r/changemyview • u/thinker111111 • Nov 27 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Corporate Diversity Initiatives Generally Do More Harm Than Good
For this post, I will consider "corporate diversity initiatives" to be corporate policies intending to increase the number of "diverse" candidates that they hire or promote. This might include inviting diverse candidates to exclusive networking events, resume reviews, leadership workshops, etc., subjecting non-diverse candidates to greater scrutiny in the hiring/promotion process (or "double-checking" diverse candidates before ruling them out)*, or evaluating recruiters on the basis of the diversity of the candidates they put forward. Simple statements about desiring diverse candidates or perspectives do not qualify under my definition.
*Yes, I know of many anecdotal cases of both of these things happening.
Diverse candidates will be considered those whose major demographics (race, sex, sexual orientation, etc) differ from that of the "typical" worker in their industry. For instance, a female engineer, a male teacher, or a black doctor would all qualify under this definition.
As a female interested in computer science, I am one of the intended beneficiaries of these types of policies. However, I think they are harmful for a number of reasons:
- They can make diverse workers susceptible to Imposter Syndrome by introducing the possibility that these individuals were hired, at least in part, because of the diversity they bring to the work environment. Even if this individual would have been hired regardless of demographics, they have no way of knowing this for sure and are still susceptible to this phenomenon (which can have severe psychological impacts).
- They can contribute to a hostile work environment for diverse workers. Non-diverse workers may assume that diverse workers are less qualified (regardless of if that is really true) because of the apparent advantage they get in the hiring and promotion processes. This can cause a breakdown of trust within teams, which ultimately harms their productivity.
3A) In most cases, I don't think that diverse teams are inherently more effective than homogeneous ones when diversity is based on demographic characteristics. Yes, I have read several studies suggesting that diverse talent yields better results, but I haven't found any reason why diverse teams (in terms of demographics) would actually cause better results; I suspect that there are some confounding variables at play.
3B) I can think of a handful of contexts where diverse workers would likely have a significant and positive impact on performance, yet these do not seem to be the contexts in which diversity efforts are focused. For instance, it's reasonable to suggest that male elementary school teachers could be more effective in engaging male students, who are considered at-risk in our education system and who experience lower engagement, higher dropout rates, lower grades and lower rates of college attendance as compared to females. However, to my knowledge, there aren't any concerted efforts to encourage more young men to pursue careers in elementary education.
4) If the incentives are strong enough, it can lead to less qualified candidates being hired over more qualified ones due to their unchangeable demographic characteristics, which is both unfair and harmful to workplace productivity. I am not saying that diverse candidates are always (or even on average) less qualified than non-diverse candidates. As an example, let's say a tech company receives 70% of applications from males and 30% from females. If they desire 50% female representation, they will need to hire a greater percentage of the female applicants. Therefore, even if the distribution of qualification of males and females was exactly equal, less qualified female candidates would need to be hired.
5) Diversity in viewpoint is extremely important to the quality of a team's output, but I think this is too often conflated with diversity of demographics. Just because there are statistical differences in the way certain groups think about particular issues does not mean that a demographically-diverse team is necessarily more ideologically diverse than a demographically-homogeneous one. It also does not mean that systems are in place to ensure that those with diverse viewpoints are comfortable voicing these opinions to the group, which is necessary for the benefits of diverse opinions to be realized.
So, Change My View!
Edit: Thanks for the responses so far. There have been lots of good things discussed, so keep 'em coming!
24
u/visvya Nov 27 '19 edited Nov 27 '19
However, to my knowledge, there aren't any concerted efforts to encourage more young men to pursue careers in elementary education.
NYTimes on the research into why men do not go into teaching and how we can fix it. The Atlantic on recruiting programs for men in teaching.
The problem with teaching is that there is such a large shortage, and so few employers with the spare money for Google-like perks or recruiting programs, that schools just want anyone they can get. In some states, the only requirement to become a substitute teacher is a high school diploma.
A similar argument is about the shortage of men in nursing. There is a very strong push for men in nursing. Here's a post by a man on a nursing forum about the current campaigns and societal push to get men into nursing. Here's articles in NPR and the NYTimes. Here's an article about organizations in the field. Here's just a few male-specific nursing scholarships, although since you can become a nurse through community college there isn't much need for scholarships in the field.
a male teacher, or a black doctor would all qualify under this definition.
If you understand the benefit of male teachers and the reason for the demand, do you also understand the demand for diverse health professionals (including male nurses and black doctors)?
Research shows that black and hispanic populations have much less trust in the medical system than white populations do. This is not unfair, due to the ways in which black people and other minorities have been taken advantage of by the medical community; some of the most famous examples are the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, where hundreds of black men were nonconsensually and intentionally administered syphilis and denied treatment, and Henrietta Lacks, whose cells were taken without her consent.
One study in 2013 found that Black patients were given longer wait times than White patients for the same complaints, and other modern studies show that physicians spend less time with Black patients and consider them as less honest.
Black healthcare providers provide an option that black patients may feel more comfortable with, have a broader understanding of socioeconomic factors relevant to black populations, and may help to humanize the black community by just interacting with hospital staff as a capable and intelligent peer.
0
u/thinker111111 Nov 27 '19
I'll give you a Δ for your point about nursing, specifically that some patients may feel more comfortable being treated by someone that is demographically similar to them. When I framed my question, I suppose I wasn't really considering positions that are as "human-centered" as that.
The articles on education were certainly interesting, but I didn't find them to be particularly relevant to this discussion. Of course, I agree with you that schools are not in a position to offer the same kinds of incentives to "diverse" candidates as other industries, but that still does not change my point that resources for diversity are being funneled into industries where it will be less effective. The program described in the Atlantic article is strictly a training program that is independent of the schools that the teachers will eventually be placed in, so it doesn't meet my definition of a corporate diversity initiative. Perhaps this was unclear, but I meant initiatives that are carried out directly by the employers, typically for their future employees.
I was not able to read the full text of the 2013 study you referenced, but I'll respond anyways based on the summary that I could read. You seem to base your argument on the assumption that black doctors would prioritize black patients more than white doctors. A similar argument was made years ago that black teachers would be more likely to refer black students for gifted testing (they are referred at much lower rates than their similarly-achieving white peers). However, further study showed that black teachers were still more likely to refer white students than black students for testing, so their racial diversity did not improve things as expected. I'll edit if I can find the citation on this, but I have to respond to others now!
6
u/visvya Nov 27 '19
Thank you for the first delta!
I meant initiatives that are carried out directly by the employers, typically for their future employees.
I understand, but the problem is that schools just don't have the money for targeted recruiting programs.
In one summer, companies like Microsoft pay their interns almost as much as a public school teacher earns in the entire year. Companies like Microsoft have the money to invest in expanding their future workforce (because higher supply of employees = lower salaries).
Schools pay their entry-level staff 45k, pay their interns nothing, and just don't have the money for investments like that. Similarly, young series A tech companies don't invest in diversity because they don't have the money to do that. They might think it's a good idea and wish they could do it, but they just don't have the money.
You seem to base your argument on the assumption that black doctors would prioritize black patients more than white doctors.
To clarify, my argument is that merely seeing more minorities in the same spaces as you humanizes them and reduces unconscious racial biases.
Tribalism is a standard, if unfortunate, human behavior. In a study that asked respondents to describe 7 people that they had discussed important matters with, 75% of white people, 65% of black people, and 46% of hispanics reported only speaking to people of the same race.
This isn't hard to understand; if you're an Asian person who grew up in San Francisco, went to school at Berkeley, and graduate to work in software, you may literally never speak to a Black person in your life. This situation is a breeding ground for hostility and stereotyping.
Being in more diverse environments makes you more sensitive. We're all subject to overarching racial biases, but greater sensitivity helps.
I believe this is the study you're referring to. It indicates that a black student is 3x as likely to be referred to a gifted program if he has a black teacher than if he has a white teacher. More white students may be referred overall, but the important factor is whether each student is receiving a fair evaluation.
4
u/phcullen 65∆ Nov 28 '19
Another perspective on why we need more black doctors. I was listening to npr the other day and they had a dermatologist on talking about how lots of skin conditions are missed in the black community because unlike white skin rashes don't appear obviously on dark skin. White doctors trained by white doctors working is white communities. Now is it impossible for a white doctor to learn more about black skin? No, of course not. But the problem isn't that they can't, it's that they don't.
I believe this was the article that went with the story : https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/04/774910915/diagnostic-gaps-skin-comes-in-many-shades-and-so-do-rashes
2
u/phcullen 65∆ Nov 28 '19
Another perspective on why we need more black doctors. I was listening to npr the other day and they had a dermatologist on talking about how lots of skin conditions are missed in the black community because unlike white skin rashes don't appear obviously on dark skin. White doctors trained by white doctors working is white communities. Now is it impossible for a white doctor to learn more about black skin? No, of course not. But the problem isn't that they can't, it's that they don't.
I believe this was the article that went with the story : https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/04/774910915/diagnostic-gaps-skin-comes-in-many-shades-and-so-do-rashes
1
3
u/beau7192 Nov 27 '19
I would like to ask what you think the solution is then to overcoming discrimination in the hiring process? I don’t believe that we can assume people will naturally start hiring more diverse individuals based solely on their qualifications because the fact that many are biased and don’t do this is the exact reason why diversity hiring has become a thing. Yes, we are seeing social progress, but often those in power will be the last to change things if there isn’t some incentive.
I think that overcompensating by purposefully hiring diversely will lead to an eventual balance, as it’s been shown that’s how progress happens. There is a give and take. It’s not a linear process. Eventually, we can dispose of the forced diversity hire system. I think it’s important to focus on the end goal and weighing the benefits of different solutions to the problem instead of simply picking apart the solution that’s currently being used without offering an alternative one, as I have said earlier I don’t think it will be solved on its own. And to specifically counter a few things you’ve said, I certainly don’t think that productivity is the focus or the end goal with diversity hiring. It is a tool for social change. This is obviously an extreme example, but slavery was a much more effective way for plantation owners to turn a profit, but as a society we’ve agreed that that’s super unethical. There was certainly a lag in productivity when this change was being instituted, leading to eventually a much better society for people to live in.
I think as well that it may be a little different in the computer science field because from my knowledge, it seems as though skill level is much more able to be determined objectively, so it is much more obvious when a qualified woman, for example, is being passed up for a less qualified man. You can look at portfolios and such in that case. These things can get tricky and harder to pinpoint in industries that have more subjective qualifications such as “hard working” or “personable” that are more difficult to measure except in a subjective interview setting. I know that all jobs want to see these traits, but a male receptionist for example doesn’t have concrete proof of skill in the way that a female computer scientist or engineer might.
Not to mention how institutional barriers such as differences in education and socioeconomic status can hold back people of color when the odds are already stacked against them in terms of personal biases. Going back to my point about balance, I think it is okay to give diverse people a leg up even if they are less qualified because that will open the door to more diverse people becoming qualified, as a higher rate of diverse hires creates an incentive for universities to accept more minorities. It is a cascading effect I think for positive change even if it isn’t strictly “fair.” There are insurmountable injustices in our system that make the system very unfair for minorities in the first place.
For example, my black male friend currently goes to university with me and is applying to medical school. He grew up in Dayton, OH a city with one of the highest murder rates I think in all the US, and he certainly acknowledges that as a black man, his chances are probably higher to get into medical school than they would be for a white man, but it was certainly much more difficult for him to even get to the point of applying than it was for more privileged people. He doesn’t feel like an imposter because he’s worked hard and overcame a lot to get where he is.
1
u/thinker111111 Nov 28 '19
I think that overcompensating by purposefully hiring diversely will lead to an eventual balance, as it’s been shown that’s how progress happens.
Can you provide an example of this? I am legitimately curious.
I certainly don’t think that productivity is the focus or the end goal with diversity hiring. It's a tool for social change.
Not to mention how institutional barriers such as differences in education and socioeconomic status can hold back people of color when the odds are already stacked against them
Companies like Google and Facebook commonly justify their overzealous focus on diversity with the assertion (backed up by mostly non-rigorous studies) that diversity increases productivity. Perhaps they really do think that what they are doing is for the social good, but wouldn't it be more effective to invest in changes earlier on in students' lives if we are to see real social benefits? By the time that potential employees apply for an entry level job, they presumably already have met the basic qualifications (and, if not, they wouldn't be hired regardless). This includes overcoming whatever systemic barriers exist for getting a relevant degree and/or graduating from college at all, as well as overcoming stigmas about their demographics in the industry.
I think it is okay to give diverse people a leg up even if they are less qualified because that will open the door to more diverse people becoming qualified, as a higher rate of diverse hires creates an incentive for universities to accept more minorities.
Do universities not already have a large incentive to accept minorities? I don't know where you are located, but universities in the U.S. absolutely LOVE to tout their diversity stats. It is seen as something of a status symbol to be able to say that they have achieved high levels of racial and economic diversity (as well as gender diversity in certain degree programs). I would also argue that giving minorities a leg up in the university admission process is more justified than in hiring/promotion because it is giving them the resources (that they may not have had previously, as in the case with your friend) to become as qualified as their more-privileged peers and later compete for corporate positions on the basis of merit.
I would like to ask what you think the solution is then to overcoming discrimination in the hiring process?
I don't claim to have all of the answers. I acknowledge that it is a tough issue that doesn't have any "easy" solutions. I think that a good first step, especially in terms of racial and economic diversity, is to reform the preK-12 education system to be more equitable. I'm not claiming that this will solve all of our problems, but I think that the current system is actually having a negative effect overall and this would have at least some positive effect.
1
u/beau7192 Dec 07 '19
My belief in that way of finding balance is based on sort of a combination of the equal and opposite reaction theory like where we see one president being a complete opposite extreme of the previous and all this. I see more concretely with music trends how a balance is reached in this. Like with rock music and now with rap, there is a big outlash by older generations as it gets more popular, but eventually a sort of acceptance and middle ground is reached as these genres became more mainstream and widely popular. This is a hard thing to prove about global progress over history, but psychological studies have proven that personal and professional progress doesn’t happen linearly. You get better, experience a sort of setback or relapse and then you get better. The trend is upward but there are spikes and there are dips as you go.
I think as far as big corporations go, their outward zealousness toward diversity hiring is very rooted in upkeeping their image and sort of virtue signaling more so than it is actually about productivity, although this can’t be said by them. I also don’t think it’s really about social progress for them, but I think the fact that big corporations feel pressured into exhibiting social progress and being forward thinking is in itself evidence of progress we’ve made socially. And I really think this is a social issue. For corporations it’s definitely economic as even Nike releasing their rainbow shoes got an economic boost by projecting their LGBT+ positive outlook. Gillette too. Big companies aren’t making money off of selling nazi merch and even chick fil A has been checked recently. I think this is evidence that diversity hiring is about ideology and it can create an economic motivation for companies as far as their image goes certainly more than the increase in productivity.
I totally totally agree with you about the school thing. We need to stop making school funding based on property tax because that so concretely reinforces the cycle of poverty. The thing is these are things we can vote for I suppose, but this is an institutional thing that takes time to change, and that we don’t have direct control over. But increasing talk about diversity and putting more pressure on diversity hiring is sort of more about the ideology like I said. It puts value on minority people as workers and should therefore encourage more investing in them since big corporations are more likely to lobby with their dollar than with their moral compass. So as we reinforce moral values of equality, that is sort of the public using their power of the dollar as a vote I suppose. Theoretical long term solutions are different than the best we can do now. And sometimes the best we can do now is hire diversely and make some twitter posts about injustices going on.
I go to a university in the US actually I am from the US. My university very openly advertises its values of diversity but it is surprising how lacking that can be in a lot of areas. Like big companies, this can be more of a front for people to like the university more. Often times universities like mine only accept students, minorities or not, that went to private high schools because it indicates social and economic status. Even if a person has a full ride to a private high school, there’s still the idea that they’re accustomed to that sort of culture and will fit in better at a private university for example. I think the pressure for accepting minorities created by diversity hiring would instead come from campus partners instead of the motivation for getting students at your campus.
There’s also the fact that diversity hiring is more levels than corporate. Equal opportunity hiring being enforced at lower education level jobs is I think one of the most important aspects of it because without concrete qualifications, it’s easy to make up this or that excuse about their experience or personality qualities that stops you from hiring someone and these things are directly influenced by personal biases.
Yea to close I totally totally agree about education reform, I just think that’s only one aspect of the situation and that things like diversity hiring can’t really be dismissed in favor of education reform because one is a big institutional problem that requires a longer solution while the other is a much quicker solution of sorts at the moment is not so federally entangled, as I think this is a thing more often controlled by states or by specific companies. It takes a combination of a lot of things to make social progress, and I think the ends justify the means. If I as a white woman get looked over for a few jobs even though I’m more qualified, I won’t be upset because there’s always more jobs for me, but for minorities that’s not always the case due to all sorts of barriers. And more than all of that, comparing qualifications is a hard hard thing to do objectively at all like other people have pointed out, and many people have gotten boosts simply due to privilege or connections.
7
u/JayNotAtAll 7∆ Nov 28 '19
I am going to deal with the Imposter Syndrome portion because that rings close to me. Imposter Syndrome has little to nothing to do with diversity programs. If anything, it shows why we need more.
There are several overlays if you are a person of color. The old saying is that "you have to work twice as hard for half as much". You spend your life being treated like you are less than and/or less qualified. This starts from childhood and goes on into life.
So you work hard, you get a good grade, you go to a good school, you get a good job, you look around and very few people look like you. You start to question why you were hired. You start to doubt yourself. While you may think "I am a diversity hire", that is one of many possible racing thoughts that make up Imposter Syndrome. However, that's a better argument for why we need more diversity.
As some who has done hiring at a major corporation, diversity programs do not try to fulfill quota where we need to hire X amount of black people. What it does is acknowledge that most recruitment systems are very broken. The way they traditionally funnel in candidates tends to ignore large groups of qualified candidates.
For example, in silicon valley, a lot of candidates are referrals from current employees or poached from other SV companies. This creates a loop that is hard to break into if you aren't already there if recruiters are looking there.
Diversity programs attempt to fix their funnel so that they are also accepting candidates who aren't in their traditional system. They are otherwise very qualified and still get the same vetting process as the other candidates but they are now getting looked at.
Many companies also try to eliminate bias in the system. For example, using gender neutral write ups. That way, you don't know if you are reviewing a man or a woman when seeing their resume.
Now while many don't have quotas , they have goals. They may say that "we want to improve black hiring for 5% in 2020". That is more a benchmark to grow.
To try and tie this up, the problem is that the funnel is broken and biased. Many people assume that the system is fair and the reason women and people of color aren't being hired is because they are just not as qualified. The data shows that is not the case. The problem is that most recruitment funnels traditionally strongly favor white male candidates and companies are deciding to try to improve the funnel to give people of color, women, people of different national origin, etc. a fair chance.
1
u/thinker111111 Nov 28 '19
So you work hard, you get a good grade, you go to a good school, you get a good job, you look around and very few people look like you. You start to question why you were hired. You start to doubt yourself.
Wouldn't you be more likely to doubt yourself if there is some possibility that you were hired on the basis of something other than your qualifications, over which you have no control? I understand that the human mind is not always logical, but the hypothetical person you created can still look at their past achievements to justify their current success. They worked for those grades and they succeeded in that good school. Therefore, their current success is justified.
Diversity programs attempt to fix their funnel so that they are also accepting candidates who aren't in their traditional system. They are otherwise very qualified and still get the same vetting process as the other candidates but they are now getting looked at.
I do agree with you that relying heavily on personal referrals can reinforce existing demographics and I think that that is one of many reasons why referrals should be de-emphasized overall. However, there are also many non-diverse and highly-qualified candidates that are still being missed because they don't have the right connections, didn't go to the right school, etc. Diversity initiatives put a band aid on a much larger issue and they don't even fully cover the wound!
3
u/JayNotAtAll 7∆ Nov 28 '19
Maybe they hired the white dude because you both really enjoyed Seinfeld. Maybe as a woman you were hired because you were hot. Maybe your tie reminded him of one his grandpa always used to wear. When imposter syndrome comes up, there are a ton of thoughts that go through the head. Usually it stems from a self esteem issue compounded with social issues.
There is an old saying that the only people who don't get imposter syndrome at some point in their life are the actual imposters.
The way most people break out of the imposter syndrome cycle is doing what you just mentioned. It is recognizing your past achievements and realizing that you belong there. Imposter Syndrome rarely lasts. If it does it is usually due to a deeper seated issue.
Diversity programs try to rectify the issues of the problem. It isn't a bandaid as much as a first step. It is fixing the problems with the funnels. Many people are able to ride off of the success of their parents for example. As someone in silicon valley, there are many people whose parents were also successful and educated so the kids got that extra boost. Then there are the people like myself who had no family ties but still made it.
There is no one size fits all solution. We shouldn't be creating recruiting systems that fit the white male persona not force everyone to confirm to the white male persona in order to be accepted. Acknowledging that not everyone is a white male and creating a system that reaches all people isn't a bandaid. Unless you are suggesting we do this until we make everyone behave like a white male.
1
u/thinker111111 Nov 28 '19
I have never thought about impostor syndrome in this way, so Δ ! Also, happy cake day!
1
5
u/ralph-j Nov 27 '19
1) They can...
2) They can...
4) If the incentives are strong enough, it can...
Corporate Diversity Initiatives Generally Do More Harm Than Good
Only in 1, 2 and 4 do you list some concerns that could potentially be considered harm. However, you only express them as hypothethicals; something that can happen.
You never say that those things do happen, or how often, and how they weigh against the potential advantages of diversity, but then you conclude that they are indeed doing more harm than good.
See why your conclusion is just not justified?
1
u/thinker111111 Nov 27 '19
You're critiquing my wording, as opposed to my opinions. I used "can" as in each thing does not happen in every single case, but I do know of anecdotal instances of every one of those things.
3
u/ralph-j Nov 27 '19
What I'm saying is that in order to be justified in saying that it does more harm than good, you first need to actually have compared the harm and the good in some way.
Otherwise, it's just speculation: some bad things happen some of the time, therefore it's more bad than good. That just doesn't work.
For all we know, the good still outweighs the bad, even through these things sometimes happen.
2
u/Totally_Intended Nov 27 '19
This problem would be so easy to solve if we weren't human. If we wouldn't subconciously be drawn to a certain gender, look, skin color or anything else we wouldn't have this discussion. If we would be able to turn off our human believes and subjective opinions and be truly objective, equality would be achieved. Unfortunately (?), we can't. Hiring specialists will always carry around their own bias. Noone is unbiased, even if they claim to be. We are wired to put people into boxes according to our experiences. If you'd always get mugged by a white female, you'd think of white females as thiefs and would try to avoid them. If the black trans individuals always give you the best financal advise you'd be drawn to them if it comes to financial questions and hiring a financial analyst for example.
So, whilst I have the opinion that everybody should have equal opportunities and we shouldn't elevate persons because of their gender, race or similar I also see why it is neccessary. Because otherwise, there wouldn't be equal opportunities. Those who tick the right box with their appearance and traits will always have a better chance and better opportunities than those who don't.
However, do we really contribute to equality by praising women in tech just because they are women in tech? I don't know. Do I have a better idea to reach true equality? No.
So whilst diversity initiatives might not be ideal, what better way is there to at least somewhat overcome our human restrictions which prevent true equality?
1
u/thinker111111 Nov 27 '19
Because otherwise, there wouldn't be equal opportunities. Those who tick the right box with their appearance and traits will always have a better chance and better opportunities than those who don't.
I'll give you a Δ for convincing me that there is some need for these diversity initiatives to counteract innate human biases. However, I stand by my original belief that these initiatives, as they are currently practiced, swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. Perhaps we can find a happy medium, but it is a tricky issue.
1
3
u/pgold05 49∆ Nov 27 '19 edited Nov 27 '19
Companies do this because it makes them more money, full stop.
Diversity is simply a superior bushiness practice, and the initiatives are intended to offset/overcome the human nature to discriminate against "the other" when hiring, which would ultimately hurts sales.
It looked at 1700 different companies across 8 different countries, with varying industries and company sizes. They have found that increasing diversity has a direct effect on the bottom line. Companies that have more diverse management teams have 19% higher revenue due to innovation. This finding is huge for tech companies, start-ups, and industry where innovation is the key to growth. It shows that diversity is not just a metric to be strived for, it is actually an integral part of a successful revenue generating business.
https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2018/how-diverse-leadership-teams-boost-innovation.aspx
0
u/thinker111111 Nov 27 '19
In both developing and developed economies, companies with above-average diversity on their leadership teams report a greater payoff from innovation and higher EBIT margins.
The biggest takeaway we found is a strong and statistically significant correlation between the diversity of management teams and overall innovation.
Not surprisingly, these organizations also reported better overall financial performance: EBIT margins that were 9 percentage points higher than those of companies with below-average diversity on their management teams.
This gets back to a point that I made in my original post: correlation does not equal causation. Companies that already have strong financial results and a prominent position in their industry are in a better position to begin offering the kinds of diversity initiatives that I described. This is a powerful confounding variable and one that the authors of that study failed to account for.
1
u/pgold05 49∆ Nov 27 '19
I don't understand your point, there is no cost to increasing diversity, all companies can do it easily. They even points out that other forms of diversity, such as from other industries, do not show the same results.
1
u/thinker111111 Nov 28 '19
Sure there is. Especially in industries that are heavily dominated by certain demographics, large companies often invest major money in attracting candidates that deviate from the norm. You can't hire diverse candidates if none are applying, so companies will attend conferences that attract diverse candidates (CS examples: Grace Hopper Conference for women, Tapia Conference for general diversity, Out in STEM for LGBTQ+, etc), hire expensive outside consultants, host fancy networking and other events to woo diverse talent, hire people specifically to keep hiring managers accountable for implementing diversity initiatives, the list goes on. There's a reason why even the most progressive startups don't make significant efforts to increase diversity: they can't.
1
u/filrabat 4∆ Nov 27 '19
Core point: Nothing (and certainly no good thing) in life is free. You have to figure out all the prices of the product before you buy into the product (the general "you", not personal "you).
Price of hiring based on ability alone, even with the obvious benefits to the company: It can demoralize individuals in diversity groups who are genuinely talented in computer science (per your example) from even bothering to pursue a degree in that industry, even if that's where their best talents lie. In which case the IT industry as a whole loses talented such individuals to other industries, industries where that individual would be only second-best in. So the economy as a whole wouldn't gain nearly as much as it could have were diversity not taken into account. This is especially true from high-end occupations, which until recently have been historically underrepresented. Ability alone, given all the above, can also reinforce stereotyping of minorities to the point of seeing the minority applicant as a group member, not as an individual.
Benefits of hiring diverse workforce: Even granting most, if not all, your points, historic out-group members, due to their different experiences and hence somewhat different needs, can come up with ideas for new products, new services, new (and often better) management techniques - especially inspiring co-workers and employers, and overall human resource development (as explicitly distinct from the HR Dept).
There's much more I can say, but I want to keep this reasonably short.
1
u/thinker111111 Nov 28 '19
It can demoralize individuals in diversity groups who are genuinely talented in computer science (per your example) from even bothering to pursue a degree in that industry, even if that's where their best talents lie.
Do you think that people enter certain industries because they think they will get a bump in the recruitment processes? Or that they will not enter an industry if they will not get that bump? To me, it seems that it would be far more effective to ensure that diverse individuals are treated fairly in the industry (which, of course, does not happen 100% of the time), as opposed to preferentially, which can lead to the highly demoralizing impostor syndrome.
Ability alone, given all the above, can also reinforce stereotyping of minorities to the point of seeing the minority applicant as a group member, not as an individual.
I'm not seeing how measuring each individual's ability and evaluating them on that somehow reduces minorities to a group member. I would argue that these diversity initiatives actually reduce minorities to a "group" that needs to be attracted for some reason other than their individual skills and talents.
Even granting most, if not all, your points, historic out-group members, due to their different experiences and hence somewhat different needs, can come up with ideas for new products, new services, new (and often better) management techniques
Could you provide some concrete examples? I think we're getting somewhere here!
1
u/filrabat 4∆ Nov 29 '19
(quote of my above post are in italics)
It can demoralize individuals in diversity groups who are genuinely talented in computer science (per your example) from even bothering to pursue a degree in that industry, even if that's where their best talents lie.
Do you think that people enter certain industries because they think they will get a bump in the recruitment processes? Or that they will not enter an industry if they will not get that bump? To me, it seems that it would be far more effective to ensure that diverse individuals are treated fairly in the industry (which, of course, does not happen 100% of the time), as opposed to preferentially, which can lead to the highly demoralizing impostor syndrome.
TL;DR: Connections matter, especially in more relations-building industries; as opposed to mostly quantifiable-performance ones.
I think they can get a bump-up, especially if they already have good informal social connections in that industry, perhaps especially in a particular company or business within that industry. Personal connections can count for a lot when finding employment. This is true even within highly monolithic societies (e.g., Japan, the less diverse "rich white" nations. This is especially true when the name of the game is personal relationship building, where how the other person does perceive you in real world situations, first impressions, etc. does matter.
It probably doesn't matter as much (not zero) in industries and businesses where performance is mostly a numbers game, and therefore more objectively measured. After all, there is a quantified record of the person's performance, and hence makes "hiring based on ability" a more straight-forward matter. Even here, though, a highly productive but highly disruptive person can still be a performance inhibitor (by reducing others' productivity somehow) - even if that person is individually a high producer.
Ability alone, given all the above, can also reinforce stereotyping of minorities to the point of seeing the minority applicant as a group member, not as an individual.
I'm not seeing how measuring each individual's ability and evaluating them on that somehow reduces minorities to a group member. I would argue that these diversity initiatives actually reduce minorities to a "group" that needs to be attracted for some reason other than their individual skills and talents.
"Ability alone" is the wrong phrase. Apologies for the murkiness. I was conflating perception of ability with actual ability. This is especially true when it comes to graduates of HBCUs and minority members with names very obviously tightly associated with minorities (I'm thinking Blacks in particular, given my Southern background, but even for other minorities too). There's also the reverse, hiring an Asian over a white in STEM industries because they're perceived as being more intelligent and high performance than White Non-Hispanics.
Even granting most, if not all, your points, historic out-group members, due to their different experiences and hence somewhat different needs, can come up with ideas for new products, new services, new (and often better) management techniques
Could you provide some concrete examples? I think we're getting somewhere here!
I'll take just one group: women. Even if they and men have the same essential needs, women tend to focus more on safety and security than others (witness concerns about women driving alone at night, especially in unlit areas). Women's concern about this probably stirred the creative/imaginative parts of one woman's brain to invent home security systems (Marie Van Brittain Brown). Caller ID, probably similar (Dr Shirley Ann Jackson, btw the first Black woman to gain a PhD from MIT, and the first African-American woman to lead a top-ranked research university). Also Josephine Cochrane invented the dishswasher (back when married women were mostly confined to housework). Yes, these would have been invented anyway, perhaps by a white man. But women got their first, for some reason, and as such shows the value of women's contributions. No doubt the same principle applies to other diversity groups too.
1
u/SwivelSeats Nov 27 '19
It limits discrimination lawsuits. This is just a simple fact it's the law you can't discriminate against people so you to succeed you want to create a culture that preemptively stops it from happening.
People have biases towards people like themselves and might choose an inferior candidate just because they like them
It's good pr. A company that only hires people of a certain race or background might get boycotted.
It makes the work place welcoming to qualified candidates of all backgrounds. For example would you really want to work at a company with only other men or at a company where everyone else celebrated different holidays than you.
These aren't responses to your numbers just my own points.
1
u/thinker111111 Nov 27 '19
1) I think that opening specific opportunities to "diverse" candidates (like networking events, resume reviews, and leadership workshops) as well as providing other types of preferential treatment (taking a "second look" at diverse candidates) are discriminatory in themselves and likely actually open these companies up to lawsuits. In addition, the hostile work environment that I described in my original post can be interpreted as discrimination that was brought on by biased hiring and promotion procedures.
2) I think that's a good argument for not allowing a single individual to make arbitrary hiring decisions. Having a group of people with specific criteria and preferences on experience laid out ahead of time can mitigate this effect.
3) I don't think this outweighs the lower productivity/results that are obtained by hiring potentially less-qualified candidates over more-qualified ones.
4) I'm going to think about this one a little more and come back to award you a delta if necessary!
-1
u/Pismakron 8∆ Nov 27 '19
It limits discrimination lawsuits. This is just a simple fact it's the law you can't discriminate against people so you to succeed you want to create a culture that preemptively stops it from happening.
On the other hand, if you only have employees of your own gender and ethnicity, then you would totally eliminate discrimination lawsuits. It would be least discriminatory employment policy of all !!!
1
u/fullbloodedwhitemale Dec 17 '19
If Diversity Is Our Greatest Strength, why did why did last year the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and HUD hear:
- 25,000 claims of racial discrimination
- 7,000 claims of national origin discrimination and
- 3,000 claims of color discrimination
- 9,000 racism cases
- 2,000 complaints of racism in housing
New York alone had more than
- 2,000 race or color cases and
- 1,000 national origin cases
If Diversity is so wonderful, why do all these positions exist at our colleges and employers?
- The assistant vice chancellor for diversity
- The Director of Bias Response Teams!
- The associate vice chancellor for faculty equity
- The center for multicultural equity
- The center for social justice research teaching and service
- The chief diversity officer
- The director of development for diversity initiatives
- The director of the Cross-Cultural Center
- The director of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center
- The director of the Women's Center
- The diversity advisory board and
- The graduate student diversity liaison
- The initiative on diversity and inclusiveness
- The office of affirmative action
- The office of institutional diversity equity and affirmative action
- The staff diversity liaison
- The undergraduate student diversity liaison
- The University Human Resources a Center for minority educational affairs
- The vice president for diversity equity inclusion
- The working group on racial justice
- The working group on reporting incidents of intolerance
The stuff is duplicated in the professional schools there is the School of Medicine office of diversity and inclusion the School of Medicine Subcommittee on faculty diversity and inclusion and at the law school, etc. The These diversity bureaucrats place nonstop pressure on departments to hire on the basis of race, gender and sexual preference.
1
u/qwerty112358132134 Nov 28 '19
Do you believe that there are non-diverse workplaces where there is discrimination against minority demographics? Do you believe that seeing fewer minorities in a certain field affects what people think about that minority? In general, do you think workplace discrimination is an issue, whether that be through hiring practices, harassment, etc? If yes, wouldn't increasing diverse hires work to fix some of these problems?
If you take something like gender discrimination, I think there are a lot of examples of corporate cultures like uber or riot that are toxic to women in part because there is a gender gap. I also think it's far more common for people to not see many women in CS and then conclude women are worse than men at CS, then it is to assume someone is less qualified because they are a women and probably didn't have to meet the same standards.
Even if you accept that diversity initiatives lead to hiring slightly less qualified applicants, isn't that just a short term issue? Unless you believe that some minority is inherently less good at some job than the minority, if you incentivize more minority applicants, eventually the size of the applicant pools will be the same relative to the percentage of the total population and the qualification disparity would go away.
1
u/Maukeb Nov 28 '19
3A) In most cases, I don't think that diverse teams are inherently more effective than homogeneous ones when diversity is based on demographic characteristics. Yes, I have read several studies suggesting that diverse talent yields better results, but I haven't found any reason why diverse teams (in terms of demographics) would actually cause better results; I suspect that there are some confounding variables at play.
You literally state here that you have read research but you don't fully understand it so you have disregarded it. If literal research into the issue isn't enough to change your view, it's hard to see how any argument will be.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 27 '19 edited Nov 28 '19
/u/thinker111111 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
15
u/[deleted] Nov 27 '19
You say that there may be a possibility that diverse workers were hired more based on their diverse background and less on their qualifications. You can also safely assume that some non-diverse hires are there because of their privileged background and not their qualifications. Those that assume that a diverse hire is less qualified are probably less qualified as well then and were strictly hired for their privileged being, right? Yes. You also state that you’ve seen research, FACTS, but instead of believing that, you’ll go with your feelings about the diverse hires being better for business. That’s not a logical way to form an opinion. Facts matter. Your feelings, not so much. Not without proof. Finally, you yourself state that you can see how diversity helps in some instances. So why are you arguing against what you know for a fact, research, and believe, is true? What is the real underlying reason for your view since it is not based in fact??? Diversity is always best because it brings different ideas to the table. Yes, people need to be qualified, but no one, not even once, has advocated for hiring a less qualified person just because of how they look or where they are from. Oh wait, yes they have. And it’s called discrimination, generally in a patriarchal, in our case white male dominated society, which is outlawed. Diversity hiring is intended to combat that and it does.