ChatterBank9 mins ago
Google Struggles To Diversify Its Workforce
31 Answers
http://
Why is the continuous strive to diversify one's workforce so important, if people of any gender or race are not interested in following certain professions then so be it, much better to have a workforce who are employed for their skills, rather than because of their gender or race?
/// Mortified by the disclosures, Google and most of its other technology peers have been pouring more money into programs steering more women, blacks and Hispanics to focus on science and math in schools and have stepped up their recruiting of minority students as they prepare to graduate from college. ///
Why is the continuous strive to diversify one's workforce so important, if people of any gender or race are not interested in following certain professions then so be it, much better to have a workforce who are employed for their skills, rather than because of their gender or race?
/// Mortified by the disclosures, Google and most of its other technology peers have been pouring more money into programs steering more women, blacks and Hispanics to focus on science and math in schools and have stepped up their recruiting of minority students as they prepare to graduate from college. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A diverse workforce ought to be equivalent to a skilled one, really, as there is no direct link between gender, sexuality or skin colour and ability.
The main thing, though, is that the programmes "steering more women, blacks and Hispanics to focus on science and [maths] in schools" are a welcome development. It's important to ensure that people don't feel put off from studying such subjects, as still appears to be the case today.
The main thing, though, is that the programmes "steering more women, blacks and Hispanics to focus on science and [maths] in schools" are a welcome development. It's important to ensure that people don't feel put off from studying such subjects, as still appears to be the case today.
Yes, absoutely ridiculous.
If organisations want to be "colour blind" (or blind to any other diversification) the best thing they can do is not to bother collecting stats that provide such breakdowns of their workforce.
The biggest joke recently, of course, is the BBC (who else?) worrying that they do not have a single disabled weather forecast presenter! Their advertisement (which must certainly come close to discrimination on the grounds of disability) asks for anyone who is disabled who would like to present the weather.
http://
They need no skills but must be disabled. Imagine the reverse - "Wanted. Weather presenter. No experience necessary, but must not be disabled"
I'm sure that would go down well. What a farce!
If organisations want to be "colour blind" (or blind to any other diversification) the best thing they can do is not to bother collecting stats that provide such breakdowns of their workforce.
The biggest joke recently, of course, is the BBC (who else?) worrying that they do not have a single disabled weather forecast presenter! Their advertisement (which must certainly come close to discrimination on the grounds of disability) asks for anyone who is disabled who would like to present the weather.
http://
They need no skills but must be disabled. Imagine the reverse - "Wanted. Weather presenter. No experience necessary, but must not be disabled"
I'm sure that would go down well. What a farce!
"A diverse workforce ought to be equivalent to a skilled one,..."
Quite so, jim. Provided the employees have the necessary skills, that is. The BBC has obviously decided otherwise.
There certainly is no direct link between gender, sexuality or skin colour and ability. But there definitely is (for many jobs) a link between disability and ability (the clue is in the two words). It's very unfortunate that many disabled people cannot undertake the full range of jobs that able bodied people can, but it's true. (Couldn't imagine a quadraplegic becoming a firefighter, for example). And whilst I agree that there is nothing to prevent many disabled people becoming weather forecast presenters, to insist on having one (regardless of their skills) just because they currently have none is just about as daft as it gets.
Quite so, jim. Provided the employees have the necessary skills, that is. The BBC has obviously decided otherwise.
There certainly is no direct link between gender, sexuality or skin colour and ability. But there definitely is (for many jobs) a link between disability and ability (the clue is in the two words). It's very unfortunate that many disabled people cannot undertake the full range of jobs that able bodied people can, but it's true. (Couldn't imagine a quadraplegic becoming a firefighter, for example). And whilst I agree that there is nothing to prevent many disabled people becoming weather forecast presenters, to insist on having one (regardless of their skills) just because they currently have none is just about as daft as it gets.
"//It's important to ensure that people don't feel put off from studying such subjects, as still appears to be the case today//
And what evidence do you have that this is the case? "
A quick scan around most of my mathematics and physics lectures and colleagues shows a disproportionate number of men as compared to women. That's just eyewitness evidence -- one sees the same in numerous proper studies. Why this is in't clear. It may well be that many women, say, just don't want to do these subjects for entirely honest reasons that have nothing to do with perceived discrimination issues.
As to "why [should a diverse workforce be equivalent to a skilled one]", I mean that since there is no direct link between your skills and your ethnic background, gender etc., then a workforce that is not diverse is likely to be excluding a sizeable proportion of potential applicants not based on how good they are but on who they are.
The constant reply to this tends to run along the lines "if a white middle-class man is better-placed for the job than some other candidate from a minority ethnic background, why shouldn't he get it?" The answer is that he should -- on the other hand, one would also expect that on occasions proportionate to the population build-up, the better candidate will be a woman, or of some different background, etc etc etc.
Workforces without diversity statistically equivalent to the population make-up reveal, then, either some hidden prejudices against a certain type of person independent of their suitability for the job, or some problem further back in the line, whereby such people just aren't putting themselves up for the job or aren't reaching the required standard. If it's due to not applying, then you want to ensure that this is not because they feel that doing so would mean risking discrimination. If it's because they aren't reaching the required standards, then it follows that you want to address this.
I don't want a situation where someone is getting a job because of who they are in the "token woman" sense, of course -- ie, positive discrimination. A workforce should be diverse because it naturally is so that talent and background are not linked.
And what evidence do you have that this is the case? "
A quick scan around most of my mathematics and physics lectures and colleagues shows a disproportionate number of men as compared to women. That's just eyewitness evidence -- one sees the same in numerous proper studies. Why this is in't clear. It may well be that many women, say, just don't want to do these subjects for entirely honest reasons that have nothing to do with perceived discrimination issues.
As to "why [should a diverse workforce be equivalent to a skilled one]", I mean that since there is no direct link between your skills and your ethnic background, gender etc., then a workforce that is not diverse is likely to be excluding a sizeable proportion of potential applicants not based on how good they are but on who they are.
The constant reply to this tends to run along the lines "if a white middle-class man is better-placed for the job than some other candidate from a minority ethnic background, why shouldn't he get it?" The answer is that he should -- on the other hand, one would also expect that on occasions proportionate to the population build-up, the better candidate will be a woman, or of some different background, etc etc etc.
Workforces without diversity statistically equivalent to the population make-up reveal, then, either some hidden prejudices against a certain type of person independent of their suitability for the job, or some problem further back in the line, whereby such people just aren't putting themselves up for the job or aren't reaching the required standard. If it's due to not applying, then you want to ensure that this is not because they feel that doing so would mean risking discrimination. If it's because they aren't reaching the required standards, then it follows that you want to address this.
I don't want a situation where someone is getting a job because of who they are in the "token woman" sense, of course -- ie, positive discrimination. A workforce should be diverse because it naturally is so that talent and background are not linked.
NJ's post came up while I was still typing. Yes, I agree that hiring someone specifically to meet a quota is the worst sort of response to a perceived lack of diversity. Google's -- and others -- drive towards encouraging people to apply, and study the necessary subjects, is a more appropriate response.
The truth about the disabled BBC weather presenter:
There is no job and there is no job ad and the BBC certainly isn't about to put an inexperienced weather presenter on-screen based purely on the fact they are disabled. Rather there is BBC Academy course offering experience and training to would-be weather presenters with a disability:
"The BBC Academy is running a free training opportunity to provide an introduction to the world of weather presenting to help men and women with a disability feel comfortable appearing on television, radio and online presenting weather bulletins."
Participants will be given training and "experience in presenting weather bulletins to camera" but crucially there is no promise of a job at the end. Those who complete the training "will be eligible to apply for future vacancies in the team" but the suggestion the BBC is in the process of appointing a weather presenter on a "no qualifications necessary, must be disabled" basis is a clear distortion.
There is no job and there is no job ad and the BBC certainly isn't about to put an inexperienced weather presenter on-screen based purely on the fact they are disabled. Rather there is BBC Academy course offering experience and training to would-be weather presenters with a disability:
"The BBC Academy is running a free training opportunity to provide an introduction to the world of weather presenting to help men and women with a disability feel comfortable appearing on television, radio and online presenting weather bulletins."
Participants will be given training and "experience in presenting weather bulletins to camera" but crucially there is no promise of a job at the end. Those who complete the training "will be eligible to apply for future vacancies in the team" but the suggestion the BBC is in the process of appointing a weather presenter on a "no qualifications necessary, must be disabled" basis is a clear distortion.
I got that from:
http://
The Media Blog is a damn fine read for anyone interested in the news and media in general.
http://
The Media Blog is a damn fine read for anyone interested in the news and media in general.
Whenever a I read articles such as this my first thought is how enlightened the recruiters are. I don't read it as positive discrimination, I simply wonder why their recruitment strategies have failed to attract significant parts of the workforce and as a consequence are potentially missing out on talented individuals.
AOG
My theory is that companies strive to diversify because of three main reasons. The first one is a little dubious, but I think the other two make sense.
1. A diversified workforce simply makes the company look better..."Hey look at us, we're totally modern! We are a bigot-free zone. Gosh, aren't we cool!"
2. Having people from different backgrounds is useful for companies with an extensive national or global reach. This is especially true in the U.S. which has a significant black, Asian and Hispanic workforce. I believe that companies like to have their workforce reflect their customer base.
3. The talent pool. I think this is the most important reason. A diversified workforce is a symbol that people from whatever background can get on, in the company in question. If I went for a job with an IT company and whilst walking around the campus, I realised that every single person working there was a white male, I would question why (unless, say it were a company based in Alaska).
A good analogy is the way that schools and colleges have promoted the idea of women going into 'non-traditional' careers, such as architecture and engineering. Fifty years ago, it was almost unheard of to see women take on these roles, but now - who would even blink at a female engineer?
It's the talent pool thing that is key here...if people, for whatever reason think that they don't stand a chance in certain careers or companies, they will walk elsewhere which means that the talents they have will never be available to (in this case) Google.
My theory is that companies strive to diversify because of three main reasons. The first one is a little dubious, but I think the other two make sense.
1. A diversified workforce simply makes the company look better..."Hey look at us, we're totally modern! We are a bigot-free zone. Gosh, aren't we cool!"
2. Having people from different backgrounds is useful for companies with an extensive national or global reach. This is especially true in the U.S. which has a significant black, Asian and Hispanic workforce. I believe that companies like to have their workforce reflect their customer base.
3. The talent pool. I think this is the most important reason. A diversified workforce is a symbol that people from whatever background can get on, in the company in question. If I went for a job with an IT company and whilst walking around the campus, I realised that every single person working there was a white male, I would question why (unless, say it were a company based in Alaska).
A good analogy is the way that schools and colleges have promoted the idea of women going into 'non-traditional' careers, such as architecture and engineering. Fifty years ago, it was almost unheard of to see women take on these roles, but now - who would even blink at a female engineer?
It's the talent pool thing that is key here...if people, for whatever reason think that they don't stand a chance in certain careers or companies, they will walk elsewhere which means that the talents they have will never be available to (in this case) Google.
/// Fifty years ago, it was almost unheard of to see women take on these roles, but now - who would even blink at a female engineer? ///
Try telling that to the thousands of women engineers who produced Aeroplanes, Tanks, and guns etc. during WW2
/// It's the talent pool thing that is key here...if people, for whatever reason think that they don't stand a chance in certain careers or companies, they will walk elsewhere which means that the talents they have will never be available to (in this case) Google. ///
just as long as there are plenty of people who have the talents and do not wish to 'walk away' why worry.
Try telling that to the thousands of women engineers who produced Aeroplanes, Tanks, and guns etc. during WW2
/// It's the talent pool thing that is key here...if people, for whatever reason think that they don't stand a chance in certain careers or companies, they will walk elsewhere which means that the talents they have will never be available to (in this case) Google. ///
just as long as there are plenty of people who have the talents and do not wish to 'walk away' why worry.
Latest Posts
Crosswords21 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News30 mins ago
News30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.