Paizo Expands Leadership Team

Also, there is no best person for the job. You can't possibly know that. Usually, there are several good choices and you make the best one you can given the data and you can choose to get different voices in the board room or you can choose to go with the guy you want to have a beer with. That is a choice. We make those choices consciously or unconsciously. But the idea that there is one best choice and that guy happens to look just like everyone else in the board room is silly and unrealistic and we should be past that by now. Choose to have a new voice in the board room and I guarantee your choices get more informed.

Well spoken Lissa, thank you for speaking up

thejeff wrote:

ChezDispenser wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So what's the solution? Fire all the existing executives (including firing the VPs instead of adding them) and building an entire new diverse team from the ground up?

Fire all the *existing* executives? No. Heck, include the two new guys - but there ought to be people of color at the highest levels of management, and if there isn't a spot open, make one. Make two - because this:

thejeff wrote:

other than having a voice in executive level decisions.

...is the point. People of color *should have a voice in executive level decisions.*

So who do they fire to hire (or promote) a new top level manager they can bring into the executive team? Or should they create a VP of tokenism?

I agree they should be there, but I don't see how to get there in the short term

Well gosh, why don't we just look at the post Diego just made, and see that they currently don't have a Chief Technical Officer, but do have a woman of color currently doing that job as the Director of Technology. So why not promote Rei Ko to Chief Technical Officer rather than expect the Chief Financial Officer to juggle that role in addition to finances.

That would seem to be a good idea.

I was working off the idea that these were the 2 non-executive VPs they had, but if there's a need for another top level management position, then they should absolutely fill that. That the person currently doing the job at a lower level is a woman of color is a nice bonus.

Corporate structures are somewhat opaque to me: are VPs and CTOs/CFOs basically at the same level?

Cori Marie wrote:

thejeff wrote:

ChezDispenser wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So what's the solution? Fire all the existing executives (including firing the VPs instead of adding them) and building an entire new diverse team from the ground up?

Fire all the *existing* executives? No. Heck, include the two new guys - but there ought to be people of color at the highest levels of management, and if there isn't a spot open, make one. Make two - because this:

thejeff wrote:

other than having a voice in executive level decisions.

...is the point. People of color *should have a voice in executive level decisions.*

So who do they fire to hire (or promote) a new top level manager they can bring into the executive team? Or should they create a VP of tokenism?

I agree they should be there, but I don't see how to get there in the short term

Well gosh, why don't we just look at the post Diego just made, and see that they currently don't have a Chief Technical Officer, but do have a woman of color currently doing that job as the Director of Technology. So why not promote Rei Ko to Chief Technical Officer rather than expect the Chief Financial Officer to juggle that role in addition to finances.

That would seem to be a good idea.

I was working off the idea that these were the 2 non-executive VPs they had, but if there's a need for another top level management position, then they should absolutely fill that. That the person currently doing the job at a lower level is a woman of color is a nice bonus.

Corporate structures are somewhat opaque to me: are VPs and CTOs/CFOs basically at the same level?

Depends on the org chart.

My opinion on these two gentlemen will rest entirely on if they bargain in good faith with UPW.

Part of that is going to be financial transparency with the UPW.

I fully sympathize with the homophobia Jeff has experienced but it's a tone deaf start for him to not recognize he doesn't know the experience of being a person of color. Which was the point of the question.

Both management and the union want Paizo to survive and thrive. I really hope the new leaders, who did not face any public competition for their shiny new titles and new executive powers, don't hold the opinion the sentiment is exclusive to management.

I don't think anyone wants Paizo to fail. Their creators do wonderful work. What people are asking is that they practice what they claim to believe in diversity.

If you can't reward a person with a new title or role, give them a pay increase at least. "While we have a flat org chart, you are valued, and here is an 11% raise. Thank you for your hard work!"

That is what usually happened at my old job.

I know as someone who is Hispanic if I'm only hired based on diversity that I take that as a insult. People think that just cause I'm Hispanic I can't get the job on my own. Content of character not color of skin.

This post may have received zero "likes" prior to me, but people should really understand this is how a lot of POC feel.

Even more sigh-worthy is the attitude (sometimes from liberals) that any POC is going to represent the interest of all POCs: "oh, there's someone non-white on the board, all good". I, for one, do not automatically assume someone who has the same skin color as me represents my interests.

What everyone wants is someone who represents their interests. But on a board of N people, a lot of minorities less than 1/N of the population are going to be represented by someone that doesn't exactly fit their exact interests. For example, deaf players are very likely going to be represented by someone hearing; asexual players are very likely going to be represented by someone sexual; and sometimes, ethnic minorities are better represented by a white person than a completely different ethnic minority.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer it if Paizo had varying degrees of melanin on their leadership. They certainly have it among their players and staff, enough so that it's notably weird that there's 0 POC and only 1 female. But I am also strongly opposed to promoting people past their Peter Principle limit, which only reinforces narratives that token hires are objectively bad for the company, and the company only promotes them for PR purposes.

If there aren't enough qualified POC or enough women to fill the leadership positions right now, please start a mentorship program so that you're not in the same situation in 2026.

Of course. People are not a monolith. Also, no one is hiring people just because they can diversify their board without expecting them to do the job. Well, I'm sure someone is, but no one here is asking for that and saying that is just a derailment tactic. People often do, however, hire people based on whether they can identify with them or not, which often translates to skin, gender, etc because they have similar experiences and thus have more in common. And when you get a board where all of the people making all the decisions for the company are white guys in their 40's and 50's, it's a problem. And ignoring that and putting your head in the ground, isn't going to help.

People of color, women, lgbtq people are often discriminated against, often unconsciously, often in little ways that reverberate in bigger ways throughout the organization. It takes a conscious effort to unbias yourself in hiring and managing your reports. It just does.

Also, no one is hiring people just because they can diversify their board without expecting them to do the job. Well, I'm sure someone is, but no one here is asking for that and saying that is just a derailment tactic.

Are you sure about that?

There are several posts not more than 1 page back suggesting that Paizo promote a female POC to CTO to get some diversity on the board.

Has anyone even approached this individual to ask if she'd be interested in a CTO position, much less taken the time to evaluate whether she'd be qualified? Has anyone vetted her to make sure she's not a transphobe, homophobe, racist (yes, POC can be racist too), or weird and creepy with employees?

when you get a board where all of the people making all the decisions for the company are white guys in their 40's and 50's, it's a problem

Probably, but I don't see melanin as a dispel hegemony spell.

I don't even think that lack of representation at the highest level is the biggest race problem at Paizo. In every panel discussion, and frankly, every official Paizo streaming game, it's disproportionately white men who know the rules of the game and disproportionately women and POC that are there as entertainers. Paizo leadership looking like the player pool looked 30 years ago doesn't bother me nearly as much as the prospect of Paizo leadership 10 years from now looking like Paizo leadership looks now.

I am very wary of tokenism because I think it's going to be used as an excuse not to fix a broken system. I'd much rather watch a genuine superstar from an underrepresented group rise through the ranks, and worry that rushing someone now ends up short-circuiting the urgency for that to happen.

Lissa Guillet wrote:

Also, no one is hiring people just because they can diversify their board without expecting them to do the job. Well, I'm sure someone is, but no one here is asking for that and saying that is just a derailment tactic.

Are you sure about that?

There are several posts not more than 1 page back suggesting that Paizo promote a female POC to CTO to get some diversity on the board.

Has anyone even approached this individual to ask if she'd be interested in a CTO position, much less taken the time to evaluate whether she'd be qualified? Has anyone vetted her to make sure she's not a transphobe, homophobe, racist (yes, POC can be racist too), or weird and creepy with employees?

Yes.

It's not about being against hiring white people, it is about wanting nonwhite people to actually get the chance to be considered or compete for the position.

Congrats

If we didn't care we wouldn't be here and so invested in wanting to see paizo do better. It would be a massive waste of my time to tear down a company making a product I enjoy, not to mention it would be a ridiculous waste of energy

If we didn't care we wouldn't be here and so invested in wanting to see paizo do better. It would be a massive waste of my time to tear down a company making a product I enjoy, not to mention it would be a ridiculous waste of energy

I literally made my forum account here so I could start a discussion about my frustrations about how the Varisians have been represented. I'm here because I love the setting these folks have made, because I want to see more of it, and because I want to see what comes be better than the problematic snarls of the old.

Enjoying something does not have to entail blind, uncritical devotion.

So, it seems that every hire and change in structure in Paizo is going to be under a microscope, and the complaint of the lack of Diversity just seems, to me, out of place and from left field.

Both of these gentlemen has been in the gaming world for quite some time, and have the pedigree that is needed to forefill the duties of the job they are hired to do. It should not matter about their background, orientation, personal dating history, or what Halloween costumes they have worn in the past. The only thing that should be considered when filling a position, or augmenting one that is already filled (as discussed throughout the thread) is the qualifications of the person and the trust of the employer that they can do the job required of them.

Diverse hiring has gone horribly wrong when merit and being qualified for the position is not considered. One only needs to look at the Lucasfilm fiasco with Kathleen Kennedy to see a very extreme example. When a hire is just checking boxes for diversity, it serves only to put a person in over his/her head and will spell trouble for the company in the longer run.

Lissa Guillet wrote:

Also, no one is hiring people just because they can diversify their board without expecting them to do the job. Well, I'm sure someone is, but no one here is asking for that and saying that is just a derailment tactic.

Are you sure about that?

There are several posts not more than 1 page back suggesting that Paizo promote a female POC to CTO to get some diversity on the board.

Has anyone even approached this individual to ask if she'd be interested in a CTO position, much less taken the time to evaluate whether she'd be qualified? Has anyone vetted her to make sure she's not a transphobe, homophobe, racist (yes, POC can be racist too), or weird and creepy with employees?

Lissa Guillet wrote:

when you get a board where all of the people making all the decisions for the company are white guys in their 40's and 50's, it's a problem

Probably, but I don't see melanin as a dispel hegemony spell.

I don't even think that lack of representation at the highest level is the biggest race problem at Paizo. In every panel discussion, and frankly, every official Paizo streaming game, it's disproportionately white men who know the rules of the game and disproportionately women and POC that are there as entertainers. Paizo leadership looking like the player pool looked 30 years ago doesn't bother me nearly as much as the prospect of Paizo leadership 10 years from now looking like Paizo leadership looks now.

I am very wary of tokenism because I think it's going to be used as an excuse not to fix a broken system. I'd much rather watch a genuine superstar from an underrepresented group rise through the ranks, and worry that rushing someone now ends up short-circuiting the urgency for that to happen.

Kinda hard for POC to advance when they are told they don't need a promotion.

"So, it seems that every hire and change in structure in Paizo is going to be under a microscope, and the complaint of the lack of Diversity just seems, to me, out of place and from left field."

because you haven't been paying attention these past months/years.

Once again I must reiterate, it must be a wild coincidence that all the "best people for the job" happen to be white and they couldn't find ANY POC to include in their leadership position despite having many that have worked for them for years, and these same people that were hired also happen to be friends with the executives.
Thats not even getting into how people like Diego were denied any chance of a promotion while these two had their positions elevated by creating new positions in leadership for them

"When a hire is just checking boxes for diversity, it serves only to put a person in over his/her head and will spell trouble for the company in the longer run."

That you're assuming that is the norm or what we're asking for is an issue. You view it as only possibly boxes being checking on a system that was perfectly fine beforehand, when in reality that system was not letting skilled people advance and cut them off from opportunities. That's the issue, not some bingo boogeyman being made up.

Also the reason people are so critical of things lately is because nothings really improved. There's been a lot of promises of things to come but so far all we've seen is these promotions and paizo recognizing the union while still avoiding taking any responsibility (and that latter one kind of had to be done, the union was like half the size of the company)

When we say we want more diverse hiring practices and better treatment of employees and to address the allegations of transphobia...elevating two white men to executive positions while hearing about Diego's denial of any chance of doing the same just feels like a slap in the face

Appointing new executives during a public relations crisis is almost always a risky move (unless they are to replace executives that have resigned/been fired).

It has similar optics to when a car manufacturing company lays off 1000 employees and then awards a bunch of huge bonuses to its executives the same week, for example.

So, it seems that every hire and change in structure in Paizo is going to be under a microscope, and the complaint of the lack of Diversity just seems, to me, out of place and from left field.

If only we weren't 45 days into a PR fiasco surrounding minority employees not having access to advancement and opportunities that others enjoyed, or had just seen a historic unionization effort around Paizo employees who have come out asking for leadership reflecting the diversity of their ranks.

'Out of left field' indeed.

...what Halloween costumes they have worn in the past.

The only examples of this particular matter that spring to mind are when celebrities and politicians have been outed in either blackface or Nazi regalia. Why bring this topic up? It doesn't paint a flattering portrait of your sympathies.

One only needs to look at the Lucasfilm fiasco with Kathleen Kennedy to see a very extreme example. When a hire is just checking boxes for diversity, it serves only to put a person in over his/her head and will spell trouble for the company in the longer run.

What, leading Disney to massive financial success? The Mandalorian has been a runaway hit with mainstream culture and no few of the established fans, while Rogue One is what I might consider the finest work in the franchise.

But yes, it's very frightening that she's (gasp!) a woman.

An all-white leadership team is the result of deliberate choices. Most of the people in this country are not white men. Most of the people in this hobby are not white men. You do not find yourself with an all-white, almost entirely male leadership team of a TTRPG company without artificially limiting the pool of potential candidates.

It's apparent that some people in this thread take issue with the very idea that non-majority perspectives have inherent value. Conveniently, this means that (even purely hypothetical!) candidates with those perspectives can be easily dismissed as lacking merit. Never mind, of course, that companies with diverse leadership have been shown time and time again to perform better than ones dominated by white men. We must only choose people based on merit! It's pure coincidence that merit is defined in such a way as to discount the unique contributions that non-cishet white people can make.

I particularly enjoy the implicit argument that non-cishet white people, if promoted, are much more likely to fail spectacularly, as if white dudes being promoted beyond the level of their incompetence wasn't a laughably common phenomenon.

The Mandolalorian is successful because of other leadership as Kennedy was focused on other things. Rogue One (A good movie overall) had contriversy with the representation of a dead actor without compensation, questionable use of deaging tech with a horrific (not completed) princess Leia at the end.

Not to mention the Indy 5 troubles and the High Republic tanking on all fronts. Kennedy being a woman is not a concern.

We just got past the Halloween weekend, hence the inclusion. Why bring up other issues behind it? It shouldn't matter how one dresses, what mannerisms they have, or how they like their coffee. It should matter how they can perform the duties given.

"Too Soon" Well, as others have said... this seems to be something that has been in the works since before the whole issue was brought to light. Both have been with the company for a time before this announcement.

Also, everyone, bear in mind the fact of how many of each particular group is in the populace. It isn't surprising that a lot of the people hired in companies around these United States are those that make of most of the people that live here. There are those that are quite successful in their field that are of minority makeup, and I am sure Paizo has some really great people working for and with them to produce, write and distribute content that are diverse and proud of their station in life.

This isn't anything, when all said and done. Two gentlemen got some extra duties, a nifty title, and a lot more responsibility.

Kennedy being a woman is not a concern.

It's such a non-concern that you brought it up, completely unprompted, in a conversation about an unrelated topic.

Also:

There are those that are quite successful in their field that are of minority makeup, and I am sure Paizo has some really great people working for and with them to produce, write and distribute content that are diverse and proud of their station in life.

What the hell?

"Diverse hiring has gone horribly wrong when merit and being qualified for the position is not considered. One only needs to look at the Lucasfilm fiasco with Kathleen Kennedy to see a very extreme example."

"Kennedy being a woman is not a concern."

Pick. One.

An all-white leadership team is the result of deliberate choices. Most of the people in this country are not white men. Most of the people in this hobby are not white men. You do not find yourself with an all-white, almost entirely male leadership team of a TTRPG company without artificially limiting the pool of potential candidates.

It's apparent that some people in this thread take issue with the very idea that non-majority perspectives have inherent value. Conveniently, this means that (even purely hypothetical!) candidates with those perspectives can be easily dismissed as lacking merit. Never mind, of course, that companies with diverse leadership have been shown time and time again to perform better than ones dominated by white men. We must only choose people based on merit! It's pure coincidence that merit is defined in such a way as to discount the unique contributions that non-cishet white people can make.

I particularly enjoy the implicit argument that non-cishet white people, if promoted, are much more likely to fail spectacularly, as if white dudes being promoted beyond the level of their incompetence wasn't a laughably common phenomenon.

Most stuff you write I can get behind, but RPGs not being mainly white men? Really? (It is has become more diverse…. but is not so diverse in this respect, even if it is an international hobby). I think a lot of the lack of representation you say is a function of the audience/hobbyists.

Still I do think that more diversity in players, people in the industry and leadership would be good.

However it can take a while for leadership to be as diverse as the general working populace. I have seen it in my company where you see more diversity in executive leadership now, but as executive leadership tends to have 30+ years of experience it reflects the industry as it was 30 years ago…..

Most stuff you write I can get behind, but RPGs not being mainly white men? Really?

Yes, really.

Interesting, but not what I observe. IF I look at an average gaming store ….they are still not particularly diverse. There are exceptions which are set-up differently, and try (and draw) a more diverse public….. but the majority not so much. It has become better over the years…… but it still not particularly diverse, but great to hear this is better in different locations.

Berhagen wrote:

Most stuff you write I can get behind, but RPGs not being mainly white men? Really?

Yes, really.

My gaming group is a rotation of about a dozen and a half people, none of which are white men, and when they play with other groups they're in, those are also not groups where white men are the majority. My partner's normal gaming circle features two white men out of about eight regular players.

All anecdotal, of course, but there's a handful of data points for you.

Interesting, but not what I observe. IF I look at an average gaming store ….they are still not particularly diverse. There are exceptions which are set-up differently, and try (and draw) a more diverse public….. but the majority not so much. It has become better over the years…… but it still not particularly diverse, but great to hear this is better in different locations.

I don't think the average FLGS is where the bulk of play happens anymore, or indeed ever; this has always been a hobby of people's houses, and increasingly a thing done over Discord servers and VTT clients. I haven't played an in-person game in... probably four years, and last played in a game store in closer to 7 or 8 - and I have not been starving for play.

"IF I look at an average gaming store"

Which tend to have reputations of not being the friendliest place for women or PoC.

Berhagen wrote:

Most stuff you write I can get behind, but RPGs not being mainly white men? Really?

Yes, really.

Not saying correct or incorrect but you need to back up your assertions with data. Most recent reports show white people still dominate hence why tons of streamers have worked damn hard to push for more diversity, equity and justice. To be clear being specific to TTRPGs.

I agree (most) gaming stores indeed (rightly) have that reputation, but it also impacted the community at large. Still good to hear that the different ways of playing (and buying) are changing it. Still I expect that there are many white men playing games…… but increased diversity is surely more than welcome…..

Not saying correct or incorrect but you need to back up your assertions with data.

Why would I bother? Is this the place to convince anyone about it?

Anorak wrote:

Not saying correct or incorrect but you need to back up your assertions with data.

Why would I bother? Is this the place to convince anyone about it?

Well it may play into the selection of white male executives into paizo leadership. But then it probably reflects the industry/hobby of 30 years ago (even) more than that of today…

Why would the Big Two Owners make this move? That's the key to understanding all of this.

Anorak wrote:

Not saying correct or incorrect but you need to back up your assertions with data.

Why would I bother? Is this the place to convince anyone about it?

Why bring it up in the first place then?

I didn't.

[Star Wars] the High Republic tanking on all fronts.

...off-topic, but while you're entitled to your opinion about that series, all of the books are New York Times bestsellers, and the comics have been selling well too, so I don't know if "tanking on all fronts" is quite accurate (and Kathleen Kennedy had little to no direct involvement in those anyway). She was also personally chosen by the franchise's creator, and had decades of experience, so hardly a "diversity hire". Bringing it back to the discussion, the success of a publishing initiative with diverse creators and characters is probably a good example of why diversity is, in fact, good for business as well as being ethical.

I have nothing against either of these guys or the idea of promoting them, but I agree with others here that it'd be nice to have a leadership team that isn't so monochromatic. And in no situation would that involve randomly hiring the first person of color they see on the street regardless of their skill or experience; that's just a fiction created to justify the predominance of white men in these industries, consciously or not.

White men make up roughly 30% of the US population and 40% of Washington state's, both quite a bit less than 6/7. I'm not trying to make any accusations here, but the math does not work out.