←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 | 7 comments | 14 Aug 17 16:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.968s | 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 #
ploggingdev ◴[14 Aug 17 16:52 UTC] No.15010204[source]▶
> 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.

Here's the problem : the candidate pool consists of 90% men and 10% women so the gender ratio at companies tends to represent that ratio. How do you propose we fix this to reach a healthier balance of something close to 50-50 without encouraging more women to join tech?

In other words, aiming for 50-50 when the candidate pool is 90-10 is suboptimal. So I agree that work needs to be done at all stages of the pipeline, but as the author suggests, the way to fix this issue is to encourage more women to join tech at the earlier stages. How is this a cop-out?

replies(1): >>15010429 #
1. whyaduck ◴[14 Aug 17 17:18 UTC] No.15010429[source]▶
I can't speak for Google, but I work for a large SV company with an aggressive diversity program, and the goal is to hire to match the demographics of the pipeline of qualified candidates, not the population at large.
replies(1): >>15010504 #
2. peoplewindow ◴[14 Aug 17 17:25 UTC] No.15010504[source]▶
I'm almost 100% sure that isn't the case. Maybe you're told it is, but Google liked to tell its employees the same thing.

If all your firm wanted to do was ensure its employee pool matched the demographic of the qualified worker pool, it wouldn't have to do anything at all except test for competency. Matching demographics then happens naturally.

When your company says "the goal is to match the pipeline" yet still has an "aggressive diversity programme", what they mean is, "we know what we have to say to avoid legal trouble but we want to hire as many women as possible, and will find as many ways to bend the rules to do that as possible".

replies(4): >>15010587 #>>15010742 #>>15011256 #>>15028709 #
3. aianus ◴[14 Aug 17 17:33 UTC] No.15010587[source]▶
Not necessarily. If 20% of college grads are women and all your competitors have an "aggressive diversity programme" you'll be hard-pressed to get 20% female hires without an "aggressive diversity programme" of your own. They would be out-marketing you for female candidates.
replies(1): >>15010692 #
4. peoplewindow ◴[14 Aug 17 17:44 UTC] No.15010692{3}[source]▶
If you assume women pick companies based on diversity programmes and not the usual reasons people pick companies like needing a job, finding the problem interesting, good compensation, etc then yeah.

But unless that "aggressive programme" is illegally benefiting women with something concrete, like more pay, easier interviews or special privileges unavailable to men, it's like that the programme will be focused on trying to attract women into the profession who aren't already developers. So it'd make no difference to this hypothetical new college grad.

And if it did, then why would you want an employee whose primary reason for joining your startup over a competitor was the existence of a diversity programme? They'll just seem low energy compared to the men who joined because they love online discussions or whatever it is your firm does. Better pass and keep looking.

5. iainmerrick ◴[14 Aug 17 17:49 UTC] No.15010742[source]▶
it wouldn't have to do anything at all except test for competency

You still have to make sure you're doing that in an unbiased way. For example, if you ask interviewers to determine if a candidate is a good "cultural fit," you might accidentally end up with 95/5 men instead of 90/10.

Some kind of diversity program to make sure you're not undershooting the diversity of your job applicants is an absolute minimum requirement, I'd say.

Should you aim to overshoot? Maybe! That's a discussion worth having.

6. mayank ◴[14 Aug 17 18:38 UTC] No.15011256[source]▶
> If all your firm wanted to do was ensure its employee pool matched the demographic of the qualified worker pool, it wouldn't have to do anything at all except test for competency. Matching demographics then happens naturally.

Statistically, you're correct. But there's a lot more of a subjective element to hiring than matching skills to requirements. One of the replies to your comment mentions "culture fit", for example.

7. whyaduck ◴[16 Aug 17 16:19 UTC] No.15028709[source]▶
I'm familiar with the culture of the company I work for, I see the hires, I'm part of the hiring process, the goals and results are all public - as in available to anyone with an internet connection. All due respect I'm absolutely 100% certain that you're wrong.