3 ms·

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,

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.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
There's certainly times when a certain demographic gets in more. Although, your second contrived example (Hooters) fails too as many are A-cups that use pushup bra's. Learned that from many ladies that worked at many of them and the ones with smaller tits often outperformed. Once again, you'd have a less qualified (and profitable) worker if you judged Hooters girls by actual Hooter size. I can't even remember a good one with D size at last one I went to. The best were cute but got results on straight-up personality: making it fun for their customers and making them feel like the center of the universe. Customer service 101. Anyway, back to what I think your point is. There are two ways of looking at the quota perspective. One is that it's wrong because you get unqualified people and it doesn't change anything. The other is that a version of it is necessary because otherwise nothing will change. I still go back and forth on the issue myself other than a few points: clearly don't hire unqualified or way less qualified people just for a quota; ensure people get why it exists to reduce inevitable fighting internally; have reasonable cut-off points for applying it (eg 30% women is OK). All that said, we've had many decades of attempting the default method you mention. The result was/is systematic discrimination across the board. The OP's Silicon Valley numbers of potential vs hired is a good example. Navy was a perfect example. I also remember a clever experiment where the same great resumes were sent to companies in cities all over the us. Identical resumes different only by the name: one obviously white and one black. The whites got calls 70% of time on a good resume. Rednecks were expecting Blacks to get maybe 60% or something with a little discrimination. Try 30%. We're talking same great skills and background... just the name was enough to disqualify. At this level of bias, the solution isn't going to be popular, clearly not spontaneous, and will likely involve quotas or something. It has to be rather forced because there's no attempt to do it willingly. Quite a statement in itself given talent they're denying. The overall result is that people aren't finding whose best for the position. There's actually little evidence to support that they ever did. The data shows that people, maybe you or maybe not, pick who they feel is the best fit for their organization and the best for the position. If your white or male, the "best" candidate is likely to be the same even if the others would objectively outscore them & do a good job. This goes on even when we present objective criteria proving a superior candidate, skill, etc: they just make excuses for decision. Preaching didn't work. Showing the extra profit and competitiveness didn't work. Showing companies that did this were ON TOP didn't work. What's next outside initiatives such as quotas FOR QUALIFIED PEOPLE in other demographics? (Emphasis to be clear if I haven't as I don't want unqualified people at all.) Self-driven model doesn't work because few will do it. So, we need something else. It's why I'm exploring data-driven methods as a potential alternative to straight quotas. I'm also calling out Silicon Valley on being able to systematically, analytically, and technologically solve everything except getting people from a talent pool without discrimination. There's gotta be good tactics in those bright minds. If nothings happening, it's because whoever is in charge doesn't WANT it to happen.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

There's certainly times when a certain demographic gets in more. Although, your second contrived example (Hooters) fails too as many are A-cups that use pushup bra's. Learned that from many ladies that worked at many of them and the ones with smaller tits often outperformed. Once again, you'd have a less qualified (and profitable) worker if you judged Hooters girls by actual Hooter size. I can't even remember a good one with D size at last one I went to. The best were cute but got results on straight-up personality: making it fun for their customers and making them feel like the center of the universe. Customer service 101. Anyway, back to what I think your point is. There are two ways of looking at the quota perspective. One is that it's wrong because you get unqualified people and it doesn't change anything. The other is that a version of it is necessary because otherwise nothing will change. I still go back and forth on the issue myself other than a few points: clearly don't hire unqualified or way less qualified people just for a quota; ensure people get why it exists to reduce inevitable fighting internally; have reasonable cut-off points for applying it (eg 30% women is OK). All that said, we've had many decades of attempting the default method you mention. The result was/is systematic discrimination across the board. The OP's Silicon Valley numbers of potential vs hired is a good example. Navy was a perfect example. I also remember a clever experiment where the same great resumes were sent to companies in cities all over the us. Identical resumes different only by the name: one obviously white and one black. The whites got calls 70% of time on a good resume. Rednecks were expecting Blacks to get maybe 60% or something with a little discrimination. Try 30%. We're talking same great skills and background... just the name was enough to disqualify. At this level of bias, the solution isn't going to be popular, clearly not spontaneous, and will likely involve quotas or something. It has to be rather forced because there's no attempt to do it willingly. Quite a statement in itself given talent they're denying. The overall result is that people aren't finding whose best for the position. There's actually little evidence to support that they ever did. The data shows that people, maybe you or maybe not, pick who they feel is the best fit for their organization and the best for the position. If your white or male, the "best" candidate is likely to be the same even if the others would objectively outscore them & do a good job. This goes on even when we present objective criteria proving a superior candidate, skill, etc: they just make excuses for decision. Preaching didn't work. Showing the extra profit and competitiveness didn't work. Showing companies that did this were ON TOP didn't work. What's next outside initiatives such as quotas FOR QUALIFIED PEOPLE in other demographics? (Emphasis to be clear if I haven't as I don't want unqualified people at all.) Self-driven model doesn't work because few will do it. So, we need something else. It's why I'm exploring data-driven methods as a potential alternative to straight quotas. I'm also calling out Silicon Valley on being able to systematically, analytically, and technologically solve everything except getting people from a talent pool without discrimination. There's gotta be good tactics in those bright minds. If nothings happening, it's because whoever is in charge doesn't WANT it to happen.