"The companies/banks which reject SJW theories will triumph"

What do you guys think about this statement? Rejecting quotas and affirmative action, not spending millions on “SJW" marketing and, through meritocracy, hiring up a workforce which will very likely consist of a majority of white males (most of which will be “privileged” according to current definitions). Will these companies or banks be more economically succesful?

Before hitting me with MS please know that I don’t have an opinion formed and I am looking for a serious and mature discussion of ideas (can’t believe this has to be said).

Personally, most of the companies I have been exposed to which don’t give two shts about diversity in the workplace are still serious about their work and still get sht done. On the other hand, I work at a BB which invests millions in diversity programmes and is still majorly succesful.

 

Depends to what extent firms reject these ideas.

I do think diversity is a good thing. Firms bringing in people from different backgrounds is a good thing. By this I don't mean skin color, gender or other immutable charaterstics, I mean diversity in thought which can lead to new and better ways of doing things. Now, it could be argued that if you have all these people who think differently than it will naturally lead to black, hispanic, female, LGBTQ, poor, rich, etc... which is fine, that's a much more natural process of creating diversity instead of filling in quotas and hiring people because it looks good or because the firm wants to be seen in a good light. I also think firms should spend a little more money educating people from disadvantaged backgrounds about careers in industries they otherwise may know nothing of and try and bring up these less fournate kids into the field. 

However, I would not want to work for a firm that hires me because I'm diverse (I don't count anyway) or a firm that is a just the same types of people, from the same schools, who think the same thing. Neither of those options sounds like a good place to work.

 

I agree with this. I believe every firm wants to hire people who have a wide ranging set of skills to help diversify their offering. For example, in Europe language is a huge part of MF HF recruiting from what I’ve read, which totally makes sense (BBs invest a lot in this as well, especially for regional teams). 

I would do the same - but would not hire a black woman just because she’s black + female over a more talented white guy. My question remains, if firms continue to follow these policies, will firms which refuse to ignore meritocracy benefit in the long run? Or is this outweighed by woke hype?

 

I don't think it really matters that much in banking. Diversity hires will be pushed along to director and maybe MD but likely never beyond that. They're not being put in important positions of authority like a group or product head. They just end up as overpaid, unfirable people who don't bring in any fees. We have an MD who is universally considered to be an idiot, with other seniors openly questioning her intelligence and venting frustrations with her in front of juniors. If she were male she wouldn't have made MD and would have been pushed out years ago. But as incompetent as she is, she's not really doing much harm. She just tags along on meetings and gives low value add nit comments.

 
Most Helpful

The opposite will happen. In a non-clown world, of course, companies that hire the best people for the job will always win out. But our society is so out of wack now that a company without x% of black or y% of female associates will be eventually barred from doing business with name-brand consulting firms, law firms, etc. It's already started.

Array
 

How long would those name brand shops stay name brand if they do business purely on the basis of "diversity" vs competence? I imagine they'll get wrecked by newcomers who won't give two shits about how many females work at a firm or how many black people are in senior roles.

 

I would imagine that it would be tough for those newcomers to enter the market. Barrier to entry is too high and in this day and age it’s probably not the easiest thing in the world to raise significant amounts of capital if you’re not diverse.

 

Those brand name shops are unofficially protected by the government. The amount of overlap, revolving doors, and lobbying between them, the government, Big Tech, the media, and academia ensures that their position is safe. 

Of course, this is very bad for the United States long-term, but I think it's a bit too late for that anyways. China is already beginning to poach highly qualified white human capital that was discarded from Corporate America.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-jobs-breakingviews/breakin…

 

Richard I totally agree with you. In the short-medium term I think these companies will benefit substantially from these policies, but I think l later down the line if a whole mass of people is being hired not for their level of competency but for their “diverse” background companies and banks will both suffer a lot from this.

 

I very much agree with this (and this is coming from a trans-woman).

I'll agree that I think diversity hiring to an extent is not a bad thing. And often times having a more diverse company can lead to better performance. Here's one article showing this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-numbers-dont-lie-diverse-workforc….

All said, though, I see diversity hiring as a positive so long as it leads to increased performance at the company. The idea that a company should be hiring people for the sake of their background or gender alone will lead to substantially attenuated success in the long term. I have stressed this considerably to every company I have worked at, but most HR teams and corporate leaders see such an idea as heresy, even when coming from someone who has supposedly benefited from such programs. (I myself have never been hired through such a program, just to add.) 

Most companies will certainly continue with the mindset that x% women and y% racially diverse will be the best outcome, but I see a lot of potential future challenges if this is the mindset that we continue to use. 

 

I put SJW in quotes as it is the usual linguo.

I don’t necessarily agree with your point - even though I think most firms believe these policies will help them economically - I think sometimes firms are not helping themselves at all (e.g. P&G/Gilette and their “Best that men can be” ad - most men are conservatives, 99% of people who buy their razor blades are men - not a great idea from a business perspective).

 

IBitYa

I put SJW in quotes as it is the usual linguo.

I don't necessarily agree with your point - even though I think most firms believe these policies will help them economically - I think sometimes firms are not helping themselves at all (e.g. P&G/Gilette and their "Best that men can be" ad - most men are conservatives, 99% of people who buy their razor blades are men - not a great idea from a business perspective).

My guess is that Gillette did their home work before running the ad and may be they wanted some buzz to attract new customers.    Well, you are talking about it so I guess, they might have achieved some success with it. 

 
Funniest

Yeah you could just be an unprincipled psychopath who spouts the correct views to advance your career, but is that really the best way to live?

Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.

 

Even if it did nobody will be able to point it out without getting canceled. I imagine this has already played out. Nobody is going to say “the lack in difference of job opportunities between elite and top tier colleges is the markets response to affirmative action.” Yes, that is a broad generalization. Obviously a Virginia student doesn’t have all the same opportunities as a Stanford grab but few would argue the overall trend. Not even saying that affirmative action is THE reason, but it is likely A reason. The internet decentralizing information is a much bigger reason along with many others.

I tend to agree with the title. The market doesn’t care about race or gender. Companies can keep signaling but long term merit will win out. Whether it’s a perfect mixed bag of race and gender perfectly matching the underlying population or not.

Imagine having a straight white asian male from John’s Hopkins as your surgeon in 10 years... That guy will have gone through an almost unparalleled level of selectivity and is probably disproportionately smart/talented compared to his peers. Can’t change merit qualifications with the inputs and think it has no change on the outputs.

Imagine thinking “well this person is a URM with a vagina and that experience will make them a better surgeon. Let’s reject the candidate with a better MCAT, ECs, GPA, and Step scores.”

10 years later - “Nooo...the reason there isn’t much of a difference in job opportunities by school has nothing to do with affirmative action!” Lol. Just depends who writes the history books.

 

I’m a supporter of meritocracy so I’d say yes, eliminating measures to implement social equity would help them thrive if they’re a private business doing institutional business instead of consumer needs, people might boycott them but that won’t happen if you’re offering the absolute best to companies instead of consumers directly

Btw I’m a ORM so I’m probably super biased in this subject

 

I want diversity to exist because it will favor me. I guess. From a business standpoint, I think cognitive diversity is more valuable than ethnic or cultural, or gender diversity. Sometimes the latter can pave the way for the former but it's not a causal factor. You strive to create a culture and then it becomes a group-think platform. That can really stand in the way of firms realizing where is the next set of opportunities. Sure, there will be businesses that stick to what they do, do not want to update, and keep going. But the ones that staunchly state they will not change the way they do things will send the message to the entire market that they are too ignorant. Or that they truly believe their system of operating is perfect.

Anywho. I try focusing on companies that heavily market their 'Diversity Programs' or 'How They Care About Inclusion' vs the folks in their teams. I don't want to see a colored person or a woman running every one of these firms. But, I have to admit, when I see an all-white and all-male team, I do feel a little uncomfortable in the back of my head. Maybe, that's just me. But, the cost of hiring a competent diversity candidate would be much lower than the cost of dealing with this sub-conscious red flag you trigger in people if you go on the other extreme. So, with that logic, the firms that pay attention only to the diversity program as a marketing gimmick and the ones that do not pay heed to what's going on - both will lose. Cognitive diversity - that's the keyword here.  

 

China:

95% ethnic Han

Ethnic minorities overwhelmingly East Asian.

As homogenous as it could possibly be for a huge country.

Currently overtaking America, as Joe Biden's puppermasters make diversity the dogma of the latter.

Nothing else needs to be said.

Never discuss with idiots, first they drag you at their level, then they beat you with experience.
 

Don't confuse diversity hiring with meaning the hiring a less talented individual. If anything, previous hiring practices full of "isms" (racism, sexism, nepotism, etc) meant that less talented people might be hired because they looked or acted a certain way, or certain group think prevailed to attract a certain homogenous group. If anything, diversity hiring has forced people to expand their talent pool, and consider different skill sets and experiences. This creates a stronger workforce. I am 100% for meritocracy and hiring on the basis of talent and ability, but don't think that diversity hiring is opposite that, if anything diversity hiring ensures to strengthen that and remove the hiring biases that existed previously that meant, in some cases, a less talented individual would a get a job because of some non talent based considerations.

 

From an academic perspecive:

If nepotism were bad for companies you wouldn't need to campaign against it for them to stop doing it. Managers would go against it naturally, because, according to what is incorrectly claimed these days, such policies take a toll on their performance.

In my opinion, the opposite is correct. I think nepotism and all those policies are actually beneficial for enterprise. It allows them to keep power centralised and tight-knit. They arent, however, beneficial for minorities (everything from non-majority demographics to lower-cass social groups). Historically, the people who tend to campaign against nepotism and in favour of meritocracy aren't the ones who run companies - something you'd expect them to do if the claims that 'diversity is good for business' were actually valid- in fact, these policies are overwhelmingly supported but the people who would benefit the most from having more diverse companies: economically (minorities), and politically (those who hold the so called "SJW" ideas).

 

I see where you’re coming from but what’s good for managers isn’t always good for companies and vice versa. Hence the whole notion of the principal/agent problem. Yes, if nepotism was disastrously bad the “free market” would likely take care of it, but IMO more likely than not it would just be one of many market failures (which academic literature has also written extensively about)

 

Acquaintance of mine met his GF at an EB last summer. There was one offer for the both of them, she got the offer, he didn't. Both knew he deserved it (worked more, better, etc.)

She rejected their offer to go work for a BB instead. EB recruitment calls him giving him her vacancy and says [sic] "sorry we didn't hire you in the first place, we were trying to fill the female quota first".

Fuck yes theres a lot of application to this SJW theory.

 

has anyone ever thought that it's possible to seek a diverse workforce without compromising results? pretty sure JP, goldman, and morgan all had record or near-record years...

also going to say this, it comes off as more racist to me when a company has a specific initiative to hire black people (or whatever group, this is just what I've noticed more) at the expense of others. like motherfuckers, you don't think we can compete? this ain't it homie. 

 

Reiciendis a aspernatur et eveniet vero. Et voluptatem odio repellat officia eos. Aut ut vitae nesciunt nisi.

Enim fugit voluptatem maiores officia et corrupti vel. Nisi et et ut quis quia.

Quia reiciendis aut saepe qui iusto numquam non. In molestiae veniam totam eos quaerat. Provident adipisci in reiciendis cum ut occaecati.

 

Beatae et eos cumque nesciunt reiciendis et nam quia. Sint inventore aut ut et. Voluptatum omnis similique architecto adipisci quod at.

Veniam delectus enim quisquam temporibus minus sit voluptatem. Itaque occaecati dolor blanditiis minus. Repellat sit autem ab doloribus ea quia possimus. Enim et repellat iure officiis quo ipsum corporis. Et aliquam expedita numquam rerum iste ea minus reprehenderit. Ipsum tempora soluta laudantium ut.

Dolor maiores possimus corporis sit ut. Et quasi qui commodi. Corrupti nisi mollitia vero est voluptas inventore. Cupiditate ad qui non iste.

Earum libero sit qui. Possimus nemo et similique nostrum est.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”