I'm so curious: How many of you posters snarking about DEI and/or calling Raghu sh---y names have very actually been in a position to 1) hire an employee at VMware or 2) lead a company - or even an engineering team? You work at a company that pays you really well, enjoy outstanding benefits, and then post what seem to me largely uninformed comments. If you haven't hired an employee following the new guidelines, then talk to managers who have: The caliber of candidates - including DEI candidates - is pretty awesome in my experience. And if you can't call our CEO by his given name while at the same time you bemoan the downfall of VMware, just know that you're part of the problem.
44 replies (most recent on top)
I commented this on another related thread. "We hire the best" is a slogan that has no meaning and is never true. There is no "best". A final panel is a group of candidates who are "close" with a focus on their ability to close the gap or provide a unique perspective.
Candidate A is 70% close. So is Candidate B. PM has long-term plans for a new feature. "A" has more experience in this than "B". "A" may be weaker for the role as it currently sits, but is more experienced for what the role will be in 6-12 months. Or, "B" comes from a start-up background while "A" for a large corporation. The team has new leadership and is looking to be more agile, so "B" brings a lot of perspective and energy to make that happen. Both are the best, and neither are the best.
The idea of lesser qualified DEI candidates is believed by those who have never had to hire.
I think its the equality vs equity issue.
The best candidate should be hired, regardless of any DEI issues and many people will agree to that. 100% agree we should call our CEO by his name.
But % targets and set quota's should not be the way to enforce it.
People from hard working backgrounds, didn't go to ivory league schools or grow up wealthy, who feel like they have finally made it into a great company, are seeing colleagues getting better opportunities and visibility only because they fall into a DEI statistic.
Example: One person on the interview panel being female.
Being on an interview panel, is good experience for hiring, seeing interview techniques and an opportunity to give feedback to a manager. Everyone should get the chance to participate in them.
In reality due to the low number of women in tech, the interview panel seems to always be made up of two hiring managers and a rotation of few females in the team. The opportunity is essentially DEI only, excluding the rest of the team. This is not equity or equality.
I don't know, how to increase DEI but % targets start to alienate some of the the non-DEI workforce. There is only so many times you can hear "too male and too pale".
"Why does DIE have anything to do with how awesome a candidate is? Shouldn't I hire the best candidate, full stop?
Honestly, is there anything more to say- ever- than "we hire the best"?"
Sure. In an ideal world that goes without saying, but there's plenty of evidence that, with no incentives in place, behaviors don't change and people tend to hire people like themselves. Incentives have driven plenty of change and innovation over time, whether privately or publicly funded. And once people have the direct experience of some of those good results, they tend to think more broadly about their options. That's the value of consciously practicing DEI.
The caliber of candidates - including DEI candidates - is pretty awesome in my experience.
Why does DIE have anything to do with how awesome a candidate is? Shouldn't I hire the best candidate, full stop?
Honestly, is there anything more to say- ever- than "we hire the best"?
This thread has been archived. Posting is disabled.