3 ms·

> wherever you try to improve the pipeline, you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment. But that's basically just

by baddox 7y ago

> wherever you try to improve the pipeline, you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment. But that's basically just complaining that there's no quick and easy fix to your hiring problem. Well, too bad, maybe it actually is a really hard problem that you're going to have to work really hard at for a long time. If there was some relatively trivial solution like "have all hiring managers do this diversity webinar" then I'm sure the problem would've been solved already. In other words, to the extent that there may be a pipeline problem, that is your problem.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Exactly. And that's what the pipeline argument tells. Whereas the more vocal pro-diversity movements tend to assume that if you haven't fixed that problem directly and immediately, it must be your moral failing.
- baddox 7y ago
  > Whereas the more vocal pro-diversity movements tend to assume that if you haven't fixed that problem directly and immediately, it must be your moral failing. I don't know about that interpretation. I think a better interpretation would be that diversity advocates would say "if you haven't fixed the problem yet, you should continue to work to fix the problem, even if it takes more time and effort than you initially hoped."
drdeca 7y ago
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that the people who are receiving a biased mix should introduce an opposite bias to counteract it before sending on to the next step, or not? Possibly I am misunderstanding what a "pipeline problem" refers to. Wow, I'm experiencing some deja vu. I feel like I already (like, a year or more ago) sent this comment and got a reply, but I don't remember what the reply was. ... Ok, I think this is the thing that doesn't make sense to me: >> wherever you try to improve the pipeline, you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment. > But that's basically just complaining that there's no quick and easy fix to your hiring problem. I don't understand this response. Saying "It is impossible to do x without doing y or z", saying "That's just complaining that it is hard to do x without doing y or z. Tough, that's what you have to do." doesn't make sense. Responses that could make sense include "It actually is possible to do x without doing y or z, and that is what you have to do." or "You have to do x, even if it means doing y or z, even though doing y or z is hard". Were one of these forms what you were saying? (Note : it is very possible that I simply misunderstood what you meant. This is the thing that I think I will probably conclude if you respond.) The options that I can see for hiring people are: Introduce an opposite bias when hiring in order to counter-act a bias in the input Don't do that, simply work to not introduce any additional bias, and accept a biased result in the output Somehow(?) act in a way that works to make it so that the input received is not biased (or options worse than any of these) If you are counting "the input" as meaning "the set of people who apply" then I suppose you might be able to influence "the input" by changing where you advertise the position, or things like that, but that seems to me like "potential applicant -> applicant" is just another step in the pipeline, and if the inputs there are also biased, then the same trilemma applies. If one removes all the bias potentially introduced from each step which one can directly control, then one can no longer directly remove introducers of bias. And I don't think smalltime company TUV's role is to work to change educational outcomes and the like, and therefore if this and its predecessors are the only remaining sources of bias, I don't see how it is their problem. That's not to say that those are usually the only remaining sources of bias. I wouldn't be surprised if many such companies do introduce bias which they can and should address, but if the claim is that they should produce an unbiased output despite having a biased input which they cannot influence, then the only thing that can follow is that they should introduce a bias in the opposite direction.
- baddox 7y ago
  My point is that, if there is in fact a pipeline problem, that probably does not constitute a shift in responsibility away from the hiring company. Saying "you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment" is explicitly attempting to shift responsibility away from the hiring company. I simply disagree. I think a company is still largely responsible for the outcomes of its hiring process, even if fixing those outcomes turns out to be an extremely hard problem that cannot be solved overnight with a diversity webinar.
  - drdeca 7y ago
    Are you saying: 1) the input is not actually biased 2) the company is responsible for making the output less biased than the input (or produce an unbiased output from a biased input) 3) the company is responsible for making sure that they don’t cause the output to be more biased than the input, (but you are not saying that it is responsible for more than that) 3’) The same as 3, except that the amount of bias in the input, while nonzero, is small and relatively unimportant 4) The company is responsible for preventing the bias in the input 5) I (drdeca) missed an option; none of the above (if so, please specify the option I missed, which can be the case while none of the above are) My leanings are that either (2) or (3) (or 3’, but that is just a subtype of 3) (or 2’, but again that is just a subtype if 2) is the case.
    - baddox 7y ago
      I'm saying that, if one thinks diversity is important [0] at companies, then the outcomes of hiring and retention are largely (overwhelmingly) the responsibility of the hiring company. This is especially for very large hiring companies. [0] If you don't think diversity is important, then that's another discussion altogether. In this thread I have been operating under the assumption that we agree it is important (and in fact I personally do). That means that in my view it's just not reasonable or acceptable for a company to say "diversity is really important to us, but we tried some things like diversity training for our hiring managers, and that hasn't worked, so we looked up some statistics and we have concluded that it's a pipeline problem so we can't be expected to do anything about that."

by baddox 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Exactly. And that's what the pipeline argument tells. Whereas the more vocal pro-diversity movements tend to assume that if you haven't fixed that problem directly and immediately, it must be your moral failing.

baddox 7y ago
> Whereas the more vocal pro-diversity movements tend to assume that if you haven't fixed that problem directly and immediately, it must be your moral failing. I don't know about that interpretation. I think a better interpretation would be that diversity advocates would say "if you haven't fixed the problem yet, you should continue to work to fix the problem, even if it takes more time and effort than you initially hoped."

drdeca 7y ago

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that the people who are receiving a biased mix should introduce an opposite bias to counteract it before sending on to the next step, or not? Possibly I am misunderstanding what a "pipeline problem" refers to. Wow, I'm experiencing some deja vu. I feel like I already (like, a year or more ago) sent this comment and got a reply, but I don't remember what the reply was. ... Ok, I think this is the thing that doesn't make sense to me: >> wherever you try to improve the pipeline, you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment. > But that's basically just complaining that there's no quick and easy fix to your hiring problem. I don't understand this response. Saying "It is impossible to do x without doing y or z", saying "That's just complaining that it is hard to do x without doing y or z. Tough, that's what you have to do." doesn't make sense. Responses that could make sense include "It actually is possible to do x without doing y or z, and that is what you have to do." or "You have to do x, even if it means doing y or z, even though doing y or z is hard". Were one of these forms what you were saying? (Note : it is very possible that I simply misunderstood what you meant. This is the thing that I think I will probably conclude if you respond.) The options that I can see for hiring people are: Introduce an opposite bias when hiring in order to counter-act a bias in the input Don't do that, simply work to not introduce any additional bias, and accept a biased result in the output Somehow(?) act in a way that works to make it so that the input received is not biased (or options worse than any of these) If you are counting "the input" as meaning "the set of people who apply" then I suppose you might be able to influence "the input" by changing where you advertise the position, or things like that, but that seems to me like "potential applicant -> applicant" is just another step in the pipeline, and if the inputs there are also biased, then the same trilemma applies. If one removes all the bias potentially introduced from each step which one can directly control, then one can no longer directly remove introducers of bias. And I don't think smalltime company TUV's role is to work to change educational outcomes and the like, and therefore if this and its predecessors are the only remaining sources of bias, I don't see how it is their problem. That's not to say that those are usually the only remaining sources of bias. I wouldn't be surprised if many such companies do introduce bias which they can and should address, but if the claim is that they should produce an unbiased output despite having a biased input which they cannot influence, then the only thing that can follow is that they should introduce a bias in the opposite direction.

baddox 7y ago
My point is that, if there is in fact a pipeline problem, that probably does not constitute a shift in responsibility away from the hiring company. Saying "you cannot expect to make things better than they are at the input of your pipe segment" is explicitly attempting to shift responsibility away from the hiring company. I simply disagree. I think a company is still largely responsible for the outcomes of its hiring process, even if fixing those outcomes turns out to be an extremely hard problem that cannot be solved overnight with a diversity webinar.
- drdeca 7y ago
  Are you saying: 1) the input is not actually biased 2) the company is responsible for making the output less biased than the input (or produce an unbiased output from a biased input) 3) the company is responsible for making sure that they don’t cause the output to be more biased than the input, (but you are not saying that it is responsible for more than that) 3’) The same as 3, except that the amount of bias in the input, while nonzero, is small and relatively unimportant 4) The company is responsible for preventing the bias in the input 5) I (drdeca) missed an option; none of the above (if so, please specify the option I missed, which can be the case while none of the above are) My leanings are that either (2) or (3) (or 3’, but that is just a subtype of 3) (or 2’, but again that is just a subtype if 2) is the case.
  - baddox 7y ago
    I'm saying that, if one thinks diversity is important [0] at companies, then the outcomes of hiring and retention are largely (overwhelmingly) the responsibility of the hiring company. This is especially for very large hiring companies. [0] If you don't think diversity is important, then that's another discussion altogether. In this thread I have been operating under the assumption that we agree it is important (and in fact I personally do). That means that in my view it's just not reasonable or acceptable for a company to say "diversity is really important to us, but we tried some things like diversity training for our hiring managers, and that hasn't worked, so we looked up some statistics and we have concluded that it's a pipeline problem so we can't be expected to do anything about that."