4 ms·

Paid referrals do get people in the door quickly, but at a cost of low diversity and homogenized skills and backgrounds.

lostmsu 5y ago
I would challenge the use of word "cost" here, unless you have corroborating data.
- stadium 5y ago
  First google result for "organizational cost of low diversity": https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/accenture-report-perception-gap-shows-economic-cost-lack-of-diversity-inclusion%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/accentu...
  - twofornone 5y ago
    That link is blatant propaganda. >number of inclusion topics, including the ability to fail without fear, the ability to report harassment, and the flexibility to work from home. Deliberately conflating "diversity and inclusion" with problems that have nothing to actually do with with gender/race. >Analysts found that companies where many employees felt engaged were more likely to demonstrate higher profit growth. Closing the gap by 50%, or making employees feel more included, pointed to a 33% increase in global profit growth for businesses. And then pulling numbers out of their asses based on a correlation between "employee engagement" and profit growth. This is what happens when politics suppress open discussion; research becomes one-sided and our policies myopically tread down a narrow path to dysfunction. The idea that skin color, gender, and/or sexuality have any bearing on the performance of a team is, ironically blatantly racist/sexist. I don't understand how people don't collapse under the weight of such a cognitive dissonance.
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    I am not sure why you equate diversity with inclusion. It's hard to see why members of a team 100% consisting of folks from Laos would feel less "included" in the work/company life than a team of 80% folks from Laos and 20% from Peru.
    - stadium 5y ago
      It's generally accepted now that more diversity has multiple business benefits, from IC level up to board of directors. And paid referrals tend to attract similar demographics and backgrounds. I only have anecdotal data. I honestly didn't read the article, Google can give you more info/data than I can. I vaguely recall HBR has had some good articles on it the last couple of years.
      - lostmsu 5y ago
        I'll take it as no data then.
        stadium 5y ago
        Do you want data on how diversity is beneficial to the bottom line? Or how paid referrals can contribute to homogenized employee demographics and less diversity? If you are truly curious and want to have a meaningful conversation I'm all for that. Otherwise there is plenty of material out there for you to google/research yourself.
        lostmsu 5y ago
        The first one. I have no doubt paid referrals reduce diversity in nationalities. Your claim was that lack of diversity has a cost to the company. What is the cost?

lostmsu 5y ago

I would challenge the use of word "cost" here, unless you have corroborating data.

stadium 5y ago
First google result for "organizational cost of low diversity": https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/accenture-report-perception-gap-shows-economic-cost-lack-of-diversity-inclusion%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/accentu...
- twofornone 5y ago
  That link is blatant propaganda. >number of inclusion topics, including the ability to fail without fear, the ability to report harassment, and the flexibility to work from home. Deliberately conflating "diversity and inclusion" with problems that have nothing to actually do with with gender/race. >Analysts found that companies where many employees felt engaged were more likely to demonstrate higher profit growth. Closing the gap by 50%, or making employees feel more included, pointed to a 33% increase in global profit growth for businesses. And then pulling numbers out of their asses based on a correlation between "employee engagement" and profit growth. This is what happens when politics suppress open discussion; research becomes one-sided and our policies myopically tread down a narrow path to dysfunction. The idea that skin color, gender, and/or sexuality have any bearing on the performance of a team is, ironically blatantly racist/sexist. I don't understand how people don't collapse under the weight of such a cognitive dissonance.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  I am not sure why you equate diversity with inclusion. It's hard to see why members of a team 100% consisting of folks from Laos would feel less "included" in the work/company life than a team of 80% folks from Laos and 20% from Peru.
  - stadium 5y ago
    It's generally accepted now that more diversity has multiple business benefits, from IC level up to board of directors. And paid referrals tend to attract similar demographics and backgrounds. I only have anecdotal data. I honestly didn't read the article, Google can give you more info/data than I can. I vaguely recall HBR has had some good articles on it the last couple of years.
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      I'll take it as no data then.
      - stadium 5y ago
        Do you want data on how diversity is beneficial to the bottom line? Or how paid referrals can contribute to homogenized employee demographics and less diversity? If you are truly curious and want to have a meaningful conversation I'm all for that. Otherwise there is plenty of material out there for you to google/research yourself.
        lostmsu 5y ago
        The first one. I have no doubt paid referrals reduce diversity in nationalities. Your claim was that lack of diversity has a cost to the company. What is the cost?