A few years ago we hired 3 URM into the group as we had no choice BUT to hire URM. 3 years later here's how it worked out. (1) URM1 - Technical Female (Indian) - VERY good employee, really knew her engineering, knew how to network, got things going and moving. Still with the company. (2) URM2 - Technical Female (Indian) - Terrible employee, totally useless. Barely did any work, no visible demonstration that she knew her work. Said hours were too long, took medical leave and then a long vacation to "find herself". Eventually left the company. (3) URM3 - Hispanic male - OK employee, really knew his engineering and how to network and get things done. Unfortunately falsified his credentials and submitted quite a few questionable expense claims which got back to finance/HR as his colleagues complained about the "cheating". He was let go. *** I guess the point is every one is different, URM Status shouldn't have a bearing on success but it is true that the lower bar for URM unfortunately means 2 of the 3 hires ended up being a bad fit or just ... unable to perform the job they were hired for. That, is a terrible "hit rate" when it comes to HR. HR should seriously rethink this policy if Intel is not only keeping the REAL underperformers, but trying to hire more of them for the sake of meeting some diversity goal.(repost)
1 reply
I don't believe HR/BK cares about URM hit rates, since managers can always try again with additional URM hires. Intel managers are never judged based on retention levels.