>Our company has been tracking diversity and reports on "# of non-male identifying employees" and "# of non-white employees".
You don't think this is kind of disgusting?
You don't think this is kind of disgusting?
Yet when this natural and friendly desire to build these environments is matched to anodyne corporatized language and KPIs, it begins to feel (and I want to emphasize that this is an emotional reaction) gross and forced.
I wonder how we can preserve sincerity at scale...
Your friendly conversations are about building a more inclusive environment. All else being equal, that results in a more diverse workforce.
Measuring inclusivity and fairness is hard, so coorporations instead optimize for a more measurable metric: demographic diversity. The easiest way to optimize that metric is discrimination. Coorporations, being optimization machines look for the most effcient way of optimizing the metric that is (broadly) legal, which still looks fairly discriminatory.
I kind of wan't to avoid a subjective analysis here and just see what other companies do for these types of concerns (if they have them).
If the company actually wants a diverse workforce then they need diversity at all levels of the company. Is the board diverse? How about the C-Suite and managers?
If the levels with higher authority in the organization are diverse then it is much easier to justify the composition of different groups as being due to local market conditions.