Investigations are already underway. Most of the steps into improving Human Resources processes are welcome, like providing listening spaces where people can voice their concerns without fear of backlash.

However, creating a director of Diversity and Inclusion will do fuck all for company performance, and will more than likely hurt it of talent, experience and expertise are pushed aside in order to meet randomly assigned race, ethnicity and gender quotas to each department, as if that will magically make a company operate better.

Research shows it's diversity of thought and personality metrics on the Big 5 personality traits, those being Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism (sensitivity to negative emotions) will improve organizations. Not counting melanin skin cells, or genitalia.

There is no conflating whatsoever when such actions and their results are connected to the core of the diversification issue. Perhaps there are those that do not grasp the interconnectivity. But there are definitely certain persons that wish to poke their head in the sand and ignore how they are intertwined, or they would rather pretend the matter of diversification has no destructive aspects.

So you think, up to this moment, people have only been hired based on talent? The answer is the problem.

"So you think, up to this moment, people have only been hired based on talent? The answer is the problem."

No. Prejudice has been employed. But here is the shocker. Not all of the time. Likely not most of the time. Just as people are accused of not seeing discrimination when it occurs, so do certain people always see it even when none exists. Sometimes...you just are not good enough. So the answer isn't the problem in my case. People looking to pick a fight over something non-existent are more of an issue. I am not saying discriminatory hiring does not occur either. I am saying your question is the problem.

And If you bothered to read my replies, you will understand that I think any hiring practice to be abhorrent if it considers the personal factors I listed in a previous reply above to be either qualifiers or grounds for rejection.

That said, if a person that is highly qualified applies for a position, that alone isn't enough. Creative companies have to possess vision and they should be allowed to exclude without repercussion, candidates whose concepts do not align with where the company wishes to go. Such rejection should be allowed not based upon any race, creed, religion, etc but the idea that a position requires interjection of a personal nature and sometimes an individual's beliefs, if inflexible, would be detrimental to a chosen direction. It can hardly be expected for a person to pour their creativity into a project if it is something that runs counter to their own ideas. Yes having expanded or differing viewpoints can make a project better. But once a direction is chosen people have to get with the program and if they cannot then at that point hey do not need to be there as their presence is more disruptive than productive.

“Yes having expanded or differing viewpoints can make a project better. But once a direction is chosen people have to get with the program and if they cannot then at that point hey do not need to be there as their presence is more disruptive than productive.”

But that is what has happened all this time. People that seem like they won’t agree with the company’s direction for varios reasons including race, orientation, religion are excluded. So I respectfully disagree. No, companies should not be allowed to exclude without repercussion. We have to force change until you have an accepting culture were no one sits in a corner feeling unheard and left behind.

If you note what I stated, I specified sometimes people will not be a fit. Not always. Not most of the time. Sometimes. Also I cannot but shake my head concerning what I wrote in reference to people not realizing when it isn't discrimination.

And force a change? You mean force it with how you deem fit rather than what is necessarily correct. It is as if the side that built the company doesn't exist. It also begins to tread down the redistribution path. "I do not care how hard you worked to build your business I THINK...I FEEL what you are doing is wrong so we are here to force a change in YOUR business." That is really wonderful. Personally I am tired of shouldering the burden for people that will not get off their ass because they think society is not supposed to leave them behind. Instead of building their own company they want to force their way into a company and alter it to fit their ideas and completely destroy the foundations upon which it was built. And most of the time these companies were not built on the bones of the poor eternal victims either.

Here is another fact about equality. You do not always get your way and certain people on some sides of the issue actually do not comprehend this fact. They think equality is about always having their view in the forefront. Sometimes it means not getting your way and then defending the people who won out. The process is give AND take. Then again these same persons are ones that do not comprehend "I do not agree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it." For them freedom of speech is you are free to say it as long as its something with which I agree and it doesn't hurt my feelings. With that this topic has worn thin. When people start traveling down the path of forcing things I am through. Enjoy.

A company the size of Ubisoft is already going to have the same obligatory non-discriminatory HR practices that every big company has. If there is fault in it, it's either a systemic thing within the company that isn't adhering to not only their official HR guidelines or common legal structures, or an individual matter that was found through the general operation of business. A company the size of Ubisoft can in no way completely keep poor practices from it's entire company. Thousands of employees, across multiple countries, and many different operations teams within each, means that there are always going to be something not doing everything 100% kosher.

Companies have a tendency to over compensate when something bad happens. Some will just say the obligatory, "We respect everyone, we'll fully investigate the matter", and so long as they do that properly, that should be the end of it. But nowadays, many people just don't respect that, and expect more, which is why we see more companies making more bold statements trying to appease this group that just can't accept they're probably never going to hear the real outcomes, or can't accept that no workplace is perfect.

EA got a lot of heat a while back, and they've been at the forefront of workplace diversity and equal opportunity hiring to the point of being written about it by almost every major publication. They've been the forerunner in this area, and especially the industry, for a couple decades now. Yet, they still get reports of not so nice behavior, or bad apples that spoil the bunch from time to time, and that often gets made into a much bigger thing than it actually is. Granted, some may argue this proactive stance by EA maybe proves your original comment true.:)

Seriously though, the bigger idea behind opening up to being more receptive to more diversity means improving the number of qualified candidates. But in the end, I'm a firm believer that the most qualified should get the job. Sadly, in the tech industry, and more specifically games, in most western countries, that's going to be well educated white men, because they're the ones that are applying more by a wide margin. After well educated white men, you have asian and indian men, followed by women of all those races in the same order, although asian and indian women are much less frequent. That has more to do with this interconnected social structure that you bring up....which many people completely disregard as a factor.