3 ms·

> "Do you have data on this? Anecdotally it isn't hard to think of Asians in the upper echelons (e.g. Satya Nadella)." In the same way Barack Obama is evidence

> "Do you have data on this? Anecdotally it isn't hard to think of Asians in the upper echelons (e.g. Satya Nadella)." In the same way Barack Obama is evidence that black people have it pretty easy around here ;) There are definitely some high-profile Asians in tech, they're not exactly rare like unicorns, but the underrepresentation is plenty real. I dug up the original article I was reading: http://the-toast.net/2014/10/23/asian-americans-media/view-all/?utm_content=buffere0bba&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer http://the-toast.net/2014/10/23/asian-americans-media/view-a... - btw, this is IMO the most approachable/parseable summary of where Asian-Americans fit into the greater American race relations landscape I've seen yet. It's well worth a read. It's a more general look at Asian-Americans, but there is a section specifically addressing tech. More concretely giving numbers to the representation deficit: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23100254/glass-ceiling-asian-americans-still-under-represented-silicon http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23100254/glass-ceiling-asian-a... Even in Google's own numbers Asians represent 34% of the tech workforce and 23% in leadership roles. Facebook's a bit worse - 41% of tech workforce Asian, 19% leadership. Yahoo is particularly egregious - 57% Asian, 17% leadership. Even Twitter isn't particularly great: 34% Asians in tech, 24% in leadership from their own report: https://blog.twitter.com/2014/building-a-twitter-we-can-be-proud-of https://blog.twitter.com/2014/building-a-twitter-we-can-be-p...

yummyfajitas 12y ago
By those numbers, Asians are overrepresented in both tech and leadership. The real question is why they aren't more overrepresented in leadership. It's a valid question, but a different one than I was asking. Apriori I would not expect the demographics of leadership to look like those of tech. My simple model (with allusions to michaelochurch) is that tech is generally not the path to leadership. I.e., if 3% of techies go into leadership vs 5% of non-techies, then leadership demographics will look more like non-tech demographics than tech demographics.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  The under representation exists even if we include all Asians employed at these companies - Twitter has for example a 29%/24% difference, Facebook is 24/19 when restricted to just non-tech role headcount. Yahoo comes in at 24/17 when similarly looking at just non-tech employees. The demographics of leadership actually get worse once you leave tech: Asians represent 0.8% of C-level roles, and 2.1% of board seats - against 5% in the general population. Tech is actually a relative bright spot when it comes to Asians in leadership roles. > "The real question is why they aren't more overrepresented in leadership." This really isn't the question at all. You're conflating two separate problems: over-representation of Asians in tech overall, vs. under-representation of Asians in progression of tech leadership. Both can be true simultaneously. Accepting the precondition that Asians are over-represented compared to the general population, their progression to leadership roles (from both tech and non-tech origins) suggests under-representation. i.e., based on the precondition we'd expect to see more Asian leaders in these companies. That the precondition exists is a fairly interesting problem itself, but largely separate from the argument of leadership. At the heart of it is the notion of equality - that two equal candidates get a fair shake at a promotion/role regardless of race. Regardless of whether or not leadership positions bias towards tech candidates or non-tech candidates, the gap exists - Asians are promoted/hired into leadership positions at a lower rate than their participation in the rest of the industry. This is particularly visible in professions where the advancement track is less vague and more straightforward - for example in law Asian-Americans represent 6.7% of associates, but only 1.8% of sr. counsel, and 1.7% of partners. This sort of gets at the original problem I brought up - that Asians have a problem, and are a problem. The over-representation of Asians in white collar professions is used as a bludgeon with which to attack other minorities, and used to invalidate real inequities within these professions such as whether or not they're being treated fairly when it comes to promotions and advancement. The Model Minority myth is damaging all around - to other races, to Asians themselves.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    At the heart of it is the notion of equality - that two equal candidates get a fair shake at a promotion/role regardless of race. And pointing out that Asians (or whoever) are underrepresented does NOT prove they don't get a "fair shake". It's also possible they are getting a fair shake and coming up short, or choosing not to be shaken. More evidence is needed. The over-representation of Asians in white collar professions is used as a bludgeon with which to attack other minorities... No one is "attacking other minorities". Asians are brought up to refute the "mirrortocracy" hypothesis: white gatekeepers in the industry will prevent entry by people different from them. Describing that as an "attack" is silly.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

By those numbers, Asians are overrepresented in both tech and leadership. The real question is why they aren't more overrepresented in leadership. It's a valid question, but a different one than I was asking. Apriori I would not expect the demographics of leadership to look like those of tech. My simple model (with allusions to michaelochurch) is that tech is generally not the path to leadership. I.e., if 3% of techies go into leadership vs 5% of non-techies, then leadership demographics will look more like non-tech demographics than tech demographics.

potatolicious 12y ago
The under representation exists even if we include all Asians employed at these companies - Twitter has for example a 29%/24% difference, Facebook is 24/19 when restricted to just non-tech role headcount. Yahoo comes in at 24/17 when similarly looking at just non-tech employees. The demographics of leadership actually get worse once you leave tech: Asians represent 0.8% of C-level roles, and 2.1% of board seats - against 5% in the general population. Tech is actually a relative bright spot when it comes to Asians in leadership roles. > "The real question is why they aren't more overrepresented in leadership." This really isn't the question at all. You're conflating two separate problems: over-representation of Asians in tech overall, vs. under-representation of Asians in progression of tech leadership. Both can be true simultaneously. Accepting the precondition that Asians are over-represented compared to the general population, their progression to leadership roles (from both tech and non-tech origins) suggests under-representation. i.e., based on the precondition we'd expect to see more Asian leaders in these companies. That the precondition exists is a fairly interesting problem itself, but largely separate from the argument of leadership. At the heart of it is the notion of equality - that two equal candidates get a fair shake at a promotion/role regardless of race. Regardless of whether or not leadership positions bias towards tech candidates or non-tech candidates, the gap exists - Asians are promoted/hired into leadership positions at a lower rate than their participation in the rest of the industry. This is particularly visible in professions where the advancement track is less vague and more straightforward - for example in law Asian-Americans represent 6.7% of associates, but only 1.8% of sr. counsel, and 1.7% of partners. This sort of gets at the original problem I brought up - that Asians have a problem, and are a problem. The over-representation of Asians in white collar professions is used as a bludgeon with which to attack other minorities, and used to invalidate real inequities within these professions such as whether or not they're being treated fairly when it comes to promotions and advancement. The Model Minority myth is damaging all around - to other races, to Asians themselves.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  At the heart of it is the notion of equality - that two equal candidates get a fair shake at a promotion/role regardless of race. And pointing out that Asians (or whoever) are underrepresented does NOT prove they don't get a "fair shake". It's also possible they are getting a fair shake and coming up short, or choosing not to be shaken. More evidence is needed. The over-representation of Asians in white collar professions is used as a bludgeon with which to attack other minorities... No one is "attacking other minorities". Asians are brought up to refute the "mirrortocracy" hypothesis: white gatekeepers in the industry will prevent entry by people different from them. Describing that as an "attack" is silly.