6 ms·

Along these same lines, I've heard from clients that during the pandemic they started to magically hit their diversity hiring numbers now that they judge applic

Along these same lines, I've heard from clients that during the pandemic they started to magically hit their diversity hiring numbers now that they judge applicants on their performance rather than how much they "like" them. Remote interviews have leveled the playing field and forced them to make more objective decisions about who to hire. Suddenly there is no "pipeline problem"...

throwaway82931 6y ago
I'm glad to hear that. It makes perfect sense that reducing the subjective "culture fit" factor reduces hiring bias. But I would also say that as someone who has experience at the highest levels of open source organizations and who has witnessed the extraordinary extent to which entrenched parties will fight to keep structural discrimination in place: Don't underestimate people's ability to discriminate based on identity alone, without having met in person.
- wayoutthere 6y ago
  Yeah, some of that behavior is constrained given the paper trail that is left when interviewers have to communicate through collaboration tools. People are on their best behavior if they know they might get caught.
  - throwaway82931 6y ago
    Absolutely. At open source orgs, the internal communication channels are way worse than the public ones. People advocate for positions all the time which would negatively impact their careers if made public.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by "open source orgs" or why you felt you needed to create a throwaway account to leave the comment. But, in general, "internal communications channels" on open source projects are something of an anti-pattern. Certainly, private board member (or other person-to-person) communications can be necessary but what you're describing sounds like an unhealthy atmosphere in general if there's a lot of contentious backchannel comms.
      - throwaway82931 6y ago
        By "open source orgs" I mean entities such as all the non-profits which host/support open source projects. You're right about it being unhealthy, unfortunately. It might be for the best if it dies and is replaced by something else.
- bigpumpkin 6y ago
  I think this is especially true for large companies. Whereas a tiny startup may be given some leeway because people interact constantly and have a more defined culture, larger companies' culture are generally amorphous blobs that are more easily an excuse for bias based on common background/age/class/gender/ethnicity.
OrangeKnucles 6y ago
I don't think it's true. Anecdotes aren't evidence. Most people losing their jobs during the pandemic have been diversity hires. Capitalism doesn't allow for much discrimination. Slight discrimination can occur but not too much. If you won't hire LeBron James because he is black, someone else will.
CyberDildonics 6y ago
Any company that has diversity hiring numbers that they are supposed to hit is discriminating based on factors outside of performance if it influences their hiring process at all.
- lalos 6y ago
  I would assume that diversity hiring numbers are based on demographics, if not they would be almost impossible to meet.
- wayoutthere 6y ago
  Diversity numbers are measured after the fact. Diversity hiring is done by filling the front of the pipeline with a diverse set of candidates (i.e. getting the interview) but hiring decisions are made independently.
  - ifokiedoke 6y ago
    > Diversity hiring is done by filling the front of the pipeline with a diverse set of candidates (i.e. getting the interview) but hiring decisions are made independently. I don't think people realize how important this is. I certainly didn't until I had a random meeting with the recruiting team at $OLDJOB. It's basic statistics, when you think about it. By the definition of "under-represented group", you know that there is a much higher likelihood that the over-represented group will make up the majority of the first X resumes you receive. This means that even if you're completely unbiased and will hire based on merit (whatever that means), simply choosing the best of the first X applications will lead you to fail at diversity hiring anyway. Companies say they want to hire the best person but this is subject to reality and part of reality is wanting to hire this person as quick as possible. So it really is paramount that the pipeline is front-loaded, or you'll be thwarted by the reality of statistical majority.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  The hypothetical you’re clearly referring to here is a high-performing white or Asian applicant who regrettably has to be rejected to make room for a mediocre black applicant. This concern is 1% based in reality and 99% based in racist resentment. Companies make hiring decisions based on all sorts of factors that have nothing to do with performance. Two extremely problematic ones are: 1) soft “skills” like charisma, rapport, etc, which are much more about social identity than social ability, and in particular discriminate against nonwhites, women, and many LGBT people 2) Unvarnished and criminal Klan-style racism, such as turning down a well-qualified job applicant because his name is Jamal, or assuming a black woman must have lied about her 3.9 GPA, which is still rampant in all 50 United States, and an enormous reason for the black-white wealth and income disparity. This sort of blatant discrimination has been repeatedly observed in the 21st century and is a plain fact. These two practices are not only widespread and illegal, they also deprive companies of good talent. The reason for diversity quotas isn’t to distort a (nonexistent) meritocratic hiring process, but instead to correct grotesque violations in actually existing hiring practices.

throwaway82931 6y ago

I'm glad to hear that. It makes perfect sense that reducing the subjective "culture fit" factor reduces hiring bias. But I would also say that as someone who has experience at the highest levels of open source organizations and who has witnessed the extraordinary extent to which entrenched parties will fight to keep structural discrimination in place: Don't underestimate people's ability to discriminate based on identity alone, without having met in person.

wayoutthere 6y ago
Yeah, some of that behavior is constrained given the paper trail that is left when interviewers have to communicate through collaboration tools. People are on their best behavior if they know they might get caught.
- throwaway82931 6y ago
  Absolutely. At open source orgs, the internal communication channels are way worse than the public ones. People advocate for positions all the time which would negatively impact their careers if made public.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "open source orgs" or why you felt you needed to create a throwaway account to leave the comment. But, in general, "internal communications channels" on open source projects are something of an anti-pattern. Certainly, private board member (or other person-to-person) communications can be necessary but what you're describing sounds like an unhealthy atmosphere in general if there's a lot of contentious backchannel comms.
    - throwaway82931 6y ago
      By "open source orgs" I mean entities such as all the non-profits which host/support open source projects. You're right about it being unhealthy, unfortunately. It might be for the best if it dies and is replaced by something else.
bigpumpkin 6y ago
I think this is especially true for large companies. Whereas a tiny startup may be given some leeway because people interact constantly and have a more defined culture, larger companies' culture are generally amorphous blobs that are more easily an excuse for bias based on common background/age/class/gender/ethnicity.

OrangeKnucles 6y ago

I don't think it's true. Anecdotes aren't evidence. Most people losing their jobs during the pandemic have been diversity hires. Capitalism doesn't allow for much discrimination. Slight discrimination can occur but not too much. If you won't hire LeBron James because he is black, someone else will.

CyberDildonics 6y ago

Any company that has diversity hiring numbers that they are supposed to hit is discriminating based on factors outside of performance if it influences their hiring process at all.

lalos 6y ago
I would assume that diversity hiring numbers are based on demographics, if not they would be almost impossible to meet.
wayoutthere 6y ago
Diversity numbers are measured after the fact. Diversity hiring is done by filling the front of the pipeline with a diverse set of candidates (i.e. getting the interview) but hiring decisions are made independently.
- ifokiedoke 6y ago
  > Diversity hiring is done by filling the front of the pipeline with a diverse set of candidates (i.e. getting the interview) but hiring decisions are made independently. I don't think people realize how important this is. I certainly didn't until I had a random meeting with the recruiting team at $OLDJOB. It's basic statistics, when you think about it. By the definition of "under-represented group", you know that there is a much higher likelihood that the over-represented group will make up the majority of the first X resumes you receive. This means that even if you're completely unbiased and will hire based on merit (whatever that means), simply choosing the best of the first X applications will lead you to fail at diversity hiring anyway. Companies say they want to hire the best person but this is subject to reality and part of reality is wanting to hire this person as quick as possible. So it really is paramount that the pipeline is front-loaded, or you'll be thwarted by the reality of statistical majority.
ojnabieoot 6y ago
The hypothetical you’re clearly referring to here is a high-performing white or Asian applicant who regrettably has to be rejected to make room for a mediocre black applicant. This concern is 1% based in reality and 99% based in racist resentment. Companies make hiring decisions based on all sorts of factors that have nothing to do with performance. Two extremely problematic ones are: 1) soft “skills” like charisma, rapport, etc, which are much more about social identity than social ability, and in particular discriminate against nonwhites, women, and many LGBT people 2) Unvarnished and criminal Klan-style racism, such as turning down a well-qualified job applicant because his name is Jamal, or assuming a black woman must have lied about her 3.9 GPA, which is still rampant in all 50 United States, and an enormous reason for the black-white wealth and income disparity. This sort of blatant discrimination has been repeatedly observed in the 21st century and is a plain fact. These two practices are not only widespread and illegal, they also deprive companies of good talent. The reason for diversity quotas isn’t to distort a (nonexistent) meritocratic hiring process, but instead to correct grotesque violations in actually existing hiring practices.