9 ms·

I don't understand why anyone would need a "diversity strategy". Just hire whoever seems like they would do the best job, and then spend the remainder of the ap

I don't understand why anyone would need a "diversity strategy". Just hire whoever seems like they would do the best job, and then spend the remainder of the apparently monumental effort that you would have spent executing your "diversity strategy" on improving your bottom line. It's ridiculous that we focus on the racial and gender makeup of applicants instead of just judging them on their accomplishments.

grzm 10y ago
Do you believe there are any disparities in demographics between the general population and a given field (such as tech)? What demographic do you belong to? How do you think these disparities might affect society as a whole? If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics? Edit to add: If you choose to reply, please include attempts at answering all of the questions. Note there's nothing in this comment that assumes that hiring is the appropriate (or only) place something (if anything) should be done. It's easy to dismiss this as only "yes, there are disparities, but it shouldn't be fixed here", or "equal opportunity". That's not the end of the conversation. What does a better solution look like?
- dongslol 10y ago
  Certainly, but why necessarily at the hiring level? Why is citing the pipeline problem inherently lazy?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- teacup50 10y ago
  > If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics? Target inequality of opportunity, and do not assume that differences in outcome are prima facie evidence of differences in opportunity. In other words, the pipeline is the place to solve this.
  - grzm 10y ago
    What does that look like in implementation? How do you ensure and measure its effectiveness? What rates of improvement should be acceptable?
    - edblarney 10y ago
      I'd suggest that a starting point could be to make sure that those hired roughly reflect the diversity of the talent pool being hired from. If they 'match' - then it's a roughly good indicator that the hiring process 'is fair'. As far as I know - this is generally true: the ratio of female engs. in the valley is roughly commensurate with the ratio of females graduating from Comp Sci. Which is actually positive news. Now - that's nowhere near the whole story, but at least it's a crude basic metric.
      - grzm 10y ago
        I tend to agree with you on the starting point and that it's a rough indicator. that's nowhere near the whole story I'm glad you acknowledge this. It's a story that tends to get abandoned after looking at the types of metrics you describe. I don't think that's what you're doing here, by the way. Just the fact you bring it up makes it clear you don't.
        edblarney 10y ago
        Thanks. But I often feel that that core metric is way too often overlooked by those lamenting injustice. The fact that 'the first rough metric' is pretty decent, I think speaks to the general fairness and goodwill in the tech industry. I've worked in tech my whole life - and without a doubt the people are pretty good. It can be a little guy-ish sometimes, and there are some bad-actors/companies, but I reject the idea that Tech is bad for women. Google and Facebook are probably 95% Obama voters, and progressive on almost every issue. To scream bigotry among this group is just too rich. So yes - the story does not end there, and there are clearly more obvious problems as you move up in management - but I also don't see an entire industry that's in some kind of trauma. Interesting tidbit: a survey of tech workers shows that men point primarily to the 'funnel problem' whereas women point to the 'lack of role models'. Which I thought was telling, and hints at an opportunity for improvement.
- mrweasel 10y ago
  >Do you believe there are any disparities in demographics between the general population and a given field (such as tech)? We see this EVERYWHERE, but we only care about a very very small subset of fields, such as tech and upper management. As long as no one is being discriminated, then I really don't care about the demographics in a field. People should be able to work in what ever field they're qualified for but I don't see the need to take speciel actions to get more black women into the programming for example.
  - grzm 10y ago
    How do you determine whether or not discrimination is partly responsible for the disparity?
    - mrweasel 10y ago
      I don't know, but I honestly don't see companies refusing to hire people on the basis of sex or gender, because it doesn't make finansiel sense.
      - grzm 10y ago
        I think I understand what you mean, but I find it problematic. Do I understand you to mean unless a company refuses to hire based on sex/gender across the board, there's no discrimination?
        mrweasel 10y ago
        Well yes, of cause there could be issues with the people doing the hiring discriminating, due to personal opinions. In the case from the article, with Facebook only hiring one black women, it's not really relevant, when we don't know how many black women applicants they had. Ignoring everything else they should have hired 30 black women, assuming California demographics. Honestly I think it's more to do with women picking other careers and more black people being poor and not having the resource to acquire the skills Facebook seek (which of cause it a problem in it self).
- Oxitendwe 10y ago
  >Do you believe there are any disparities in demographics between the general population and a given field (such as tech)? I don't have to believe it, if you look at any statistics on this subject, you'll see some pretty obvious and typical trends (not many male nurses, not many female coal miners, etc). >What demographic do you belong to? Won't you just discard my opinion if I'm not of a demographic that's "allowed" to have a valid opinion on this? The most I'll say is that if you guessed, you'd probably be wrong. >How do you think these disparities might affect society as a whole? I think the push to correct these disparities is very harmful to society as a whole, as people are pushed into fields they don't actually like to correct for statistics that don't even matter, and who displace and disadvantage people who did not have to be pushed into their field nor lured with preferential hiring. >If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics? I will answer that question with a question: Why does this disparity need to be corrected? Do all such disparities need to be corrected? Where is the push for gender diversity in offshore oil rigs and coal mines, or for elementary education and nursing? If some do, and some don't, how do you decide which disparities to be corrected, and which ones not to be? What do we get out of correcting these disparities? Many people, of a particular ideological demographic, believe gender disparities are solely attributed to social and cultural influences, and that women will have just as much interest in construction work and men will have just as much interest in nursing once you account for gender differences in socialization and upbringing and et cetera. I don't believe this has been proven. Without knowing that every demographic has equal interest and potential in every job, what's the value in making sure every demographic has equal membership in every field of employment?
  - grzm 10y ago
    There's a lot of defensiveness in your response, which is understandable given how charged a lot of these conversations can get. I've intentionally phrased the questions to allow for disagreement on whether these topics should even be a concern. As for discarding your opinion, I wouldn't be asking for it if my intent was to discard it. The idea that someone's opinion is valid depending on their demographic is troublesome. I do think that one needs to be reflective and honestly question how their opinion is shaped by their particular circumstance. As for the rest, it looks like it boils down for you that any disparity that currently exists is fine. The questions you raise regarding how to decide which disparities should be corrected I think is important and should be addressed, though my impression is that you think because this question is difficult (or exists at all) means the entire endeavor is invalid or should be discarded. If that's not your intent, I'm honestly interested in hearing your thoughts on them.
j_s 10y ago
Study: Efforts to Promote Workplace Meritocracy Can Have the Opposite Effect http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110502006774/en/Fair-Foul-MIT-Sloan-Researcher-Finds-Efforts http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110502006774/en/Fair... edit: My point is that throwing a "diversity strategy" completely in the trash "because meritocracy" doesn't make sense. I can't say the linked study is 100% applicable but hopefully it will open the door to consideration of the value of combining multiple approaches.
- teacup50 10y ago
  "Our findings simply demonstrate that the pursuit of meritocracy at the workplace may be more difficult than it first appears" That's not an indictment of pursuing a meritocracy.
- ve55 10y ago
  This seems like it's a problem with the people that were used in the study, not inherent within the system that they used. What would you suggest, after having read this, to not attempt meritocracy at all because it will be biased when those making the decisions are biased? Replace them with algorithms. Feed the algorithms objective metrics that you wish to optimize. This is much easier said that done, but now your meritocracy does what you intended it to do. If you encounter problems, the metrics are not what you want them to be, or the problems are problems at another level, which you cannot solve from changing this part of the system.
loki49152 10y ago
You don't understand something basic. The root of this "diversity" focus is an expression of the believers' own racism and sexism. They believe racism and sexism are true yet also bad, so they have to engage in an endless routine of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that their view of the world is somehow ok.none of this is meant to solve any problem other than the SJWs' ability to deal with reality.
jarek-foksa 10y ago
There is the conspiracy theory that the primary goal of diversity initiatives sponsored by big name corporations is to infiltrate the left wing / progressive movements. Then they can derail the political discourse away from important matters like corporate tax evasion, privacy evasion or capital overaccumulation. I'm not sure whether or to what extent it is true, but I'm defenitely not sold to the idea that they are pushing extremely polarising identity politics purely because of some idealistic reasons.

grzm 10y ago

Do you believe there are any disparities in demographics between the general population and a given field (such as tech)? What demographic do you belong to? How do you think these disparities might affect society as a whole? If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics? Edit to add: If you choose to reply, please include attempts at answering all of the questions. Note there's nothing in this comment that assumes that hiring is the appropriate (or only) place something (if anything) should be done. It's easy to dismiss this as only "yes, there are disparities, but it shouldn't be fixed here", or "equal opportunity". That's not the end of the conversation. What does a better solution look like?

dongslol 10y ago
Certainly, but why necessarily at the hiring level? Why is citing the pipeline problem inherently lazy?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
teacup50 10y ago
> If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics? Target inequality of opportunity, and do not assume that differences in outcome are prima facie evidence of differences in opportunity. In other words, the pipeline is the place to solve this.
- grzm 10y ago
  What does that look like in implementation? How do you ensure and measure its effectiveness? What rates of improvement should be acceptable?
  - edblarney 10y ago
    I'd suggest that a starting point could be to make sure that those hired roughly reflect the diversity of the talent pool being hired from. If they 'match' - then it's a roughly good indicator that the hiring process 'is fair'. As far as I know - this is generally true: the ratio of female engs. in the valley is roughly commensurate with the ratio of females graduating from Comp Sci. Which is actually positive news. Now - that's nowhere near the whole story, but at least it's a crude basic metric.
    - grzm 10y ago
      I tend to agree with you on the starting point and that it's a rough indicator. that's nowhere near the whole story I'm glad you acknowledge this. It's a story that tends to get abandoned after looking at the types of metrics you describe. I don't think that's what you're doing here, by the way. Just the fact you bring it up makes it clear you don't.
      - edblarney 10y ago
        Thanks. But I often feel that that core metric is way too often overlooked by those lamenting injustice. The fact that 'the first rough metric' is pretty decent, I think speaks to the general fairness and goodwill in the tech industry. I've worked in tech my whole life - and without a doubt the people are pretty good. It can be a little guy-ish sometimes, and there are some bad-actors/companies, but I reject the idea that Tech is bad for women. Google and Facebook are probably 95% Obama voters, and progressive on almost every issue. To scream bigotry among this group is just too rich. So yes - the story does not end there, and there are clearly more obvious problems as you move up in management - but I also don't see an entire industry that's in some kind of trauma. Interesting tidbit: a survey of tech workers shows that men point primarily to the 'funnel problem' whereas women point to the 'lack of role models'. Which I thought was telling, and hints at an opportunity for improvement.
mrweasel 10y ago
>Do you believe there are any disparities in demographics between the general population and a given field (such as tech)? We see this EVERYWHERE, but we only care about a very very small subset of fields, such as tech and upper management. As long as no one is being discriminated, then I really don't care about the demographics in a field. People should be able to work in what ever field they're qualified for but I don't see the need to take speciel actions to get more black women into the programming for example.
- grzm 10y ago
  How do you determine whether or not discrimination is partly responsible for the disparity?
  - mrweasel 10y ago
    I don't know, but I honestly don't see companies refusing to hire people on the basis of sex or gender, because it doesn't make finansiel sense.
    - grzm 10y ago
      I think I understand what you mean, but I find it problematic. Do I understand you to mean unless a company refuses to hire based on sex/gender across the board, there's no discrimination?
      - mrweasel 10y ago
        Well yes, of cause there could be issues with the people doing the hiring discriminating, due to personal opinions. In the case from the article, with Facebook only hiring one black women, it's not really relevant, when we don't know how many black women applicants they had. Ignoring everything else they should have hired 30 black women, assuming California demographics. Honestly I think it's more to do with women picking other careers and more black people being poor and not having the resource to acquire the skills Facebook seek (which of cause it a problem in it self).
Oxitendwe 10y ago
>Do you believe there are any disparities in demographics between the general population and a given field (such as tech)? I don't have to believe it, if you look at any statistics on this subject, you'll see some pretty obvious and typical trends (not many male nurses, not many female coal miners, etc). >What demographic do you belong to? Won't you just discard my opinion if I'm not of a demographic that's "allowed" to have a valid opinion on this? The most I'll say is that if you guessed, you'd probably be wrong. >How do you think these disparities might affect society as a whole? I think the push to correct these disparities is very harmful to society as a whole, as people are pushed into fields they don't actually like to correct for statistics that don't even matter, and who displace and disadvantage people who did not have to be pushed into their field nor lured with preferential hiring. >If there are disparities, what, if anything, do you think should be done to lessen the disparity in demographics? I will answer that question with a question: Why does this disparity need to be corrected? Do all such disparities need to be corrected? Where is the push for gender diversity in offshore oil rigs and coal mines, or for elementary education and nursing? If some do, and some don't, how do you decide which disparities to be corrected, and which ones not to be? What do we get out of correcting these disparities? Many people, of a particular ideological demographic, believe gender disparities are solely attributed to social and cultural influences, and that women will have just as much interest in construction work and men will have just as much interest in nursing once you account for gender differences in socialization and upbringing and et cetera. I don't believe this has been proven. Without knowing that every demographic has equal interest and potential in every job, what's the value in making sure every demographic has equal membership in every field of employment?
- grzm 10y ago
  There's a lot of defensiveness in your response, which is understandable given how charged a lot of these conversations can get. I've intentionally phrased the questions to allow for disagreement on whether these topics should even be a concern. As for discarding your opinion, I wouldn't be asking for it if my intent was to discard it. The idea that someone's opinion is valid depending on their demographic is troublesome. I do think that one needs to be reflective and honestly question how their opinion is shaped by their particular circumstance. As for the rest, it looks like it boils down for you that any disparity that currently exists is fine. The questions you raise regarding how to decide which disparities should be corrected I think is important and should be addressed, though my impression is that you think because this question is difficult (or exists at all) means the entire endeavor is invalid or should be discarded. If that's not your intent, I'm honestly interested in hearing your thoughts on them.

j_s 10y ago

Study: Efforts to Promote Workplace Meritocracy Can Have the Opposite Effect http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110502006774/en/Fair-Foul-MIT-Sloan-Researcher-Finds-Efforts http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110502006774/en/Fair... edit: My point is that throwing a "diversity strategy" completely in the trash "because meritocracy" doesn't make sense. I can't say the linked study is 100% applicable but hopefully it will open the door to consideration of the value of combining multiple approaches.

teacup50 10y ago
"Our findings simply demonstrate that the pursuit of meritocracy at the workplace may be more difficult than it first appears" That's not an indictment of pursuing a meritocracy.
ve55 10y ago
This seems like it's a problem with the people that were used in the study, not inherent within the system that they used. What would you suggest, after having read this, to not attempt meritocracy at all because it will be biased when those making the decisions are biased? Replace them with algorithms. Feed the algorithms objective metrics that you wish to optimize. This is much easier said that done, but now your meritocracy does what you intended it to do. If you encounter problems, the metrics are not what you want them to be, or the problems are problems at another level, which you cannot solve from changing this part of the system.

loki49152 10y ago

You don't understand something basic. The root of this "diversity" focus is an expression of the believers' own racism and sexism. They believe racism and sexism are true yet also bad, so they have to engage in an endless routine of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that their view of the world is somehow ok.none of this is meant to solve any problem other than the SJWs' ability to deal with reality.

jarek-foksa 10y ago

There is the conspiracy theory that the primary goal of diversity initiatives sponsored by big name corporations is to infiltrate the left wing / progressive movements. Then they can derail the political discourse away from important matters like corporate tax evasion, privacy evasion or capital overaccumulation. I'm not sure whether or to what extent it is true, but I'm defenitely not sold to the idea that they are pushing extremely polarising identity politics purely because of some idealistic reasons.