5 ms·

Why is it the responsibility of the companies to fix this? In the same way that it seems perverse that Apple is the one standing up to the USG on privacy, why

Why is it the responsibility of the companies to fix this? In the same way that it seems perverse that Apple is the one standing up to the USG on privacy, why do companies bear the moral responsibility for fixing social ills? The only way a company should be responsible for hiring underrepresented minorities is if there was a market inefficiency to be exploited. And even then, that's a responsibility to their shareholders, not to society. And "we hire black people because we don't have to pay them as much" probably wouldn't go over too well, anyway.

zephharben 11y ago
Companies don't bear any moral responsibilities - people do Hiring managers and executives should use all of the tools at their disposal in the context of recruitment and hiring - including moral and ethical judgement. Setting moral responsibilities aside - if you want to hire talented, passionate engineers like me, you will get serious about building teams with people from diverse backgrounds.
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  >if you want to hire talented, passionate engineers like me, you will get serious about building teams with people from diverse backgrounds. There's a pretty major leap in logic, there. What does diversity have to do with talented, passionate engineering teams? Companies like Honda and Toyota have some of the least diverse engineering teams on the planet, and yet they have a well-earned reputation for engineering excellence. You may want a company to take diversity seriously, and there are many others who feel the same way. But it doesn't follow that maximizing diversity is therefor an imperative for companies that want to have world-class teams. In fact diversity seems to be orthogonal to competence.
  - zephharben 11y ago
    I'll rephrase that - if you want to hire ME, you need to take this stuff seriously. I wasn't delving into the merits of diversity - I believe in it; I'm seeing it put to the test every day at my company, and I like what I see. > it doesn't follow that maximizing diversity is therefor an imperative for companies that want to have world-class teams. Diversity isn't about addition/subtraction, nor is it calculus; it's not even sociology, macroeconomics, or socioeconomics. Diversity is about adaptive systems. > In fact diversity seems to be orthogonal to competence. I'll concede this point, but only with the substitution of "productivity" for "competence". Homogenous teams can outperform diverse teams, IN THE SHORT TERM. Diversity may lead directly to inefficiency and conflict. In the short term, these are painful inhibitors to productivity. In the long term, diversity of backgrounds, capabilities and perspectives - properly aligned - can be a huge asset. If you are building a new company, and you want to beat the world, you'd be foolish to hire a bunch of people who think about things the same way that you do.
YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
>> why do companies bear the moral responsibility for fixing social ills? Er, because they're part of society? And because in the case of giants of the corporate world, like Apple, Facebook and Microsoft, they actually do have the wherewithal to influence that society to a degree that even governments often don't?
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  They also have the wherewithal to solve homelessness. Is that also their responsibility? Corporations are, like Westphalian nation-states, explicitly amoral entities. The extent to which they behave morally is due to market and/or political pressure, not any inherent moral judgement. Apple makes consumer devices. That's their business. They have a responsibility to make the greatest possible profit selling those devices. That's where their responsibility begins and ends. Now, there are all sorts of moral dimensions that can affect their decisions. If their phones were made with slave labour, people might not buy them and talent might not want to work for them. But the reason Apple doesn't employ slave labour isn't because it is a moral entity; it isn't. Apple doesn't employ slave labour because doing so would hurt its bottom line. If you want companies to behave in an ethical fashion, you need to align legal, social, market, tax, and other incentives in order to push them in that direction. Expecting them to do so out of the goodness of their hearts is quixotic: they have no hearts with which to be good.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
    >> If you want companies to behave in an ethical fashion, you need to align legal, social, market, tax, and other incentives in order to push them in that direction. Expecting them to do so out of the goodness of their hearts is quixotic: they have no hearts with which to be good. You mean, if I want the big companies to do good (or "not do evil") I have to pay up to them? But the people who make up those big companies also have to live in the same society as everyone else. So they should already have an incentive to do good to those societies- they will personally benefit from that good-doing. Why do they need me, or anyone else, to provide that incentive? We all live in the same world, we all have a responsibility to be morally considerate in it. "Companies" are not "amoral entities", neither are nations. Because they are groups of lots of people, who all are subject to moral judgement. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse anymore, and neither should "I was just doing my job" be.

zephharben 11y ago

Companies don't bear any moral responsibilities - people do Hiring managers and executives should use all of the tools at their disposal in the context of recruitment and hiring - including moral and ethical judgement. Setting moral responsibilities aside - if you want to hire talented, passionate engineers like me, you will get serious about building teams with people from diverse backgrounds.

redthrowaway 11y ago
>if you want to hire talented, passionate engineers like me, you will get serious about building teams with people from diverse backgrounds. There's a pretty major leap in logic, there. What does diversity have to do with talented, passionate engineering teams? Companies like Honda and Toyota have some of the least diverse engineering teams on the planet, and yet they have a well-earned reputation for engineering excellence. You may want a company to take diversity seriously, and there are many others who feel the same way. But it doesn't follow that maximizing diversity is therefor an imperative for companies that want to have world-class teams. In fact diversity seems to be orthogonal to competence.
- zephharben 11y ago
  I'll rephrase that - if you want to hire ME, you need to take this stuff seriously. I wasn't delving into the merits of diversity - I believe in it; I'm seeing it put to the test every day at my company, and I like what I see. > it doesn't follow that maximizing diversity is therefor an imperative for companies that want to have world-class teams. Diversity isn't about addition/subtraction, nor is it calculus; it's not even sociology, macroeconomics, or socioeconomics. Diversity is about adaptive systems. > In fact diversity seems to be orthogonal to competence. I'll concede this point, but only with the substitution of "productivity" for "competence". Homogenous teams can outperform diverse teams, IN THE SHORT TERM. Diversity may lead directly to inefficiency and conflict. In the short term, these are painful inhibitors to productivity. In the long term, diversity of backgrounds, capabilities and perspectives - properly aligned - can be a huge asset. If you are building a new company, and you want to beat the world, you'd be foolish to hire a bunch of people who think about things the same way that you do.

YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago

>> why do companies bear the moral responsibility for fixing social ills? Er, because they're part of society? And because in the case of giants of the corporate world, like Apple, Facebook and Microsoft, they actually do have the wherewithal to influence that society to a degree that even governments often don't?

redthrowaway 11y ago
They also have the wherewithal to solve homelessness. Is that also their responsibility? Corporations are, like Westphalian nation-states, explicitly amoral entities. The extent to which they behave morally is due to market and/or political pressure, not any inherent moral judgement. Apple makes consumer devices. That's their business. They have a responsibility to make the greatest possible profit selling those devices. That's where their responsibility begins and ends. Now, there are all sorts of moral dimensions that can affect their decisions. If their phones were made with slave labour, people might not buy them and talent might not want to work for them. But the reason Apple doesn't employ slave labour isn't because it is a moral entity; it isn't. Apple doesn't employ slave labour because doing so would hurt its bottom line. If you want companies to behave in an ethical fashion, you need to align legal, social, market, tax, and other incentives in order to push them in that direction. Expecting them to do so out of the goodness of their hearts is quixotic: they have no hearts with which to be good.
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
  >> If you want companies to behave in an ethical fashion, you need to align legal, social, market, tax, and other incentives in order to push them in that direction. Expecting them to do so out of the goodness of their hearts is quixotic: they have no hearts with which to be good. You mean, if I want the big companies to do good (or "not do evil") I have to pay up to them? But the people who make up those big companies also have to live in the same society as everyone else. So they should already have an incentive to do good to those societies- they will personally benefit from that good-doing. Why do they need me, or anyone else, to provide that incentive? We all live in the same world, we all have a responsibility to be morally considerate in it. "Companies" are not "amoral entities", neither are nations. Because they are groups of lots of people, who all are subject to moral judgement. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse anymore, and neither should "I was just doing my job" be.