Hiring via referrals isn't great for diversity | Hacker News Reader

Hiring via referrals isn't great for diversity

bloomberg.com

A McKinsey report from 2015 found that among 366 companies, those with gender diversity outperform those without it by 15 percent; those with ethnic diversity outperform those without it by 35 percent.

The problem with analyses like this is that they're observational studies rather than interventional studies. Knowing that successful companies are more likely to have gender and ethnic diversity does not necessarily indicate that increasing gender and ethnic diversity will make companies more successful.

There are many things which we consider to be inherently Good Things but are completely disregarded by most of the world's population, simply because they can't afford to be concerned about such things; in a sense, being concerned with diversity is a sign of privilege, and in some cases is a even used as a economic signalling mechanism. If your company is only barely staying afloat, you're far less likely to spend time and money promoting diversity.

Differences in priorities extend all the way down the socioeconomic ladder. In many of the world's slums, an asbestos roof is a sign of success and something which people work hard towards obtaining. Don't they know that asbestos can kill them? Of course they do -- but having an asbestos roof makes their home quieter when it rains, cooler when it's sunny, and they'd have to be extremely lucky to live long enough to get lung cancer from it anyway. In the Western world of course the notion of people willingly exposing themselves to asbestos is horrifying; but it makes sense in their context.

I hope we can all strive to remember that people may have different priorities based on their backgrounds, and especially their socioeconomic backgrounds. Coming from my privileged position, I think diversity is great; but if a small business in rural Wyoming ends up hiring 100% white heterosexual males because those are the people the business owner knows and he can't afford to spend time looking beyond his circle of acquaintances... well, it's unfortunate, but it doesn't make him racist, sexist, or homophobic.

Is it possible that successful companies devote more resources to increase diversity? Implying that companies are more diverse because they are successful. What tests have been done to tease out which is the causal factor?

I think ou are onto something - business is difficult and even simply surviving is a challenge facing most enterprises. Thinking about diversity seems like a first-world problem and only really on the radar of companies who have a strong foothols in the market already.

That is exactly the case. Look at the companies that scream the loudest about diversity and have diversity internship programs(FB, MSFT, Google). Smaller companies do not have the budget to hire "diversity officers". They spend their budget hiring the best people they can find.

TL;DR: People tend to refer buddies from the same gender/race. To alleviate this problem instead of ditching referrals altogether add a referral cash bonus (only?) for diversity referrals.

Interesting, thanks for the summary. This seems like it would create a handful of other issues were it to be implemented.

Thanks, that was a good summary.

If you're someone of a less represented class, and you tend to refer your buddies from the same gender/race, you're going to get better bonuses than your overly represented peers. Does this constitute reverse discrimination?

No.

>"Does this constitute reverse discrimination?"

Depends on who you ask. Some won't acknowledge that such a thing as "reverse racism" even exists. If you ask me, any sort of policy based on race is racist. Whether it's reverse, corrective, affirmative, or otherwise, is irrelevant. And that is a liberating definition without ifs, buts and grey areas.

"any sort of policy based on race is racist." So you cannot identify racism without being a racist. And is the no race policy then racist itself, by being about race? No, this does not work as a blanket statement. Btw, this kind of message of "don't talk about it" has a long history of being pushed by racist people. Perhaps we should focus on race less, but that is different.

Discriminating based on race is racist. End of story. This would never make it past your legal department.

You say it like it's a bad thing.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...

Legal risk sounds like a bad thing. That being said, it doesn't put discrimination in the hiring process per se, only the referral process, which may not be protected by federal law. I am not a lawyer.

Unless you subscribe to recent attempt at redefining the word to "racism|sexism = prejudice + power", which is coming from the... I'm not sure, I guess the identity politics/radfem corner.

Whenever I try to really understand that culture or their opponents (MRA, r/KotakuInAcion etc.) I just end up feeling like both their sides are completely worthless endless rabbit holes and time sinks. Perhaps I just need a minor in Gender Studies to understand.

I wish both sides could just cease to exist.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

Depends where you are.

It's possibly legal under English law. If you have two candidates who are equally suitable you're allowed to employ the one with a protected characteristic because of that protected characteristic.

it's already being done at many big companies. I believe that FB is one of the biggest offenders

I feel like it could be a slightly higher amount for every class that the referrer and referee are different, but scrapping the bonus entirely if the the hire isn't 'diverse' (which would vary over time and by company anyway) seems like overkill since the original system is working in other ways

The problem with that strategy is that some will continue referring good/great people they've worked with.. and some will stop or hesitate. Since - as noted in the article - referrals tend to move faster, be more likely hires, and stick around longer, this seems like a bad strategy.

I thought I remembered a similar phenomenon where you tend to hire or refer people that don't represent a strong competitive threat to your career. That is, hiring people that you think are smart, but not quite as smart as yourself. Can't find a good reference to any actual study or data though.

That's the "A's hire A's, B's hire C's" concept. A sign of a bad manager is that they never recruit people that they feel are equal to or greater than themselves in any way. The outcome is that that manager holds back the entire organization to secure their own power, and dilutes the talent of the group for personal gain.

Sadly, the President-Elect appears to share this philosophy:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/04/21/life-lesso...

Whenever I am involved in hiring, I look at boring stuff, such as ability to do the job at hand, team fit, alignment of ideas, etc. I look for the best possible person for the job and enterprise at that specific moment in time. I don't look at or consider gender, race, religion, or anything else.

Diversity in the workplace is not my problem. Finding the right person for the job is. I have hired people of all genders, sexualities, races, as well as physical abilities. These things just shouldn't feature in a hiring process either way. I will hire the best candidate for the job, every time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com