MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Mar 30, 2023, 13:55:
Well, assume hypothetically she lays down some specific detailed framework for a random company to follow to fix these complex issues. Now, find some company who will actually follow (sincerely) that plan to change, and stick with it. Then, assume, like all of human history, anything goes wrong, then of course all the blame would go to her of course, because the company in question would never take the fall if they could avoid it. Then of course the backlash against her and any sort of equality measures would be even worse than it is now. You get what I'm saying, I hope. Your request, while it would be nice, is unreasonable. At least in my opinion. The next obvious criticism is, if it's so easy to just give a solution to this sort of problem, then what is yours? I am being facetious of course, it's not reasonable to expect a functional change to human behavior at the drop of a hat.
I've been in leadership roles both in and out of uniform for the majority of my life so perhaps my perspective is skewed. When something goes wrong, and it will go wrong, you should have flexibility in your plan to account for it. You assume, in the planning stage, that you're going to step on the proverbial landmine. That's basic plan theory. If something goes catastrophically wrong to the point where you don't have have enough flex to own it, then leadership stands up and takes responsibility for the failure. Then, instead of falling on their sword, they address the failure, fix it, and learn from what went wrong.
Now does the above accountability often take place in American corporations? Not only no but HELL
no for the most part. But, let's be real, leadership in most American organizations sucks to the point that it's not a miracle that the bear waltzes, it's that the bear dances at all. However, I try to be a different than that.
You state that my request is unreasonable yet I have done so. I know several other people in leadership roles who have also done so. Tackling human problems is at the very core of being in a leadership role. Without taking care of your humans, every other business concern is useless. Businesses don't exist without people. So every other consideration becomes a secondary or tertiary objective. To me, it's like saying "Well, how do you plan for or resolve a sudden FMLA request? Or a sudden accommodation request?" To me, a good team balance based on skill and fit is no more of a challenge than any other planning for human problems. That's not to say it is easy, it isn't, but that doesn't mean I wave my hand, say something vague in corpospeak, and push it off to be someone else's problem to solve.
I don't have an easy, pat answer for how to make DEI be both effective and not punishing and if it seemed like I did, I apologize. But then the people who actually get hit the hardest by flailing, pointless DEI initiatives are never people who have a seat at the table when those initiatives are being drafted. It's all done by HR drones who, outside of paperwork, have zero bearing on hiring or team makeups. So DEI initiatives will always fail.
That's where Sarkessian, to me, comes in to play. Stop spouting useless platitudes like a soft touch HR drone and start working on the hard problem.
That's my rub. Stop talking, start solving.
"Just take a look around you, what do you see? Pain, suffering, and misery." -Black Sabbath, Killing Yourself to Live.
“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau