[YeGoblynQueenne]

It shouldn't be very hard to do well in diversity, however you choose to define it.

For instance, say you notice your workforce is strongly biased against one population group, like female software engineers [1].

In that case:

a) Set a target for the proportion of female software engineers you want to hire.

b) Stop hiring male engineers at the point where hiring more would make you miss your female-engineer target.

c) Keep hiring only female engineers until you hit your target.

In principle, that might cause some concern among male engineers who could feel discriminated against.

In practice however, google and all other tech companies are already employing that process, except they do so informally (one hopes) and the groups they hire for are not the ones usually included in "diversity"- for instance, according to [1] 72% of tech workers at google are male, vs 50% ish in the general population.

Additionally, when it comes to google specifically, recruiters are supposed to actively go after "the best", so it shouldn't be a problem for that company in particular to go after the best female people.

In fact, that google targets its hires and yet it ends up with a strong bias towards a specific kind of engineer is a very good example of how not to do diversity.

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/20/9179853/tech-diversity-sco...

[vilmosi]

>>> when it comes to google specifically, recruiters are supposed to actively go after "the best", so it shouldn't be a problem for that company in particular to go after the best female people.

The problem with your idea is that it's illegal and a law suit waiting to happen.

You simply can't hire someone because of their sex.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> The problem with your idea is that it's illegal and a law suit waiting to happen.

Also btw- "my idea" is not mine at all. It's the method of gender (and also race etc) quotas, already utilised in some countries.

Those are also countries that have very strict regulations about gender (etc) discrimination so it's perfectly possible to have legislation that hinders discrimination and supports equal treatment at the same time.

[vilmosi]

Quotas may very well be legal, hiring someone specifically to fill those quotas is not, as that is discrimination.

Think about it, if it was that easy, why aren't these tech giants already doing it?

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Because they don't care about diversity. That's what I'm saying.

[vilmosi]

I don't think that's true.

Why are they even publishing these numbers then? Even when it's not helping their image.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

But that's what companies do already. They hire women and men in different roles.

[vilmosi]

Not deliberately. They simply hire the best person for the job at a particular job opening. For whatever reason, the majority is of a particular gender.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> Not deliberately.

Yes, deliberately. The fact there's inequality in the distribution, when there is no good reason for it is evidence of some sort of bias in the selection process.

>> For whatever reason, the majority is of a particular gender.

For the reason that there is inequality between the two genders in society. You don't need to grasp for metaphysical explanations when you already know the two genders are treated differently in employment (as in many other matters).

[vilmosi]

>>> Yes, deliberately. The fact there's inequality in the distribution, when there is no good reason for it is evidence of some sort of bias in the selection process.

If it's unconscious bias, it's not deliberate. And it's much more than just selection bias, it's also a cultural/social issue. It happens way before someone enters the workforce.

>>> For the reason that there is inequality between the two genders in society.

I'm not denying that.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> If it's unconscious bias, it's not deliberate.

The bias might be unconscious, but the tendency to avoid hiring people from a certain group is entirely conscious. The person subject to the bias will find a way to rationalise and therefore justify their tendency to hire fewer of that group- "in my experience, most A candidates are not fit for the role" or "maybe group A is just not very good at this role because of human evolution" etc.

>> It happens way before someone enters the workforce.

It's 2016. That excuse -the whole "it's society's fault"- died sometime last century, when society's attention was drawn to the issues of gender inequality for the first time. We all know there are issues, we all know to keep an eye out for them- those of use who care about that sort of thing anyway.

As to the tech companies in particular, they don't have much of an excuse because the lack of diversity in their workplaces has often been pointed out.

[alexeiz]

What's the point of such forced diversity? Diversity of gender or race doesn't promote diversity of ideas.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Do you mean to say that diversity of ideas is promoted by hiring the same kind of dude in the same kind of role all the time?

Besides, "diversity of ideas" is not the point. There is no such thing in the industry anyway (see "Uber for X" or "Facebook for Y" etc). The point of what I suggest above, essentialy imposing a quota to "help" companies hire more of the kind of people they currently don't, is to give more opportunities to those groups, not to help companies increase their bottom line.

Because increasing companies' bottom line is a goal of companies, not a goal of society. Society must ensure that all its members are treated fairly and have equal opportunities (an opinion, of course and you may disagree). Whether company Z makes a few more bucks or not is of no consequence, as long as the whole community prospers together.

And there's no way for the whole community to prosper together when half of it (at best) is traditionally excluded from the best paid jobs.

Edit: also, from my POV as a soft eng, the idea of using only half of your resources (in this case, people) because you are unwilling to challenge some centuries-old tradition that says the other half is not as good, is bloody stupid and very, very inefficient. It's up there with forcing left-handed kids to learn to write with their right hand because the left one is "bad". Or something.