9 ms·

The Old Boys' Club: Schmoozing and the Gender Gap

72 points by Dowwie 7y ago

CryptoPunk 7y ago
Looks like a business opportunity. Implement an organizational structure which corrects for socialization effects in promotion decisions and you will gain a competitive advantage over the majority of firms.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  It's a business. I imagine people will optimize for social effects insted of trying to negate them. It might even be a better system.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    Those businesses that do will lose market share. Efficiency is the only mediator of resource accumulation in an economy where market participants are free to choose among products offered and must bear the cost of their own market purchases.
    - learc83 7y ago
      >Efficiency is the only mediator of resource accumulation in an economy... There are no completely free markets in existence though.
    - ryan93 7y ago
      Are you claiming google will be destroyed because slightly fewer women are promoted. More likely their profit might be marginally lower. Which changes nothing
      - CryptoPunk 7y ago
        Things would slowly change on an economy-wide basis as firms start exploiting any governance method that results in superior promotion decisions. The natural monopolies like Google would be the slowest and hardest to change, but most of the economy doesn't consist of them.
    - yowlingcat 7y ago
      How quaint. Let me describe a lesson patently obvious to anyone who has sat in on enterprise sales at a scaling B2B startup. An economy "here market participants are free to choose among products offered and must bear the cost of their own market purchases" is certainly not the one that exists in the USA or the other largest nation-states by GDP. Here, as is there, a complex interplay of central and state-level government ensures monopolistic or monopsonistic consolidation occurs, drives, and many would say manipulates market motions. This isn't to say that efficiency doesn't mediate resource accumulation or allocation; far from it. But it's certainly not a rule for how contracts are decided and resources allocated.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Practices that help shy nerds contribute are very important in any tech company and those same practices (being nice, not yelling in meetings, asking everyone's opinion, and so on) are indistinguishable from the things that we're told to do to make women feel welcome. Obviously there are women out there that can shout down the best of them, but due to the relative prevalence of that personality style in each gender, shouting has gotten attached in the public consciousness to men, and being shy to women. That's why being nice in the workplace is considered a gender issue, even though there's nothing inherently gendered about it.
- goto11 7y ago
  Easier said than done though. Such biases are typically not conscious, so everyone already think they are being unbiased in promotions.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    Studies like this bring awareness that gives an opportunity for forward-thinking entrepeneurs and investors to gain a market edge.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    And probably completely irrelevant if managers know the person to be promoted directly. You don't rely on biases, you rely on the info you have on that person. Maybe relevant in huge companies, but I would doubt that too.
    - goto11 7y ago
      > You don't rely on biases, you rely on the info you have on that person. Well this is the crux of the problem. Do you really rely on an objective evaluation, or are you influenced by cues which you think indicates competency but actually just (say) indicate class or subculture background?
whatshisface 7y ago
The study showed that men under men got promoted faster than men under women, but that women rose at the same rate under both genders. This could be explained by a male advantage under men, but it could also be explained by male disadvantage under women, or a combination of both. How can these cases be separated? (The study might address this, I only have access to the abstract.)
- dqv 7y ago
  It looks to be available by clicking the Read Now button: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Cullen%20and%20Perez-Truglia%20-%20The%20Old%20Boys%20Club_ca38672c-c641-4222-a383-30f434bbc830.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Cullen%20and... It's 45 pages so I can't read it until later, but maybe someone else can.
- duxup 7y ago
  It's an interesting question. My purely anecdotal experience is that women (in both business and personal lives) are more likely to have protracted conflicts with other women at work than men. I always wonder how that plays out / if it is even true.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    The study would suggest that if such conflicts occur at the institution in question and such conflicts have the gender bias of your experience, that they have no bearing on promotion.
  - dx87 7y ago
    My wife and some female co-workers have said something similar. They said that when they see men get in disagreements, it normally escalates very quickly, but once the conflict is resolved it's like it never happened. They said the opposite happens with female employees, where the "conflict" never gets as intense, but it can go on for years with both sides not wanting to help each other.
    - usrusr 7y ago
YinglingLight 7y ago
Very few people have careers. 2%. Most of us have jobs. Jobs are things you do that are unpleasant, that you would not do unless you are getting paid for it. Jobs are not the centerpiece of your life. Many women cease to get satisfaction from their demanding careers in their 30s as they rise into the ranks into a more competitive environment. It is not worth it to many women.
cushychicken 7y ago
>based on the anecdotal evidence that employees who smoke tend to spend more time together. We find that when male employees who smoke switch to male managers who smoke, they spend more of their breaks with their managers and are promoted faster in the following years. One possible subtext of this is that men are much more susceptible to promoting those that befriend them than anything else. Sure punches a hole in the old (but not necessarily correct!) cultural adage that women are predominantly the approval-seeking gender.
- shantly 7y ago
  Depending on what the interactions are like, it might fit well with the stereotype of men being extremely vulnerable to even blatant ego-stroking.
- itronitron 7y ago
  There is quite a difference between friendship and approval-seeking, in fact one of the quickest ways to end a friendship with a man is to keep seeking approval from them.
brenden2 7y ago
When I hear about studies like this (about hot issues) it always makes me wonder what sort of studies that go against the current social norms are not being published because they make some people uncomfortable. Most of the pop science these days seems to be about confirming existing biases/assumptions of the current zeitgeist.
- keiferski 7y ago
  The Journal of Controversial Ideas will hopefully address this somewhat: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/13/philosophers-will-launch-interdisciplinary-journal-allows-authors-publish-under https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/13/philosophers-...
  - noname120 7y ago
    Problem is that a big part of the incentivization structure of the scientific world relies on citation counts. Publishing anonymously doesn't give you any credits. This is part of the reason why experiments with negative results often never get published[1]. Writing a scientific paper takes time—which could be instead used to write the next high-impact paper. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
- goto11 7y ago
  For issues such as this, results in either direction will make some people uncomfortable or even angry. Some people will be enraged by the suggestion there is systemic bias against women, while other people will be enraged by the suggestion that there isn't. This is what makes the issue a "hot button" or flame bait issue.
  - brenden2 7y ago
    Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, what's considered acceptable is just a matter of cultural norms within a given context or group of people at a specific time. If you don't agree with that cultural norm, then you're "the bad guy".
mothsonasloth 7y ago
As a developer the traditional Old Boys clubs (Freemasons, Rotary, Golf club etc.) don't really appeal to me as they seem outdated or for traditional professions, are they still relevant? Is there a freemasons equivalent for the tech scene? Are there masons in Silicon Valley? Maybe we could create a new society, the SiliconMasons, FreeBSDers? :P
- yowlingcat 7y ago
  Sad to say this, but if you have to ask, it's likely part of the reason you're not a member. The societies certainly still exist, and the relationships that are built there continue from higher education pedigree-ing to drive high-level capital allocation. You'll most closely see this in the management and leadership structure at large companies and venture capital firms. Folks try with varying attempts to create powerful secret societies in today's highly digital age, but they continue to be successful for the same reasons they always were -- the patronage of the wealthy and powerful. The highly stratified economic classes in the tech scene ensure this would remain the case. If you're not part of this class but want to look into collective action, what you're looking for may not be a masonic society but a union.
- motohagiography 7y ago
  This would be to misunderstand what those organizations are and the purposes they serve. I heartily recommend checking out one of those organizations in your area. By design it is quite difficult for dishonest men to get into them. Quite possibly, this is why they are dying out.
- bmarquez 7y ago
  The "old boys" clubs you mentioned don't exist just for the sake of gaining power. The network just comes naturally as a side-effect of repeated contact with trustworthy people with similar altruistic goals. For example, a stated goal of Freemasonry is "to make good men better." The stated motto of Rotary is "service above self" (and btw, Rotary accepts both men and women). Both organizations have a significant community service aspect, and if you showed zero interest in service and expressed desire to join solely for personal gain, you'd likely get rejected. Likewise with Lions Clubs. Can't comment on golf clubs since I have zero experience with them.
malvosenior 7y ago
> We collaborated with a large commercial bank in Asia that has millions of customers, billions of dollars in assets and in revenues, and thousands of employees. I don't know that using an Asian bank for the study is going to give you results that translate at all to the western world. Very different business and interpersonal cultures. The study seems pretty biased from the get go. They claim that lack of female participation at the higher levels of the corporate food chain is due to discrimination without even talking about women dropping out of the workplace at a higher rate to have children (or any other conflicting points of view). Seems like junk "science".
- Miner49er 7y ago
  > The claim that lack of female participation at the higher levels of the corporate food chain are due to discrimination without even talking about women dropping out of the workplace at a higher rate to have children (or any other conflicting points of view). Is that not a form of discrimination? Men have kids and still get promoted.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    If it's voluntary, it's not discrimination. Men have kids, but they don't quit their jobs to become stay at home dads at nearly the rate women do.
    - Miner49er 7y ago
      Well there's a difference between having kids and staying at home. Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        > Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation. Aren't these statements at odd with one another? When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. I think being a CEO or being a grandparent can both be viewed as successful in our society, they shouldn't really be compared directly though.
gist 7y ago
Side point is that it's hard to believe that there isn't a group of women who got promoted or advanced because the men they worked under found them appealing or nice to be around (in a non sexual relationship way).
really2020 7y ago
The bar is so much lower for men than for women. For a man to be promoted by another man all you have to do is enjoy going out for a beer (or as the article mentions a smoke). This is not some societal male backlash, it is actually how things work. The level of incompetence that a man can exhibit and still get promoted is astounding. Probably the reason why women promote men less frequently is that women have higher standards, since they themselves are held to higher standards.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  That's not even remotely true.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    Yeah, I definitely sense some saltiness in the parent comment. While he is right that it is totally possible to encounter such a workplace, i would argue that if you control for the gender disparity in the workplace, it becomes just as likely to encounter such a situation, but with genders switched. And even then, neither of those two scenarios are more likely than just straight up a regular workplace where a boss straight up doesn’t care about your gender and promotes based on the usual “business impact, performance, team impact” metrics. I realize this is just an anecdote, but my previous team was over 50% women (the boss was a female as well), while my current team is much more male dominated, and i have noticed pretty much zero differences when it comes to promotions and the breakdown of those when it comes to gender. Talking about my old team, it had the typical subgroups, like high performers who got promoted fast, slightly slower performers, people who were temporarily in a performance rut (who eventually got out of it), etc. And I observed no anomalies in gender disparities between all those groups, as they were pretty gender balanced and (imo) very fair, given my knowledge.
  - antisthenes 7y ago
    A good reason why they had to make a throwaway. Comment was pure troll bait.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jayd16 7y ago
I'm sure the comments will be awash with meta-discussion about social justice but I just want to point out the article does give evidence to some career advice I've always had. Take a coffee break with your boss's smoke break. Daily, relaxed, and agenda free one on one meetings with your seniors/bosses will do wonders.
- downerending 7y ago
  Outstanding advice. Now, how do I get my boss to start smoking?
mekane8 7y ago
In my first office job I remember thinking that I should take up smoking, not just because my coworkers were heading downstairs all the time to take breaks, but because the HR higher-ups were smokers too. My office-mates who smoked always had the latest office gossip and knew what was coming down the pike long before the rest of us!
cpr 7y ago
Non-smokers are being discriminated against! I call foul! ;-)

72 points by Dowwie 7y ago

Looks like a business opportunity. Implement an organizational structure which corrects for socialization effects in promotion decisions and you will gain a competitive advantage over the majority of firms.

Jamwinner 7y ago
It's a business. I imagine people will optimize for social effects insted of trying to negate them. It might even be a better system.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  Those businesses that do will lose market share. Efficiency is the only mediator of resource accumulation in an economy where market participants are free to choose among products offered and must bear the cost of their own market purchases.
  - learc83 7y ago
    >Efficiency is the only mediator of resource accumulation in an economy... There are no completely free markets in existence though.
  - ryan93 7y ago
    Are you claiming google will be destroyed because slightly fewer women are promoted. More likely their profit might be marginally lower. Which changes nothing
    - CryptoPunk 7y ago
      Things would slowly change on an economy-wide basis as firms start exploiting any governance method that results in superior promotion decisions. The natural monopolies like Google would be the slowest and hardest to change, but most of the economy doesn't consist of them.
  - yowlingcat 7y ago
    How quaint. Let me describe a lesson patently obvious to anyone who has sat in on enterprise sales at a scaling B2B startup. An economy "here market participants are free to choose among products offered and must bear the cost of their own market purchases" is certainly not the one that exists in the USA or the other largest nation-states by GDP. Here, as is there, a complex interplay of central and state-level government ensures monopolistic or monopsonistic consolidation occurs, drives, and many would say manipulates market motions. This isn't to say that efficiency doesn't mediate resource accumulation or allocation; far from it. But it's certainly not a rule for how contracts are decided and resources allocated.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Practices that help shy nerds contribute are very important in any tech company and those same practices (being nice, not yelling in meetings, asking everyone's opinion, and so on) are indistinguishable from the things that we're told to do to make women feel welcome. Obviously there are women out there that can shout down the best of them, but due to the relative prevalence of that personality style in each gender, shouting has gotten attached in the public consciousness to men, and being shy to women. That's why being nice in the workplace is considered a gender issue, even though there's nothing inherently gendered about it.
goto11 7y ago
Easier said than done though. Such biases are typically not conscious, so everyone already think they are being unbiased in promotions.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  Studies like this bring awareness that gives an opportunity for forward-thinking entrepeneurs and investors to gain a market edge.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  And probably completely irrelevant if managers know the person to be promoted directly. You don't rely on biases, you rely on the info you have on that person. Maybe relevant in huge companies, but I would doubt that too.
  - goto11 7y ago
    > You don't rely on biases, you rely on the info you have on that person. Well this is the crux of the problem. Do you really rely on an objective evaluation, or are you influenced by cues which you think indicates competency but actually just (say) indicate class or subculture background?

whatshisface 7y ago

The study showed that men under men got promoted faster than men under women, but that women rose at the same rate under both genders. This could be explained by a male advantage under men, but it could also be explained by male disadvantage under women, or a combination of both. How can these cases be separated? (The study might address this, I only have access to the abstract.)

dqv 7y ago
It looks to be available by clicking the Read Now button: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Cullen%20and%20Perez-Truglia%20-%20The%20Old%20Boys%20Club_ca38672c-c641-4222-a383-30f434bbc830.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Cullen%20and... It's 45 pages so I can't read it until later, but maybe someone else can.
duxup 7y ago
It's an interesting question. My purely anecdotal experience is that women (in both business and personal lives) are more likely to have protracted conflicts with other women at work than men. I always wonder how that plays out / if it is even true.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  The study would suggest that if such conflicts occur at the institution in question and such conflicts have the gender bias of your experience, that they have no bearing on promotion.
- dx87 7y ago
  My wife and some female co-workers have said something similar. They said that when they see men get in disagreements, it normally escalates very quickly, but once the conflict is resolved it's like it never happened. They said the opposite happens with female employees, where the "conflict" never gets as intense, but it can go on for years with both sides not wanting to help each other.
  - usrusr 7y ago

YinglingLight 7y ago

Very few people have careers. 2%. Most of us have jobs. Jobs are things you do that are unpleasant, that you would not do unless you are getting paid for it. Jobs are not the centerpiece of your life. Many women cease to get satisfaction from their demanding careers in their 30s as they rise into the ranks into a more competitive environment. It is not worth it to many women.

cushychicken 7y ago

>based on the anecdotal evidence that employees who smoke tend to spend more time together. We find that when male employees who smoke switch to male managers who smoke, they spend more of their breaks with their managers and are promoted faster in the following years. One possible subtext of this is that men are much more susceptible to promoting those that befriend them than anything else. Sure punches a hole in the old (but not necessarily correct!) cultural adage that women are predominantly the approval-seeking gender.

shantly 7y ago
Depending on what the interactions are like, it might fit well with the stereotype of men being extremely vulnerable to even blatant ego-stroking.
itronitron 7y ago
There is quite a difference between friendship and approval-seeking, in fact one of the quickest ways to end a friendship with a man is to keep seeking approval from them.

brenden2 7y ago

When I hear about studies like this (about hot issues) it always makes me wonder what sort of studies that go against the current social norms are not being published because they make some people uncomfortable. Most of the pop science these days seems to be about confirming existing biases/assumptions of the current zeitgeist.

keiferski 7y ago
The Journal of Controversial Ideas will hopefully address this somewhat: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/13/philosophers-will-launch-interdisciplinary-journal-allows-authors-publish-under https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/13/philosophers-...
- noname120 7y ago
  Problem is that a big part of the incentivization structure of the scientific world relies on citation counts. Publishing anonymously doesn't give you any credits. This is part of the reason why experiments with negative results often never get published[1]. Writing a scientific paper takes time—which could be instead used to write the next high-impact paper. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
goto11 7y ago
For issues such as this, results in either direction will make some people uncomfortable or even angry. Some people will be enraged by the suggestion there is systemic bias against women, while other people will be enraged by the suggestion that there isn't. This is what makes the issue a "hot button" or flame bait issue.
- brenden2 7y ago
  Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, what's considered acceptable is just a matter of cultural norms within a given context or group of people at a specific time. If you don't agree with that cultural norm, then you're "the bad guy".

mothsonasloth 7y ago

As a developer the traditional Old Boys clubs (Freemasons, Rotary, Golf club etc.) don't really appeal to me as they seem outdated or for traditional professions, are they still relevant? Is there a freemasons equivalent for the tech scene? Are there masons in Silicon Valley? Maybe we could create a new society, the SiliconMasons, FreeBSDers? :P

yowlingcat 7y ago
Sad to say this, but if you have to ask, it's likely part of the reason you're not a member. The societies certainly still exist, and the relationships that are built there continue from higher education pedigree-ing to drive high-level capital allocation. You'll most closely see this in the management and leadership structure at large companies and venture capital firms. Folks try with varying attempts to create powerful secret societies in today's highly digital age, but they continue to be successful for the same reasons they always were -- the patronage of the wealthy and powerful. The highly stratified economic classes in the tech scene ensure this would remain the case. If you're not part of this class but want to look into collective action, what you're looking for may not be a masonic society but a union.
motohagiography 7y ago
This would be to misunderstand what those organizations are and the purposes they serve. I heartily recommend checking out one of those organizations in your area. By design it is quite difficult for dishonest men to get into them. Quite possibly, this is why they are dying out.
bmarquez 7y ago
The "old boys" clubs you mentioned don't exist just for the sake of gaining power. The network just comes naturally as a side-effect of repeated contact with trustworthy people with similar altruistic goals. For example, a stated goal of Freemasonry is "to make good men better." The stated motto of Rotary is "service above self" (and btw, Rotary accepts both men and women). Both organizations have a significant community service aspect, and if you showed zero interest in service and expressed desire to join solely for personal gain, you'd likely get rejected. Likewise with Lions Clubs. Can't comment on golf clubs since I have zero experience with them.

malvosenior 7y ago

> We collaborated with a large commercial bank in Asia that has millions of customers, billions of dollars in assets and in revenues, and thousands of employees. I don't know that using an Asian bank for the study is going to give you results that translate at all to the western world. Very different business and interpersonal cultures. The study seems pretty biased from the get go. They claim that lack of female participation at the higher levels of the corporate food chain is due to discrimination without even talking about women dropping out of the workplace at a higher rate to have children (or any other conflicting points of view). Seems like junk "science".

Miner49er 7y ago
> The claim that lack of female participation at the higher levels of the corporate food chain are due to discrimination without even talking about women dropping out of the workplace at a higher rate to have children (or any other conflicting points of view). Is that not a form of discrimination? Men have kids and still get promoted.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  If it's voluntary, it's not discrimination. Men have kids, but they don't quit their jobs to become stay at home dads at nearly the rate women do.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    Well there's a difference between having kids and staying at home. Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      > Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation. Aren't these statements at odd with one another? When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. I think being a CEO or being a grandparent can both be viewed as successful in our society, they shouldn't really be compared directly though.

gist 7y ago

Side point is that it's hard to believe that there isn't a group of women who got promoted or advanced because the men they worked under found them appealing or nice to be around (in a non sexual relationship way).

really2020 7y ago

The bar is so much lower for men than for women. For a man to be promoted by another man all you have to do is enjoy going out for a beer (or as the article mentions a smoke). This is not some societal male backlash, it is actually how things work. The level of incompetence that a man can exhibit and still get promoted is astounding. Probably the reason why women promote men less frequently is that women have higher standards, since they themselves are held to higher standards.

commandlinefan 7y ago
That's not even remotely true.
- filoleg 7y ago
  Yeah, I definitely sense some saltiness in the parent comment. While he is right that it is totally possible to encounter such a workplace, i would argue that if you control for the gender disparity in the workplace, it becomes just as likely to encounter such a situation, but with genders switched. And even then, neither of those two scenarios are more likely than just straight up a regular workplace where a boss straight up doesn’t care about your gender and promotes based on the usual “business impact, performance, team impact” metrics. I realize this is just an anecdote, but my previous team was over 50% women (the boss was a female as well), while my current team is much more male dominated, and i have noticed pretty much zero differences when it comes to promotions and the breakdown of those when it comes to gender. Talking about my old team, it had the typical subgroups, like high performers who got promoted fast, slightly slower performers, people who were temporarily in a performance rut (who eventually got out of it), etc. And I observed no anomalies in gender disparities between all those groups, as they were pretty gender balanced and (imo) very fair, given my knowledge.
- antisthenes 7y ago
  A good reason why they had to make a throwaway. Comment was pure troll bait.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jayd16 7y ago

I'm sure the comments will be awash with meta-discussion about social justice but I just want to point out the article does give evidence to some career advice I've always had. Take a coffee break with your boss's smoke break. Daily, relaxed, and agenda free one on one meetings with your seniors/bosses will do wonders.

downerending 7y ago
Outstanding advice. Now, how do I get my boss to start smoking?

mekane8 7y ago

In my first office job I remember thinking that I should take up smoking, not just because my coworkers were heading downstairs all the time to take breaks, but because the HR higher-ups were smokers too. My office-mates who smoked always had the latest office gossip and knew what was coming down the pike long before the rest of us!

cpr 7y ago

Non-smokers are being discriminated against! I call foul! ;-)