4 ms·
I think the idea you are advocating, that they should change the nature of the job to make it more accommodating to a more diverse talent pool, is the kind of t
by agarden 9y ago
I think the idea you are advocating, that they should change the nature of the job to make it more accommodating to a more diverse talent pool, is the kind of thing the memo was advocating. See the section titled "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap".[1] In that section, he suggests making the work more cooperative instead of competitive and making part-time work first-class, among other things. He also suggests making the work more collaborative, which seems a lot like your "changing the things coders are allowed to focus on." He then goes on to note that doing this will also mean Google will diversify the kind of male that it gets, just like you do.
Or am I missing some difference in what you are suggesting and what the memo suggested?
1. http://diversitymemo.com/#reduce-gender-gap http://diversitymemo.com/#reduce-gender-gap
- erikpukinskis 9y agoYes, I think our methodology is the same, but the memo seems to expect that Google will still be <50% women in that scenario, whereas I believe it will be brought to 50%. Which is why I don't see the quota system as a fundamental risk to Google, whereas he does.