There’s a simple solution to tech’s gender imbalance – Hire more damn women
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Direction from the top of the company followed by accountability from everyone will probably move toward any desired outcome, but I contend that the main issue is that most companies secretly don't believe that "percentage of female engineers" is a goal worth pursuing to the exclusion of hiring as much top talent as possible.
My guess on this experiment is that the company didn't hire as much talent as they could have otherwise because of such strict quota measures, and that this isn't something most companies are going to jump to do. Most companies just want to succeed.
The increased female applicants seems to show that many still don't believe they're capable in the field due to their gender, though, and it seems like a great case for more female-only code camps or lessons. This would likely draw more female applicants as well, and thus entice more into the field while still hiring by talent.
Hiring should be purely meritocratic, though, both for company success and often societal.
It doesn't generalize and in many jurisdictions (in the US and elsewhere) would expose companies to accusations of gender discrimination (against men).
It also elides significant context: there just aren't as many women with tech backgrounds (be it education or experience). So one company's gain in this regard is others' loss, in some sense. The root causes for this gender imbalance are varied in kind and complexity.
Discrimination that starts early in students' lives discourages female participation in STEM. That is, in my view, the most pernicious and significant problem. A generally sexist culture that is cultivated in tech by "adults" certainly compounds the issue and is in some measure an extension of the discrimination that starts early.
I'm skeptical that the article's "supply side solution" will actually resolve the more severe and widespread problems that serve as barriers to having an equal representation of women in technical roles.
> I then made the percentage of women hired a KPI of the Director of Operations for every office
Wouldn't that (especially the quota stuff) be considered illegal gender discrimination in the US?
This seems to be going beyond the null hypothesis that female engineers are identical to male engineers in expectation, and claiming that in some areas in expectation they were better. Although I know it's not the focus of the article I'd like to see that expanded on, and would be very interested to know about what areas those were, and by how much the females exceeded males.
As for the meat of the article, I'm supportive of such experimental practices as the all-female hiring cycles to change the applicant pool. If there is a wealth of untapped engineering talent out there then it's in humanity's best interests to find it.
Only interviewing females definitely lacks meritocracy, but we could test this gender-exclusivity at an earlier age to encourage more female applicants to apply into a fair, meritocratic job application process.
The increased engagement of female applicants in this has definitely affected my opinion (positively) on the usefulness of female-only code camps and things of that sort.