5 ms·

Why Diversity Matters

35 points by danielharan 17y ago

araneae 17y ago
A lack of demographic diversity is only an indicator of a lack of meritocracy if you believe that bias is responsible for the lack of diversity. For you, diversity might be important, but for your trash-talking colleagues it's probably irrelevant. (Even if you buy that a lack of meritocracy is generally demoralizing, which I think is a pretty weak claim.)
- eries 17y ago
  Clearly it's not important for those colleagues. I'm honestly curious as to why, given that I believe that the behavior in question seems to me anti-meritocratic (because it drives away worthy people from wanting to work with your team). I also don't think "trash-talking" is really the right phrase, as it connotes a kind of equal back-and-forth among peers. That's not the behavior I observe; usually it's pretty one-sided.
patio11 17y ago
The lean startup crowd exalts the power of data to overturn shadow beliefs about what is good for the business that more reflect the personal opinions of the people in charge rather than the reality on the ground. I say this with the utmost respect: "diversity leads to innovation/meritocracy" is a shadow belief (just like "all good programmers are geeky white males from MIT or Stanford" is a shadow belief). It may be true. It may also be catastrophically untrue. I'm agnostic. I can afford to be agnostic about this since I'm one guy in a rice field and nobody's opinions on diversity will change the race/gender/etc composition of my business (kinda hard to do with a one-man team), but if you're making hiring decisions based on this, you might want to start thinking of process design decisions which place more emphasis on the data and less on shadow beliefs. (Possible solution not accounted for above: I suppose if you value diversity as an end goal to itself, then you could run your business in such a way as to maximize it even if it was not optimal among other axes.)
- hartror 17y ago
  As a "man on the ground" with a team to manage/hire/fire I have found what Eric says in his post to be quite true. It has been very helpful for my team have a wide range of races, disciplines and of course genders. I don't see anything revolutionary in what Eric espouses and in practice I've found them to be quite successful in helping my team keep moving in the right direction. ps. I come from a technical not business background but have taken on more of that role as the years have progressed.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - mynameishere 17y ago
    There are dueling definitions of "diversity" going on. That book seems (judging from the amazon description) to be talking about diversity of opinion. Cultural/religious/racial diversity is a different thing. http://www.amazon.com/Distrust-American-Style-Diversity-Confidence/dp/159102708X http://www.amazon.com/Distrust-American-Style-Diversity-Conf... And it results it flamboyantly insane thought patterns. Example, http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/11/08/general-casey-diversity-shouldnt-be-casualty-of-fort-hood/ http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/11/08/general-casey-d... “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” Casey said. Read: "In our particular organization, diversity is more important than not being killed." Also read: "I'm a 4-star general, and anyone who disagrees with this particular insanity is going to be in a shit load of trouble."
    - eries 17y ago
      I also attempted to address this point head-on: "To be clear, though, this diversity refers only to diversity of opinion, not necessarily to demographic diversity. So why is demographic diversity important? "Demographic diversity is an indicator. It’s a reasonable inference that a group that is homogeneous in appearance was probably chosen by a biased selector."
blasdel 17y ago
Your analogy between all-male developer/ops teams and all-female marketing/PR teams is really apt -- both groups feel alienated by the other, but neither will internalize how alienating they themselves are to the other.
seldo 17y ago
It is ridiculously embarrassing that in 2010 when a tech person talks about "diversity" they mean "we should hire more women". Women are the majority of the population! And yet here we are.
- eries 17y ago
  I couldn't agree more.
- GFischer 17y ago
  However, for the hiring age most start-ups are considering, there are more men than women, not taking into account education or other factors (Between 1990 and 2000, the male population grew slightly faster than the female population). Women are only the majority of the population (in the US) because they live longer. Immigrants with tech backgrounds tend to be mostly males, too (and probably immigrants period). (some data taken from http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html . More data I didn't look into here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/women02.html http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/women02.html )
- gacba 17y ago
  It was embarrassing back in 1990 when I was in engineering school ("we need more female engineering students!"). What's really embarrassing is that we're still having the same debates 20 years later.
jacoblyles 17y ago
>"So when a team lacks diversity, that’s a bad sign. What are the odds that the decisions that were made to create that team were really meritocratic? " By what kind of a priori logic does the author presume that any given meritocratic filter will happen to have an equal pass rate along arbitrarily chosen orthogonal characteristics such as race and gender? For any given test for any kind of ability, I would be shocked if the population selected happened to perfectly fit the hiring-brochure rainbow. It's just not very likely. It is very possible that a more meritocratic selection procedure results in less diversity. In fact, that's precisely what happened when California passed a referendum in the late 90s to forbid considering race in admissions to the University of California. The process became less biased and the results became less diverse. My apologies to the author's preconceived ideas. >"Demographic diversity is an indicator. It’s a reasonable inference that a group that is homogeneous in appearance was probably chosen by a biased selector. Even if men have an innate advantage at software development, the gap would have to be massive in order to explain why startup after startup has an all-male team." Innate biological gender differences are not the only cause of differential average programming ability between gender populations. Sociological factors matter too. While some of these sociological forces may be unjust and we might want to address them, that does not change the fact that by the time they reach adulthood the population of qualified programmers has many more males than females. Thus, a lack of diversity can emerge from a just meritocratic process. The thinking here is just sloppy.
- eries 17y ago
  > By what kind of a priori logic does the author presume > that any given meritocratic filter will happen to have > an equal pass rate along arbitrarily chosen orthogonal > characteristics such as race and gender? I don't think that's a correct reading of the argument. The right question to ask is "What would have to be true about the underlying population to support the observed result that a particular startup is 100% male?" Let's assume that there is significant "differential average programming ability between gender populations" and that this has a combination of biological and sociological causes. Even so, I think we can agree that the two populations are probably normally distributed around each average, right? Now, is it safe to assume a roughly equal standard deviation for both curves? I'm not aware of any data to suggest otherwise. So now we can be specific: how large would that differential have to be before we find ourselves in the part of the curve that has many men but basically no women? I haven't done the math, as it seems intuitive to me that this is going to yield an absurd result, namely, that men would have to have an overwhelming advantage. At that point, it seems more reasonable to me to infer that we have a selection bias in our filter, than that the curves are so far apart in reality. My personal, albeit anecdotal, experience has given me no reason to doubt that conclusion, either. So, I don't think the argument depends on an equal pass rate, and I think it stands up even if you believe in substantial gender differences, regardless of cause.
grellas 17y ago
The type of proposition set forth here is more relevant to an academic debate over women in the tech workforce than it is to any real-world decisions about who to bring in to your founding team. Why? Because founders get together in teams based mostly on knowing each other, having worked together, hearing about one another's reputation, and the like. The focus is on merit as displayed by real individuals that one knows or hears about and not merit as tied to some form of abstraction such as "diversity." This does not mean that diverse teams can't come together. They can and do all the time. But it does mean that, if a non-diverse team of founders sees one another as the best people for the venture at hand, no one in a normal real-world situation is going to say, "This won't work because we are not diverse enough." In such cases, founders simply do not measure merit by this sort of criterion - it is hard enough finding good co-founders without superimposing arbitrary rules on top of an already difficult process! My point is that "diversity" as an abstraction simply does not figure into most decisions about how to constitute a founding team when it comes to specific cases. Thus, while the argument of this piece may be commendable, I think it approaches the issue from an ineffective perspective with its focus on the constitution of founding teams. Men and women alike are free to form whatever founding teams they like and they will do so or not for specific reasons relating to the merits of the individuals involved, not based on "merit" that is defined by gender-based averages or assumptions.

35 points by danielharan 17y ago

A lack of demographic diversity is only an indicator of a lack of meritocracy if you believe that bias is responsible for the lack of diversity. For you, diversity might be important, but for your trash-talking colleagues it's probably irrelevant. (Even if you buy that a lack of meritocracy is generally demoralizing, which I think is a pretty weak claim.)

eries 17y ago
Clearly it's not important for those colleagues. I'm honestly curious as to why, given that I believe that the behavior in question seems to me anti-meritocratic (because it drives away worthy people from wanting to work with your team). I also don't think "trash-talking" is really the right phrase, as it connotes a kind of equal back-and-forth among peers. That's not the behavior I observe; usually it's pretty one-sided.

patio11 17y ago

The lean startup crowd exalts the power of data to overturn shadow beliefs about what is good for the business that more reflect the personal opinions of the people in charge rather than the reality on the ground. I say this with the utmost respect: "diversity leads to innovation/meritocracy" is a shadow belief (just like "all good programmers are geeky white males from MIT or Stanford" is a shadow belief). It may be true. It may also be catastrophically untrue. I'm agnostic. I can afford to be agnostic about this since I'm one guy in a rice field and nobody's opinions on diversity will change the race/gender/etc composition of my business (kinda hard to do with a one-man team), but if you're making hiring decisions based on this, you might want to start thinking of process design decisions which place more emphasis on the data and less on shadow beliefs. (Possible solution not accounted for above: I suppose if you value diversity as an end goal to itself, then you could run your business in such a way as to maximize it even if it was not optimal among other axes.)

hartror 17y ago
As a "man on the ground" with a team to manage/hire/fire I have found what Eric says in his post to be quite true. It has been very helpful for my team have a wide range of races, disciplines and of course genders. I don't see anything revolutionary in what Eric espouses and in practice I've found them to be quite successful in helping my team keep moving in the right direction. ps. I come from a technical not business background but have taken on more of that role as the years have progressed.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- mynameishere 17y ago
  There are dueling definitions of "diversity" going on. That book seems (judging from the amazon description) to be talking about diversity of opinion. Cultural/religious/racial diversity is a different thing. http://www.amazon.com/Distrust-American-Style-Diversity-Confidence/dp/159102708X http://www.amazon.com/Distrust-American-Style-Diversity-Conf... And it results it flamboyantly insane thought patterns. Example, http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/11/08/general-casey-diversity-shouldnt-be-casualty-of-fort-hood/ http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/11/08/general-casey-d... “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” Casey said. Read: "In our particular organization, diversity is more important than not being killed." Also read: "I'm a 4-star general, and anyone who disagrees with this particular insanity is going to be in a shit load of trouble."
  - eries 17y ago
    I also attempted to address this point head-on: "To be clear, though, this diversity refers only to diversity of opinion, not necessarily to demographic diversity. So why is demographic diversity important? "Demographic diversity is an indicator. It’s a reasonable inference that a group that is homogeneous in appearance was probably chosen by a biased selector."

blasdel 17y ago

Your analogy between all-male developer/ops teams and all-female marketing/PR teams is really apt -- both groups feel alienated by the other, but neither will internalize how alienating they themselves are to the other.

seldo 17y ago

It is ridiculously embarrassing that in 2010 when a tech person talks about "diversity" they mean "we should hire more women". Women are the majority of the population! And yet here we are.

eries 17y ago
I couldn't agree more.
GFischer 17y ago
However, for the hiring age most start-ups are considering, there are more men than women, not taking into account education or other factors (Between 1990 and 2000, the male population grew slightly faster than the female population). Women are only the majority of the population (in the US) because they live longer. Immigrants with tech backgrounds tend to be mostly males, too (and probably immigrants period). (some data taken from http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html . More data I didn't look into here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/women02.html http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/women02.html )
gacba 17y ago
It was embarrassing back in 1990 when I was in engineering school ("we need more female engineering students!"). What's really embarrassing is that we're still having the same debates 20 years later.

jacoblyles 17y ago

>"So when a team lacks diversity, that’s a bad sign. What are the odds that the decisions that were made to create that team were really meritocratic? " By what kind of a priori logic does the author presume that any given meritocratic filter will happen to have an equal pass rate along arbitrarily chosen orthogonal characteristics such as race and gender? For any given test for any kind of ability, I would be shocked if the population selected happened to perfectly fit the hiring-brochure rainbow. It's just not very likely. It is very possible that a more meritocratic selection procedure results in less diversity. In fact, that's precisely what happened when California passed a referendum in the late 90s to forbid considering race in admissions to the University of California. The process became less biased and the results became less diverse. My apologies to the author's preconceived ideas. >"Demographic diversity is an indicator. It’s a reasonable inference that a group that is homogeneous in appearance was probably chosen by a biased selector. Even if men have an innate advantage at software development, the gap would have to be massive in order to explain why startup after startup has an all-male team." Innate biological gender differences are not the only cause of differential average programming ability between gender populations. Sociological factors matter too. While some of these sociological forces may be unjust and we might want to address them, that does not change the fact that by the time they reach adulthood the population of qualified programmers has many more males than females. Thus, a lack of diversity can emerge from a just meritocratic process. The thinking here is just sloppy.

eries 17y ago
> By what kind of a priori logic does the author presume > that any given meritocratic filter will happen to have > an equal pass rate along arbitrarily chosen orthogonal > characteristics such as race and gender? I don't think that's a correct reading of the argument. The right question to ask is "What would have to be true about the underlying population to support the observed result that a particular startup is 100% male?" Let's assume that there is significant "differential average programming ability between gender populations" and that this has a combination of biological and sociological causes. Even so, I think we can agree that the two populations are probably normally distributed around each average, right? Now, is it safe to assume a roughly equal standard deviation for both curves? I'm not aware of any data to suggest otherwise. So now we can be specific: how large would that differential have to be before we find ourselves in the part of the curve that has many men but basically no women? I haven't done the math, as it seems intuitive to me that this is going to yield an absurd result, namely, that men would have to have an overwhelming advantage. At that point, it seems more reasonable to me to infer that we have a selection bias in our filter, than that the curves are so far apart in reality. My personal, albeit anecdotal, experience has given me no reason to doubt that conclusion, either. So, I don't think the argument depends on an equal pass rate, and I think it stands up even if you believe in substantial gender differences, regardless of cause.

grellas 17y ago

The type of proposition set forth here is more relevant to an academic debate over women in the tech workforce than it is to any real-world decisions about who to bring in to your founding team. Why? Because founders get together in teams based mostly on knowing each other, having worked together, hearing about one another's reputation, and the like. The focus is on merit as displayed by real individuals that one knows or hears about and not merit as tied to some form of abstraction such as "diversity." This does not mean that diverse teams can't come together. They can and do all the time. But it does mean that, if a non-diverse team of founders sees one another as the best people for the venture at hand, no one in a normal real-world situation is going to say, "This won't work because we are not diverse enough." In such cases, founders simply do not measure merit by this sort of criterion - it is hard enough finding good co-founders without superimposing arbitrary rules on top of an already difficult process! My point is that "diversity" as an abstraction simply does not figure into most decisions about how to constitute a founding team when it comes to specific cases. Thus, while the argument of this piece may be commendable, I think it approaches the issue from an ineffective perspective with its focus on the constitution of founding teams. Men and women alike are free to form whatever founding teams they like and they will do so or not for specific reasons relating to the merits of the individuals involved, not based on "merit" that is defined by gender-based averages or assumptions.