5 ms·

A long time ago, I was once a Microsoft intern attending a party at Bill Gates' house. At that party, a high-ranking Microsoft HR employee told me that it was

by codex 14y ago

A long time ago, I was once a Microsoft intern attending a party at Bill Gates' house. At that party, a high-ranking Microsoft HR employee told me that it was Microsoft's goal to have twice the percentage of female interns in their program than female CS majors. For example, if women only made up 10% of college CS majors, Microsoft wanted to have 20% female interns. I replied that, if that were their goal, they would most likely have to lower the bar as compared to a male intern, or else pay the female interns more, give them more perks, or purposefully interview fewer qualified male interns. My argument was that if Microsoft's hiring bar was the top 1%, most likely only 10% of that candidate pool is female. So, one must either drop the bar for females, interview more females in that pool than males, or somehow double the chance that a female in that 10% of 1% accepted your internship offer. However, in those days almost nobody rejected Microsoft offers, so that last route seemed difficult. The only way to maintain equality of pay and skill without purposefully rejecting male applicants is to spend a huge amount of effort finding more female applicants than male applicants in that 1% and persuading them to apply. But that's still not really fair, as that really implies that recuiters pay less attention to males, e.g. spending less time and money finding them and recruiting them. The HR representative got very angry, but couldn't articulate why.

masterzora 14y ago
Okay, first, can we drop the overuse of female/male? It makes us sound like we're talking about specimens in a bio lab rather than people and introduces issues wrt the nonequivalence of female and woman or male and man. That said, to a large extent you are correct but you are framing it poorly. One of the major steps of breaking the gender gap is to spend more resources on, not just finding women, but also encouraging women. The net result may be in paying disproportionate amount of attention to the group of women compared to the group of men but it should not imply either of the more obvious ways to interpret "pay less attention to males". That is, it shouldn't involve ignoring men or spending less time with any individual nor should it mean reducing any focus on finding good people regardless of gender. It should involve adding focus on the women, which is substantively different despite the ability to describe it with the same words. It's also not necessarily feasible for everyone but it certainly is for Microsoft, especially with the sort of focus they put on trying to bridge the gender gap.
- codex 14y ago
  You have a budget of one hundred identical recruiters and need to get 1000 female applicants and 500 male applicants to apply for up to 100 internship slots to meet your goal of hiring twice the percentage of women in CS programs. In your country, all of the colleges are segregated; there are 100 all-male and 100 all-female colleges. All of them are having job fairs next week. For each job fair you attend, you know you will get 10 applicants. How do you assign your recruiters?
  - masterzora 14y ago
    Okay, sure, in your highly-fictional, strangely-exact, not-at-all-representative-of-reality example more mens' colleges will be left out than womens' colleges. In reality, not a single part of your scenario actually holds and even the parts that are close aren't that close. I'd do just as well to assume in your scenario that all candidates are uniform, frictionless spheres in a vaccum where gravity is reversed.
erikpukinskis 14y ago
But that's still not really fair, as that really implies that recuiters pay less attention to males, e.g. spending less time and money finding them and recruiting them. You're wrong. It is fair. "Normal" recruiting promotion budgets are obviously paying more attention to males. For example, if you market primarily to CS departments which are 90% male, then that is money largely spent on recruiting males. Spending money specifically on recruiting females brings the budget to parity.
- pervycreeper 14y ago
  Parent meant "fairness" to apply on the individual level, rather than on a collective level, I believe. That is, resources expended per candidate would be comparable, rather than having the total sum of resources expended on female candidates be equal to those spent on male candidates (mutatis mutandis: hires, members of the public, etc.). Which is presumably what you mean.
  - erikpukinskis 14y ago
    resources expended per candidate That doesn't make any sense. Recruitment happens before candidates even exist. Candidates are the result of recruitment.
  - masterzora 14y ago
    But even resources per candidate isn't a good measure of fairness. Just consider the trivial illustrative possibility of a normal job board posting that every potential candidate sees. In today's world it is likely that more men would respond than women by a nontrivial factor. Everyone who responds receives equal treatment and equal devotion of resources and, in the end, significantly more men are hired than women. Now, imagine that we have the exact same scenario but somebody is hired to stand next to the job board and tell every woman who comes by "you should apply for this!" More resources are now being expended per woman than per man but the proportion of people responding might be different without being unfair to any particular person. Granted, there are a lot of trivialities in this example, but it's pretty representative of how such programs are supposed to work.
rdw 14y ago
Do you have evidence that talent can be linearized in such a manner that it is possible to tell objectively within 1% how well an intern will fit at the company? Of course you can linearize on test scores or number of publications or something, but is there evidence that these values will translate precisely to job performance? In my experience, such evidence does not exist, so the zero-sum reasoning is fallacious from the start. In my experience, when looking for people to fill a position, that we end up with some quantity who exceed our requirements, all of whom we'd be happy to hire. The correlation between that quantity and the number of available slots is not strong. Once the candidates cross the "happy to hire" threshold, the decision comes down to what, in retrospect, seem like random factors (if we vaguely think the company might need a certain type of skill later, we might bump up candidates who have that skill, if someone on the team particularly got along well with some candidate that's a plus, etc etc). Evaluating people is not very precise at all. The line about spending a "huge" amount of effort finding more females seems a bit misogynist on its face. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that it would be a particularly huge expense. If the goal is to have an incoming ratio with 10% more females, it seems that the additional expense could reasonably be only 10%. It also is fallacious to assume that this is a zero-sum equation; that additional 10% (or 50%, or whatever) could be provided solely for that purpose, and would be unavailable otherwise. Congratulations on successfully trolling the HR representative, though.
- esrauch 14y ago
  I'm interested in your position. I mainly don't agree about the non-zero sum or definite ordering parts (the BigTechCos that I've worked out explicitly stack rank applicants, so that means they do think there is some definite ordering that can at least be approximated), but I don't think that is a really interesting debate to have. I think more interestingly, it seems like what I've seen is looking to hire interns where we can't even fill the spots we want with people who appear that they are likely to be actually qualified, they hire interns who are unlikely to be qualified because its worth it to filter down to the few that are. It seems that your suggestion that you get more qualified applicants than you have positions for, which really flies in the face of my experiences. Is it really true or were you exaggerating somewhat to make a point?
jackpirate 14y ago
... But that's still not really fair ... "Fairness" as you use it should have no part in a business decision. The Microsoft HR team identified that for them to maximize their competitiveness (i.e. profit), they need more female staff members. That means that an "underqualified" woman suddenly becomes more qualified because she brings a business advantage to the table that a man does not. I have no problem with this.
- krichman 14y ago
  So it's also fine if they determined that having half as many women would increase their competitiveness?
  - furiouslysleepy 14y ago
    There are two things here: 1. Microsoft does not make decisions (mostly) based on fairness to prospective employees. It DOES make decisions based on having a good public image, part of which is being seen as diverse and inclusive. 2. The reason being diverse and inclusive is seen as good is because of a ton of research showing that being diverse is good for companies, good for employees, and good for entire underrepresented communities. So it's not fine, but the fineness or not does not exist in a vacuum. The two situations are not arbitrary, and therefore, not analogous.
nostrademons 14y ago
Not really - there's a really simple solution for hiring more women without dropping the bar for them. Make your company the most desirable place for anyone to work, so that you have vastly more applicants than positions, and then you can pick whoever you want as the incoming cohort. Math: Say that your goal is to hire from the top 1% of the field, and the top 1% is indistinguishable from each other. There are 1 million people in the field, and you will be hiring 1,000 this year. Also say that women make up 10% of the field. In this scenario, there are 10,000 people that you would be happy to work for you, and 1,000 of them are women. If only 10% of prospective employees would even consider working for you (which is the case for many startups, and probably for present-day Microsoft), then you're trying to fill a class of 1000 from a universe of 1,000 candidates, and only 100 of the women both apply and meet your hiring threshold. The best you can do is 10% female interns. If, however, everyone in the field wants to work for your company, you have a universe of 10,000 candidates, 1,000 are women, and you're trying to fill a class of 1,000. You can have a female proportion anywhere from 0-100% with no loss of quality.
- codex 14y ago
  The strategy you describe drops the bar for all employees in order to achieve a gender target. This is not how companies operate, for the most part. If a company wants to hire 1,000 people and 10,000 applicants are in the top 1%, they will move the bar up to hire the top 0.1% instead. Given a normal distirbution of applicants, there is a huge difference in talent (10x?) between top 1% and top 0.1%. The bar always automatically adjusts higher; otherwise, a competitor will hire the fraction of the 0.1% that you've passed over. Now the competitor has a 1,000 workers, and you have 1,000 workers, but the competitors are 10x more talented for the same pay (most of the 0.1% didn't get an offer from you, so there's no bidding war for their talents). Actually, if a company spends more money recruiting each equivalent female employee than male employee, they do effectively drop their total hiring bar if spending more money lets the company climb the bell curve, because it's effectively a reduction in spending efficency, but that effect is small, and skill parity is still achieved.
  - nostrademons 14y ago

by codex 14y ago

masterzora 14y ago

Okay, first, can we drop the overuse of female/male? It makes us sound like we're talking about specimens in a bio lab rather than people and introduces issues wrt the nonequivalence of female and woman or male and man. That said, to a large extent you are correct but you are framing it poorly. One of the major steps of breaking the gender gap is to spend more resources on, not just finding women, but also encouraging women. The net result may be in paying disproportionate amount of attention to the group of women compared to the group of men but it should not imply either of the more obvious ways to interpret "pay less attention to males". That is, it shouldn't involve ignoring men or spending less time with any individual nor should it mean reducing any focus on finding good people regardless of gender. It should involve adding focus on the women, which is substantively different despite the ability to describe it with the same words. It's also not necessarily feasible for everyone but it certainly is for Microsoft, especially with the sort of focus they put on trying to bridge the gender gap.

codex 14y ago
You have a budget of one hundred identical recruiters and need to get 1000 female applicants and 500 male applicants to apply for up to 100 internship slots to meet your goal of hiring twice the percentage of women in CS programs. In your country, all of the colleges are segregated; there are 100 all-male and 100 all-female colleges. All of them are having job fairs next week. For each job fair you attend, you know you will get 10 applicants. How do you assign your recruiters?
- masterzora 14y ago
  Okay, sure, in your highly-fictional, strangely-exact, not-at-all-representative-of-reality example more mens' colleges will be left out than womens' colleges. In reality, not a single part of your scenario actually holds and even the parts that are close aren't that close. I'd do just as well to assume in your scenario that all candidates are uniform, frictionless spheres in a vaccum where gravity is reversed.

erikpukinskis 14y ago

But that's still not really fair, as that really implies that recuiters pay less attention to males, e.g. spending less time and money finding them and recruiting them. You're wrong. It is fair. "Normal" recruiting promotion budgets are obviously paying more attention to males. For example, if you market primarily to CS departments which are 90% male, then that is money largely spent on recruiting males. Spending money specifically on recruiting females brings the budget to parity.

pervycreeper 14y ago
Parent meant "fairness" to apply on the individual level, rather than on a collective level, I believe. That is, resources expended per candidate would be comparable, rather than having the total sum of resources expended on female candidates be equal to those spent on male candidates (mutatis mutandis: hires, members of the public, etc.). Which is presumably what you mean.
- erikpukinskis 14y ago
  resources expended per candidate That doesn't make any sense. Recruitment happens before candidates even exist. Candidates are the result of recruitment.
- masterzora 14y ago
  But even resources per candidate isn't a good measure of fairness. Just consider the trivial illustrative possibility of a normal job board posting that every potential candidate sees. In today's world it is likely that more men would respond than women by a nontrivial factor. Everyone who responds receives equal treatment and equal devotion of resources and, in the end, significantly more men are hired than women. Now, imagine that we have the exact same scenario but somebody is hired to stand next to the job board and tell every woman who comes by "you should apply for this!" More resources are now being expended per woman than per man but the proportion of people responding might be different without being unfair to any particular person. Granted, there are a lot of trivialities in this example, but it's pretty representative of how such programs are supposed to work.

rdw 14y ago

Do you have evidence that talent can be linearized in such a manner that it is possible to tell objectively within 1% how well an intern will fit at the company? Of course you can linearize on test scores or number of publications or something, but is there evidence that these values will translate precisely to job performance? In my experience, such evidence does not exist, so the zero-sum reasoning is fallacious from the start. In my experience, when looking for people to fill a position, that we end up with some quantity who exceed our requirements, all of whom we'd be happy to hire. The correlation between that quantity and the number of available slots is not strong. Once the candidates cross the "happy to hire" threshold, the decision comes down to what, in retrospect, seem like random factors (if we vaguely think the company might need a certain type of skill later, we might bump up candidates who have that skill, if someone on the team particularly got along well with some candidate that's a plus, etc etc). Evaluating people is not very precise at all. The line about spending a "huge" amount of effort finding more females seems a bit misogynist on its face. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that it would be a particularly huge expense. If the goal is to have an incoming ratio with 10% more females, it seems that the additional expense could reasonably be only 10%. It also is fallacious to assume that this is a zero-sum equation; that additional 10% (or 50%, or whatever) could be provided solely for that purpose, and would be unavailable otherwise. Congratulations on successfully trolling the HR representative, though.

esrauch 14y ago
I'm interested in your position. I mainly don't agree about the non-zero sum or definite ordering parts (the BigTechCos that I've worked out explicitly stack rank applicants, so that means they do think there is some definite ordering that can at least be approximated), but I don't think that is a really interesting debate to have. I think more interestingly, it seems like what I've seen is looking to hire interns where we can't even fill the spots we want with people who appear that they are likely to be actually qualified, they hire interns who are unlikely to be qualified because its worth it to filter down to the few that are. It seems that your suggestion that you get more qualified applicants than you have positions for, which really flies in the face of my experiences. Is it really true or were you exaggerating somewhat to make a point?

jackpirate 14y ago

... But that's still not really fair ... "Fairness" as you use it should have no part in a business decision. The Microsoft HR team identified that for them to maximize their competitiveness (i.e. profit), they need more female staff members. That means that an "underqualified" woman suddenly becomes more qualified because she brings a business advantage to the table that a man does not. I have no problem with this.

krichman 14y ago
So it's also fine if they determined that having half as many women would increase their competitiveness?
- furiouslysleepy 14y ago
  There are two things here: 1. Microsoft does not make decisions (mostly) based on fairness to prospective employees. It DOES make decisions based on having a good public image, part of which is being seen as diverse and inclusive. 2. The reason being diverse and inclusive is seen as good is because of a ton of research showing that being diverse is good for companies, good for employees, and good for entire underrepresented communities. So it's not fine, but the fineness or not does not exist in a vacuum. The two situations are not arbitrary, and therefore, not analogous.

nostrademons 14y ago

Not really - there's a really simple solution for hiring more women without dropping the bar for them. Make your company the most desirable place for anyone to work, so that you have vastly more applicants than positions, and then you can pick whoever you want as the incoming cohort. Math: Say that your goal is to hire from the top 1% of the field, and the top 1% is indistinguishable from each other. There are 1 million people in the field, and you will be hiring 1,000 this year. Also say that women make up 10% of the field. In this scenario, there are 10,000 people that you would be happy to work for you, and 1,000 of them are women. If only 10% of prospective employees would even consider working for you (which is the case for many startups, and probably for present-day Microsoft), then you're trying to fill a class of 1000 from a universe of 1,000 candidates, and only 100 of the women both apply and meet your hiring threshold. The best you can do is 10% female interns. If, however, everyone in the field wants to work for your company, you have a universe of 10,000 candidates, 1,000 are women, and you're trying to fill a class of 1,000. You can have a female proportion anywhere from 0-100% with no loss of quality.

codex 14y ago
The strategy you describe drops the bar for all employees in order to achieve a gender target. This is not how companies operate, for the most part. If a company wants to hire 1,000 people and 10,000 applicants are in the top 1%, they will move the bar up to hire the top 0.1% instead. Given a normal distirbution of applicants, there is a huge difference in talent (10x?) between top 1% and top 0.1%. The bar always automatically adjusts higher; otherwise, a competitor will hire the fraction of the 0.1% that you've passed over. Now the competitor has a 1,000 workers, and you have 1,000 workers, but the competitors are 10x more talented for the same pay (most of the 0.1% didn't get an offer from you, so there's no bidding war for their talents). Actually, if a company spends more money recruiting each equivalent female employee than male employee, they do effectively drop their total hiring bar if spending more money lets the company climb the bell curve, because it's effectively a reduction in spending efficency, but that effect is small, and skill parity is still achieved.
- nostrademons 14y ago