By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

Perhaps he can or can't, who knows, there may be some devs spilling the beans on those forum that are to complain about the company you work at.

But we have seem several cases of company talking about diversity being more important than the skill/experience, because skill they could build and experience they would accumulate there. We even had a case in VGC of a user showing he got throw away from an interview because he replied to a question of if he thought diversity was more important than experience and he replied "company should hire whoever is more qualified". And we had a big discussion on VGC on how much value the diversity would bring to the team that made it more important than the knowledge.

I think we should have a better understanding of what companies mean when they say diversity is more important that skill/experience.

Some of us seem to believe this to mean that skill/experience is not important at all.  I'll provide a metric and scenario to illustrate what it actually means.

Position A requires Skill B.  The range of possible talent for Skill B could be put on a spectrum from 0 to 100. 0 being no skill at all and 100 being the best possible at said skill. 

Position A requires a 60 score of Skill B.  Now, when diversity becomes a hiring factor, that doesn't mean they will accept a diversity candidate if they do not possess a 60 score of the required skill.   If 2 candidates applied and one scores 70 and one scores 80, they both qualify and both will do a sufficient job for the position.  But if candidate 1 with the 70 score fit the diversity requirement over candidate 2 with the 80 score...candidate 1 will more likely get the job.

This is what is meant by diversity being important over skill/experience.

Yes, sure, snore... then let's just pretend quotas to fill doesn't exist or companies putting the "how diverse they are in percentage". Seems like you have worked to every single company in the HR and see how all of they hire right?

EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

Sorry but doesn't make much sense. He is a very high level corporate, so his contract and business ethics would already prevent him from bad mouthing Sony on the terms of his resignation. Don't see why they would have a truce proposition of "if you do what I'm asking for I'll leave the company".

I'm not saying he would try and smear PS, I'm saying if he was starting to hate his job because of the internal conflicts, and it didn't look like he had enough power or control to get his way in terms of what he wanted to implement, he could have decided to leave since he may be thinking it anyway, while getting something he wanted implemented in return for his departure.

I've been part of companies who've done some weird, odd, or downright stupid things before, just to clear up power struggles and major disagreements in management.

I could be wrong though, just figured it may be a possibility.

Well I think it would be a hard thing, but sure I can't disprove the possibility existing.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."