Tech companies: make remote work part of your diversity and inclusion efforts(medium.com)
medium.com
Tech companies: make remote work part of your diversity and inclusion efforts
https://medium.com/@margotcodes/tech-companies-make-remote-work-part-of-your-diversity-and-inclusion-efforts-b100ab74bf97
68 comments
Not to say anyone here is wrong, but I'll weigh in with my experience, which is success with a team that was a mix of remote and on-site. Maybe it was just a unicorn, but it worked quite well. The downside to that, though, is the remote workers have to be prepared to feel a certain amount of disconnection from the rest of the team who are probably having lunches together and group activities that leave out those who aren't physically present. Otherwise, I think it ultimately comes down to how the team and the leaders of the organization view the remote employees – not as synonymous with freelance "techies" working in their underwear, but playing on the same field as everyone else and having as much value to bring despite not having their butt placed in a specific chair.
> That means including the remote workers in all of the meetings, code reviews, etc.
That also assumes that everyone is in the same time zone (+/- a few hours). How would that work when someone in Europe / Asia is working with colleagues in the USA? Even collaborating between east coast and west coast colleagues get harder because you only have 9-9:30 - 2:30-3 PST window, which is then consumed by lunch etc.
> Also for that reason, adding a culture of remote work to the kind of company where any onsite employees can grab a room and start whiteboarding stuff is going to be very difficult.
Absolutely agree with this one.
That also assumes that everyone is in the same time zone (+/- a few hours). How would that work when someone in Europe / Asia is working with colleagues in the USA? Even collaborating between east coast and west coast colleagues get harder because you only have 9-9:30 - 2:30-3 PST window, which is then consumed by lunch etc.
> Also for that reason, adding a culture of remote work to the kind of company where any onsite employees can grab a room and start whiteboarding stuff is going to be very difficult.
Absolutely agree with this one.
From my experience a mix within a team won't work well. You can have either remote-only or onsite-only teams. Both need a chunk of work where they can make autonomous decisions. Same for offshoring teams. Give them work they can finish without having to coordinate too much with the onsite people.
I honestly think remote work is pretty detrimental to innovation and progress. Many of the best projects that I've worked on started as hallway conversations.
Obviously, this isn't true for everyone and all situations... It's just like, my opinion... man.
Obviously, this isn't true for everyone and all situations... It's just like, my opinion... man.
When I worked at a remote company we had a lot of "hallway conversations" on Skype. I would argue that we had more creative ideas then than I ever see in my current company at the office.
In the end it comes down to people. Either people are innovative or not.
In the end it comes down to people. Either people are innovative or not.
I want to highlight how the importance of this comment. It highlights a major and common misconception from the OP, which is this: embracing remote work is more than "letting people work remotely".
To be truly successful, you have to build a remote culture. That means hallway conversations move somewhere else. It doesn't matter if you sit down the hall or around the world: the experience is the same. Remote people don't miss hallways conversations because hallway conversations don't happen (or aren't as important).
To be truly successful, you have to build a remote culture. That means hallway conversations move somewhere else. It doesn't matter if you sit down the hall or around the world: the experience is the same. Remote people don't miss hallways conversations because hallway conversations don't happen (or aren't as important).
I disagree, a good office culture extends beyond meatspace. I've worked at plenty of companies where the general atmosphere was... not good. These are places where the "hallway conversation" was either nonexistent or didn't extend beyond small talk about TV or the weather. If your employees aren't comfortable sending instant messages to each other, they definitely aren't going to be comfortable being in the same room together.
One of the problems I have with instant messages is you can't tell if you are interrupting the other person. Some people may be able to ignore the message, but I think for many this kind of notifications create a sense of urgency and push them to reply still. Being conscious of this, I try to avoid sending IMs. In person, interactions give me way more signals about the other person's current state. Because of that I'm about 1000x more likely to say hi to a random co-worker walking down the hall than I am to send a random IM.
There's some truth in this.
The best solution to this is that if you've got something non-urgent that you'd like a colleague to think about at some point, use a truly asynchronous medium (e.g. e-mail, so long as you're not in an organisation which uses it as a de facto IM platform).
This is true whether or not the people you're trying to communicate with are in the same building.
The best solution to this is that if you've got something non-urgent that you'd like a colleague to think about at some point, use a truly asynchronous medium (e.g. e-mail, so long as you're not in an organisation which uses it as a de facto IM platform).
This is true whether or not the people you're trying to communicate with are in the same building.
IMO, that comes with the adjustment to using IM and is partly an office cultural thing. Most people I know toggle their status to "busy" or "DND" when otherwise engaged in a thing, and it's an understanding that being on open status means that people are okay to ping you or send memes.
so I completely agree that the culture is key. i also agree that given an healthy culture, remote doesn't matter that much
but in the absence of a working culture remote just can be a compounding factor for dysfunction. its also more difficult to enculturate someone remotely. i think thats why 'senior contributor moves to montana and continues to be really effective' is such an unsurprising atory.
but in the absence of a working culture remote just can be a compounding factor for dysfunction. its also more difficult to enculturate someone remotely. i think thats why 'senior contributor moves to montana and continues to be really effective' is such an unsurprising atory.
Thankfully the vast majority of work has nothing to do with innovation.
I'd love to hear your argument for "progress", whatever that is.
I'd love to hear your argument for "progress", whatever that is.
I meant innovation and progress in the sense of the sharing of good ideas, and solving shared problems. If a remote job only involves some kind of repeated task, it could probably just be automated.
Thank god most code requires no innovation at all, and thank god i am the one automating others out of the job!
Unless you're working on research, it's hard to buy physical proximity reducing throughput; just latency.
Unless you're working on research, it's hard to buy physical proximity reducing throughput; just latency.
innovation is relative. Sure, innovation on a global or market scale might not be common or necessary, but within the context of a single company the definition is broader.
True, but I am highly skeptical most people will have issues producing this level of innovation from a coffee shop.
Someone needs to tell all of those open source project things about this. They've been doing it wrong the whole time!
Open source development as "obvious" proof of remote work superiority is often brought up but proponents don't realize they aren't the same.
E.g. open source project like Linux kernel where volunteers choose what they want to work on, with little or zero effects on careers for missing deadlines has different dynamics than businesses.
If we want to convince businesses to adopt remote work, the Linux kernel is not a relevant example. Businesses have:
1) finite budget
2) deadlines
3) pressure to innovate for marketplace acceptance or go bankrupt
We need a better explanation for why business-related success of Google Pagerank/Bigtable, Apple iPhone, Facebook, etc comes more from teams in the office rather than remote workers on Skype. The Linux project -- even though it is "successful" -- is not that explanation.
E.g. open source project like Linux kernel where volunteers choose what they want to work on, with little or zero effects on careers for missing deadlines has different dynamics than businesses.
If we want to convince businesses to adopt remote work, the Linux kernel is not a relevant example. Businesses have:
1) finite budget
2) deadlines
3) pressure to innovate for marketplace acceptance or go bankrupt
We need a better explanation for why business-related success of Google Pagerank/Bigtable, Apple iPhone, Facebook, etc comes more from teams in the office rather than remote workers on Skype. The Linux project -- even though it is "successful" -- is not that explanation.
[deleted]
Open source is wonderful but to be fair, it's rarely innovative. Nearly always, at least as the broadly used software like Linux, Apache, Firefox, etc go, it was developed in a traditional company environment before being released as OSS, or it's a clone of existing commercial software.
Also, your physical presence is pretty much required if you want to have any sort of career progression. But it's great if you don't care about it and just want a steady paycheck that isn't eaten up by high cost of living.
Remote work is a boon for anyone with kids. You get to cut the commute out of your day, and so long as day care is nearby, recoup that time with your family.
But AFAICT, the tech industry is generally hostile to the notion of having children, or aging past thirty-five.
But AFAICT, the tech industry is generally hostile to the notion of having children, or aging past thirty-five.
That has not been my experience at all in comparison to other fields I've been in. My managers especially have often left early to pick up kids, or take a day to care for sick children. People talk about their children vomiting the night before to excuse their sleep deprivation. Every programming job I've had comes with maternity and paternity leave. Two-income households are far more common than stay-at-home parents, and the pay is sufficient people can afford childcare.
It is at least much less hostile than most of the rest of America.
It is at least much less hostile than most of the rest of America.
[deleted]
Have you ever seen a single hostility? I can't speak for startups, but if someone ever mentioned age or child status in a hiring meeting at an established Tech Company, they'd be met with horrified glares and immediately told those facts CANNOT factor into the hiring decision.
Frankly I've worked with many engineers and I've never seen any correlation, positive or negative, between overall engineering productivity and whether the engineer had children.
Frankly I've worked with many engineers and I've never seen any correlation, positive or negative, between overall engineering productivity and whether the engineer had children.
Yes, I have had heated arguments during hiring committees, behind closed doors, over this issue.
A big part of the rational and moral justification for diversity initiatives and affirmative action programs, as I understand them, is as a means to help correct the history of institutional racism and discrimination in this country.
So while the idea that meeting and working "with folks from all over the world—Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, and others" is appealing, for me it sidesteps the major issues diversity efforts should be addressing. And as an outsourcing mechanism, it can serve as a means of wage suppression, which has also exacerbated social divisions in this country.
So while the idea that meeting and working "with folks from all over the world—Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, and others" is appealing, for me it sidesteps the major issues diversity efforts should be addressing. And as an outsourcing mechanism, it can serve as a means of wage suppression, which has also exacerbated social divisions in this country.
I think more emphasis should be given on the benefit that diversity brings to the organization. A university or a company with lots of young white middle-class people will miss a lot of ideias that people from other backgrounds might bring.
This is dangerous thinking. Its skin-deep diversity. This makes it ok to look at a person and assume they have a typical middle class upbringing, but you don't know anything about that person. They could have grew up doing hard labor on an almond farm in central California and then lived a few years in haiti before going to college.
Diversity does increase innovation, but its a diversity of experience and a diversity of thought and not based on skin color and gender.
Diversity does increase innovation, but its a diversity of experience and a diversity of thought and not based on skin color and gender.
You can't have a representative group without diversity of gender and race. They may not be sufficient, but they are necessary precursors.
Additionally, of course, a system that even implicitly excludes people on the basis of gender or race is inherently unjust, whereas experience can reasonably be a requirement for a particular position when it results in necessary skills.
Additionally, of course, a system that even implicitly excludes people on the basis of gender or race is inherently unjust, whereas experience can reasonably be a requirement for a particular position when it results in necessary skills.
>You can't have a representative group without diversity of gender and race.
I think devmunchies' point is that if you have a finite set of job positions... e.g. 3 jobs, you might have the following situations:
Group 1:
I think devmunchies' point is that if you have a finite set of job positions... e.g. 3 jobs, you might have the following situations:
Group 1:
1) white man (Democrat Stanford grad)
2) white woman (Democrat Stanford grad)
3) black man (Democrat Stanford grad)
1) white man (Democrat Stanford grad)
3) white man (Libertarian Kansas kid self-taught)
2) white man (South Africa bootcamp grad)
Skin deep diversity is a little dangerous maybe if it's the only kind of diversity.
With gender diversity, and all other types of diversity, the goals of diversity would be ironic if they want to cut visible minorities (by percentage of population and representation).
With gender diversity, and all other types of diversity, the goals of diversity would be ironic if they want to cut visible minorities (by percentage of population and representation).
This gets trotted out a lot, but has anyone actually compared the benefits of diversity versus monoculture in terms of long-term corporate performance?
If we look at something like nations, its not immediately clear that diversity is a benefit: sure, it brings a plethora of perspectives and components from which the nation can draw, but it also makes it harder to develop a unified identity from which cooperative actions can extend and is a frequent source of internal conflict. At first blush, both of these factors are present in companies as well.
I'm not "anti-diversity" or whatever pejorative people are going to trot out to ignore the question, I just don't know that we should be basing pro-diversity arguments on dubious claims.
If we look at something like nations, its not immediately clear that diversity is a benefit: sure, it brings a plethora of perspectives and components from which the nation can draw, but it also makes it harder to develop a unified identity from which cooperative actions can extend and is a frequent source of internal conflict. At first blush, both of these factors are present in companies as well.
I'm not "anti-diversity" or whatever pejorative people are going to trot out to ignore the question, I just don't know that we should be basing pro-diversity arguments on dubious claims.
It makes it harder to develop a unified national identity if any one group believes they are the truth path and owners of universal values like kindness and goodness.
The thing is, we all have in common these universal skills of kindness, goodness, neighborliness, hard work, love of family, value of education for children, value of opportunities, etc.
Looking in a place like Canada, while not perfect, it is a lot better, and it starts with not as much overt righteousness.
The thing is, we all have in common these universal skills of kindness, goodness, neighborliness, hard work, love of family, value of education for children, value of opportunities, etc.
Looking in a place like Canada, while not perfect, it is a lot better, and it starts with not as much overt righteousness.
We can look at places like Scandanavia (historically) for an example of a very healthy populace in a monoculture, and the present struggles there for problems with diversifying a monoculture.
You seem to have a very strawman version of what a monoculture means: you don't have to be putting down other cultures, but taking advantage of in-group feeling by, eg, dressing alike can confer a greater sense of community, which can benefit the organization as a whole.
Similarly, the things you listed are empty platitudes -- where cultures vary is how they implement those ideals and the trade-offs between ideals that they settle on in that implementation.
To use an exaggeration: pointing out to sheep that wolves just want a happy life too doesn't do anything to alleviate the problem that for the wolves, that means eating sheep and for the sheep, that means not being eaten.
You seem to have a very strawman version of what a monoculture means: you don't have to be putting down other cultures, but taking advantage of in-group feeling by, eg, dressing alike can confer a greater sense of community, which can benefit the organization as a whole.
Similarly, the things you listed are empty platitudes -- where cultures vary is how they implement those ideals and the trade-offs between ideals that they settle on in that implementation.
To use an exaggeration: pointing out to sheep that wolves just want a happy life too doesn't do anything to alleviate the problem that for the wolves, that means eating sheep and for the sheep, that means not being eaten.
Um, not really a strawman or reasoning bias, my world viewpoint is one from a lens of diversity. I don't believe I said anything against monoculture, or at all, and I would appreciate it if words aren't put in my mouth on that.
In the interest of a productive conversation, it would be nice if we can talk about diversity first as it's the topic at hand.
I'll try my best to not trivialize or presumptively interpret your words and the motivation behind them, especially where it seems holes are being poked to lessen the relevance of having a conversation about openly entertaining a viewpoint that may not align with your own as may be happening.
It's not clear to me what's giving the presumption or perception of authority to be tell anyone how their experience is or is not valid and how it may be trivialized into an empty platitude.
A two way street of respect isn't easy and participating in it requires both parties to do work, even if one finds it a chore and wishes everyone should just be like them.
I believe deeply in, and practice meaningful intercultural exchange to bring societies together, beyond entry level introductions of sipping chai lattes and yoga. This isn't easy, of course as every group has it's idiot fringe.
Not being sure what your perspective or experience is. I'm a visible minority in both numbers and other ways. From that experience, I can share a bit more.
This experience includes being part of a monoculture that can require perceived outsiders to be twice as monocultural as native monoculturalists to be monocultural enough from the monocultural authorities.
Diversity requires being open minded to find commonalities from all citizens participating in it, reluctantly or not. Some may say that form of diversity may be a universal monocultural.
My points are based on direct experiences that shouldn't be trivialized or summed up nicely in a few sentences to fit another's mental model.
Happy to hop on a skype call if you want to chat. I excel in environments where two people are willing to look at themselves as much as wanting others to only look at themselves, and totally open to learning more about monoculture.
In the interest of a productive conversation, it would be nice if we can talk about diversity first as it's the topic at hand.
I'll try my best to not trivialize or presumptively interpret your words and the motivation behind them, especially where it seems holes are being poked to lessen the relevance of having a conversation about openly entertaining a viewpoint that may not align with your own as may be happening.
It's not clear to me what's giving the presumption or perception of authority to be tell anyone how their experience is or is not valid and how it may be trivialized into an empty platitude.
A two way street of respect isn't easy and participating in it requires both parties to do work, even if one finds it a chore and wishes everyone should just be like them.
I believe deeply in, and practice meaningful intercultural exchange to bring societies together, beyond entry level introductions of sipping chai lattes and yoga. This isn't easy, of course as every group has it's idiot fringe.
Not being sure what your perspective or experience is. I'm a visible minority in both numbers and other ways. From that experience, I can share a bit more.
This experience includes being part of a monoculture that can require perceived outsiders to be twice as monocultural as native monoculturalists to be monocultural enough from the monocultural authorities.
Diversity requires being open minded to find commonalities from all citizens participating in it, reluctantly or not. Some may say that form of diversity may be a universal monocultural.
My points are based on direct experiences that shouldn't be trivialized or summed up nicely in a few sentences to fit another's mental model.
Happy to hop on a skype call if you want to chat. I excel in environments where two people are willing to look at themselves as much as wanting others to only look at themselves, and totally open to learning more about monoculture.
Has anyone ever done a study showing that teams with diverse backgrounds manage to come up with better ideas than homogeneous ones?
I hear this line of logic quite a bit, that "white middle-class people" can only think within their demographic. It seems like a rather regressive kind of logic, that someone's perception, ability to empathize and problem solve, is limited by stereotypes about the demographic they belong to.
I hear this line of logic quite a bit, that "white middle-class people" can only think within their demographic. It seems like a rather regressive kind of logic, that someone's perception, ability to empathize and problem solve, is limited by stereotypes about the demographic they belong to.
This has been extensively studied. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diversity+causing+bette...
Could you point out specific articles?
There seems to be a lot about learners, evolution, and theory on that page, but actual measurements seem sparse. (Only 2 in the first 10 are even on this topic.)
One of the relevant links mentions:
> Empirical research on whether and how diversity is actually related to work group functioning is limited, however, and the evidence is mixed, depending in part on what kinds of differences constitute the "diversity" in question (see Milliken and Martins, 1996; Pelled, 1996, for reviews). Researchers have examined the impact of diversity in identity group memberships, such as race and sex (e.g., Cox, 1993; Jackson and Ruderman, 1995); organizational group memberships, such as hierarchical position or organizational function (e.g., Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Ancona and Caldwell, 1992); and individual characteristics, such as idiosyncratic attitudes, values, and preferences (e.g., Hoffman, 1959; Meglino, Ravlin, and Adkins, 1989; Bochner and Hesketh, 1994). Although certain types of diversity appear to be beneficial, studies focused on race and gender have demonstrated both positive and negative outcomes (see Williams and O'Reilly, 1998, for review), suggesting that certain conditions may moderate these outcomes. To date, however, most scholars have only speculated as to what these conditions might be. As a result, consultants and managers interested in diversity have had to rely largely on some combination of common sense and good faith for the rationales they advance about why and how companies should address the issue.
(The other relevant link is a book, which doesn't have an abstract in the same sense.)
There seems to be a lot about learners, evolution, and theory on that page, but actual measurements seem sparse. (Only 2 in the first 10 are even on this topic.)
One of the relevant links mentions:
> Empirical research on whether and how diversity is actually related to work group functioning is limited, however, and the evidence is mixed, depending in part on what kinds of differences constitute the "diversity" in question (see Milliken and Martins, 1996; Pelled, 1996, for reviews). Researchers have examined the impact of diversity in identity group memberships, such as race and sex (e.g., Cox, 1993; Jackson and Ruderman, 1995); organizational group memberships, such as hierarchical position or organizational function (e.g., Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Ancona and Caldwell, 1992); and individual characteristics, such as idiosyncratic attitudes, values, and preferences (e.g., Hoffman, 1959; Meglino, Ravlin, and Adkins, 1989; Bochner and Hesketh, 1994). Although certain types of diversity appear to be beneficial, studies focused on race and gender have demonstrated both positive and negative outcomes (see Williams and O'Reilly, 1998, for review), suggesting that certain conditions may moderate these outcomes. To date, however, most scholars have only speculated as to what these conditions might be. As a result, consultants and managers interested in diversity have had to rely largely on some combination of common sense and good faith for the rationales they advance about why and how companies should address the issue.
(The other relevant link is a book, which doesn't have an abstract in the same sense.)
I don't have the expertise to point out specifics that form the fundamental basis of the research, sorry.
Obviously, not everyone lives in this country.
Assuming the US, I'm also regularly amused that Americans think they invented racism.
Assuming the US, I'm also regularly amused that Americans think they invented racism.
From what I can tell, most diversity efforts are more like a fig leaf. They don't want to change how the company works so it can be more diverse, they want to fit more women and minorities into how things work now. It's all about status quo, and maybe having an "event" or hosting a "girls who code" type class in the office space, that sort of thing. And don't get me wrong, doing those kind of things is perfectly noble and good, nothing wrong with it. But ultimately this only seems like an issue the industry wants to fix if it doesn't have to really do much of anything.
Ain't not gonna happen. From what I can tell from articles and company brochures diversity means young, good-looking people in an open office all staring at the same screen.
There will be no diversity regarding introverts, shy, disabled, fat, ugly or other types of people.
There will be no diversity regarding introverts, shy, disabled, fat, ugly or other types of people.
This made me wonder: What does it take to become a protected/victim group?
Ugly and socially-unskilled people are not protected/victim groups even though their lives are harder.
My current hypothesis is that the main reason that a group gets that status is that they have an emotionally compelling victim-story (although I think there's some randomness due to political movements).
Under this hypothesis, the struggles of the ugly and socially-unskilled may be less emotionally compelling because they are less likable and so we have less empathy for them.
Disclaimer: All of this is just descriptive speculation. I don't very well understand the relative struggles of different groups and don't endorse poor treatment of anyone. And I'd love for anyone to show flaws in my hypothesis or present a better one.
Ugly and socially-unskilled people are not protected/victim groups even though their lives are harder.
My current hypothesis is that the main reason that a group gets that status is that they have an emotionally compelling victim-story (although I think there's some randomness due to political movements).
Under this hypothesis, the struggles of the ugly and socially-unskilled may be less emotionally compelling because they are less likable and so we have less empathy for them.
Disclaimer: All of this is just descriptive speculation. I don't very well understand the relative struggles of different groups and don't endorse poor treatment of anyone. And I'd love for anyone to show flaws in my hypothesis or present a better one.
Conventionally ugly and socially-unskilled people might get rough treatment from their peers, but generally haven't been subject to special laws against them, pogroms or even the relatively mild insinuation they should be avoided as a group because of their "immorality" or "agenda".
Also, appearance and social skills are gradients which don't fit neatly into groups, and many people who might widely be considered to sit at the ugly/unskilled end of the spectrum have absolutely no desire to identify as such.
Also, appearance and social skills are gradients which don't fit neatly into groups, and many people who might widely be considered to sit at the ugly/unskilled end of the spectrum have absolutely no desire to identify as such.
Is it that society hasn't discriminated against them, or that we haven't been made aware of such discrimination. Many extremely racist laws that directly discriminated against minorities have fallen out of common knowledge and we are only aware of it because the common understanding of past injustice (and a few specific stories) are in the collective knowledge.
So perhaps such discrimination has existed, but too few have worked to add it to the common knowledge of our society. For example, maybe ugly people get significantly lower pay and longer prison sentences (all else being equal), but no one has spent the time researching such data? Should laws against sexual harassment end up being considered, to some extent, laws against the unattractive and socially awkward since the same interaction may or may not be considered harassment? Maybe treatment of socially awkward children (which can get very brutal and lead to suicide) hasn't been considered an issue of a group because no one has yet made the emotional argument it should be discrimination of a group.
>and many people who might widely be considered to sit at the ugly/unskilled end of the spectrum have absolutely no desire to identify as such.
There is a lot of history of who was considered black and who wasn't that might be of note.
So perhaps such discrimination has existed, but too few have worked to add it to the common knowledge of our society. For example, maybe ugly people get significantly lower pay and longer prison sentences (all else being equal), but no one has spent the time researching such data? Should laws against sexual harassment end up being considered, to some extent, laws against the unattractive and socially awkward since the same interaction may or may not be considered harassment? Maybe treatment of socially awkward children (which can get very brutal and lead to suicide) hasn't been considered an issue of a group because no one has yet made the emotional argument it should be discrimination of a group.
>and many people who might widely be considered to sit at the ugly/unskilled end of the spectrum have absolutely no desire to identify as such.
There is a lot of history of who was considered black and who wasn't that might be of note.
Nobody is pretending that ugly and socially awkward people have never been discriminated against by individuals and peer groups; all kinds of people are cruelly and unusually treated on a large variety of arbitrary and non-arbitrary criteria on a daily basis, and many more are marginalised.
But social awkwardness isn't something which was only decriminalised 14 years ago in the US and still illegal in 72 countries. Influential religious leaders do not deliver sermons on the duty of ugly people to subordinate themselves to their partners. Beautiful, socially adept people don't hold tiki-torch-lit rallies to venerate people that lead the fight to keep ugly or socially awkward people as property.
Maybe nobody influential is making the emotional argument that kids bullied for their individual awkwardnesses should be protected as a group because nobody influential is making the emotional argument for discriminating against socially awkward children as a group...
Protected discrimination classes haven't emerged as a consequence of extensive research to find hints of systematic discrimination, they've arisen as a response to obvious, organised and usually very open attempts to encourage and enforce systematic discrimination. If you're inclined to make the mistake of assuming that discrimination against protected classes is historic or the result of statistical fishing expeditions, it's probably because - whatever other mistreatment or misfortunes you might have suffered in your life - you're not in a group that is subject to organised and systematic attempts to suppress it.
But social awkwardness isn't something which was only decriminalised 14 years ago in the US and still illegal in 72 countries. Influential religious leaders do not deliver sermons on the duty of ugly people to subordinate themselves to their partners. Beautiful, socially adept people don't hold tiki-torch-lit rallies to venerate people that lead the fight to keep ugly or socially awkward people as property.
Maybe nobody influential is making the emotional argument that kids bullied for their individual awkwardnesses should be protected as a group because nobody influential is making the emotional argument for discriminating against socially awkward children as a group...
Protected discrimination classes haven't emerged as a consequence of extensive research to find hints of systematic discrimination, they've arisen as a response to obvious, organised and usually very open attempts to encourage and enforce systematic discrimination. If you're inclined to make the mistake of assuming that discrimination against protected classes is historic or the result of statistical fishing expeditions, it's probably because - whatever other mistreatment or misfortunes you might have suffered in your life - you're not in a group that is subject to organised and systematic attempts to suppress it.
> because nobody influential is making the emotional argument for discriminating against socially awkward children as a group
Why is the metric about who is making the argument, instead of what is actually happening?
Also, many influential people make arguments such as 'kids being kids' that open tolerate bullying. Especially people directly involved in the school system that should be protecting these kids. There is no one in the national spotlight for it because it isn't outrageous enough for our society to put it in the national spotlight.
>Influential religious leaders do not deliver sermons on the duty of ugly people to subordinate themselves to their partners.
Writers at major news organizations, who have audiences that would make most pastors jealous, have written such things. Especially if we talk about people who openly support discrimination against short men. And the attack on men's sexuality is pretty brutal as well, yet openly tolerated (just look at how often virgin is equated to someones who hates women and wants to enslave/kill them).
> they've arisen as a response to obvious, organised and usually very open attempts to encourage and enforce systematic discrimination
And there are still groups who have experienced such who haven't yet been made into a protected class. For an example I think we can both agree on, sexual orientation hasn't yet been made (federal level in the US at least) into a protected class.
Also, this doesn't explain why the majorities are also protected. Race is a protected class, not just being a minority. (Age is a weird one where being old is protected but being young isn't, despite massive historic discrimination against young people, namely the forcing of young men to die in wars on behalf of old people.)
Why is the metric about who is making the argument, instead of what is actually happening?
Also, many influential people make arguments such as 'kids being kids' that open tolerate bullying. Especially people directly involved in the school system that should be protecting these kids. There is no one in the national spotlight for it because it isn't outrageous enough for our society to put it in the national spotlight.
>Influential religious leaders do not deliver sermons on the duty of ugly people to subordinate themselves to their partners.
Writers at major news organizations, who have audiences that would make most pastors jealous, have written such things. Especially if we talk about people who openly support discrimination against short men. And the attack on men's sexuality is pretty brutal as well, yet openly tolerated (just look at how often virgin is equated to someones who hates women and wants to enslave/kill them).
> they've arisen as a response to obvious, organised and usually very open attempts to encourage and enforce systematic discrimination
And there are still groups who have experienced such who haven't yet been made into a protected class. For an example I think we can both agree on, sexual orientation hasn't yet been made (federal level in the US at least) into a protected class.
Also, this doesn't explain why the majorities are also protected. Race is a protected class, not just being a minority. (Age is a weird one where being old is protected but being young isn't, despite massive historic discrimination against young people, namely the forcing of young men to die in wars on behalf of old people.)
>...or even the relatively mild insinuation they should be avoided as a group because of their "immorality" or "agenda".
No, instead you get barbs about "creepiness" or "weirdness". Our society generally treats introverts poorly outside of very specific niches.
No, instead you get barbs about "creepiness" or "weirdness". Our society generally treats introverts poorly outside of very specific niches.
>Under this hypothesis, the struggles of the ugly and socially-unskilled may be less emotionally compelling because they are less likable and so we have less empathy for them.
The ends up being the reason they should be considered for protective group status ends up being the same reason they would not pass any such consideration.
The ends up being the reason they should be considered for protective group status ends up being the same reason they would not pass any such consideration.
That's pretty cynical. This is not a zero sum game, improving diversity makes things better for everyone. Because properly improving diversity means you're making an environment that focuses less on "type of people" and more on "type of job".
As an example, a lot of effort goes into a good interview process. When you work hard to minimize unconscious bias in interviews, you're making the interview process and criteria fit the actual job better. Bad interview processes select for people just like the interviewer, good interview processes select for the actual job and don't filter on tangential stuff.
As an example, a lot of effort goes into a good interview process. When you work hard to minimize unconscious bias in interviews, you're making the interview process and criteria fit the actual job better. Bad interview processes select for people just like the interviewer, good interview processes select for the actual job and don't filter on tangential stuff.
I am a little cynical about the diversity efforts because I think they will maybe expand the favored groups a little but it's still OK to discriminate against a lot of other groups. I even wonder if we are removing some people from the "in" group and moving others in but in total the number of people that are "in" doesn't change that much.
But what I'm saying is that most of the efforts, particularly the hiring / salary / perf eval related ones, are making the "in groups" matter less.
I understand the cynicism, but the actual work people are putting in is much more nuanced than you'd expect from reading twitter or hn or the news.
There's a reason that diversity appeals to companies, and it's not 100% morality. It's because diversity is an indicator that companies are doing better with HR.
Fwiw, I'm actually someone working on this problem, and the changes we implemented improved the chances for every group you listed. That was not an accident, people who care about team performance worry about homogenous groups: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-boss-doesnt-want-your-resum...
I understand the cynicism, but the actual work people are putting in is much more nuanced than you'd expect from reading twitter or hn or the news.
There's a reason that diversity appeals to companies, and it's not 100% morality. It's because diversity is an indicator that companies are doing better with HR.
Fwiw, I'm actually someone working on this problem, and the changes we implemented improved the chances for every group you listed. That was not an accident, people who care about team performance worry about homogenous groups: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-boss-doesnt-want-your-resum...
> This is not a zero sum game, improving diversity makes things better for everyone.
A positive sum game can still result in losers. Imagine two players, both starting with 2 and 2 and ended up with -2 and 10. Not a zero sum game, but there is still a loser. Even if it makes things better on average, it can still be worse for select individuals.
One example, as tech work places become more diverse, socially awkward people end up facing more trouble due to having to interact with a more diverse cast of individuals which involves an increasing scope of understanding of social interactions. If their own disadvantages are given no consideration, they end up worse off, and this can be even worse since their social awkwardness leads to a vastly smaller social support network to help them.
A positive sum game can still result in losers. Imagine two players, both starting with 2 and 2 and ended up with -2 and 10. Not a zero sum game, but there is still a loser. Even if it makes things better on average, it can still be worse for select individuals.
One example, as tech work places become more diverse, socially awkward people end up facing more trouble due to having to interact with a more diverse cast of individuals which involves an increasing scope of understanding of social interactions. If their own disadvantages are given no consideration, they end up worse off, and this can be even worse since their social awkwardness leads to a vastly smaller social support network to help them.
It's interesting - I know someone who has gotten good at somehow locating, interviewing and hiring some very skilled and talented people who might not interview well because of their perceived social awkwardness.
People wonder where he's finding all these great people, but the reality is he was able to connect with introverts, and drilling down into people's capabilities beyond surface impressions.
People wonder where he's finding all these great people, but the reality is he was able to connect with introverts, and drilling down into people's capabilities beyond surface impressions.
I just experienced this in an interview. The first 50 minutes were horrible, he barely said anything useful, but then suddenly he woke up and it turned into a really good conversation. Not sure how this happened though.
People are often nervous in interviews, though it can be hard for anyone to keep that energy level over the long term. Or perhaps you smiled?
Talking is not a natural state for a lot of people. Relaxing or smiling is not enough. You actually need to motivate them to talk.
Particularly, anyone over the age of 35.
It blows me away that this so rarely comes up and yet it's a problem literally all of us will face, unless we get different careers or die. Even GP doesn't mention age, apparently the oppression of ugly people is a more pressing concern. It really fills me with dread how much we don't want to talk about this. And I turn 36 soon.
I've had a few heated fights with hiring managers over candidates being immediately dismissed upon the discovery that they were over a certain age.
Wow! Hiring managers should really know better. Age >40 is a protected class in US employment law.
In what way?
"Protected class" is a term used in US law to indicate a group of people with common characteristics who are protected from discrimination based on that characteristic in certain circumstances. It's illegal to discriminate against people over 40 in the US for employment purposes because "age over 40" is a protected class in employment law via the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
See[1] for a list of the protected classes
One would assume a hiring manager would have a familiarity with the laws around hiring. Especially since many states (and maybe the US?) are required to post information about those sorts of laws in a visible place in places of employment.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
See[1] for a list of the protected classes
One would assume a hiring manager would have a familiarity with the laws around hiring. Especially since many states (and maybe the US?) are required to post information about those sorts of laws in a visible place in places of employment.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
[deleted]
For that reason, I think remote-only companies are probably easier to run than companies with a mix of remote and onsite workers -- at remote-only companies, it's not possible to intentionally or accidentally exclude the remote workers from things they ought to be involved in.
Also for that reason, adding a culture of remote work to the kind of company where any onsite employees can grab a room and start whiteboarding stuff is going to be very difficult.