4 ms·

> Most people understand why it’s important to have more women in the workplace (and more diversity in general beyond gender). Actually, I have never heard a s

> Most people understand why it’s important to have more women in the workplace (and more diversity in general beyond gender). Actually, I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of why this is important.

cristinacordova 14y ago
Data shows that companies with more women in leadership roles outperform companies with fewer women in leadership roles. [1] Women drive economic growth. Women went from holding 37 percent of all jobs to 47 percent over the past 40 years. This has accounted for about a quarter of current GDP. [2] If your company is selling products to women or households (for which women do the majority of spending), it makes sense to have people on your team who can understand what they want. Studies show diversifying the workplace helps businesses increase their market share. [3] [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/katetaylor/2012/06/26/the-new-case-for-women-on-corporate-boards-new-perspectives-increased-profits/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/katetaylor/2012/06/26/the-new-ca... [2] http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/organization/latest_thinking/unlocking_the_full_potential.aspx http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/organization/latest_t... [3] http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/Deloitte%20Review/Deloitte%20Review%20-%20Winter%202011/US_deloittereview_Diversity_as_an_Engine_of_Innovation_Jan11.pdf http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Ass...
- barry-cotter 14y ago
  1. How muc of the growth in women's share of those employed comes from growing female labour force participation and how much is declining male labour force participation? 2. A quarter of current GDP? How much of that is accounted for by the movement of goods and services from the non-monetarty sector to the monetary sector? Because that's not growth, that's accounting.
mooreds 14y ago
Is it better to have access to 50% of talent or 100% of talent?
- monochromatic 14y ago
  Being willing to hire whoever is best for the job gets you there though. The statement above seems to be about diversity for diversity's sake.
  - cristinacordova 14y ago
    The post assumes that the women you are trying to recruit are qualified.
    - katbyte 14y ago
      I think the post is more about not driving off women who are qualified.
      - cristinacordova 14y ago
        correct, that was my goal.
    - monochromatic 14y ago
      Sure. I was questioning the assumption that a diverse workforce is better than a non-diverse workforce. It's not clear to me that you can actually do better through pursuing diversity than you can through simply being willing to interview and hire whoever is best for the jobs. Now, not setting up unintentional barriers to hiring women, as you discuss, is sort of a prerequisite for that.
  - mooreds 14y ago
    Some startups are 'willing' to hire whoever is best for the job but have invisible (to them) obstacles that may prevent them from doing so. I thought the article explained some of those obstacles well.

cristinacordova 14y ago

Data shows that companies with more women in leadership roles outperform companies with fewer women in leadership roles. [1] Women drive economic growth. Women went from holding 37 percent of all jobs to 47 percent over the past 40 years. This has accounted for about a quarter of current GDP. [2] If your company is selling products to women or households (for which women do the majority of spending), it makes sense to have people on your team who can understand what they want. Studies show diversifying the workplace helps businesses increase their market share. [3] [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/katetaylor/2012/06/26/the-new-case-for-women-on-corporate-boards-new-perspectives-increased-profits/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/katetaylor/2012/06/26/the-new-ca... [2] http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/organization/latest_thinking/unlocking_the_full_potential.aspx http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/organization/latest_t... [3] http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/Deloitte%20Review/Deloitte%20Review%20-%20Winter%202011/US_deloittereview_Diversity_as_an_Engine_of_Innovation_Jan11.pdf http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Ass...

barry-cotter 14y ago
1. How muc of the growth in women's share of those employed comes from growing female labour force participation and how much is declining male labour force participation? 2. A quarter of current GDP? How much of that is accounted for by the movement of goods and services from the non-monetarty sector to the monetary sector? Because that's not growth, that's accounting.

mooreds 14y ago

Is it better to have access to 50% of talent or 100% of talent?

monochromatic 14y ago
Being willing to hire whoever is best for the job gets you there though. The statement above seems to be about diversity for diversity's sake.
- cristinacordova 14y ago
  The post assumes that the women you are trying to recruit are qualified.
  - katbyte 14y ago
    I think the post is more about not driving off women who are qualified.
    - cristinacordova 14y ago
      correct, that was my goal.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    Sure. I was questioning the assumption that a diverse workforce is better than a non-diverse workforce. It's not clear to me that you can actually do better through pursuing diversity than you can through simply being willing to interview and hire whoever is best for the jobs. Now, not setting up unintentional barriers to hiring women, as you discuss, is sort of a prerequisite for that.
- mooreds 14y ago
  Some startups are 'willing' to hire whoever is best for the job but have invisible (to them) obstacles that may prevent them from doing so. I thought the article explained some of those obstacles well.