4 ms·

Opinion: Meritocracy in Silicon Valley a worthy goal but not a reality

14 points by iProject 14y ago

GuiA 14y ago
<meta> >Wouldn’t it be great if the hottest deals were done in the nursing mothers’ lounge as often as they were done on the golf course? Who plays golf in Silicon Valley? The only course I'm aware of belongs to Stanford, and only some students/professors/old people ever go there.
- shrughes 14y ago
  Hello? There's Palo Alto, Shoreline, Sunnyvale, Sunken Gardens, Santa Clara, just to name a few east of El Camino. This place has the second-best year-round golfing weather in the country. Edit: Also the U.S. Open was held this year at a course in San Francisco.
  - GuiA 14y ago
    Ha, the more you know. Thanks for the info!
j_baker 14y ago
(CNN) – I look forward to the day when a pregnant engineer becoming CEO of a major tech company isn’t news. I'm always skeptical of meta-Journalism. To me, this translates into "Major media outlet criticizes major media outlets (itself included)".
scott_w 14y ago
Does racial/gender diversity really make your business better? Actively preventing diversity can clearly be negative e.g. refusing to hire women, but blindly promoting diversity for the sake of it can be just as bad. I would be interested in seeing the questionnaire. The article frames the question in a way that could easily mean "Should companies have a diverse range of skills in their workforce?" which most people would answer positively to. Asking whether they should try to hire people with diverse skill sets could elicit more divided responses.
- gojomo 14y ago
  Indeed. From the linked PDF, the numbers seem to have been percentage of startup men who 'agreed' with the specific statements: "Diverse teams are better at problem-solving and innovation." (60%) "I am in favor of a company-wide hiring practice to increase diversity." (41%) In common workplace parlance, the words 'diverse' and 'diversity' in those two statements aren't necessarily referring to the same qualitative goal. "Diverse teams" can be taken to mean "diverse in the relevant dimensions for problem-solving and innovation", such as having a variety of skills, temperaments, organizational-responsibilities, or life experiences. Meanwhile, "hiring practice to increase diversity" often means a focus on certain broad categories (of race, gender, age) during hiring. Such an interpretation does not create the 'striking' logical tension Klein ascribes to the data, as would exist if these two phrases were as closely related as Klein's analogy to "knowing how to code" and "hiring people who know how to code".
- jaems33 14y ago
  What's interesting to me is that there are clearly a lot of Asians who study engineering/comp-sci at excellent North American schools (let alone schools around the world), yet very few represent CTOs/CEOs/execs of tech startups/companies on this continent. Tony Hsieh and Jerry Yang are literally the only guys I can think of in the U.S., while Google does have a number of Indians on their leadership committee.
azylman 14y ago
while 60% of men in start-ups believe diverse teams are better at innovation and problem-solving, only 41% would be in favor of a companywide hiring practice to increase diversity. Really? If 60% believed, for example, that knowing how to code made for better hires, would only 41% be in favor of hiring people who know how to code? Those are... not the same thing at all. That is an extremely flawed analogy. The survey is taking about what makes for a good TEAM - further, it's only part of what makes a good team - one factor of many. You don't hire a team, however, you hire an individual. The comparison that she draws is significantly more black and white: "Person A is strictly a better hire than person B, but we're hiring person B."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
confluence 14y ago
Meritocracy is bullshit. End of story. It is a useful theoretical concept that has absolutely no grounding in the reality of human incentive structures, randomness and extreme path dependence. Meritocracy can only exist if all humans are equal - as in perfect clones of each other - prepared in the exact same way, at the exact same time. Given the proposition that 'a persons life prospects should not be decided by factors outside of their control or for which a person cannot claim personal credit' (i.e social status, inherited wealth, race and other accidents of birth) a meritocracy proposes a system where people are rewarded based on their efforts, and if everyone can start on equal footing with the same opportunity to advance, then the results are just. However, some studies have shown that even our motivation, work ethic and conscientious drive is in fact outside of our control and can be affected by such arbitrary factors such as birth order. Children who are first in birth order are more likely to be hard working. Therefore, a system which rewards effort in this way is not just, because effort and hard work is not something we can claim credit for. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy Check and mate. People continually say they are for equality of opportunity and not for outcome (bullshit!). That is impossible. Hence we modify the outcomes (welfare/taxes/public goods/roads/sewers/national defence etc.) to mitigate the messier parts of humanity and stabilize societies from uprisings and violence. If the people don't eat bread - the people get angry - and heads roll. Just ask the French! Meritocracy began its life in an essay parodying the self-same concept that brought its name into existence. Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term meritocracy was first coined by British politician and sociologist, Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay, "The Rise of the Meritocracy" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy It is such a ridiculous concept I have no idea why humans believe it. Actually I do - it's called the Just-world hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) - a systematic and problematic cognitive bias seen throughout human culture - Karma/Santa Claus/Heaven-Hell/Justice systems and many others I am sure. It is a derivative of the fundamental attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error). Meritocracy is bullshit. Always has been - always will be. Along with a ton of other systems/ideas/thoughts that I won't go into to avoid unnecessary down votes and the brutal thought pain I might cause others :D. In the words of sociologist Laurie Taylor: “The hideous thing about meritocracy is it tells you that if you’ve given life your all and haven’t got to the top you’re thick or stupid. Previously, at least, you could always just blame the class system.” -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
redthrowaway 14y ago
Meritocracy is the reality in every field. The problem is that people incorrectly define merit. If I'm a developer who gets promoted to architect because I'm dating the boss' niece, I've exploited my social skills and have reaped the benefits. People tend to naively assume that the only skills that matter are those directly related to the job at hand. This is false.

14 points by iProject 14y ago

GuiA 14y ago

shrughes 14y ago
Hello? There's Palo Alto, Shoreline, Sunnyvale, Sunken Gardens, Santa Clara, just to name a few east of El Camino. This place has the second-best year-round golfing weather in the country. Edit: Also the U.S. Open was held this year at a course in San Francisco.
- GuiA 14y ago
  Ha, the more you know. Thanks for the info!

j_baker 14y ago

(CNN) – I look forward to the day when a pregnant engineer becoming CEO of a major tech company isn’t news. I'm always skeptical of meta-Journalism. To me, this translates into "Major media outlet criticizes major media outlets (itself included)".

scott_w 14y ago

Does racial/gender diversity really make your business better? Actively preventing diversity can clearly be negative e.g. refusing to hire women, but blindly promoting diversity for the sake of it can be just as bad. I would be interested in seeing the questionnaire. The article frames the question in a way that could easily mean "Should companies have a diverse range of skills in their workforce?" which most people would answer positively to. Asking whether they should try to hire people with diverse skill sets could elicit more divided responses.

gojomo 14y ago
Indeed. From the linked PDF, the numbers seem to have been percentage of startup men who 'agreed' with the specific statements: "Diverse teams are better at problem-solving and innovation." (60%) "I am in favor of a company-wide hiring practice to increase diversity." (41%) In common workplace parlance, the words 'diverse' and 'diversity' in those two statements aren't necessarily referring to the same qualitative goal. "Diverse teams" can be taken to mean "diverse in the relevant dimensions for problem-solving and innovation", such as having a variety of skills, temperaments, organizational-responsibilities, or life experiences. Meanwhile, "hiring practice to increase diversity" often means a focus on certain broad categories (of race, gender, age) during hiring. Such an interpretation does not create the 'striking' logical tension Klein ascribes to the data, as would exist if these two phrases were as closely related as Klein's analogy to "knowing how to code" and "hiring people who know how to code".
jaems33 14y ago
What's interesting to me is that there are clearly a lot of Asians who study engineering/comp-sci at excellent North American schools (let alone schools around the world), yet very few represent CTOs/CEOs/execs of tech startups/companies on this continent. Tony Hsieh and Jerry Yang are literally the only guys I can think of in the U.S., while Google does have a number of Indians on their leadership committee.

azylman 14y ago

while 60% of men in start-ups believe diverse teams are better at innovation and problem-solving, only 41% would be in favor of a companywide hiring practice to increase diversity. Really? If 60% believed, for example, that knowing how to code made for better hires, would only 41% be in favor of hiring people who know how to code? Those are... not the same thing at all. That is an extremely flawed analogy. The survey is taking about what makes for a good TEAM - further, it's only part of what makes a good team - one factor of many. You don't hire a team, however, you hire an individual. The comparison that she draws is significantly more black and white: "Person A is strictly a better hire than person B, but we're hiring person B."

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

confluence 14y ago

Meritocracy is bullshit. End of story. It is a useful theoretical concept that has absolutely no grounding in the reality of human incentive structures, randomness and extreme path dependence. Meritocracy can only exist if all humans are equal - as in perfect clones of each other - prepared in the exact same way, at the exact same time. Given the proposition that 'a persons life prospects should not be decided by factors outside of their control or for which a person cannot claim personal credit' (i.e social status, inherited wealth, race and other accidents of birth) a meritocracy proposes a system where people are rewarded based on their efforts, and if everyone can start on equal footing with the same opportunity to advance, then the results are just. However, some studies have shown that even our motivation, work ethic and conscientious drive is in fact outside of our control and can be affected by such arbitrary factors such as birth order. Children who are first in birth order are more likely to be hard working. Therefore, a system which rewards effort in this way is not just, because effort and hard work is not something we can claim credit for. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy Check and mate. People continually say they are for equality of opportunity and not for outcome (bullshit!). That is impossible. Hence we modify the outcomes (welfare/taxes/public goods/roads/sewers/national defence etc.) to mitigate the messier parts of humanity and stabilize societies from uprisings and violence. If the people don't eat bread - the people get angry - and heads roll. Just ask the French! Meritocracy began its life in an essay parodying the self-same concept that brought its name into existence. Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term meritocracy was first coined by British politician and sociologist, Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay, "The Rise of the Meritocracy" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy It is such a ridiculous concept I have no idea why humans believe it. Actually I do - it's called the Just-world hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) - a systematic and problematic cognitive bias seen throughout human culture - Karma/Santa Claus/Heaven-Hell/Justice systems and many others I am sure. It is a derivative of the fundamental attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error). Meritocracy is bullshit. Always has been - always will be. Along with a ton of other systems/ideas/thoughts that I won't go into to avoid unnecessary down votes and the brutal thought pain I might cause others :D. In the words of sociologist Laurie Taylor: “The hideous thing about meritocracy is it tells you that if you’ve given life your all and haven’t got to the top you’re thick or stupid. Previously, at least, you could always just blame the class system.” -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

redthrowaway 14y ago

Meritocracy is the reality in every field. The problem is that people incorrectly define merit. If I'm a developer who gets promoted to architect because I'm dating the boss' niece, I've exploited my social skills and have reaped the benefits. People tend to naively assume that the only skills that matter are those directly related to the job at hand. This is false.