Or did they learn their lesson from the R2 communication that used diversity as a way to spin layoffs?
20 replies (most recent on top)
Published this morning. A slight increase in women and Asians. Otherwise about the same.
It's already published on the TTW site.
@3yvm On "blind selection process"
There was a NYT article not too long ago about how "blind auditions" produced racial disparity in the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. The upshot of this is that the "blind audition" was introduced ~50 years ago when POC complained that they were underrepresented because of the selection process.
It's no different when the argument is put forth that SAT, GMAT, GRE, etc. are biased in favor of certain demographics. The problem with this argument is that poor Whites and Asians have no problem with these standards.
This is the problem with D&I. It's not about fixing inequality, it is about fixing the outcome.
Well what is "qualified" anyways? Did someone who got promoted actually led a team and saved CVX tons of $$$? Or is it more of a "dog and pony" show powerpoints with the help of consultants (BCG or Deloitte) to management but that guy never really delivered and was accountable? I have seen it a million times at CVX that unknowingly a "new guy" tall - a well handsome, well spoken.. who spouts new processes gets quickly cozy with top managers and get quick visibility and into the "fast track". BTW... that "new guy" never had a BIG DECISION correct or really led a team to actually get things done for CVX and save tons of $. Make that guy who spouts processes a 5 foot 3 with heavy accent... different story. Seen it a million times. Good thing is that CVX HR has implicit bias training
It’s not going to be as dramatic as you feared.
You don’t track something if you don’t use it.
They should use “blind” selections because the problem is the “I know them” effect.
If you stripped away a name and forced the selection team to look at background and qualifications (what a crazy concept, I know!) we would see different outcomes, I guarantee.
What is so sad is that if hypothetically, many internal candidates were external candidates then they would have a far better chance at being selected for a higher level role than when they were internally applying for the same position. Convince me otherwise.
@vxr "Could it be that those folks selected were actually best qualified for those position"
in many instances of which I am aware, the answer is no. However, as one example there are as many incompetent women as men. One woman assigned to GOM was almost sad. One of the worst choices.; she should have been shown the door a decade ago. But there are many many examples.
While people talk about this, Chevron is not required to keep any larger % of visible minorities than they were before. I do not think there will be more visible minorities now (as %) than before. Will they share the numbers? I have never heard them share the totals publicly before, although the federal Justice Department sees them every year; to make sure the legacy Texaco requirements are still being met.
@ela if it weren’t the case that people were chosen for demographic reasons then why is the company placing such an emphasis on it?
@ela, To begin with, I am not white and secondly, your ignorant comment exposes your bigotry and racism. Hiring and promoting based on merit alone is not racist, but your comments certainly are.
That’s the problem. You are more qualified if you are “more diverse.”
This is reverse discrimination. I see no difference between this and someone saying you didn’t get the job because you were black.
Just sayin
I see no scenario where they would promote and track diversity while simultaneously not be trying to promote a more diverse workforce.
“We all have equal ability but if you are more diverse you are more qualified.” - The New Chevron Way
Does anyone have any concrete proof that they are choosing people based on race or gender to improve diversity? Yes, the company became more gender and ethnically diverse in R2. Could it be that those folks selected were actually best qualified for those positions, and they coincidentally were more diverse candidates?
@khz, is it a "superiority complex" to simply note that they are keeping people based on demographic representation instead of talent, skill and experience? Sorry, no one is buying your line, lil fella.
They don’t have to post the numbers. People will be living it every day when they show up to work with a supervisor who is only there to meet metrics. Then they will be mad when you roll your eyes at them because they don’t know what they are talking about.
Truly HR is posting here!!! 😂
@wfh You sound like Archie Bunker in this scene:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3jlf52
You can bet there will be some chest thumping over the D&I. What ain't gonna be released is the make up of those that were out of scope or those that were laid off and eoi. If these numbers come out they will just say that the eoi population was overrepresented by certain s-x and race.
Only way this will get out into the public is if people complain to eeoc. Cannot do that and take severance at the same time. Show up on this forum and whine, that is about the most we will see. All of them whiners will just bend over and take it and spend the severance moolah on sports tickets and beer. Ain't gonna make any difference voting red or blue. All of them get their marching orders from the corporate mafia.
And the biggest slap in the face ... when the whiners kids start waving those blm flags and banners. Or even worse bring them home as bf and gf.
Here we go again. Yet another post that will use Diversity & Inclusion as a scapegoat to justify one’s superiority complex over others.