At this point the diversity and ESG crap is just a colorful pretext to justify unpopular corporate policies exclusively determined by corporate leadership. A leadership that probably now demands more levels of hierarchy again to be able to manage accountability. There is no other way to even collect data for statements the article does espouse.<p>The article is completely debased from reality. The "marginalized" employees have the same demand that the "normal" ones have. It is the article that insists on discrimination here.<p>Fair employment conditions and probably nice colleagues, but more specific demands are individual ones that cannot subsumed under an allegedly "marginalized" group. That makes no sense at all.<p>The article is unconstructive framing that will not improve any workplace.<p>Yes, a flatter organization might mean fewer formal career advancements. Of course some ESG paper mill job in a random company might seem like a comparatively high position, even if it is useless at the core.
> Compared to men, women expected relatively fewer opportunities for career advancement. As one woman participant noted, “I think of [a flatter structure of having] prejudice in the workplace preventing upward mobility of marginalized employees.”<p>Marginalized: on the margins, maybe low in some structure which can be visualized in a vertical manner.