[voidlogic]

How about you just keep hiring the best person for the job, but take care to be reflective and ensure you are fairly considering the female candidates... maybe make sure your female engineer is on the hiring committee?

Put another way, rather than trying to explicitly seek awesome female employees, just make sure the awesome female candidates don't slip through. I think execs often mistakenly think they can fix cultural issues by fiat, when what is really needed is dedication and time.

I think what constitutes imbalance also needs to be defined. If 10% of qualified engineering candidates are female does having 10% of your engineering staff be female constitute balance? I think the case could be made it does; however, in relation the birth ratio of our species is it certainly imbalance.

[jasonlotito]

> maybe make sure your female engineer is on the hiring committee?

Doing that for the reasons you are suggesting is hypocritical. On one hand, you want the best person for the job, but then you are suggesting that the female engineer is apart of the decision making process, as if her gender is what qualifies her to hire engineers, or, more precisely, female engineers.

That's not what you intended to say, I know, but that's how easy it is to slip up in this regard.

> what is really needed is dedication and time.

Dedication to what, specifically? If the best people every time you hire is a white man, then you are losing the value that a diverse work force provides.

[voidlogic]

"Doing that for the reasons you are suggesting is hypocritical."

I think that is your own projection; The OP already mentioned that his female engineer is an awesome engineer, so I'm assuming she is qualified to be there from an engineering perspective (and I'm not saying she needs to be the only engineer there). And the organization is looking for a check to make sure the hiring team is not discriminating against women, having a woman there hopefully should help. At a minimum it would prevent outright sexist remarks during the discussion of candidates as making them in her presence would reasonably constitute sexual harassment. Also not to be over looked, the presence of a successful female engineer from the hiring organization may also make female candidates more comfortable.

As for dedication, I mean dedication to not over looking awesome female candidates, intentionally or otherwise.

[jasonlotito]

> I think that is your own projection

It's not. Regardless, everything else you say ignores the fact that you are bringing the woman in specifically because you think she'll be better at hiring women. It's a strategy.

She's in there not because she's a great engineer, but because she is a woman who happens to be a great engineer.

[voidlogic]

I think one persons "you think she'll be better at hiring women" is easily another persons "she'll be good at making sure women are not unfairly turned away".

>>It's a strategy. Yes it is. It is a strategy to avoid over looking awesome female candidates, intentionally or otherwise. Calling this a strategy is fair, calling is hypocrisy is not.

>>She's in there not because she's a great engineer, but because she is a woman who happens to be a great engineer.

No, she is there because she is a member of a group you think you may be discriminating against AND she is a member of the group you are seeking to hire for. Like you said it is a strategy.

You seem offended by what I think are very pragmatic ways to deal with the issue, care to suggest your alternatives? If you recall the OP is looking for legal ways to address the issue-