quotas or follow other business models, as ours has proven to be a successful one. Next year, we are on track to adding 5 more professionals to our payroll.

People with strong technical skills have no reason to promote D&I - they're well aware that it is performance, not appearance, that matters. Those with weak technical skills need something to boost their reputation and presence, hence why they are the ones jumping on whatever is the latest trendy bandwagon. Their lack of performance is hardly missed.

Please keep your grievance politics to yourself.

The DEI actions employed by corporate America and our government institutions are well-intended, but are completely flawed in its practice. Forced DEI for the sake of showing you embrace DEI is destroying everything. Many are now realizing the DEI being pushed is simply being anti-White.

This is fact free nonsense. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Go grind your axe elsewhere.

Compassion and empathy does not have a correlation with lack of technical skills

Let me assure you that there are plenty of white hetero cis male slackers as well.

After renewal most don’t care about technical excellence.