Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 5:58:51 GMT
Rather than justifying one or another action we took. That said, here are some points of reflection we made: % of our staff is made up of men, consequently, they are also the majority in the leadership of our teams ( % of leaders are men); We have a person who identifies as non-binary and is part of our team of leaders, that is, when we talk about representation in leadership, we have: men, women and non-binary as a gender identity. Although we have more women in the company than non-binary people, statistically, non-binary representation ( %) is greater than that of women ( %); ⅓ of our company considers itself part of the LGBTQIA+ community.
Consider themselves white, the other % are diverse, with % being mixed Industry Email List race; We have professionals from different areas of graduation and % of the team does not have a degree. With everything we could see here, it was very clear that when we hire people based on their qualifications (our case today), it should not mean "not being an inclusive company". Like this? We have always started from the premise that we should hire people based on qualifications and charge them based on results, regardless of who they are. And although this is not a lie, we realize that it is easy to "hide" behind the jargon of meritocracy when in fact we should have inclusion policies.
We should hire people based on their qualifications and charge, but in order to be a company that is truly inclusive and diverse, it is also necessary to give opportunities to those who are deprived in other environments. In addition to seeking qualifications, we must provide space for these people to have experience and qualify. And this way of thinking is not just for one or another item in the report, but for everyone, after all, when we talk about inclusion, we are talking (literally) about having measures aimed at individuals excluded from the social environment for various reasons - some type of disability , sexual orientation, gender, skin color, religion and others.
Consider themselves white, the other % are diverse, with % being mixed Industry Email List race; We have professionals from different areas of graduation and % of the team does not have a degree. With everything we could see here, it was very clear that when we hire people based on their qualifications (our case today), it should not mean "not being an inclusive company". Like this? We have always started from the premise that we should hire people based on qualifications and charge them based on results, regardless of who they are. And although this is not a lie, we realize that it is easy to "hide" behind the jargon of meritocracy when in fact we should have inclusion policies.
We should hire people based on their qualifications and charge, but in order to be a company that is truly inclusive and diverse, it is also necessary to give opportunities to those who are deprived in other environments. In addition to seeking qualifications, we must provide space for these people to have experience and qualify. And this way of thinking is not just for one or another item in the report, but for everyone, after all, when we talk about inclusion, we are talking (literally) about having measures aimed at individuals excluded from the social environment for various reasons - some type of disability , sexual orientation, gender, skin color, religion and others.