7 ms·

It's great to be open and all, but they never mention what their goal is. Do Google believe diversity is good for workplace cohesion, their own social mobility

by Dwolb 12y ago

It's great to be open and all, but they never mention what their goal is. Do Google believe diversity is good for workplace cohesion, their own social mobility goals, good corporate moral policy, etc.? The data is interesting in it's own right but I don't better understand where Google is going with diversity; I only understand where Google currently stands.

DiggityDug7 12y ago
Does there have to be a business goal? Making society more fair is a good goal. Reducing the white male preference in the job market should be a social responsibility for a company that greatly impacts our daily lives. There could be business goals though: it improves people's public opinion of you and in this case may help protect them from lawsuits. This link at the bottom of the page has some more info... http://www.google.com/diversity/ http://www.google.com/diversity/
- EGreg 12y ago
  DiggityDug7, if only 5% of the country was black, say, would having under 10% of your workforce be black be considered unfair? Likewise, if the number of comp sci graduates in the country is 5%, the same question can be asked. Who is the one being unfair?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- ianstallings 12y ago
  Yes it takes the idea of a corporation strictly being beholden to shareholders and extends it to all stakeholders, which includes impacted society.
- brighteyes 12y ago
  > Making society more fair is a good goal. Reducing the white male preference in the job market should be a social responsibility for a company that greatly impacts our daily lives. The data Google just posted contradicts you. 61% of Google employees are white, while 80% of the total US workforce is, see e.g. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/google-releases-employee-data-illustrating-techs-diversity-challenge/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/google-releases-emp... That means white people are under-represented at Google. The group whose representation is most diverging from the population as a whole are Asians, who are hugely over-represented. Overall, the numbers show that Asians are over-represented, which may explain much of the under-representation by all other groups. So the story here is certainly not one of "white male preference in the job market". You might be right about male, but not about white.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    OT: I had this in mind when the character on House of Cards complained that she'd feel like a token Asian minority if she worked at Google. Writer research failure.
- Omniusaspirer 12y ago
  How is it unfair to hire what you perceive as the best candidate to work at your company? Something that's actually unfair would be disqualifying a better candidate purely because of his skin color/gender. Also, just to emphasis what others have already replied to you; Whites are actually underrepresented at Google relative to the ratios seen in the rest of the workforce.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
philipwalton 12y ago
As a Google employee, the reasons I hear is that we'd like the diversity of our workforce to more accurately reflect the diversity of our users, so we can serve them better.
- Dwolb 12y ago
  I think this is a very interesting response. If it's true, then their diversity goal will be reached when the makeup of Google workforce is representative of the world population (assuming world population correlates well with Google user population). Therefore, focusing on bringing more women in to tech is a very good goal since women may make up 50% of Google users. Secondary and third goals would be to hire more representatives from Asia and Africa
- justicezyx 12y ago
  So that's way Google exited China, right? ...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - nl 12y ago
    Does this mean we should empose[sic] quotas to get Blacks out of the NFL and replace them with Whites No to the quotas. But yes, race in the NFL (and in many sports) is an issue that should be addressed. The old problem of the low proportion of black quarterbacks is slowly being addressed, and the Rooney Rule[1] has had some success with the underrepresentation of black coaches. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - nl 12y ago
        It sounds to me like you believe that some ethnic groups have intrinsic (genetic) advantages over others in some areas. Like most things to do with race there is a tiny, tiny sliver of truth in this, but not enough to explain the outcomes. sigh Lets look at sports. Sprints: The ACTN3 gene[1] is associated with the fast-twitch muscles, and is more prevalent in people of West African descent. Out of the last 7 Olympic 100m mens finals all 56 finalists have been of West African descent. Only 2 out of the top 500 100m race times are by people without African descent. Case closed? No. The proportion of sprint wins by West Africans is much higher than the prevalence of the ACTN3 gene would explain, and other power sports (notably weight lifting) are dominated by other ethnic groups with a more average distribution of the gene. Distance running: The Kalenjin tribe (mostly from Kenya) has dominated distance running since the late 1990s. Most of their competition has come from Ethiopian runners and the occasional North African (especially in the women's events)[2]. They do have a genetic advantage: they tend to be very skinny, with long legs and short torsos. But you can find these attributes in any population group. More surprising is that elite non-African runners performance has decreased over time: For example, of the top 10 Marathon times by British athletes only 1 (in 8th position) is since 2000, and 6 are pre 1990 (including the 2 fastest times). This indicates something else is going on, that can't just be explained by genetics. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTN3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTN3 [2] http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/road-running/marathon/outdoor/men/senior http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/road-running/marathon/o... - the best place person without a African heritige is Ronaldo Da Costa at 57.

by Dwolb 12y ago

DiggityDug7 12y ago

Does there have to be a business goal? Making society more fair is a good goal. Reducing the white male preference in the job market should be a social responsibility for a company that greatly impacts our daily lives. There could be business goals though: it improves people's public opinion of you and in this case may help protect them from lawsuits. This link at the bottom of the page has some more info... http://www.google.com/diversity/ http://www.google.com/diversity/

EGreg 12y ago
DiggityDug7, if only 5% of the country was black, say, would having under 10% of your workforce be black be considered unfair? Likewise, if the number of comp sci graduates in the country is 5%, the same question can be asked. Who is the one being unfair?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ianstallings 12y ago
Yes it takes the idea of a corporation strictly being beholden to shareholders and extends it to all stakeholders, which includes impacted society.
brighteyes 12y ago
> Making society more fair is a good goal. Reducing the white male preference in the job market should be a social responsibility for a company that greatly impacts our daily lives. The data Google just posted contradicts you. 61% of Google employees are white, while 80% of the total US workforce is, see e.g. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/google-releases-employee-data-illustrating-techs-diversity-challenge/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/google-releases-emp... That means white people are under-represented at Google. The group whose representation is most diverging from the population as a whole are Asians, who are hugely over-represented. Overall, the numbers show that Asians are over-represented, which may explain much of the under-representation by all other groups. So the story here is certainly not one of "white male preference in the job market". You might be right about male, but not about white.
- SilasX 12y ago
  OT: I had this in mind when the character on House of Cards complained that she'd feel like a token Asian minority if she worked at Google. Writer research failure.
Omniusaspirer 12y ago
How is it unfair to hire what you perceive as the best candidate to work at your company? Something that's actually unfair would be disqualifying a better candidate purely because of his skin color/gender. Also, just to emphasis what others have already replied to you; Whites are actually underrepresented at Google relative to the ratios seen in the rest of the workforce.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

philipwalton 12y ago

As a Google employee, the reasons I hear is that we'd like the diversity of our workforce to more accurately reflect the diversity of our users, so we can serve them better.

Dwolb 12y ago
I think this is a very interesting response. If it's true, then their diversity goal will be reached when the makeup of Google workforce is representative of the world population (assuming world population correlates well with Google user population). Therefore, focusing on bringing more women in to tech is a very good goal since women may make up 50% of Google users. Secondary and third goals would be to hire more representatives from Asia and Africa
justicezyx 12y ago
So that's way Google exited China, right? ...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- nl 12y ago
  Does this mean we should empose[sic] quotas to get Blacks out of the NFL and replace them with Whites No to the quotas. But yes, race in the NFL (and in many sports) is an issue that should be addressed. The old problem of the low proportion of black quarterbacks is slowly being addressed, and the Rooney Rule[1] has had some success with the underrepresentation of black coaches. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - nl 12y ago
      It sounds to me like you believe that some ethnic groups have intrinsic (genetic) advantages over others in some areas. Like most things to do with race there is a tiny, tiny sliver of truth in this, but not enough to explain the outcomes. sigh Lets look at sports. Sprints: The ACTN3 gene[1] is associated with the fast-twitch muscles, and is more prevalent in people of West African descent. Out of the last 7 Olympic 100m mens finals all 56 finalists have been of West African descent. Only 2 out of the top 500 100m race times are by people without African descent. Case closed? No. The proportion of sprint wins by West Africans is much higher than the prevalence of the ACTN3 gene would explain, and other power sports (notably weight lifting) are dominated by other ethnic groups with a more average distribution of the gene. Distance running: The Kalenjin tribe (mostly from Kenya) has dominated distance running since the late 1990s. Most of their competition has come from Ethiopian runners and the occasional North African (especially in the women's events)[2]. They do have a genetic advantage: they tend to be very skinny, with long legs and short torsos. But you can find these attributes in any population group. More surprising is that elite non-African runners performance has decreased over time: For example, of the top 10 Marathon times by British athletes only 1 (in 8th position) is since 2000, and 6 are pre 1990 (including the 2 fastest times). This indicates something else is going on, that can't just be explained by genetics. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTN3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTN3 [2] http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/road-running/marathon/outdoor/men/senior http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/road-running/marathon/o... - the best place person without a African heritige is Ronaldo Da Costa at 57.