Thread regarding VMware layoffs

The impact of this policy

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/no-job-hire-made-unless-minority-candidate-interviewed-vmware-ceo.html

Is exactly as described below by @1lmb+1myCawk0

I was hiring for a mid/senior role. No women or underrepresented minority could be found for the role, none from that group applied for the Job.

People went out of their way to “look” around and still couldn’t find anyone.

Months and months would pass with other qualified candidates waiting to hear from us. This scenario was not a one off, it happened most of the time.

In one case a great candidate got another offer elsewhere and took it because we couldn’t get our shït together. In other cases it took so long the job rea even expired and we had to start over - it took almost a year to hire. What a joke, a year!

In the end no woman or underrepresented minority was hired, it was a waste of time and we alienated a well qualified candidate. This a failed approach. ( failing still? I left the company ).

Not
A
Lie

@1opi+1myCawk0

How is this for hiring instructions from my manager - “we are hiring an underrepresented minority for this role.”

That is just part of my experience in seeing how the DEI sausage is made.

"Based on my experience being a hiring manager at VMware for many roles, that is not how it works at VMware."

Then something is wrong then because what was described is how its supposed to work.

@1zxb+1myCawk0

Based on my experience being a hiring manager at VMware for many roles, that is not how it works at VMware.

I think the problem is that it would seem most people on here have not actually had any training pertaining to current DEI training nor do they actually understand what it means.

It does NOT mean you are there just to check a box and meet a quota. It does not mean you overlook a white person for a non-white person. It means you learn to look at each and every applicant the same. You look at their skills, qualifications, and background and the best person who has the most desired of them all gets the job. It is meant to train those making hiring decisions to learn to understand how to handle their own biases- even if they think they don't- and in turn look at just the person applying in terms of their skills.

That is really all there is to it. So for those of you complaining? If you haven't had any DEI training then I am sure your mangers would be all too happy to avail you to those resources.

So true

If you had a well qualified DEI candidate that wanted a job, but didn't hire them right away, because you wanted to spend 3 months looking for someone that was a white male, you would be in serious trouble.

You can't fix discrimination with more discrimination!

Let's not pretend anyone in leadership cares that deeply about social issues.

I'm not sure that is true. I 100% believe that Betsy cares a lot about DIE. Really, actually believes it.

DEI initiatives serve only one purpose -- to boost ESG ratings which heavily impact lines of credit for corporations. Let's not pretend anyone in leadership cares that deeply about social issues.

I'm a PhD engineer working on vSphere.

I'm so sorry you work in such a toxic group.

"The abysmally small percentage of people who care need to be proactive catered to vs. correcting people’s usage on a as needed basis. So we get zoom calls with people controlling language and putting he/him on their zoom screen so we can all virtue signal how supportive we are of trans rights- which I am, just don’t shove this in my face day after day."

You do not deserve to be employed here.

abysmally small percentage of people who care
You're close. You're soooooo close. You're almost there.

You so far, so far. The point was who actually cares about being called the correct pronouns proactively. Nothing at all related to qualifications.

Ask gpt to summarize it for you.

DEI exists because there are abysmally small percentages of qualified people.

please stop, i can't take laughing so hard.

"Nope. You miss the points completely."

Nope. I was 100% correct and you are only responding because you got your feelings hurt.

abysmally small percentage of people who care

You're close. You're soooooo close. You're almost there.

DEI exists because there are abysmally small percentages of qualified people. Most people don't care because most people are not underrepresented. Hence the term. The future goal is a good sized portion who care, a large majority who are neutral and will support it, and an abysmally small percentage who are triggered by it and will fight it to the death. Currently, it's the other way around.

I'm a PhD engineer working on vSphere. I fully support the DEI efforts.

That is exactly what is happening in this thread.

Nope. You miss the points completely.

Blah blah blah…

Basically don’t hire people who aren’t qualified, is that wrong? Apparently it is nowadays. It may even be considered racist! Oh I’m so afraid of your labels…not. In 10 years folks will look back at this and see that DEI went to far.

Amazing we can have this conversation without recognizing everyone’s pronouns up front!

The abysmally small percentage of people who care need to be proactive catered to vs. correcting people’s usage on a as needed basis. So we get zoom calls with people controlling language and putting he/him on their zoom screen so we can all virtue signal how supportive we are of trans rights- which I am, just don’t shove this in my face day after day.

Wow. I never thought I'd experience these reactions from VMware colleagues. Because you disagree with my POV, you question my abilities - because of course, anyone who defends DEI must be a DEI hire and incompetent. (Spoiler: You're wrong.) And I guess you hope to yank my chain by continuing to call Raghu names, demonstrating behaviour I thought we left behind in grade school? Oh wait, I forgot: All of this bullsh-t's become the norm these past few years.

Anyhow, I get the gist. Eye-opening. Exiting this thread now, just a little more disenchanted with my fellow humans. Thanks for that.

I guess when Managers are given extra bonuses for Female and/or Non White Male hires, well I guess that proves the total non-biased process.

managers will instinctively opt for one who mirrors themselves.

Me manager. Me have no deep thoughts. Me like the people like me, people not like me - bad. I go code now as good code monkey, lead engineers to big hole and jump in.

I wonder if Magoo was a DEI hire?

We need to have an equal proportion of CEOs that dress like slobs as in the rest of society at large. That seems fair and rational…

Also - I call him Magoo because its funny, and he is a bumbling mo--n, and it rhymes with his name.

If Raghu was a white male named Robert, I would call him Bob the slob. The insults have nothing to do with race, but with the fact that he is a horrible leader, and unqualified to be CEO of VMware or any other company. The "proof" is in the results.

Guess what? I highly respect Sathya Nadella. He is from the subcontinent like Magoo, and is also a CEO of a large tech company. I respect him because he has proven himself to be wise, strong, and successful leader. See the lack of racism, and the focus on capabilities?

So OP, it is you who have been thoroughly brainwashed by Betsy and company. Not hiring a qualified candidate because they are white, is the same as not hiring a qualified candidate because they are another color. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what color the target is. Society was evolving to be color blind, and virtue signaling mo--ns like yourself have pushed us backwards.

"The caliber of candidates - including DEI candidates - is pretty awesome in my experience. "

This is a false and subjective statement. Based off your post and assumptions, I would have to question whether the people around you think you are successful in your job.

I lead a team of engineers, and and have hired most of them over the last several years. I can tell you VMware's stance on tactics related to DEI is hurting the company. I found an outstanding candidate who was white, who was recommended by someone who was "not white" . This person could do everything I needed and more. I had to wait 3 months to hire them, because the powers that be told me I had to spend more time looking for a diverse candidate. It took several weeks for the recruiter to find DEI candidates, and ALL of them had less than 5 years of slightly relevant experience, and weren't even qualified to do 25% of the job. They couldn't answer most of the basic technical questions related to the job.

So how did this help the business? I could have hired a qualified candidate within a week of getting the req. Instead I wasted 3 months because of DEI policies and incentives, to prove that the "white male" candidate I had was the best for the position. During that time revenue generating work was not completed, work was pushed to others on my team whose plates were already full.

This whole thing is backwards, and the reasoning of the OP is stupid to say the least. We are technology company, were should hire people based off their technical skills. The color of someone's skin, and what they like to do with their genitalia is completely irrelevant. Caucasians and really Asians dominate tech, because those 2 cultures have the most experience and training. VMware cannot fix this problem with DEI virtue signaling. All they are doing is squandering shareholders money, and hurting the business.

https://octo.vmware.com/data/work-culture/

If you want to see forced DEI in action just apply to the VMware Office of CTO or one of their ambassador programs. All that matters is whether or not you are an ALLY of DEI. Take a look at the OCTO. Look at the change to this page starting in 2020. The topics switch from product and technology in 2019 to DEI and being an ALLY from 2020 on. One could conclude that the "technologists" have been replaced by people who wish to force their cultural views on VMware's customers and employees.

The big scam in DEI can be seen in this discussion. Candidates are being hired for their color and what they sc--w NOT for their job related skills. Four years of this at VMware has left it with thousands of employees deeply in over their head, covering up serious mistakes, committing product fraud and failing customers. It has left customers and employees alike with deep skepticism that VMware employees are competent, capable and trustworthy. Hiring people based on merit and experience with a blind eye to their color and who they sc--w prevents these problems.

DEI is the toxicity and divisiveness at its best.

VMware employees of a now "non preferred" race have been told that one must
focus more on being a "DEI ally" than doing their job in order to get promoted.
This is a serious problem - and completely racist.

Proof? What search term do I use to find this internally?

It's about creating opportunities for different types of people who have typically been under-represented in the workplace when you look at the percentage of those same people in the broader population.

You have just described the original sin of DEI efforts.

Another false flag?

OP must be a DEI employee frantically justifying his or her role lmao

Gtfo

1) hire an employee at VMware or 2) lead a company - or even an engineering team?

All three, including a company acquired by VMware.

This DEI stuff is a mess. Take it from someone who “knows” - at least by your criteria.

And for F’d sake, Raghu is the embodiment of Mr. Magoo. Just calling to like it is.

Actually, on second thought, Mr. Magoo had a better wardrobe.

I for one was glad when I was told by a recruiter I got passed over for an Asian guy and a white woman. Zero BS just they had a bunch of white dudes on the team and HR was mandating diversity. Worked out for the better and I got a better job in the company.

VMware employees of a now "non preferred" race have been told that one must focus more on being a "DEI ally" than doing their job in order to get promoted. This is a serious problem - and completely racist.

HOW CAN IT HURT US TO BE MORE INCLUSIVE, even if getting to that requires some
targets initially?

Loooong time employee.

vmware was more diverse pre-2007 than it is now.
Something changed in the company during the Gelsinger years that made it less significantly less diverse. Perhaps it was the hiring practices he espoused?

Networks are social.
Two people of the same race/gender can have completely different social backgrounds and hence different ways of working and ideas.
Many companies are looking at social background. I would rather that happen than % DEI targets.

I'm the original poster on this thread. Not sure who you're calling racist, "cowboy," but this not about racism per se. It's about creating opportunities for different types of people who have typically been under-represented in the workplace when you look at the percentage of those same people in the broader population. There is NO DOUBT that we all want the best possible candidates on our teams. But think about it: How often do we hire people through our own networks? How diverse are those networks? HOW CAN IT HURT US TO BE MORE INCLUSIVE, even if getting to that requires some targets initially? Why do you think we even have those targets - because we were just naturally doing a great job at being diverse and inclusive at VMware? And, lastly: Just how is DEI hurting you?

the hiring panel and managers have to be actively aware that they will naturally hire those who look exactly like them,

I'd like to see you prove that, cowboy.

You start with the idea that everybody is as racist as you are, then "naturally" we all feel that way. But we don't. We're not racist, like you are.

I've hired plenty for this very company. And I can tell you that the decision to hire someone based on their skin color or taste in ice cream or anything else unrelated to the job- is unrelated to the job. And unrelated to my hiring decision towards them.

Some of them did indeed look like me. Some didn't. It has no bearing on how they could do the job. None.

The idea of lesser qualified DEI candidates is believed by those who have never had to hire.

In my long career, I've been forced to hire DIE candidates since before there was such a thing as DIE candidates.

I'm the previous poster, and forgot to make the actual point in my post =)

As multiple candidates are 70% away, the hiring panel and managers have to be actively aware that they will naturally hire those who look exactly like them, who have had the same background as them, and are similar in many ways. Given three candidates who are equally unqualified for the role, managers will instinctively opt for one who mirrors themselves. Strongly enough that they could discount what's best for the future of the team and product and opt for someone who they can just easily get along with today.