Solving social issues by having companies try heavy handed "just hire those people" or "just give them a space" doesn't change much of anything. Companies are not good at social change.
The second order effects are terrible too. People assume someone was hired because they're X, Y or Z (and I've seen companies say exactly that, talk about undermining). These segregated groups as the writer describes are ... segregated. At one place I worked a special group met multiple times a week. Those people weren't working and the teams they worked on had to pick up the slack (this was highly time sensitive work). That created resentment. No matter your policy or how much finger wagging training they did, that resentment did not go away.
There's sometimes a weird add on expectation too. Person A who is type X is expected to speak for all people of type X. In an absurd way that's to some extent why they're there, but that doesn't mean they're qualified to do that, or even right, or would even want to speak up.
I'm reminded of a lot of the sexual harassment cases where HR predictably takes the side of the higher ranking employee (often a man). HR jobs are by a good % often staffed by women, but that as far as I know hasn't put an end to HR siding with the company. Of course it doesn't, because it isn't about man or woman, it's about incentives and demographics don't change that.
Truth is companies aren't good or even competent in solving complex social issues.
While I sympathise with the industry problem, and generally dislike focus on gender for my very accomplished colleagues, I don't see any proposal here.
1. It claims these initiatives help in early career, but seem patronising later on. How and why this mindset shift happens in the beholders is something we can explore: is it about not focusing on gender that would be enough?
2. What are "men in leadership" to do other than having these gender-specific awards removed/renamed on top of developing intrinsic fairness in evaluating and supporting talent?
Don't get me wrong, noticing issues without a proposal is just fine! It's only opening these questions for me, as I would hate to lose that early career support (would rather extend it to more people), but wonder how we can best extend this to mid- and late-career too.
3 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 13.2 ms ] threadThe second order effects are terrible too. People assume someone was hired because they're X, Y or Z (and I've seen companies say exactly that, talk about undermining). These segregated groups as the writer describes are ... segregated. At one place I worked a special group met multiple times a week. Those people weren't working and the teams they worked on had to pick up the slack (this was highly time sensitive work). That created resentment. No matter your policy or how much finger wagging training they did, that resentment did not go away.
There's sometimes a weird add on expectation too. Person A who is type X is expected to speak for all people of type X. In an absurd way that's to some extent why they're there, but that doesn't mean they're qualified to do that, or even right, or would even want to speak up.
I'm reminded of a lot of the sexual harassment cases where HR predictably takes the side of the higher ranking employee (often a man). HR jobs are by a good % often staffed by women, but that as far as I know hasn't put an end to HR siding with the company. Of course it doesn't, because it isn't about man or woman, it's about incentives and demographics don't change that.
Truth is companies aren't good or even competent in solving complex social issues.
Sort of par for the course based on numbers I have heard thrown around -
Human Adult brain -> ~10–100 meaningful belief updates/year
Institutions -> ~1–10 updates/decade
Plus there is lot of competition about which updates get priority so things take time.
1. It claims these initiatives help in early career, but seem patronising later on. How and why this mindset shift happens in the beholders is something we can explore: is it about not focusing on gender that would be enough?
2. What are "men in leadership" to do other than having these gender-specific awards removed/renamed on top of developing intrinsic fairness in evaluating and supporting talent?
Don't get me wrong, noticing issues without a proposal is just fine! It's only opening these questions for me, as I would hate to lose that early career support (would rather extend it to more people), but wonder how we can best extend this to mid- and late-career too.