5 ms·

This is a case where two blatant truths are hard to swallow together. 1. People define themselves via their career and their hobbies and these are often correl

This is a case where two blatant truths are hard to swallow together. 1. People define themselves via their career and their hobbies and these are often correlated with certain races and genders. This gives rise to a kind of social-gravity that attracts those type of people more than others. 2. People prefer to work with friends. Taken together you can have highly homogenous companies that were built from the group up without a single racist or sexist thought. So its not as simple as "I'm definitely NOT a racist."

Cshelton 11y ago
So what I fail to understand is that, if those two reasons are why we end up with these homogeneous companies, why is that a problem? If the field your company is in is something that is predominately an Asian culture thing along with being mostly appealing to males, why is it bad that your company may consist of mostly Asian males? To me, those would be the ones who understand their target market the most and can relate to their customers. Even a company that has a very diversified customer base may be be made up of mostly Asian Males, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think it's wrong to see a company that isn't "diversified" in the way this article puts it, and think it needs to change. The sheep of political correctness have made too much of an impact on people and for some reason today it's wrong to take any stance that disagrees with the popular opinion. If I want to start a company with all white females, I should be able to. Is it the best for the company, probably not, but that shouldn't matter. Yes I know employer discrimination laws makes this illegal, it's just an example. If my company sold products to west Texas oil men, guess what, I can't have anybody wearing a turban. That is just the ugly truth. We are human. People will not like other people just because they are different, by appearance and culturally. Hiding this truth behind a veil of ignorance does not solve anything. It seems most people today lie to themselves to stay politically correct in the public eye. Yet they know their own believe is different. Section 8 housing has seen this problem. People want to live next to similar people, both wealth, status, cultural, etc. When they declare a property section 8 in a neighborhood like that, the neighborhood's property values decline and people move. If my company had a strong culture full of people with similar ideas and views, and I forcefully put people in for the sake of "diversity", I would most likely create tension among some employees and possibly lose productivity, cohesiveness, or talent. Sorry for the rant, I guess my TLDR is: Don't think you have to be diverse (racially and gender wise) for the sake of being diverse and public opinion. We are human, don't hide what you believe and don't sacrifice your morals to be politically correct. I should never have to defend myself by saying "I'm definitely NOT a racist." for who I employee or choose to spend my time with. To clarify though, I do not have a company full of Asian Males or any other dominant race or gender combination, it was just an example.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I'm as anti-PC as they come. However, I'm not about to ignore the real problems when they show up. This is one of them. The pattern you describe results in systematic alienation of a huge chunk of our population, all kinds of social problems (including crime), and more practically a loss to both the companies and our country when we ignore our potential, top performers. The Navy example cited showed the women were outperforming the men left and right but the bias prevented them from moving up. Had more moved up before, the Navy would've possibly been more effective across the board and would continue as their judgement applied to the next group of candidates. Every study I looked at on diversity in the workplace showed positive results from the more diverse workplaces. Let's not hypothesize as you did when there's real examples to draw on. In tech, the workplaces of larger companies that are rated best for women specifically include Facebook, Google, Qualcomm, Intel, Texas Instruments, Apple, and Microsoft. Know what they have in common? They own entire markets with massive bankrolls and constant adaptation despite highly-competitive markets that bankrupt many other firms. Might blow your mind that using the best talent rather than just white, males translates to better business decisions, better tech, more money, a healthier economy, and so on. It's why the Nordic countries voluntarily did quotas in high-level business and government positions when they saw the same problem. They don't need quotas now that things are more even and the results were similarly good. Now, back to your made-up example. The most successful, innovative Asian companies open up operations in many countries hiring locals for operations, marketing, and R&D. They mix talent and ideas from all of them. They also acquire foreign companies for their I.P. and talent. The result: they make billions dominating markets. Toyota, Samsung, and Fujitsu come to mind. On other hand, there are companies like your all-Asian, male firm that avoids all other types: they're called factories and service firms that barely make it to No 4 in their non-innovative industries. In America, we should aim a bit higher and not be left behind by foreign competition. Starting in Silicon Valley...
  - Cshelton 11y ago
    I'm not advocating to actively hire one demographic. I will always advocate the best individual for the job. In some cases, whether it's sales or even Hooters, where obviously "gifted" females are sought after, it might be directed at one demographic. Odds are if you are a U.S. company and want to expand sales into China, you would most likely have a predominately Chinese sales team doing it. That's just how it works, they are best fit for the job. The view of looking at a company and saying "it's not diverse enough" I believe is wrong. If all the people at said company were hired based on merit and best suited for the job, and it ends up being largely one demographic, do you think by using an Affirmative Action style hiring spree will make it better? That is what I'm saying should not be done. The fact that companies will see they are 20% women, and then when given the choice to hire for a position out of 5 candidates, they are told, get the 1 female in that group. Despite a male in the group is better suited for the position. All in the name of "diversity". That is wrong and something we need to get rid of. The same is true in a vise versa scenario as well. Fashion is an interesting world that comes to mind. Many female clothing lines are actually behind a male name and designed by males. Many male clothing lines are designed by females. Sure it's easy to show a company, or the Navy, that has mostly hired males in the past which now hires more females, improve performance. That is re-balancing previous discrimination. Going forward though, they should not try to right their past wrongs by compensating on the other end, they should simply hire the best candidate for the position. I'm not sure if my point is getting across. I'm not necessarily against what you re saying. If i have a start-up and I need to hire 10 people. I'm not going to say I'l hire 5 males, 5 females, 3 will be white, 3 will be Asian, 2 will be Hispanic, and the others international. NO. I will hire who I find that's best for the position. At the end of the day, if I end up with 9 males and 1 female, and out of the males 7 of them are white, this should not be looked down upon. When I go to hire the 11th employee, the demographics of the previous 10 employees should not matter. Today it seems like people will say, because we have 7 white males, we can't hire an additional white male. That is so F'ed up and needs to stop. It's wrong on so many levels. The best candidates in all positions will make the company preform best overall, period.

Cshelton 11y ago

So what I fail to understand is that, if those two reasons are why we end up with these homogeneous companies, why is that a problem? If the field your company is in is something that is predominately an Asian culture thing along with being mostly appealing to males, why is it bad that your company may consist of mostly Asian males? To me, those would be the ones who understand their target market the most and can relate to their customers. Even a company that has a very diversified customer base may be be made up of mostly Asian Males, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think it's wrong to see a company that isn't "diversified" in the way this article puts it, and think it needs to change. The sheep of political correctness have made too much of an impact on people and for some reason today it's wrong to take any stance that disagrees with the popular opinion. If I want to start a company with all white females, I should be able to. Is it the best for the company, probably not, but that shouldn't matter. Yes I know employer discrimination laws makes this illegal, it's just an example. If my company sold products to west Texas oil men, guess what, I can't have anybody wearing a turban. That is just the ugly truth. We are human. People will not like other people just because they are different, by appearance and culturally. Hiding this truth behind a veil of ignorance does not solve anything. It seems most people today lie to themselves to stay politically correct in the public eye. Yet they know their own believe is different. Section 8 housing has seen this problem. People want to live next to similar people, both wealth, status, cultural, etc. When they declare a property section 8 in a neighborhood like that, the neighborhood's property values decline and people move. If my company had a strong culture full of people with similar ideas and views, and I forcefully put people in for the sake of "diversity", I would most likely create tension among some employees and possibly lose productivity, cohesiveness, or talent. Sorry for the rant, I guess my TLDR is: Don't think you have to be diverse (racially and gender wise) for the sake of being diverse and public opinion. We are human, don't hide what you believe and don't sacrifice your morals to be politically correct. I should never have to defend myself by saying "I'm definitely NOT a racist." for who I employee or choose to spend my time with. To clarify though, I do not have a company full of Asian Males or any other dominant race or gender combination, it was just an example.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
I'm as anti-PC as they come. However, I'm not about to ignore the real problems when they show up. This is one of them. The pattern you describe results in systematic alienation of a huge chunk of our population, all kinds of social problems (including crime), and more practically a loss to both the companies and our country when we ignore our potential, top performers. The Navy example cited showed the women were outperforming the men left and right but the bias prevented them from moving up. Had more moved up before, the Navy would've possibly been more effective across the board and would continue as their judgement applied to the next group of candidates. Every study I looked at on diversity in the workplace showed positive results from the more diverse workplaces. Let's not hypothesize as you did when there's real examples to draw on. In tech, the workplaces of larger companies that are rated best for women specifically include Facebook, Google, Qualcomm, Intel, Texas Instruments, Apple, and Microsoft. Know what they have in common? They own entire markets with massive bankrolls and constant adaptation despite highly-competitive markets that bankrupt many other firms. Might blow your mind that using the best talent rather than just white, males translates to better business decisions, better tech, more money, a healthier economy, and so on. It's why the Nordic countries voluntarily did quotas in high-level business and government positions when they saw the same problem. They don't need quotas now that things are more even and the results were similarly good. Now, back to your made-up example. The most successful, innovative Asian companies open up operations in many countries hiring locals for operations, marketing, and R&D. They mix talent and ideas from all of them. They also acquire foreign companies for their I.P. and talent. The result: they make billions dominating markets. Toyota, Samsung, and Fujitsu come to mind. On other hand, there are companies like your all-Asian, male firm that avoids all other types: they're called factories and service firms that barely make it to No 4 in their non-innovative industries. In America, we should aim a bit higher and not be left behind by foreign competition. Starting in Silicon Valley...
- Cshelton 11y ago
  I'm not advocating to actively hire one demographic. I will always advocate the best individual for the job. In some cases, whether it's sales or even Hooters, where obviously "gifted" females are sought after, it might be directed at one demographic. Odds are if you are a U.S. company and want to expand sales into China, you would most likely have a predominately Chinese sales team doing it. That's just how it works, they are best fit for the job. The view of looking at a company and saying "it's not diverse enough" I believe is wrong. If all the people at said company were hired based on merit and best suited for the job, and it ends up being largely one demographic, do you think by using an Affirmative Action style hiring spree will make it better? That is what I'm saying should not be done. The fact that companies will see they are 20% women, and then when given the choice to hire for a position out of 5 candidates, they are told, get the 1 female in that group. Despite a male in the group is better suited for the position. All in the name of "diversity". That is wrong and something we need to get rid of. The same is true in a vise versa scenario as well. Fashion is an interesting world that comes to mind. Many female clothing lines are actually behind a male name and designed by males. Many male clothing lines are designed by females. Sure it's easy to show a company, or the Navy, that has mostly hired males in the past which now hires more females, improve performance. That is re-balancing previous discrimination. Going forward though, they should not try to right their past wrongs by compensating on the other end, they should simply hire the best candidate for the position. I'm not sure if my point is getting across. I'm not necessarily against what you re saying. If i have a start-up and I need to hire 10 people. I'm not going to say I'l hire 5 males, 5 females, 3 will be white, 3 will be Asian, 2 will be Hispanic, and the others international. NO. I will hire who I find that's best for the position. At the end of the day, if I end up with 9 males and 1 female, and out of the males 7 of them are white, this should not be looked down upon. When I go to hire the 11th employee, the demographics of the previous 10 employees should not matter. Today it seems like people will say, because we have 7 white males, we can't hire an additional white male. That is so F'ed up and needs to stop. It's wrong on so many levels. The best candidates in all positions will make the company preform best overall, period.