4 ms·

> rather than doing the usual outreach programs only to the usual universities, you could decide to turn stones that you wouldn't usually turn in order to find

> rather than doing the usual outreach programs only to the usual universities, you could decide to turn stones that you wouldn't usually turn in order to find people you wouldn't usually find. This reads to me "onesidedly relax hiring criteria to keep quota" and is exactly the kind of intervention into the hiring process that I expect to decrease average capability of new hires. Sure, if your criteria themselves are bad in the first place (you are basically rejecting a huge pool of candidates randomly), it does not matter. But plenty of companies don't have a somewhat infinite stream of candidates that would be willing to relocate from across the world, and expanding that candidate stream has a very real cost for the business, too.

pyrale 2y ago
Outreach programs typically don't influence the hiring decision. But they influence the stream of people that will try to get an internship at your company. For instance, if you're a Stanford grad and keep strong ties with the alma mater, teachers there may say a word about you to their promising students, and you'll end up with more people from Stanford than from e.g. Yale. A DEI program could look to fix that by advertising your company to other venues. > expanding that candidate stream has a very real cost for the business I don't dispute that, but we've moved from "it would lead to worse hires" to "it would cost money to the company". If the company is willing to put $0 into the issue, business as usual is the only viable solution.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  I will concede that if you do this very rigorously (reject out-of-quota candidates very early in the hiring pipeline, without letting current quota deviation ever influence any specific hiring decision) it is possible to not affect candidate quality. But I think in practice (also from personal experience) it is very hard to make a business stick to this. I also think that this mostly amounts to investing additional ressources into expanding the candidate stream (=> outreach programs), hiding a bunch of the costs (those outreach programs could have gotten you twice the benefit without the quota-rejection) for extremely questionable gain; consider: You could've probably gotten the same result from a DEI perspective by just paying female candidates the cost of those outreach programs (that would be a strictly better outcome for them, but a shit framework from an ethical POV). In summary: I think it's always an excellent idea to remove racial/gender bias in hiring (=> create non-hostile environment, accomodate needs where possible, get rid of condescending, sexist pricks in HR), but I think it is misguided, pointless and wasteful to try and balance the outcomes at the very end...

pyrale 2y ago

Outreach programs typically don't influence the hiring decision. But they influence the stream of people that will try to get an internship at your company. For instance, if you're a Stanford grad and keep strong ties with the alma mater, teachers there may say a word about you to their promising students, and you'll end up with more people from Stanford than from e.g. Yale. A DEI program could look to fix that by advertising your company to other venues. > expanding that candidate stream has a very real cost for the business I don't dispute that, but we've moved from "it would lead to worse hires" to "it would cost money to the company". If the company is willing to put $0 into the issue, business as usual is the only viable solution.

myrmidon 2y ago
I will concede that if you do this very rigorously (reject out-of-quota candidates very early in the hiring pipeline, without letting current quota deviation ever influence any specific hiring decision) it is possible to not affect candidate quality. But I think in practice (also from personal experience) it is very hard to make a business stick to this. I also think that this mostly amounts to investing additional ressources into expanding the candidate stream (=> outreach programs), hiding a bunch of the costs (those outreach programs could have gotten you twice the benefit without the quota-rejection) for extremely questionable gain; consider: You could've probably gotten the same result from a DEI perspective by just paying female candidates the cost of those outreach programs (that would be a strictly better outcome for them, but a shit framework from an ethical POV). In summary: I think it's always an excellent idea to remove racial/gender bias in hiring (=> create non-hostile environment, accomodate needs where possible, get rid of condescending, sexist pricks in HR), but I think it is misguided, pointless and wasteful to try and balance the outcomes at the very end...