> “What’s not changing is we’ve always hired the best person for the job,” she said, according to a recording of the meeting the Guardian reviewed.
This is obviously a lie. Google’s more senior leaders had (and probably still have) quotas for hiring and promotions. If you didn’t hit quotas, not only did you face intense pressure to artificially skew things when HR reviewed numbers, but your performance (and compensation) would also be affected. Many people have privately talked about this, but most are afraid to speak up, due to the aggression of the progressive employees and the official DEI machine (from HR).
I wonder if Sundar will be brave enough to admit fault in how they handled the past, instead of just pretending nothing is changing. I am reminded of James Damore’s situation - he discussed something controversial in a polite way, with sources backing up his ideas, but was viciously attacked inside Google and also outside. News media regularly misrepresented what he said. His firing was unfair. That was just one example of how the company operated all this time. If that’s changing, they should own up to it.
I was at Google during the Damore period and had previously gone through their interview pipeline multiple times from outside at various points before being hired. I never saw the faintest hint of a sign of "diversity quotas" or anything similar to that, and I never saw Damore present any evidence to support it. Do you have anything to support your claim that there were race or gender or (insert criteria here) quotas? Were these supposed impacts on performance and comp documented anywhere or just rumored in whispers? Do you know anyone firsthand whose performance or comp were impacted? I don't know anyone first or second hand who was impacted, and I know quite a few Googlers and ex-Googlers.
I dunno. Could be that the hiring practices at the time, or the team that interviewed him vetted algorithmic problem solving skill and did not run a vibe check on social or emotional intelligence. Because blasting out a company wide post / email disparaging and entire class of people (who are like 50 percent of the population), and then getting indignant about the entirely foreseeable backlash is indicative of extremely low EQ.
You know neuroticism is a term of art in psychology, right? It's a value neutral term, not a pejorative. If your argument is that he deserves firing because he's sexist and your evidence that he's sexist is he called women neurotic then you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debates.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that people should not have interpreted what he wrote as offensive. But in fact a very large number of people did.
This is obviously a lie. Google’s more senior leaders had (and probably still have) quotas for hiring and promotions. If you didn’t hit quotas, not only did you face intense pressure to artificially skew things when HR reviewed numbers, but your performance (and compensation) would also be affected. Many people have privately talked about this, but most are afraid to speak up, due to the aggression of the progressive employees and the official DEI machine (from HR).
I wonder if Sundar will be brave enough to admit fault in how they handled the past, instead of just pretending nothing is changing. I am reminded of James Damore’s situation - he discussed something controversial in a polite way, with sources backing up his ideas, but was viciously attacked inside Google and also outside. News media regularly misrepresented what he said. His firing was unfair. That was just one example of how the company operated all this time. If that’s changing, they should own up to it.