5 ms·

> I strongly disagree with equality of outcome, There's more to hiring than numerics, there's always the prerogative and perhaps even need to take a chance. Pe

by brnt 7y ago

> I strongly disagree with equality of outcome, There's more to hiring than numerics, there's always the prerogative and perhaps even need to take a chance. People have not always had similar chances or abilities to produce the results you'd like to see in all candidates, but it just may be you can give a person a place to shine. The candidate that already shone may be safer, but in practice it may as well mean more of the same (that you've hired). Since you're using the same metrics (paper output etc. in your case). Sometimes more of the same is not what you need. There's a whole universe of reasons for (not) hiring someone. Pretending anyone is hiring (or even able to) based on merit is not seeing clearly. You rarely know, apart from superstar hires for identical roles they've performed elsewhere already, is all about taking a chance. You may as well freshen up the org with atypical hires, in my experience worth their shots far more than 'default' hires, which, in my view, a nearly always just hires most similar to you.

raxxorrax 7y ago
I don't like to push metrics like paper output or number of recitations, because I believe many understand the obvious shortcommings of that. But the alternative you are suggesting is pure favoritism, which is even worse.
- brnt 7y ago
  It's not favoritism. It's making an educated guess, educated by numerics, personal fit, but also stuff like how many chances did this person have and am I (as the hirer) able/inclined to provide one, how did the person handle adversity (may be one of the most valuable things you get into your org), and so on. Using your estimate of what a person might do/become given a chance is not at all the same as favoritism. Favoritism is hiring people just like yourself and calling it meritocracy.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    This strikes me as switching out one type of bias for another, with no proof of improvement as to the end result. As long as you're not breaking labor law, not a problem, but without stats showing outcome, you can't say it's objectively better.
    - brnt 7y ago
      Proof is hard because hiring is not replicable. However, doing nothing provides proof for the status quo, and if you are happy with that, by all means do not change. I am not, and will advocate for the contrary.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - weberc2 7y ago
        Honestly I'm having a hard time following your position. It sounds like you're making some kind of circular argument; that we should hire more women because they face discrimination. But the whole debate is about whether or not they face discrimination in the first place. Or maybe you're advocating for discrimination in general on the basis that a person's immutable characteristics informs about his/her character (their work ethic, resilience, etc) or their ideas (e.g., the black candidate will bring in new ideas on account of his race compared to the white candidate) with some degree of reliability? I think clarity would improve your posts.
4gotunameagain 7y ago
Of course metrics are not everything, as I stated in my original comment, but it should have nothing to do with gender. Maybe you want a better cultural fit, and that's 100% acceptable by my book. But leave gender out of it.
- acollins1331 7y ago
  The quickest way to get a cultural shift in a technical office is to go from 98% male to 70% male. Things get real different real quick. There's no reason to leave gender out of culture shifts, except that you don't like it.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    > There's no reason to leave gender out of culture shifts, except that you don't like it. Or that it's illegal in many jurisdictions to select a candidate because of their gender. Can't speak for others, but if I see evidence of this happening in writing, I have no qualms about forwarding the docs/emails/whatever off to the Dept of Labor and a labor attorney to pursue this discriminatory behavior (discrimination is discrimination, whether "anti" a specific gender or "pro") by an employer. Culture shifts should be a byproduct of effective, non-discriminatory hiring practices (which includes blinding to protected classes).
    - brnt 7y ago
      > Culture shifts should be a byproduct of effective, non-discriminatory hiring practices (which includes blinding to protected classes). Good idea, but nearly nobody does it (removing socioeconomic indicators such as name/gender/address from CVs). It is also difficult to insulate yourself from your network when hiring, as well as controlling for other items on a CV (you want Ivy League? Hello bias!). Which is why I think some active thought on the subject of diversity is essential when hiring. You will never remove bias completely, so we might as well acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla and deal with it directly.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    I would really like any sort of supporting evidence for this claim. I imagine churning 28% of your employee base regardless of gender would produce a culture shift--probably a very negative one. Even more negative if you're targeting people based on their immutable characteristics--and that's before the (rightful) discrimination lawsuits start pouring in. Maybe start with free catered lunches on Fridays or something.

by brnt 7y ago

raxxorrax 7y ago

I don't like to push metrics like paper output or number of recitations, because I believe many understand the obvious shortcommings of that. But the alternative you are suggesting is pure favoritism, which is even worse.

brnt 7y ago
It's not favoritism. It's making an educated guess, educated by numerics, personal fit, but also stuff like how many chances did this person have and am I (as the hirer) able/inclined to provide one, how did the person handle adversity (may be one of the most valuable things you get into your org), and so on. Using your estimate of what a person might do/become given a chance is not at all the same as favoritism. Favoritism is hiring people just like yourself and calling it meritocracy.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  This strikes me as switching out one type of bias for another, with no proof of improvement as to the end result. As long as you're not breaking labor law, not a problem, but without stats showing outcome, you can't say it's objectively better.
  - brnt 7y ago
    Proof is hard because hiring is not replicable. However, doing nothing provides proof for the status quo, and if you are happy with that, by all means do not change. I am not, and will advocate for the contrary.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - weberc2 7y ago
      Honestly I'm having a hard time following your position. It sounds like you're making some kind of circular argument; that we should hire more women because they face discrimination. But the whole debate is about whether or not they face discrimination in the first place. Or maybe you're advocating for discrimination in general on the basis that a person's immutable characteristics informs about his/her character (their work ethic, resilience, etc) or their ideas (e.g., the black candidate will bring in new ideas on account of his race compared to the white candidate) with some degree of reliability? I think clarity would improve your posts.

4gotunameagain 7y ago

Of course metrics are not everything, as I stated in my original comment, but it should have nothing to do with gender. Maybe you want a better cultural fit, and that's 100% acceptable by my book. But leave gender out of it.

acollins1331 7y ago
The quickest way to get a cultural shift in a technical office is to go from 98% male to 70% male. Things get real different real quick. There's no reason to leave gender out of culture shifts, except that you don't like it.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  > There's no reason to leave gender out of culture shifts, except that you don't like it. Or that it's illegal in many jurisdictions to select a candidate because of their gender. Can't speak for others, but if I see evidence of this happening in writing, I have no qualms about forwarding the docs/emails/whatever off to the Dept of Labor and a labor attorney to pursue this discriminatory behavior (discrimination is discrimination, whether "anti" a specific gender or "pro") by an employer. Culture shifts should be a byproduct of effective, non-discriminatory hiring practices (which includes blinding to protected classes).
  - brnt 7y ago
    > Culture shifts should be a byproduct of effective, non-discriminatory hiring practices (which includes blinding to protected classes). Good idea, but nearly nobody does it (removing socioeconomic indicators such as name/gender/address from CVs). It is also difficult to insulate yourself from your network when hiring, as well as controlling for other items on a CV (you want Ivy League? Hello bias!). Which is why I think some active thought on the subject of diversity is essential when hiring. You will never remove bias completely, so we might as well acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla and deal with it directly.
- weberc2 7y ago
  I would really like any sort of supporting evidence for this claim. I imagine churning 28% of your employee base regardless of gender would produce a culture shift--probably a very negative one. Even more negative if you're targeting people based on their immutable characteristics--and that's before the (rightful) discrimination lawsuits start pouring in. Maybe start with free catered lunches on Fridays or something.