←back to thread

I’m an Ex-Google Woman Tech Leader and I’m Sick of Our Approach to Diversity

(medium.com)
791 points 317070 | 6 comments | 14 Aug 17 16:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.631s | source | bottom
Show context
tptacek ◴[14 Aug 17 16:33 UTC] No.15009988[source]▶
Some of the reasoning in this post is very weak.

It's not very long, and its kernel is an anecdote about how her son is interested in programming and her daughter in photoshop. My daughter is also more interested in art than my son (who is more interested in video games). Both would make exceptional programmers, and both have a latent interest. Both are setting a course for STEM careers, but, like all 18 and 16 year olds --- let alone 9 and 7 year olds --- neither has any clue what they're really going to end up doing.

The piece culminates in a recommendation that we focus our diversity efforts on college admissions and earlier stages in the pipeline. But that's a cop-out. We should work on all stages of the pipeline. It's unsurprising that a Google engineer would believe that gender balance can't be addressed without fixing the college pipeline, but the fact is that virtually none of the software engineering we do in the industry --- very much including most of the work done at Google --- requires a college degree in the first place.

Most importantly, though, the only contribution this post makes to the discussion is to add "I'm a woman and I agree with one side of the debate" to the mix. Everything in it is a restatement of an argument that has been made, forcefully and loudly, already. Frankly: who cares?

Edit: I added "some of the" to the beginning of the comment, not because I believe that, but because I concede that there are arguments in the post that can't be dispatched with a single paragraph in a message board comment (through clearly there are some that can.)

replies(35): >>15010018 #>>15010095 #>>15010098 #>>15010099 #>>15010101 #>>15010105 #>>15010129 #>>15010150 #>>15010173 #>>15010194 #>>15010204 #>>15010230 #>>15010247 #>>15010273 #>>15010330 #>>15010345 #>>15010384 #>>15010389 #>>15010415 #>>15010436 #>>15010457 #>>15010460 #>>15010497 #>>15010501 #>>15010518 #>>15010541 #>>15010655 #>>15010665 #>>15011059 #>>15011368 #>>15011653 #>>15012315 #>>15013242 #>>15013891 #>>15015706 #
orclev ◴[14 Aug 17 16:46 UTC] No.15010129[source]▶
No, the core of the article was pointing out that setting arbitrary quotas for female hires and then sacrificing your standards in order to meet those quotas does more harm than good. Fundamentally there are two issues that need addressing, firstly trying to get more qualified female applicants which is why she recommends focusing on early education and college STEM programs. Secondly there's the issue of how to address sexism and bias in the industry which results in wage gaps (they're a lot smaller than most of the media makes it out to be, but they do exist), and more importantly in passing women up for promotions or skipping qualified candidates. The later happens rarely thankfully, but it does happen and needs to be addressed, but setting quotas does not fix that problem!

One thing that could potentially help I can think of is encouraging hiring of women in more junior roles (and I mean hiring junior level candidates, not trying to shove a more senior female developer into a lower level position). If we're not seeing qualified female senior level candidates it could be because they're not getting opportunities to learn those skills in lower level positions. I know from experience it can be hard to make room in a team for a junior employee, but it's something that the industry needs to get better at doing if we want people to eventually have the skills to fill those senior levels roles.

replies(5): >>15010188 #>>15010464 #>>15010465 #>>15010522 #>>15010846 #
1. humanrebar ◴[14 Aug 17 16:50 UTC] No.15010188[source]▶
> ...I mean hiring junior level candidates, not trying to shove a more senior female developer into a lower level position...

The word "shove" aside, I wish more companies would hire senior people for junior roles if they want them. One of the big problems with the American (and I presume Western) job market is the unwillingness to train people unless they're straight out of college. It seems that moms (and less often, dads) who take time off to raise the young ones would benefit from a new approach.

Of course, the employer and employee need to be on the same page about day-to-day duties, expected career growth, and so on. But that seems like a solvable problem.

replies(3): >>15010276 #>>15010281 #>>15012427 #
2. orclev ◴[14 Aug 17 17:00 UTC] No.15010276[source]▶
Sorry, I think there's some confusion about the usage of the word senior there, I meant senior in terms of skill level, not in terms of age. Age shouldn't be a factor at all, it doesn't matter if you're a fresh college graduate or a 60 year old so long as you have the skills to do the job. What you don't want to do is take a highly skilled worker and then hire them into a low skill position, they'll get bored/frustrated, assuming they even accept the position in the first place because presumably you're paying market rates so you'll be massively under paying them in that position.
replies(1): >>15010404 #
3. goatlover ◴[14 Aug 17 17:00 UTC] No.15010281[source]▶
The preference for new grads is because it's a lot easier to convince them to work overtime with less pay than someone more experienced with a family.
replies(1): >>15010499 #
4. humanrebar ◴[14 Aug 17 17:15 UTC] No.15010404[source]▶
> ...I meant senior in terms of skill level, not in terms of age...

No worries. I understood your meaning. I also meant that. I meant that hiring managers, in my experience, are more likely to give an outright "no" to an underqualified senior person than to offer them a junior role.

If the person took some time off, decided to switch industries, decided to switch specialties, or just figured out they were in a rut, giving them a junior role and letting them work their way back into an expert role should be a consideration.

5. alexanderstears ◴[14 Aug 17 17:25 UTC] No.15010499[source]▶
I always figured that was part of some implicit contract.

"You'll hire me for a job I can't immediately do, and I'll treat growing into my job as the number one priority".

With the job market as it is, it's unrealistic to expect people to hire candidates who can't help lighten the load within a week or two of their start date.

I wish there was a less-risky way to 'try out' candidates. Someone I know works in boutique finance and whenever they bring on someone at a junior level, they're on a 60 day probation and the partners decide whether or not to retain them.

I think it's easier for them to do it because their applicant pool / candidates are predominantly young, white/asian, male, and high-achieving. They've never been sued by a candidate they've let go and they've found some real 'diamonds in the rough'.

I can't imagine that they could say the same if they let go of 40 mothers with children. But it does highlight a solution path - make it less risky for companies to evaluate candidates although I don't know how to do that without eroding worker protections.

6. curun1r ◴[14 Aug 17 20:16 UTC] No.15012427[source]▶
I know the prevailing sentiment around here is anti-age-discrimination, but the flip side is also bad. We've seen in a few European countries what happens when the unemployment figures for young people are an order of magnitude higher than people with more experience and it's not pretty. Young people need to be given a chance to start their careers and senior people taking junior roles can get in the way of that. The current trend towards people not having the required savings for retirement is going to echo into future generations that have to delay the start of their careers because those jobs haven't been vacated.