Top
The story is too old to be commented.
VenomUK43d ago

Ubisoft announces plans to make long term structural changes which is a less reactionary way to deal with the issues. What is a positive is that Yves Guillemot has announced a head of diversity who will report directly to him. This is a great way to open up employment in the company to a greater breadth of talented people and ultimately it means that he is fully informed and accountable.

Cmv3843d ago

What is a more reactionary way, if this is a less reactionary way?

bouzebbal43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

I couldn't care less.. I don't buy their games

43d ago
Gaming10142d ago

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 42d ago
LightofDarkness43d ago

This is the most proactive response I've seen within the industry yet. Usually it's just "we're launching an internal investigation" (i.e. doing fuck all) and then the angry mob goes away, while they return to business as usual. I'm in no way a Ubisoft fan, for either the quality of their work or how they produce it, but this is a better step than practically anyone else we've seen so far.

43d ago
LightofDarkness43d ago

Sure what's a little sexual misconduct among work colleagues, eh? Bloody snowflakes.

Do you have any idea what this is about, or did you just really need to get that off your chest today?

42d ago
starchild42d ago

This is just more affirmative action BS. The only form of institutionalized racism in the US today.

People should be judged as individuals based on their own qualities as individuals. If you're not hiring based purely on merit you are hurting your company and furthering racism and division in the world today.

L7CHAPEL42d ago

I guess Maxime beLand and the other guy are terminated, so much for splinter cell...

Chexs199042d ago

As a Danish Persian myself, I hate these Diversity teams which companies are creating.
I want to be employed by the power of my damn skills, not by the color of my skin, or my crooked nose.

L7CHAPEL42d ago

most companies hate it too, it's a waste of their time/money, and they have to check off all these extra boxes, and go by a bunch of prerequisites because on one hand,
you have people that are so sensitive to anything said, in any way, you can't even have a normal conversation that they don't approve of.
and then you've got fucking idiots,who just don't understand there certain things you can't say/certain ways you can't act around the opposite sex while you're at work, because they don't have any social skills or common sense

L7CHAPEL42d ago (Edited 42d ago )

"head of Diversity"
A.K.A. someone to manage damage - liability.
Corporate diversity?
an placeholder/ figurehead position, filled by a moron, and a ton of stuff on legal paper that we can show plaintiffs attorneys when were being sued...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 42d ago
garos8243d ago

great now can you focus on making games as good as possible?

morganfell43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

Sadly, games won’t be as good as possible when you’re not hiring and/or appointing people to positions of responsibility based on talent. This is exactly the move a game development and publishing company needed to make when they were already suffering from quality issues.

VenomUK43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

I've been into the offices of some big software companies and media companies in London and in some, not all, they have people who are predominantly private school educated and white. Of course no individual needs to apologise for their level of education or their race! However many companies can do better because they have structures that favour hiring people who are the same, not just racially but also preferring people from the same middle class social class. This means if you are qualified and talented but are indian, asian, black or white working class or white immigrant, if you're lucky to get to the interview stage, you will be weeded out there. At one media media company i worked at earlier this in a central multicultural London location had a floor with almost 100 staff, out of the lot only FOUR were people of colour. It's not to say the other staff were not capable, but people who were and are capable were not being given a fair chance to get a job.

I understand the concern that a person who isn't capable will be hired to meet a criteria but what is more common is to be so capable, so skilled, so passionate and to not be given a fair chance - and that stings deep because it is so unfair.

morganfell43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

You have to insure no one is being overlooked or treated unfairly based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or social position. Absolutely 1000%. But neither can you hire based on those factors. One practice is as evil and as stupid as the other.

We also have to stop this one sided silliness of claiming that certain persons cannot head up a particular project (game, TV, Movie, whatever) because they are not of the race, creed, color etc that the story is about or their status and preferences relates to the main character. This apparently is a one way street in the entertainment industry. If people wish to toe that ridiculous and absurd line then lets do so all the way and to the extreme so that everyone is treated exactly the same. Its called being equal. Certain people lose their minds on some sides of an issue when they realize that equality actually means no special treatment.

And along with this is the destructive idiocy that is ripping literary and film characters from their history for the sake of diversity.

VenomUK43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

morganfell, I hear what you are saying about characters in literature and other media and the issue for change solely for inclusion. However there is a tendency for people to conflate that and the discussion of left and right politics and representation too. But all that is actually different from the lack of fairness with company employment practices that stop a talented man or woman getting their foot in the door. I don't say there are problems based on subjective opinion I formed from reading an article or watching the news; I say this because I have seen it and I've experienced it.

morganfell43d ago

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.

Name Last Name43d ago

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

morganfell43d ago

"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.

Name Last Name43d ago

“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.

morganfell43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

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.

rainslacker42d ago

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.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 42d ago
Name Last Name43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

(commented in wrong thread)

monkey60243d ago

"Recently heard about"

Yeah okay guys, like we believe that!

Blank43d ago

Clearly this is the very first time he has heard of these problems! That’s why he is doing his first wide spread announcement. /s

monkey60242d ago

Oh totally! And they certainly haven't made attempts to cover up issues within the company by moving offenders to new offices and keeping it all hush 😒

Definitely news to their ears

Games1st43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

Changing work culture starts from the top.

RaiderNation43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

Don't get me wrong, the changes he's talking about is great. However when I saw the headline I was hoping he was talking about improving the quality of their games.

Show all comments (58)
The story is too old to be commented.