2 ms·

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, a

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.
brnt 7y ago
It is you who obsesses over gender I'm afraid, not me. What I am saying is that as the hirer, you are able to give someone a chance. Therefore, you can look at the potential of your candidates, rather than accomplishments. You can also look at how much you can afford a wrong hire, because it is a risk, sure. Knowing that people from group X (be they women, men, minorities, people from poor background without access to networks) on average are going to need bit more help than people from the right background, the right education, the right everything, that is something you can use in order to a) be the change you want to see b) run the risk of fresh ideas in your org. Even if you do not feel inclined towards a), b) is needed in all dynamic companies, and certainly institutes such as CERN.
- weberc2 7y ago
  > It is you who obsesses over gender I'm afraid, not me. What I am saying is that as the hirer, you are able to give someone a chance. Therefore, you can look at the potential of your candidates, rather than accomplishments. You can also look at how much you can afford a wrong hire, because it is a risk, sure. It was ambiguous whether or not you were advocating for using gender as a proxy for "better culture fit". The GP was just being explicit that that's a bad idea. > Knowing that people from group X (be they women, men, minorities, people from poor background without access to networks) on average are going to need bit more help than people from the right background, the right education, the right everything, that is something you can use in order to a) be the change you want to see b) run the risk of fresh ideas in your org. It seems like you're actually arguing for using gender, race, etc as a proxy for "better culture fit" or "fresh ideas". This is illegal in most civilized places as it's immoral and based on dubious assumptions (notably that there is more inter-group intellectual diversity than intra-group diversity, i.e., all men (or women, or whites, or asians, or etc) are the roughly same).
  - brnt 7y ago
    Most countries here in Europe have not made positive discrimination illegal. I'm arguing for understanding that most hirers simply hire people with similar backgrounds as their own. That creates the barrier I think we are discussing here. Using indicators such as gender (if your type of org has an extreme disbalance) may help you see that, and correct for it, if you so chose. 'Culture fit' is actually one of those criteria I hate: it usually means hiring similar people.

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.

brnt 7y ago

It is you who obsesses over gender I'm afraid, not me. What I am saying is that as the hirer, you are able to give someone a chance. Therefore, you can look at the potential of your candidates, rather than accomplishments. You can also look at how much you can afford a wrong hire, because it is a risk, sure. Knowing that people from group X (be they women, men, minorities, people from poor background without access to networks) on average are going to need bit more help than people from the right background, the right education, the right everything, that is something you can use in order to a) be the change you want to see b) run the risk of fresh ideas in your org. Even if you do not feel inclined towards a), b) is needed in all dynamic companies, and certainly institutes such as CERN.

weberc2 7y ago
> It is you who obsesses over gender I'm afraid, not me. What I am saying is that as the hirer, you are able to give someone a chance. Therefore, you can look at the potential of your candidates, rather than accomplishments. You can also look at how much you can afford a wrong hire, because it is a risk, sure. It was ambiguous whether or not you were advocating for using gender as a proxy for "better culture fit". The GP was just being explicit that that's a bad idea. > Knowing that people from group X (be they women, men, minorities, people from poor background without access to networks) on average are going to need bit more help than people from the right background, the right education, the right everything, that is something you can use in order to a) be the change you want to see b) run the risk of fresh ideas in your org. It seems like you're actually arguing for using gender, race, etc as a proxy for "better culture fit" or "fresh ideas". This is illegal in most civilized places as it's immoral and based on dubious assumptions (notably that there is more inter-group intellectual diversity than intra-group diversity, i.e., all men (or women, or whites, or asians, or etc) are the roughly same).
- brnt 7y ago
  Most countries here in Europe have not made positive discrimination illegal. I'm arguing for understanding that most hirers simply hire people with similar backgrounds as their own. That creates the barrier I think we are discussing here. Using indicators such as gender (if your type of org has an extreme disbalance) may help you see that, and correct for it, if you so chose. 'Culture fit' is actually one of those criteria I hate: it usually means hiring similar people.