White men to women and minorities in tech: We just DGAF

https://pando.com/2017/02/14/white-men-women-and-minorities-tech-we-just-dgaf/ceba19a45685d33b6f9cb161593d0fc5a9353144/

by richmarr • 9 years ago

10 22 9 years ago

dbg314152• 9 years ago

Is there some benefit to giving a fuck?

I think we're at the point where we respect people enough to just say, "Yup, I don't care what sort of junk my boss has, or what color it is, or what other kinds of junk s/he likes to bump it with."

The intent of the article is to say we should have some sort of mandated demographics among leadership or in the board room?

Because trying to pick a c-team to match up with census data seems like it would mean not picking a c-team based on merit.

The color and kind and intent of junk should probably just not be something that we give a fuck about.

douche• 9 years ago

Is there some benefit to giving a fuck?

I haven't seen one yet, save maybe doing so publicly in order to properly virtue-signal and keep the torches-and-pitchfork brigade off your back.

It gets very wearisome being berated all the time about diversity , when you just want to go build things. The compiler doesn't care if you're black, white, brown, or purple, and, honestly, I'm very suspicious of anyone who is more interested in the color of ones skin or, as you put it, the configuration of their junk, over getting the job done, done right, and done quickly.

richmarr8• 9 years ago

Is there some benefit to giving a fuck?

Yes. Studies show diverse teams perform better... (and incidentally they also show that people who believe themselves to be unbiased are actually more likely to make biased decisions).

dbg314152• 9 years ago

Going to call BS on this. "Studies show..." -- without a citation seems like an opinion.

Lab experiments using mock juries is all I'm finding. Doesn't quite seem relevant to technology teams.

Most teams are distribute these days... so literally, other than Google Hangouts and conference calls, I don't get any daily indicators about my team's composition.

I don't think it would matter if we did, but I don't see any studies that pertain to tech about diversity improving productivity.

_s4• 9 years ago

We're hiring devs, designers, PM's, digital producers etc. working with recruitment companies, advertising in various places - meet ups, job boards etc etc.

Recieved hundreds of CV's, run dozens of interviews.

I can count on one hand the number of women that sent their CV through, and we interviewed two, hiring one.

This isn't a tech thing - this goes back to children growing up in an environment where gender should make no difference to their desire or interest in STEM subjects, which should be encouraged regardless.

Now the conundrum:

Given two candidates (m/f) of equal footing (talent, skill, comms etc) - would you offer work to the female or male?

Given a stronger male candidate over a female candidate - should I offer the job to the female instead just because she's a she?

Markoff2• 9 years ago

so essentially you want to be known as company which discriminate white people and men in particular and prefer gender or race over several skills, good luck with such reputation, be sure I will always choose company not known for having these practices when shopping around

_s4• 9 years ago

Of course we don't - and it's rather disingenuous to say we do.

We want to promote diversity where we can, and if you walked into our office today you'd be surprised at the balance we've got.

My statement was highlighting what the current state of tech is, and to make a more gender diverse working space i would have to sacrifice quality / skills / talent, which I will not do.

But if I am not willing to sacrifice, how am I supposed to have a more diverse space?

richmarr8• 9 years ago

A few points to make here:

I can count on one hand the number of women that sent their CV through, and we interviewed two, hiring one.

Studies show that:

(a) You can create a biased process inadvertently before the CV stage based on the language you use and approach to sourcing.

(b) CVs themselves are also a biasing influence.

So it's very likely that you're (without meaning to) introducing additional bias on top of the constraints on the talent pool. This isn't finger-pointing, it's very hard to run a bias-free process. Even the Googles of the world fail at this.

...an environment where gender should make no difference to their desire or interest in STEM subjects

Are you saying that the environment is neutral, or that it should be neutral? First would be wrong, second would be correct.

Given two candidates...

Your hypotheticals are premised on the idea that your hiring process and judgement are objective, and that you need to positively discriminate in order to redress the balance... that's simply not a view supported by the literature on this.

_s4• 9 years ago

Should be neutral of course; and I concur with all of your points. We've gone back and had our female staff give us plenty of input in our outreach / hiring / on-boarding practices, but it's certainly something we need to keep working at; I think a bit of herd mentality also kicks in when you're already on the inside and can no longer see things from an outsiders perspective.

abandonliberty• 9 years ago

Yes, it goes back to childhood.

The population of women in these fields is very small, so the number of exceptional ones is small as well.

Forcing a match to nationwide demographics is inappropriate. That's not the population that should be considered.

Hiring people who are poor coders and collaborators on account of their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation is equally inappropriate whether it's a white male or minority female.

My female partner in tech has encountered this so regularly she is now suspicious of female hires. Behaviors & performance that would get a male terminated are tolerated and instead show up on a CV as experience at multinational companies. I'm talking basics: unwilling & unable to use source control. This drives resume bias as richmarr highlights.

This is the result of inappropriate affirmative action. It harms the very people you are seeking to help.

lebanon_tn• 9 years ago

From the cited survey:

"Less than 5% of investors surveyed by LinkedIn rated diversity as their 'top concern' as compared to macroeconomic conditions, raising capital, hitting revenue targets, or hiring the right people. More than half of investors ranked founder commitment to a diverse team as the least of their concerns when considering to invest."

I'd be surprised if even an investment firm made entirely of "women and minorities in tech" had drastically different priorities than this 5%.

Diversity for diversity's sake is not a real solution.

richmarr8• 9 years ago

Diversity for diversity's sake is not a real solution.

As I've commented above but will summarise here, there are two main points to make in reply to this position

(i) You're assuming the status quo is based on merit, which studies unambiguously show isn't the case

(ii) Studies also show that diverse teams perform better. So this is also about competitive advantage.

gspetr3• 9 years ago

Studies also show that women are paid less than men for similar work.

Where are all the tech companies created by women, with mostly women as employees capitalizing on the market inefficiency giving them competitive advantage?

White men to women and minorities in tech: We just DGAF

Related Stories