I think that you should be hiring whoever is qualified, not based on gender/ethnicity/etc.
If you have many people then you will have diversity, because they are different people and therefore they have all different experience and ideas from each other. They should neither to try to only to hire people of same gender nor to try to hire everyone all difference gender/skins (doing so can be relevant to a movie set perhaps, but not for a computer programming job).
If women are less interested or less capable for this job by average (although I do not actually know whether or not this is true) then by your interviewing to see who is qualify then you can hire someone, by statistics it is likely that less women will be hired and that is not your fault and is not your problem. But you should not try to hire less women, nor more; see if they are competent at the job rather than their gender.
It's interesting that you assume that white men are i) capable of doing the job ii) interested in doing the job and iii) are the best candidates for the job, while women and POC are probably i) less capable ii) less interested and iii) not the best candidates.
I do not assume that; I only mention it as hypothetically the case, and then try to say that whether or not it is true on average (I think it probably isn't), it doesn't matter anyways due to the reasons I specified, because you should not hire someone based on their gender or skin (except perhaps if you are hiring a actor; but, if you are hiring a computer programming then it doesn't matter your gender/skin). (Sorry if I was being unclear.)
Yes, equality of opportunity should be valued over equality of outcome.
I have seen some absolutely egregious cases of trying to keep a minority in an underrepresented field, that have lead to everyone losing in the long term and further resentment towards minorities from even the most ardent supporters of affirmative action.
It's a worthy conversation. I've never understood the push for equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. I applaud people for starting that discussion.
One is opportunity due to preloaded factors. For instance in my case. My four grandparents were middle class and college educated. As were my parents. No shit that's an advantage I got that others didn't.
The other is discrimination due to biases. The same biases that underlie affinity scams. As in this guys dresses talks and looks like Mark Zuckerberg, lets give his company $100 million vs that brown skinned lady who doesn't.
While society should try to reduce these as much as possible they can't be gotten rid of completely perhaps even mostly.
I think the issue is deeper than equality of outcome and opportunity being two different problems: as we have seen equality of outcome implemented so far, it explicitly violates the conditions that need to exist for equality of opportunity. That is, the implementation of equality of outcome solutions has been exclusively (to my knowledge) based on providing additional opportunities to some groups and/or denying opportunities to other groups.
Perhaps there are implementations of equality of outcome solutions that allow you to approximates both, but so far that doesn't seem possible.
Makes sense. HR firms have known for decades it's a net negative. Note that this is generally within departments only, not within the entire organization.
> Williams and O’Reilly (1996) review dozens of studies showing that ethnic diversity has a negative impact on group performance. In the two decades since, more research has reinforced that result. Alesina and La Ferrara (2005) find that increasing ethnic diversity from 0 (only one ethnic group) to 1 (each individual is a different ethnicity) would reduce a country’s annual growth by 2 percent. Multiple studies (La Porta et al., 1999; Alesina et al., 2003; Habyarimana et al., 2007) have shown that ethnic diversity negatively affects public good provision. Stazyk et al. (2012) find that ethnic diversity reduces job satisfaction among government workers. Parrotta et al. (2014a) find that ethnic diversity is significantly and negatively correlated with firm productivity
No, it's talking about politically correct diversity, which includes race.
“Does Microsoft have any plans to end the current policy that financially incentivizes discriminatory hiring practices? To be clear, I am referring to the fact that senior leadership is awarded more money if they discriminate against Asians and white men,” read the original post by the Microsoft program manager on Yammer, a corporate messaging platform owned by Microsoft."
> Many women simply aren’t cut out for the corporate rat race, so to speak, and that’s not because of ‘the patriarchy,’ it’s because men and women aren’t identical.
Everytime there is a discussion of this, it gets bogged down because of claims like these. In general, I think that the equality of opportunity people would be more effective at reaching the ears of the equality of outcome people if they skipped over the whole "why are there fewer of some group working in this field" issue entirely, and focused on the harms of not having equality of outcome. I see why they go to these arguments (to communicate that equality of outcome as a value might be misguided if inequality of outcome wasn't driven by bias), but people frequently jump ship and stop listening when they hit something like this in the argument.
I don't see how you can get that read given the first paragraph.
> Because women used to be actively prohibited from full-time employment many decades ago, there is now the misguided belief that women SHOULD work, and if women AREN’T working, there’s something wrong…. Many women simply aren’t cut out for the corporate rat race, so to speak, and that’s not because of ‘the patriarchy,’ it’s because men and women aren’t identical, and women are much more inclined to gain fulfillment elsewhere.
Because that paragraph aligns with my personal experience. My mother was a successful software engineer when I was a kid. And because her company had this attitude that required every employee needed to work 40 hours on normal weeks and 60 hours when a bug patch was needed, she always said it was her biggest regret that she kept working after me and my sister were born. I don’t see how preferential treatment towards hiring women helps diversity, when in my experience the biggest hindrance to diversity is the business expectations on employees. And how different would it be today if someone was in my mothers position at Microsoft? I know they pay lip service to all these but I don’t think she would be respected if she asked for 15 hour work weeks for 8 years. My mom would love to get back into software engineering now, but since she wasn’t allowed to take on a lighter load, she’s lost skills and can’t find good work.
on the other i saw companies offer ludicrous offers to people heavily underqualified for the offers because they are a woman. Like a 2 year of experience lady with bad instincts (just lack of experience) but tons of potential. And offering her a senior engineer, same as we'd offer a 10 year veteran.
Point is, from the white male side, it seems insulting. I am not suggesting women are less capable, but they are having money thrown at them in ways males can't even approach.
But I suppose the price we pay for having so few women engineers.
I’ve seen this at BigCos. I just found it hard to figure out why someone got promoted and someone didn’t. It wasn’t a fair game where everyone was measured with same yard stick.
I guess this is what happens when we optimize for a metric.
24 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 45.8 ms ] threadIf you have many people then you will have diversity, because they are different people and therefore they have all different experience and ideas from each other. They should neither to try to only to hire people of same gender nor to try to hire everyone all difference gender/skins (doing so can be relevant to a movie set perhaps, but not for a computer programming job).
If women are less interested or less capable for this job by average (although I do not actually know whether or not this is true) then by your interviewing to see who is qualify then you can hire someone, by statistics it is likely that less women will be hired and that is not your fault and is not your problem. But you should not try to hire less women, nor more; see if they are competent at the job rather than their gender.
But you're oblivious to your bias.
I have seen some absolutely egregious cases of trying to keep a minority in an underrepresented field, that have lead to everyone losing in the long term and further resentment towards minorities from even the most ardent supporters of affirmative action.
One is opportunity due to preloaded factors. For instance in my case. My four grandparents were middle class and college educated. As were my parents. No shit that's an advantage I got that others didn't.
The other is discrimination due to biases. The same biases that underlie affinity scams. As in this guys dresses talks and looks like Mark Zuckerberg, lets give his company $100 million vs that brown skinned lady who doesn't.
While society should try to reduce these as much as possible they can't be gotten rid of completely perhaps even mostly.
Perhaps there are implementations of equality of outcome solutions that allow you to approximates both, but so far that doesn't seem possible.
That is a pipe dream.
> Williams and O’Reilly (1996) review dozens of studies showing that ethnic diversity has a negative impact on group performance. In the two decades since, more research has reinforced that result. Alesina and La Ferrara (2005) find that increasing ethnic diversity from 0 (only one ethnic group) to 1 (each individual is a different ethnicity) would reduce a country’s annual growth by 2 percent. Multiple studies (La Porta et al., 1999; Alesina et al., 2003; Habyarimana et al., 2007) have shown that ethnic diversity negatively affects public good provision. Stazyk et al. (2012) find that ethnic diversity reduces job satisfaction among government workers. Parrotta et al. (2014a) find that ethnic diversity is significantly and negatively correlated with firm productivity
https://economicsdetective.com/2016/07/costs-ethnic-diversit...
“Does Microsoft have any plans to end the current policy that financially incentivizes discriminatory hiring practices? To be clear, I am referring to the fact that senior leadership is awarded more money if they discriminate against Asians and white men,” read the original post by the Microsoft program manager on Yammer, a corporate messaging platform owned by Microsoft."
Everytime there is a discussion of this, it gets bogged down because of claims like these. In general, I think that the equality of opportunity people would be more effective at reaching the ears of the equality of outcome people if they skipped over the whole "why are there fewer of some group working in this field" issue entirely, and focused on the harms of not having equality of outcome. I see why they go to these arguments (to communicate that equality of outcome as a value might be misguided if inequality of outcome wasn't driven by bias), but people frequently jump ship and stop listening when they hit something like this in the argument.
> Because women used to be actively prohibited from full-time employment many decades ago, there is now the misguided belief that women SHOULD work, and if women AREN’T working, there’s something wrong…. Many women simply aren’t cut out for the corporate rat race, so to speak, and that’s not because of ‘the patriarchy,’ it’s because men and women aren’t identical, and women are much more inclined to gain fulfillment elsewhere.
on one hand we want more diversity.
on the other i saw companies offer ludicrous offers to people heavily underqualified for the offers because they are a woman. Like a 2 year of experience lady with bad instincts (just lack of experience) but tons of potential. And offering her a senior engineer, same as we'd offer a 10 year veteran.
Point is, from the white male side, it seems insulting. I am not suggesting women are less capable, but they are having money thrown at them in ways males can't even approach.
But I suppose the price we pay for having so few women engineers.
I guess this is what happens when we optimize for a metric.