Maybe in the sense of how considerable amount of such efforts is a fig leaf to distract any complaints about systematic issues, helping turn away people with complaints by making them jump through ineffectual supposed "help" programs.
On my list of symptoms, it's way below things like moving the HQ away from engineering and close to financial centres.
I see a clear possible mechanism from low-skilled DEI hiring to quality issues, but where is the mechanism in case of "corporate culture"? Quality problems aren't good for business!
I think people like the corporate culture theory more because it is less controversial. After all, nobody likes those greedy capitalists anyway. They are the most convenient scapegoat. Pointing out problems with DEI, on the other hand, makes you seem like a Bad Person who is possibly racist, i.e. evil. But facts are what they are, they don't care about whether we call them evil.
> but where is the mechanism in case of "corporate culture"? Quality problems aren't good for business!
Pilots not needing retraining is good for business.
Getting lawmakers to give you an easy time, and give your competitors a hard time, is good for business.
Getting the product out on time and on budget is good for business.
Simplifying things so you can use low-skill labour instead of expensive highly skilled labour is good for business.
Getting your grounded planes given the OK by regulators ASAP is good for business.
Getting the widget install guy to install 50% more widgets per shift is good for business.
Getting rid of that expensive, middle-aged, unionised widget installer and replacing them with a cheaper, younger, non-unionised widget installer is good for business.
Dealing with defect reports efficiently and not holding up deliveries to customers is good for business.
Avoiding costs and delays caused by excessive perfectionism where it isn't warranted is good for business.
Promoting people who deliver business value - i.e. increased revenue or lower costs - and putting them in charge of important projects is good for business.
Making a good profit margin is good for business.
Paying out to investors consistently in dividends/stock buy-backs is good for business.
The thing is, there's explicit regulations and playbooks which let you easily drive a quality control organization in airplane (or parts) manufacturing, maintenance, repair, and operations.
You're not going to look evil for firing someone who undercuts FAA regs on quality. Those same regs also do not care about how an applicant looks other than being able to do the job mentally and physically (I'd argue you could slip a non-human being into some roles if you could prove they can follow the regs!)
And FWIW, there is rather simple causal relationship between cost cutting and benefits for the top managers. And quality controls cost money. So does corporate culture that rewards quality.
Believe me, DEI or no DEI, every regulatory body in the world would stand up and support you if you show that someone didn't get a job or lost a job because they couldn't ensure the required quality is kept.
Especially when you consider that this is yet another SNAFU at Boeing involving quality, design, or actual production - and sometimes other companies dealing with the same supplier (Spirit) do not have the same issues. Despite sometimes having even more "social responsibility" rules over them (compared to, let's say Germany, DEI pushes in USA have no teeth)
p_l|2 years ago
On my list of symptoms, it's way below things like moving the HQ away from engineering and close to financial centres.
cubefox|2 years ago
I think people like the corporate culture theory more because it is less controversial. After all, nobody likes those greedy capitalists anyway. They are the most convenient scapegoat. Pointing out problems with DEI, on the other hand, makes you seem like a Bad Person who is possibly racist, i.e. evil. But facts are what they are, they don't care about whether we call them evil.
michaelt|2 years ago
Pilots not needing retraining is good for business.
Getting lawmakers to give you an easy time, and give your competitors a hard time, is good for business.
Getting the product out on time and on budget is good for business.
Simplifying things so you can use low-skill labour instead of expensive highly skilled labour is good for business.
Getting your grounded planes given the OK by regulators ASAP is good for business.
Getting the widget install guy to install 50% more widgets per shift is good for business.
Getting rid of that expensive, middle-aged, unionised widget installer and replacing them with a cheaper, younger, non-unionised widget installer is good for business.
Dealing with defect reports efficiently and not holding up deliveries to customers is good for business.
Avoiding costs and delays caused by excessive perfectionism where it isn't warranted is good for business.
Promoting people who deliver business value - i.e. increased revenue or lower costs - and putting them in charge of important projects is good for business.
Making a good profit margin is good for business.
Paying out to investors consistently in dividends/stock buy-backs is good for business.
p_l|2 years ago
You're not going to look evil for firing someone who undercuts FAA regs on quality. Those same regs also do not care about how an applicant looks other than being able to do the job mentally and physically (I'd argue you could slip a non-human being into some roles if you could prove they can follow the regs!)
And FWIW, there is rather simple causal relationship between cost cutting and benefits for the top managers. And quality controls cost money. So does corporate culture that rewards quality.
Believe me, DEI or no DEI, every regulatory body in the world would stand up and support you if you show that someone didn't get a job or lost a job because they couldn't ensure the required quality is kept.
Especially when you consider that this is yet another SNAFU at Boeing involving quality, design, or actual production - and sometimes other companies dealing with the same supplier (Spirit) do not have the same issues. Despite sometimes having even more "social responsibility" rules over them (compared to, let's say Germany, DEI pushes in USA have no teeth)