Lewis Hamilton, George Russell, Mercedes, Yas Marina, 2023

Mercedes’ team photo shows we still have a long way to go on diversity – Hamilton

Formula 1

Posted on

| Written by and

Lewis Hamilton is proud of the efforts Mercedes are making to increase the diversity of its staff but says it will be a “long slog” to achieve the results he hopes to see.

The team launched its ‘Accelerate 25’ programme three years ago to increase the proportion of staff it hires from under-represented backgrounds to 25% by the end of 2025. Hamilton, who has endured two win-less seasons since his controversial championship defeat at the end of 2021, said his efforts to improve diversity within the sport are “more important” to him than winning more championships.

“It’s been a long process that started really here in 2019,” he explained ahead of last week’s Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. “We just did a team photo and I’m still looking and I’m like, damn, we still have so much work to do. There’s three people of colour, for example. But there are a lot more women.

“But still that needs to shift. There will be a[nother] team photo one of the days this week and if I contrast that to 2019, I’m pretty sure that it’s not moved anywhere near as much as it should have. So the challenge is to see how we shift that.”

Hamilton set up The Hamilton Commission in 2020 to investigate why some groups are under-represented in motorsport, and how to address it. He and Mercedes subsequently launched the Ignite charity to promote science, technology, education and mathematics to young people within those groups.

He said he is starting to see the first fruits of those efforts. “The work that I’m doing is really targeting kids and creating a future pipeline and it starts from grassroots,” he said. “It’s been really great to see finally the team coming together and starting to see that we’re starting to have a real impact. And it makes me really proud.

“When we were in Austin we had the kids come, all the young women come, when we were in the UK we had a real diverse group of kids come. It was really cool to be able to be in the position to be able to open up the door for these kids to see what is possible and spark interest and create dreams that they perhaps never thought it was possible.

“So I’m excited for the future. It’s just a long slog.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2023 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Browse all 2023 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...
Claire Cottingham
Claire has worked in motorsport for much of her career, covering a broad mix of championships including Formula One, Formula E, the BTCC, British...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

85 comments on “Mercedes’ team photo shows we still have a long way to go on diversity – Hamilton”

  1. This guy, I swear, all he seems to care about anymore is spouting left-wing talking points. Do you not want the BEST people, Lewis? Is a meritocracy a bad thing to you? If I am trying to win championships, I don’t care what color someone is, I want the best people in the positions that matter. It’s insulting to hire someone based on their color rather than their skill set.

    1. perfectly said

    2. Coventry Climax
      1st December 2023, 13:13

      I agree with where you think Hamilton -and Mercedes- should be focussing on.
      Calling that ‘left-wing talking points’ however, says more about you -and an obsession?- than it does about Hamilton.

      1. I disagree. All he comments about, it seems, are matters of “diversity”. My commenting on how he would prefer quotas to a meritocracy, is no obsession on my part.

        1. I suppose then, Mr Blank, you know exactly what issues should be important to him? Such cognitive dissonance, you know very well this meritocracy crap is heavily flawed in the real world. Yes, it does seem to say a lot more about you.

      2. Good point.

    3. Why are you saying that people of colour can’t be the best in their field. Do you think white people are just better and given the same opportunity and experience people of colour aren’t capable of the same results?

      Seriously the casual racism ideologies on display here is astounding.

      1. Oh spare me the “that’s racist” canard. Where did I say people of color COULDN’T be the best? I clearly stated that the goal should be to get the best person, i.e. a meritocracy and I also clearly stated that I don’t care what someone’s color is, it is getting the best person in the position that matters.

        You’re reading your own bias into what I said rather than using your brain to absorb what I am saying. This happens frequently when people are programmed to think that any sort of criticism to affirmative action and forced diversity is “racist”.

        1. Right, I’m the biased one…

          Think about it, your first thought is, don’t hire for diversity, hire for the best… Why do you think diversity can’t be the best? That is where the bias lies.

          1. Yes, you are. I’m advocating for the ultimate level playing field, you’re a believer in quotas and forced diversity.

            Because evidence proves that when you hire based on physical characteristics rather than merit, you don’t get the best. When colleges admit someone that is of a particular race that has a 1160 SAT score, rather than a person who happens to be white, that has a 1400 SAT, that is wrong and you’re NOT getting the best, most qualified person. How is this even debatable? The reason is because you’ve been fed the lie that diversity is better than meritocracy and this is why the West is as screwed up as it is.

          2. I’m advocating for the ultimate level playing field

            But it’s not level, you can’t just pretend history doesn’t exist and then go “okay, now it’s level” without lifting up those who have been disadvantaged for so long.
            I’m not advocating for a system where each race is represented by % of total population or something, that’s crazy. But having a target, and seeing if the changes in processes are helping to reach that target, is a good thing.

          3. This is just a matter of perspective. Mercedes team photo is 99% white people.

            For Tristan is this an issue because how on earth can this be the result of meritocracy?

            For Jason, it is affirmation that meritocracy is working just fine.

            So it really comes down to people’s understanding of meritocracy is. For argument’s sake, in Saudi, if men are all hired for jobs, is it meritocracy when women for years had not been able to access the same education? From a relative skills perspective they certainly ‘merit’ it. Stepping back, do all men ‘merit’ this advantage? These are personal questions for everyone.

          4. Has it ever occured to you that there just happens to be more white than black people in Europe? To have a 50/50 balance of black and white people in every business in Europe just isn’t possible. Is there a 50/50 black and white ratio of people in African businesses? I don’t think so. And that’s fine with me because it’s just logical given the people that live there. Just as it is logical to see more white people in Europe given the people that live here.

          5. This is just a matter of perspective. Mercedes team photo is 99% white people.

            It’s probably a bit lower, but either way, that can’t be a surprise? About 90% of the UK is classified as such. And there’s also a huge cultural component to this. Not everyone likes the same thing. Grand Prix racing wasn’t always, but has become a very English sport. In other countries motorcycles are the preferred form of motorsport, or rally, or drag racing, or dirt ovals. There are massive fans of truck racing all over, but they’re always a rather small group. Different people just like different things.

          6. It is very easy for someone to discount the need for “Inclusion” if they have not had to face exclusion in their life. That is how I explain to myself why someone cannot understand that someone getting a 1400 SAT with several privileges’ being available to them isn’t the same as someone getting the 1160 while having to face exclusion.

          7. So Taz, we should then use racism to exclude the 1400 SAT score person, who happens to be white, because of the wrongs of say, 60 years ago? How does racism used today against others result in a meritocracy? You must love contemporary South Africa, where anti-white hatred and violence towards them is out of control. Retribution, vengeance, mandates, quotas, all of it is still creating an unequal playing field. A meritocratic system, color blind, is the best and only way, in my opinion, to run a society. Nobody should have a penalty or advantage based off of any characteristic.

          8. “A meritocratic system, color blind, is the best and only way” – Easy for you to say Jason, since it will continue to work in your favor. and proves what I just said. If you’ve not had to face exclusion, you don’t see the point in countering it. And your additional statement that inclusion for others means less for “Jason” sort of goes back to what I said. If you’ve never had to face systemic barriers to entry, the elimination of those barriers seems “unfair” to you, but in reality, it’s giving others the same benefits and privileges that you have enjoyed.

          9. Yes you are, pulling out the racist card

        2. Coventry Climax
          2nd December 2023, 13:21

          First paragraph of your reply to Tristan (Oh spare me .. ) :
          100% true; the racist part came out of the blue.

          Second paragraph of your reply (You’re reading your own bias .. ) :
          That’s exactly what happened with you when you called it left wing – out of the blue.

      2. Read it again. He is not saying anything of the sort.

      3. If I want answers on science/astrophysics I’m going straight to Neil Degrasse Tyson. Full stop.

        Now go sit in the corner and put this hat on.

      4. Straw man argument.
        Nothing of the sort has been said.
        Just that the best people should be hired, regardless of their skin albedo which is something totally irrelevant.
        You may agree or not, but you should not put in people’s mouths words they have never said.

    4. Whilst I agree you want the best people, how do you know that the group they’ve got were the best available? It is statistically very unlikely that the best set of engineers all just happen to be white males. Whenever we see these massive mismatches between genders or ethnicities or whatever, we should be asking ourselves what we are doing to create this favoritism for one group over another, what prejudices we are harboring.

      This is perhaps clearer if we look at the simple binary of male and female. Any mention of a female driver and the boards on here light up with people claiming they are not sexist but women can’t drive as well as men, fact, they don’t have the same competitve spirit, fact, they don’t have the strength to control an F1 car, fact, but they always add the caveat that they are not sexist and would have nothing against women getting into F1 if they were good enough, but even use that as proof that women cannot be good drivers or else they’d be in F1 already. We’ve seen the same sexism in all walks of life, women cannot be engineers, women cannot do science, women cannot be doctors because they’d faint at the sight of blood, women cannot be astronauts, women cannot be prime ministers. It needed real positive change throughout the 20th century to make it possible for women to overcome those nonsensical objections, and nowadays we wouldn’t think twice about a woman captain on the airliner you are about to fly, or a woman turning up to fix your broken boiler.

      The same is true with skin colour, ethnicity, accents, disabilities, sexual orientation, even age. They’ve all got widespread perceptional biases to overcome. If you claim there is no problem, you are part of the problem.

    5. I can’t help but wonder if it’s coincidence or not that they started his program to hire based on diversity three years ago and they have lost the last three championships. Surely if you want to be the best you hire based on merit?

    6. Anyone who disagree with this, is the problem.

    7. Meritocracy only works if everybody is judged by merit and by merit alone. Besides that everyone should have had the same chances to explore, present and develop talent and skills the same way everyone else did in the many steps leading up to landing a job F1.
      Given the unequal chances many people of other-than-Western-descent have had in Western society it might actually be a smart move to present yourself in this way as an employer, there’s a big chance you’ll find undiscovered talent.

    8. Sure, why not. Let Merc hire focusing just on quotas and forgetting about merit. Soon they will make Haas look like a brilliant team

    9. I think it’s from the stand point that while white people were hired irrespective of whether they were better or even good at their job when compared to black people, equality today is saying “we have leveled the playing field by giving equal opportunities to everyone” without actually addressing the inequality issue.
      Without context it seems silly that people are asking for hiring of more black people, but with the history i think it’s a fair ask. If one black person can’t do a good job, then i guess hire 2 people to do the work. I don’t think hire more diverse ppl means hire a black 3/10 when there’s white 9/10, but if there’s a black 7/10 then yeah give that person preference.

    10. when someone says ‘we have a long way to go’. This doesn’t mean hes talking about the near term, and it’s roots are most likely systemic, and implying that, in conjunction with his own personal initiatives/endeavors, hes probably alluding a distribution which is more in line with the ‘common’ distribution most people refer to when considering diversity. I am not anyone who cares about the color of one’s skin, but its a good sign when everyone, of all trades, can be found to have probability distribution which appears to represent the common man. And ultimately, this is what hes referring to.

      The push against, has more to do with the way corporations and banks are pushing politics these days. And unfortunately its not required, because its only alienating and irritating people profusely.

      As someone who has had to quit a job due to lying about that special four letter word, because thats how people are ‘muzzled’ these days, and I refuse to work with people who behave like that, I choose to see both sides. Lewis, if you want to understand his perspective, look at what hes doing off the track, and try to see him as more future facing/oriented.

  2. He could always start his own team. Not immediately obviously, but once he hangs up his helmet, it could be something to look at. He would not have to go straight into F1 either, on the contrary – he could start out with an F2 team.

    For starters that could elevate the interest in F2 rather quickly, and open doors for younger talent at the same time. A new “Hamilton F2” team is well in line with what he is trying to do. I think it would be very well received too.

    Other F1 drivers have started teams: Jack Brabham, Bruce McLaren, John Surtees, Jackie Stewart, Alain Prost, Fittipaldi/Copersucar, Dan Gurney/Eagle and I’m sure I have overlooked some.

    I’d love to see Hamilton F1 as a team one day.
    F1 needs real new teams, and not just the same 10 teams rebranded.

    1. Murasama, you know he already finances his own team, X44, in the Extreme E racing. Jenson Button and Nico Rosberg also have teams in that series. I don’t find it that interesting as a spectator sport, but interesting points to note are that each team is required to have one male and one female driver, and the cars being fully electric but surprisingly high power. He has also set up a charity, Mission44, which is doing great work with young kids from disadvantaged communities.

      1. Yes I do know and I think his Extreme E team is an excellent initiative.
        I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I think Hamilton is putting his money where his mouth is, I sort of meant that rather than ‘change Mercedes’ he could have a go at it himself.

        1. Murasama, you may well be right, that he will start up an F2 team, and maybe F1 later. Not sure how it would be received though. Alain Prost started his own team after retiring, and I think the Prost name on the car wasn’t much of an advantage. I think some fans disliked it because they were never fans of Prost, others had too high expectations because of the Prost name, and Prost himself was perhaps a bit too close to it, having his own strong ideas about how cars should be designed and how races should be driven. Because Hamilton is still heavily involved in F1, it means he doesn’t have time to get over-involved in X44, so that team has more freedom to develop naturally.

          I’d think it would be more likely he’d set up something in Formula E than F2/F1. FE gets more coverage than F2, it is a cheapish entry level, and the concept at least will be around for the long term. F1 is horrendously expensive to get into, even if you are buying up an existing team and all its resources. For the cost of setting up an F1 team, you could do so much more good setting up small teams in the Formula Ford/Renault/G type series, give more opportunities for young drivers, young mechanics, etc.

          1. I think if you look at a guy like Valentino Rossi, who is was always very much the shrewd business man, blocking his ‘opponents’ at every avenue, this kind of character would do much better owning and running a team in the very ‘cut-throat’ line of business called racing. Some guys don’t have the motivation or the mindset to really take off right after racing, and a lot of it probably has to do with their preoccupations outside the circuit. I suspect Lewis is much happier trying to help kids grow up and be the best they can be, and I for one can’t think of anything better.

            That said, you have racers like Kenan Sofuoglu, who I rate as being one of the best on two wheels ever, having ‘coached’/mentored and championed other drivers, this is also a valid model, and one which I think Lewis might excel in, if he has the time, but F1 being what it is right now, I don’t think these guys have more than a month off every year, and barely time in between to really commit to anything on the side, which is really a shame, because the sport would be better off for it I believe, if it were limited to say 18 or so races, and a cap on how much time they have to work with sponsors/team responsibilities.

          2. @pcxmac, I reember someone saying once that great footballers and great cricketers don’t make great team managers in their sports because they have too much natural ability and cannot conceive that other people find things difficult. It is the ones who were good but not great, who had to work at learning skills, who generally make the better managers and are better at explaining things to others. Since hearing that, I’ve noticed the same is true in other fields, such as music and languages. That’s not to say that Hamilton, Alonso, Verstappen couldn’t also be great mentors and man-managers, just that it isn’t a given.

      2. you know he already finances his own team

        How much of the money that goes into those teams and ‘programs’ is coming from Mr Hamilton…?
        Pretty sure most (if not all) of it comes from external backers. Feel free to evidence me into submission.

  3. I don’t understand this diversity issue. People are people regardless of the skin colour. They are more or less capable depending on the specific industry. That has nothing to do with race. If Hamilton believes that some very capable people of a particular race are not represented in the Mercedes team, he should show them. If despite being at least as qualified as those currently in the team, then we can argue racism, diversity and so on. But hiring people of different races just for the optics is stupid. And I am sure not even Hamilton would like that. Maybe someone could argue that Hamilton got an F1 drive in 2007 because of diversity. This is obviously nonsense because he was and is a superb driver. He deserved it and earned it. So, please, let’s concentrate on the skills and contribution of people and not on other factors, at least when it comes to sports.

    1. You’re not seeing the big picture, the same argument comes up with gender diversity targets. When an under-represented demographic is under-represented because they have been specifically repressed, targetted against, as people of colour, and women have been. It is incredibly difficult for them to find themselves in a position to be hired, let alone given the same level of respect.
      You need to really work towards ensuring you are giving them every opportunity to succeed. Sure, it might mean hiring a person of colour who has a slightly less impressive resume, but considering every single person of colours resume hasn’t even been considered for the last 50 years, literally thrown in the bin just because racism (or same for women because sexism).
      I really think it’s the absolute least that anyone can do, in any industry. Let’s lift each other up, not just individually but a society, for the betterment of humanity.

      1. considering every single person of colours resume hasn’t even been considered for the last 50 years, literally thrown in the bin

        I must say, that is a vast exaggeration, and not meant to be taken literally, despite the poor use of the word. Apologies for want of an edit button. There have been good people throughout history that have seen past colour. That is for sure.

        1. I don’t think Mercedes is targeting black people…

      2. …..but considering every single person of colours resume hasn’t even been considered for the last 50 years, literally thrown in the bin just because racism (or same for women because sexism).

        When I was hiring that certainly was not true. And that was in the last 50 years…… A bit of hyperbole with that comment.

        1. Yep as noted above, long for an edit button :/

      3. @Tristan

        When an under-represented demographic is under-represented because they have been specifically repressed, targetted against, as people of colour, and women have been.

        There are a lot of other explanations why groups are underrepresented. Your bias is clearly showing when you only consider one potential cause.

        Also, the people who share your politics always seem to want to make change by implementing top down quotas, which is going to result in worse hires and a lack of meritocracy. If the group of people with the right training, credentials, etc doesn’t match the demographics you want to see, then you cannot achieve the demographics by quotas and the like, other than by passing over more talented people.

        1. you cannot achieve the demographics by quotas and the like, other than by passing over more talented people.

          That’s false, if you aim at a broader audience than you did before, the chance you’ll find and hire someone outside of your regular scope increases. You can do that while maintaining the same level of scrutiny of talent and skills.

          The proposition that the final decision for who’s getting the job is going to be between two people, one of a minority and the other slightly more skilled, is a false one.
          It’s about making sure that more people will get the chance to make it to that round, by looking in places you haven’t looked before and by making sure that people with talent have access to the right education.

          1. That’s false, if you aim at a broader audience than you did before, the chance you’ll find and hire someone outside of your regular scope increases.

            Like mechanics without experience working on cars? Drivers that haven’t competed in high level karting, open wheeled series or other high level racing?

            This is just hand waving away the fact that the hiring pool for many jobs is quite far from being perfectly representative of some arbitrary choice of population that you want to see represented.

            The proposition that the final decision for who’s getting the job is going to be between two people, one of a minority and the other slightly more skilled, is a false one.

            That is exactly the proposition when there is a quota and you start to pass over the more promising candidates due to their race, and hire less promising candidates of the ‘right’ race.

  4. I’m surprised the number is so low, I feel like F1 is doing a great job with regards to diversity at least from the outside. Maybe the production is just doing a great job at optics, showcasing the diversity that is there.

    I wonder where the main bottleneck is and how the targets can be reached. It has to be said, taking a cursory look at the Extreme E team compositions, Hamilton seems to be putting his money where his mouth is Rosberg and McLaren entries by comparison are very much what you would expect. (Could just be optics though without more research.)

    1. It is not for F1 (or any enterprise) to seek diversity just for the sake of having people from every background. We miss the point here. This does not help the targeted group. The prime example is South Africa, you have a few people from previously disadvantaged groups now taking high government and private jobs. But this accounts for a tiny, very tiny fraction of the population (less than 1%). Instead the rest of the people leave in the same conditions (or even worse) than before. But the system that you advocate for creates a sense of entitlement, lack of self-criticism, and resentment among the groups.

      The problem, my dear Tristan, lies elsewhere. It is the society, the government, the universities, the training institutions. It is the responsibility of those who previously were among the dominant or priviledged groups to help others, but also the responbility of those who were previously disadvantaged to take action. They can’t hide behind a past situation to perpetuate their adverse situation.

  5. Whom from the picture would you fire?

    1. Exactly! It’s as if he’s looking at the picture saying “Oh, you, you and you are of the wrong skin colour. I want you gone.”

    2. Nail on the head. +1

    3. They should fire Dr. Robotnik (top right) before he completes his evil plan

  6. I am part of a under-represented (or even unrepresented) minority in Formula 1.

    I did not get my degree in the UK.

    I went to Formula 1 thinking that, of all industries, this ought to be driven by merit, as the race result and the lap-times don’t lie. This is not the case unfortunately.

    The wish for some to become famous out there has increased exponentially over the last ten years. I witness graduates, still in their probation, giving interviews and parading on Reddit – sometimes, this happens even before said individuals have started in their roles.

    This lead to people having a FOMO, and therefore feeling highly unsecure in their positions. To compensate for that insecurity, we witness acts of nepotism at all levels, whereby career moves are not decided on merit. And that’s where the diversity issue kicks in.

    Who would you hire/promote to make yourself feel more secure? Someone like you. Someone who thinks like you. Someone who has been through the same path as you. The vast majority of the paddock has had their degree in four or five UK universities – that is a first hurdle, a first filter applied, for no other reason than some individuals’ peace of mind.

    Then, there is the cultural difference. You are much more likely to fit in the mould if you are white, male, with a British education. If you are female, unfortunately, you have to play this card to be someone, to the extent sometimes of overdoing it.

    I do not believe that the industry has a general racism problem at all, no. However, there is almost a class element to it. You need to fit in, no matter what, sometimes at the expense of performance. People are far too scared of losing their position in what they believe is everything to them.

    As much as I support any effort to make F1 more diverse (which I actively do, for the record), when comes the time to make actual calls on who to hire and why, there is no change from 10-15 years ago.

    Final point: Brexit has practically annihilated the chances of EU graduates to make it to F1 – thank goodness for them, there are still a handful of teams in Continental Europe.

    1. Sorry to see this well balanced observation is overlooked.

  7. Classic hambone, taunted by racists who only see you for your skin color and now you judge your team by its skin color

  8. Hamilton is a despicable human being. He practices – what I would call – reverse collonialism: he wants to denationalize the fundamentally European F1 and replace all F1’s “natives” with whomever he sees as better.

  9. Making participation in all manner of motorsport more viable to people from across the world is fantastic, and a big point in the current FIA president’s platform.

    However, when Mercedes says stuff like this:

    “We aim for at least 25% of all new starters at our team to come from under-represented groups.”

    What does that mean? What are the criteria? Why 25%? Who are these groups? How many of such groups can any one person belong to? And are there any characteristics that instantly disqualify a person from being seen as a part of these various groups?

    1. Michael “What does that mean?”

      It means they are making an effort to level up the opportunities playing field, but don’t have all the answers. However, their aspiration isn’t a contract with the world, and they don’t have to explain the nitpicking points of the policy to people like youy and me.

      1. As Ludewig mentions below, they’re probably not out to hire more communists. Fair enough. But they clearly have a list of what do and don’t want.

        Given the platform and global reach they have, being open about their views and goals might do a lot of good and get other people thinking about the same issue in concrete ways. Being vague and secretive about it, not so much.

    2. What does that mean?

      It clearly means racial/gender discrimination, where people are disqualified for having the wrong skin color or gender.

      I’ve never seen ‘under-represented’ be used to favor someone from a poor background, someone with a niche polical opinion compared to the company or other areas where we often see a huge underrepresentation.

      1. Probably. Not sure how 25% makes much sense as a ‘representative’ goal for female staff, but perhaps there’s an odd ratio around the parts where Mercedes has their offices. Anyway, good luck to them.

      2. Coventry Climax
        2nd December 2023, 13:50

        I consider people with an IQ over 170 to be a massive minority within mankind, and they are without doubt underrepresented within any company, regardless of color, background and gender.
        And it’s considered scary to hire them, despite what’s said.

  10. Lewisham Milton
    1st December 2023, 18:25

    Scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, is it next season yet?

  11. Welcome to the mind of a racist LH.

  12. Merit.

    That should be the start and the end.

    If you’re good enough, you get the job. Otherwise regardless you aren’t getting the job.

    Making x% of an organization to be more diverse is a good goal assuming the x% are qualified enough and are better than at least the bottom x% of the organization. Otherwise there’ll be no results to show for.

    The issue with celebrities and sportsmen giving their opinion on several contentious things is they fundamentally lack touch with ground reality. They live in a Utopia and are immune to what’s relevant or not. This is another to be added Hamilton’s collection of making himself look like a fool.

  13. How motivating and rewarding this must feel for those male, white, straight workers that gave him his 7 world championships and all his money. #Blessed.

    1. Just goes to show the madness of this horrific, divisive woke mindset, forcing so called “diversity” in place of merit. A catastrophic prospect for everyone in the long run. At least there’s diversity in that sense.

  14. Out of the 21 employees you can get a reasonably good idea about (excluding drivers/principles) I see 3 POC and 3 females. A couple more could be POC or not. that’s at least 29% that aren’t WASP males. What are you (looking at you Tristian) complaining about, again?

    1. I have no complaints at all with Mercedes outcomes and have no knowledge whatsoever of what they are. If you read my comment in reply to the article, you can see I’m not actually complaining about much. Although why you wouldn’t reply to that rather than look at me(?) here is odd.

      If you read my comments in reply to others’, I’m arguing against the casually racist mindset that people of colour can’t be the best (a thankfully now deleted comment went so far as to say a diverse team will never be capable of winning races or a championship.) or that hiring for diversity is a bad thing. There are no shortage of studies and anecdotes from various industry leaders that come to the conclusion of diversity in teams increasing performance.

      1. That causally racist mindset seems to be in your head, because I’ve seen no one argue that non-white people can’t be the best.

        And there are absolutely no reliable and good scientific studies that conclude that diversity increases performance. The typical mistake that poor studies into this topic make, is that they fail to compensate for company size. Multinationals, which are more diverse, if only because they operate in more countries, perform better than small companies (in part due to getting all kinds of special government subsidies that small companies don’t get). However, if you compensate for the company size, more diverse companies do not in fact perform better.

        That you think differently, is likely because you are very susceptible to the propaganda campaign that we get exposed to. However, the media narrative often doesn’t match the scientific evidence.

        BTW, people of colour actually is a casually racist term that lumps completely disparate people together and is really just a euphemism for non-white.

        1. Geez, everyone is filling in what the other person’s thinking is really helping this conversation, right?

          In the article it doesn’t say anywhere that Mercedes will stop searching for the best people in the field, they only want to engage a broader audience into the field of high end tech. An audience that probably hasn’t had the same chances of discovering, exploring and developing talent and skills in that specific field. I don’t know what’s so wrong with that ambition.

          1. Coventry Climax
            2nd December 2023, 13:55

            Absolutely agree. Although the wording for it, by Hamilton and Mercedes, could have been a lot better.

        2. I’ve seen no one argue that non-white people can’t be the best.

          You’ve got to be kidding.

          Logically, when you say “you can’t aim to hire diverse candidates, because you will be passing on the best candidates”, it follows that therefore non-white people can’t be the best.

          And there’s way too much of that in this comment section.

          1. Logic isn’t your strong suit I see.

            When you hire on merit you aim for the candidate with the highest merit. Since all people are unique, there will be a single best candidate for every role.

            Therefore, you cannot aim for any other attribute (scuh as skin color), since it would either override the choice based one merit (thereby making selection not based on merit anymore), or it would never be used as a selection argument since there will always be a single most meritous candidate.

          2. @Tristan

            Logically, when you say “you can’t aim to hire diverse candidates, because you will be passing on the best candidates”, it follows that therefore non-white people can’t be the best.

            No, it implies that they can’t increase the hiring of non-white people without taking lesser candidates.

            If you are hiring 10 people from a group of 1000 candidates and the 10 best people are 2 non-white people and 8 white people, then there are indeed non-white people that are the best. But those are already getting hired if you have merit-based hiring.

            If you then hire one less white person and instead hire a non-white person because of their race, despite having a worse CV, then you are indeed not hiring the best people anymore.

            That is how racial discrimination in hiring works. You pick the lesser candidate because you don’t like the race of the better candidate. And that is exactly the policy that many people want, when they ask for quotas.

            Even Lewis gets it better than you, since he is (also) funding black teachers, out of the belief that this will result in more qualified black engineers. I have my doubts that this works as well as he hopes, but at least it is looking in the right place.

          3. @Ludewig:

            If you are hiring 10 people from a group of 1000 candidates and the 10 best people are 2 non-white people and 8 white people, then there are indeed non-white people that are the best. But those are already getting hired if you have merit-based hiring.

            Yes, but they haven’t been. Not even that 2 out of 10, unless you’re looking at the current make up of nearly every Formula 1 team and telling me that only white people merit being there. It’s saying they’re not there because they haven’t been good enough. That only white people are in the roles because it’s merited.

            If you can’t see the problem there, we’ve got a circular argument and no matter how times it’s rephrased we’ll never see eye to eye.

          4. @Tristan

            Whether it is a problem or not depends on what the actual reasons are for the disparity and your preferences/biases. But I doubt that you care. You seem to just want perfect representation, which is a Utopian ideal that like all Utopian ideals, is dangerous extremism.

            But a different question and one that I’ve been focusing a lot on here, is whether it is Mercedes’ problem, fault or responsibility when their hirings are representative of the available talent. At that point the disparity is not due to discrimination on their part.

        3. Leadership ensures quality cohesion and excellence. It has nothing to do with the color of people’s skin, that is just a bunch of nonsense that public minders want people to believe. Diversity of opinion and perception is actually very valuable, and helps ‘teams’ overcome problems when utilized appropriately. Diversity as it is portrayed by HR departments or the media, is only used to gouge the common sensibility.

          Put down the science, and the media, this is straight up a leadership issue, and in general a failure of leadership at the highest levels of society, for such opinions on such a degrading scale. Good leaders care about their people, and don’t jerk them around based on ‘special class characteristics’. This type of manipulation is typically targeted at ‘colonial’ experiments, at great cost to those indigenous peoples who buy off on it.

          People are people, and we can do a better job, but the people who are blaming the masses for their problems, are the most indictable when it comes to this contemporary nonsense.

  15. Fight for equality. Not just skin colour. By stating so, it is already a form of racism. So much on what he stand.

  16. The increase in diversity has led to a greater variety (diversity) in their performance.. I’d call it a success.

  17. I should add, that the better argument if wanting to criticise diversity targets is to say why does race matter at all, such as @floodo1’s comment.

    I have no problems logically with that argument. Personally I think there are a lot of barriers to competition outside of race not the least of which is the massively growing inequality.

    But those arguments are not what are being expressed by the majority of comments here. It’s just “they don’t deserve it” or “they’re not good enough.”

  18. Whenever we get articles like this, I find myself so disappointed with many of the responses, and the way they polarise opinions. This isn’t about quotas, or who you would fire to make room for a minority. It is about the bigger picture.

    Look at it this way. Suppose i had to go out today and hire a hundred talented STEM graduates. I’d likely end up with roughly equal numbers of males and females, but getting 70 males and 30 females wouldn’t be statistically unlikely. However, if I found I’d recruited 99 males and only one female, that would seem so unlikely that I’d have to ask myself the question: Is this mismatch as result of biases in the recruitment process, or a bias in society and opportunity?

    It could be that the people who did the recruitment interviews were all heavily biased into thinking women can’t do maths etc, or it could be that we were inflexible about working hours and ignored how women are often the ones who have to take on family comittments. It could be that the recruitment advert was translated poorly and desbribed the ideal candidate as “will be in his 20s, he will have a STEM degree and he will likely have several years experience blah blah blah”, or that the adverts just showed endless pictures of men fixing trucks, men drinking in the pub after work, men playing in the works rugby team at the weekend whch is putting off women from applying. If that is the case, are we really getting the BEST one hundred people or the best one hundred men?

    Or it could be cultural issues. If we had those figures in the UK, we’d know something had to be wrong with our processes, but if we were recruiting in certain other countries, we’d consider it a miracle that even one woman was successful in beating the system and getting an education. So in this situation, if we care about equality and equal opportunities, we might decide we have to try to do more about generating grass roots opportunities, sponsoring students, etc. Like it or not, we still have to do a lot more of that in the UK, and like it or not, Hamilton is putting his own money where his mouth is with the Mission44 charity.

    This isn’t at all about having a quota system for recruiting people based on gender or colour or whether they went to Oxford or Cambridge or anything else, and it isn’t about firing well qualified people to make room for politically correct alternatives. It is about looking at what you actually are doing and, if you find there is a massive mathematical mismatch from the population in general, what is the reason for that, and what can we do to better ensure we recruit people based on merit in future. IS that too much to ask?

    1. @AlanD

      This isn’t about quotas, or who you would fire to make room for a minority. It is about the bigger picture.

      Do you really care about the bigger picture? Do you care about the many nasty jobs that are done almost exclusively by men? Do you care about the immense gender disparity in jobsite deaths? Do you care that men are failing more and more in education? Do you care that homeless people are overwhelmingly men?

      All the talk about wanting gender equality or the other equalities are just lies when issues that very disproportionately effect men or other groups that are deemed to be the oppressor are not treated as issues of equality, while issues that effect women (and are not even necessarily bad for women) are treated as huge injustices that need to be solved.

      We live in a society that treats something like 2 million men dying each year in jobsite accidents as not being an important gender issue, but there not being 1 woman driver in F1 as one. How sick is that?

  19. Imagine looking at your end of season team photo, seeing the faces of everyone who worked their asses off the whole year to give you a car you could race to 3rd in the championship, feed your face how many days of the year, make sure your backside was wiped so that you could focus on driving … and still think to yourself, “more of you MOFO’s must make way for some extra ‘minority’ faces, because that would make my experience of looking at the photo better, since I’m more interested what colour your skin is than what you did for me.”

Comments are closed.