A Letter From CEO Bobby Kotick to All Employees

[Magnagarde]

Doesn't mean they couldn't have been better if other groups of people were included.

Doesn't mean the applicants could be better if other groups of people were included either.

[DingDongKing]

If 10 whites guys applied for the job and I needed to hire 5 employees, I'd hire the best 5 white guys because those are the people that applied. It is a very simple logic to follow. I'd do the same if 10 black guys applied and I had to hire 5 employees once again; I'd pick the ones most suitable for the job they're being hired for and it would be only black guys. I wouldn't break my head over how many of this or that group applied because that's an inane thing to do.

What you don't understand is that diversity hiring and good business practice don't necessarily go hand in hand. That's why you're immediately spewing buzzword classifications.

Wrong. Diversity when done for diversity's sake can be bad business practice. But when it's properly executed, it's nigh on impossible to be bad.

[Yarathir]

There's mountains of evidence that diversity, and more importantly inclusion, factually creates a better work environment. Not just in terms of the employees feeling more included and safe but literally leads to an increase in productive work.

More

[TrollHunter3000]

Oh targets based on share of applicants would be profoundly elegant to what's actually happening, which is flat targets regardless of who applies. When companies ignore what goes into the talent pipeline and only focus on what comes out then there's no way people get hired on merit alone.

EDIT: Sorry for quoting you in two separate posts, I thought it would be fast enough for the auto-merge but this thread is going too fast.

Your assertion is blatantly false and any business that partakes in this practice would violating a few laws. For once, "targets" and "quotas" are absolutely illegal unless the EEOC approves an affirmative action hiring plan which is not done lightly.

I advise if you know of such practices happening, report it to the EEOC. I've worked for and with dozens of companies and government entities with hundreds of thousands of employees and the method I described is common practice.

[Magnagarde]

Wrong. Diversity when done for diversity's sake can be bad business practice. But when it's properly executed, it's nigh on impossible to be bad.

Yes, saying wrong followed up with an utopian view on hiring has surely proven me wrong.

[DingDongKing]

Yes, saying wrong and coming up with an utopian view has surely proven me wrong.

So properly executed diversity is utopia for you? Which means you don't think it's possible?

So what is your solution then? Just make the easy hire and keep Magnagarde happy.

Which is precisely the issue with employment opportunity. It's the convenient hire.

'My son can do the job' says the CEO. End of story. No equal opportunity. For example. Convenient. Comfort. Not equal opportunity.

[TrollHunter3000]

"We work to create a more inclusive and diverse workplace" comes with quotas by default.
If two equally qualified people apply for a job and there is a quota to be filled, the one meeting the requirements of the quota will get the job.

Incorrect. I feel this is just a lack of you understanding what a "quota" is vs a calculated expectation. A quota in the US is absolutely illegal. The only time what you're describing can occur is when the EEOC approves an affirmative action hiring plan which requires substantial evidence of a history of inequality within a company and this is done extremely rarely.

[BreakerOfWills]

If you actually look back on things, you'll see that most of these iconic franchises and their best installments were created by an all-male and all-white team of dudes who were, without any negative connotation, nerds for tabletop RPG games and games in general.

And also a bunch of sexual harassing assaulters and thus maybe not that worthy of worship.

[Nimin]

I highly advise you educate yourself more on unconscious bias, anecdotal evidence, systemic issues and how they have a large scale impact before you continue giving your opinion on this matter at all.

Lmao "I advise you indoctrinate yourself more on buzzword buzzword buzzword neomarxism buzzword".

Yeah haha no, thanks.

[Magnagarde]

So properly executed diversity is utopia for you? Which means you don't think it's possible?

So what is your solution then? Just make the easy hire and keep Magnagarde happy.

Which is precisely the issue with employment opportunity. It's the convenient hire.

'My son can do the job' says the CEO. End of story. No equal opportunity. For example. Convenient. Comfort. Not equal opportunity.

I do think it is unachievable because the goal of it is an equal amount of different people, not equal opportunity to people that actually deserve it.

The solution is to make the most senseful hire according to a number of criteria, which I've listed numerous times before. These most definitely do not include a specific race, specific sex, specific ethnic or religious backgrounds.

[TrollHunter3000]

Let's just assume for a second that people do get a job to meet quotas. If that's the case, let's make recruitment more transparent.

So that everyone gets EQUAL opportunity. So let's use his example. If the white dude who plays table top games gets a transparent answer as to why Becky got it, and it's because she's damn fucking good at the job, he should surely be happy then. He can't then cry about quotas.

Why would we assume that? Do you have evidence?

[Yarathir]

Is there some logical reason why that would be the case? It's possible the applicants weren't a very diverse group or all of the top tier choices weren't very diverse but that indicates a problem with outreach efforts. Why are only white guys applying? That business would likely be missing out on some top tier talent if for some reason it's only white guys applying.

Unless for some reason you think white males are just better?

The same reason why, for example, there might be more female and more white nurses and teachers. There are such things as natural interests that you can't really program out of people. That's not to say that white men are the only gamers and game creators, but it's a reason for why they make up the majority of the industry. Passing the buck for making [insert industry] more diverse is a bit cheap.

Things will change with time, of course, but assuming there is a dominant group only because of evil oppression is pretty weak. Don't discount personal choice.

Though I will admit that I personally went from wanting to work at Blizzard years ago to not even wanting to send my biggest enemy to work there, so I can't imagine how other people feel after all of this. But that's a corrupt and apathetic work environment thing, people with authority who feel they can get away with anything just plainly reveling in abusing others. I don't think you should necessarily extrapolate that that makes the entire industry unapproachable for anyone non-white and non-male.

Frankly, regardless of skin color or sex or sexuality, I feel like most people in their right mind would want to avoid AAA gaming studios, potential harassment and abuse aside, thanks to how pervasive crunch culture is, or how you are basically seen as a throwaway tool for games that are developed in phases.

[Sluvs]

Yeah, not sure if you worked anywhere in your life, but people are entitled assholes in every workplace, and most promotions have nothing to do with merit,but how much they sucked up to their bosses. Most of these "better qualified female workers" are :
a) nowhere near qualified enough just have a huge ego and think they are better than their coworkers.
b) can't accept the fact that the person that was promoted wasn't promoted cause he is a male but because he is all up in the boss's asshole.

But just like riot, and Ubisoft, people are jumping on the metoo wagon to score some easy money.

You seem to have a very stong opinions on people you know very little or nothing about.
And again, a company that has verifiably treated women badly, paid women less and housed sexual predators, suddenly treated them fairly.

You are on the corner of literal sexual predators, verifiable predators. Not going to tell you what to do, but that does not seem like a good thing.

[Magnagarde]

And also a bunch of sexual harassing assaulters and thus maybe not that worthy of worship.

I talked about their achievements in the gaming industry and they're antological, regardless of the lawsuit. On top of that, I would never allow myself to insinuate or imply the criminal culpability of so many people without letting the judicial system do its part first. I'm pretty certain that Blizzard was never the sexual harassment hive it is being made out to be, but it has become a damn unprincipled company indeed that clearly failed a number of employees and at a number of their obbligations.

[DingDongKing]

I do think it is unachievable because the goal of it is an equal amount of different people, not equal opportunity to people that actually deserve it.

The solution is to make the most senseful hire according to a number of criteria, which I've listed numerous times before. These most definitely do not include a specific race, specific sex, specific ethnic or religious backgrounds.

No, that's what YOU think the goal is. Because you're not actually open to understanding what diversity is.

Even though it's been explained to you by multiple people. Which means you're not interested.

What you seem to be wanting is a permission structure to say current methods of employment are a-okay.

Especially since you keep waffling on about how all these games and things were by white men only and it worked out just fine. It didn't.

[Xez]

I do think eventually, in a perfect world, we will speak to one another with equal passion and community.

I think right now we need to take the action to reach that point and the fact whites are the primary "victims" of minorities reaching power positions just shows which people held it for so long that they fear a world without it

I don't think white people mind when minorities reach positions of power. What they mind is when they (we're talking about white people who are innocent of racism here, I know not all people are) are discriminated against in order to try and reverse the effects of something that happened a long time ago which they were never a part of. But I think it goes beyond action, it's about language too. It hurts people, in their cores, to be treated like the bad guys and be called victimizers and privileged when they've had a hard time, even if it's slightly less hard than someone else. I think that, if we just treat people like humans, by their individual merits and flaws, things will sort themselves out peacefully. Creating groups of people that get empathy and other groups that don't is no way to create a cohesive society.

[FelPlague]

Lmao "I advise you indoctrinate yourself more on buzzword buzzword buzzword neomarxism buzzword".

Yeah haha no, thanks.

You really think education is indoctrination? Holy fuck the flat earth ideals have rotted our collective intelligence to new levels.

[DingDongKing]

Why would we assume that? Do you have evidence?

I'm making the assumption to humour the guy. Follow his chain of thought and explain how it's still erroneous.

Because at its core, there is no amount of transparency that will convince some people that diversity in the workplace is a good thing.

Even if it's completely natural and not some engineered process.

[TrollHunter3000]

For many jobs, the simple reason is that there are simply more people with X characteristics going into that area.

I mean, do you think that the reason why there are vastly more female nurses than male nurses is that recruiters actively discriminate against men? Or is it simply that there's a vastly superior number of female applicants in the first place?

I'm not saying there is or isn't discrimination in hiring in game development or even tech in general, for instance, but the main reason there are so many white males in tech, I would guess, is that there is a substantially higher number of white males aspiring to join that industry and studying towards that purpose.

I can't say if it's still the case, but if you'd visit a computer science class on most universities 10/20/30 years ago, you'd probably have your answer.

Not sure why you cut off the rest of my post that literally addresses your point lmao.

[Yarathir]

Let's just assume for a second that people do get a job to meet quotas. If that's the case, let's make recruitment more transparent.

So that everyone gets EQUAL opportunity. So let's use his example. If the white dude who plays table top games gets a transparent answer as to why Becky got it, and it's because she's damn fucking good at the job, he should surely be happy then. He can't then cry about quotas.

Personally I have no issue with companies hiring whoever simply based on qualifications and not any other qualities that have nothing to do with the job. That's how it should be, and if that's not yet the case, I definitely agree with changing that.

But I don't think making companies half-commit to some scheme where they target specifically anyone who isn't white, male and straight to be hired is going to solve that. There's two sides, and while I get that the argument here is to compensate for potential previous discrimination, it's best to seek a neutral ground and hold it going forward. That's my opinion.