Charlie made this comment back in 2020. It’s been 3+ years and what has he done about it? He required 50% diverse candidate slates for hiring manager interviews for nearly every job (prior to Charlie it was just mandated for more senior level IC and manager jobs) and this led to widespread “fake” interviews to meet that 50% diverse slate requirement. Remember that great NY times article. Wells is still under the asset cap and all he seems capable off is layoffs and offshoring.
16 replies (most recent on top)
@1ddf+1pWw5GxE
My point wasn't about what's being said is true or not but about having tact as a CEO and understanding that people are watching what is said closely. This issues can be mitigated and I personally expect more from someone in that position.
We all know there are teams made up of one single race that have a higher diversity score than those teams with truly diversity but as you said Wells doesn't care about that because it's a soundbite not actual diversity.
Silly kids, everyone knows that "enough representation" means zero white people being allowed to work at WF outside of exec roles. That's the end goal. Funny thing is, they say it's because they value diversity but it's a lie. They do it because they think they can get minority workers cheaper. That's all "diversity" at major corporations has ever been about. PR and cutting costs via institutionalized racism.
Look at the testimony this week from the token presidents of MIT Penn and Harvard to congress addressing whether anti Jew speech violates their code of conduct. It was Kamala-Esau’s word salad and non responses. This is what happens when you use diversity and not competence in your hiring decision.
Offshoring to countries with no diversity just shows you that it has never been about “diversity”.
I"f he had said 'Wells Fargo doesn't currently have enough representation from minorities especially African Americans...'"
Well, that would have been untrue unless your definition of "enough representation" means a vast overrepresentation. Minorities are already overrepresented at Wells Fargo in terms of % of employees compared to % of the U.S. population. Overall, non-Hispanic whites make up 60% of the U.S. and 55% of the U.S. Wells Fargo workforce as of 2020; that number has certainly gone down in the last 3 years as the focus on DEI/quotas has increased.
I see other posters on here saying that Charlie was right. Whether that is correct or not, I expect a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company to articulate what he means instead of causing serious harm to the company's reputation. If he had said "Wells Fargo doesn't currently have enough representation from minorities especially African Americans, I emplore people to apply to our open positions, our culture is a place where you are welcome, belong and can grow" we would have never seen any backlash. But he's a useless CEO with no tact and brings nothing new expect for a seriously dodgy relationship with one of our key competitors.
I also don't want to hear he was the only one who wanted the job, no way there was only one person interested in a multi-million dollar prestigious position.
What Charlie meant is there is a limited number of black people he knows and feels comfortable giving a job to.
You could say the same thing about the id--tic 'location strategy'. Every city has a limited talent pool compared to WFH. Also, our execs probably aren't racist, they just want to hire their friends that all happen to be pasty white new Yorkers.
thanks to legacy WF leaders, Stumpf and Sloan
My guess is some of this pool that he wants will showcase after more layoffs. You know, thin the white US male/female herd.
Post ID: @sts+1pWw5GxE
Agree.
Same thing going on in COO at a lower level, sr manager and director.
CS needs to meet a quota for appearance purposes.. I mean, show a “qualified” candidate pool…
mno+1pWw5GxE gets the point, this post is about accountability not demographics. Charlie was an executive in this industry for decades and did nothing about it. He made comments that went public and still has done nothing about it. Charlie has been and will continue to be part of the problem.
It shouldn’t have been controversial.
Charlie was saying that it’s hard to hire experienced black workers FROM OTHER BANKS.
It was clearly commentary about other bank’s past hiring practices.
You can’t simultaneously feel that black people are underrepresented in banks and that it isn’t more difficult to hire experienced black talent.
Considering how divisive an issue race and equality is in America and around the world, Charlie’s remarks in a sane/normal/functional organization would have been met with universal scorn and his eventual firing and/or resignation. Considering we’re still here with Charles in charge (pun intended) speaks volumes about Wells Fargo, it’s leadership, and the board.
Consider this mindblowing possibility: that there actually IS a smaller pool of "black talent" (weird phrase, but it's Charlie's, not mine). Nationally, among people 25 years or older, about 33% of adults have bachelor's degrees compared to about 22% of blacks (50% lower than national average). Among that 22%, a much smaller percentage of degrees are in fields related to business.
This is probably the least controversial/d-mb thing Charlie has ever said, but since race is involved, everyone jumped all over him. He's right though.