How one tech company ditched its brogrammers
vanityfair.com
vanityfair.com
It also turns out that coding tests aren’t as objective as they sound, says Joelle Emerson, founder and C.E.O. of Paradigm, a consulting firm that works with tech companies on diversity. By putting candidates in situations that are outside the way they normally work, Emerson says, whiteboard interviews increase the likelihood of “stereotype threat,” an anxiety among non-traditional candidates that they’ll confirm negative stereotypes about their group."
So let me understand this. Whiteboard interviews don't reflect a standard engineering work flow, but giving a series of presentations to strangers does? Writing code on a whiteboard can cause "stereotype threat", but a extremely subjective "tell me about yourself" interview wouldn't?
Let's be honest here, zymergen hasn't stumbled upon any great insights. They just decided that they wanted to hire a lot of women, and people with experience, and then they did just that. They got rid of any objective interview style that might get in the way, and they instead used a very subjective interview style where candidates performance can be reinterpreted to fit the results they want to see.
Hiring is an extremely tricky thing, and I commend these guys for actively recruiting a neglected demographic. From a moneyball perspective, it's a smart strategy. But in terms of interviewing insights, there's nothing new to see here.
that's not to say that there aren't some male programmers that have the culture and mindset of dickhead frat boys. those people do exist.
what I'm saying is that when a journalist uses the term "brogrammer" they generally aren't being subtle or nuanced about it and are firing a broadside against men in general.
For those of us who just want to write good code and fix shit and make the world of software better, it's disgusting and demoralizing and tiring.
If improving workplace diversity helps even a tiny bit with that problem (and I can't see how it wouldn't), then I am 1000% for it.
Besides, is it so hard to believe that lack of diversity is one of the enabling factors for a brogrammer dominated culture? Because I 100% believe it.
It seems a vocal percentage on hackernews want companies to have diversity as part of their "social contract". This is probably a filter bubble.
I'm not sure what the average american thinks though, I'm inclined to think they don't care by looking at all the democrats losses in the last 8 years.
For example trying to diversify a ballet team.. I find it unlikely that any significant percentage of males can be reached.
Is tech different than ballet?
Why would that be likely?
And that happens even in African tribes where most people have never seen a car in their lifes, which pretty much falsifies the modern theory that all differences are due to boys wearing blue and girls wearing pink.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-pr...
One of the things that happens when a human brain matures from a child's brain to an adult's brain is that it undergoes significant reorganization. It prunes a lot of old connections and starts focusing on more important adult things.
In girls this reorganization starts at age 10-12. In boys it starts at 15-20.
My guess is that it is easier for a brain that is still in child mode to develop and maintain an interest in technology. But it isn't until high school that you start to get the education that lets you really move beyond just an interest in tech as a user to a serious interest in going into tech as a career. I think it may be that getting that high school education while you still have a mostly child's brain greatly increases the chances you'll go into technology.
In the US you typically start high school at 14 or 15. That means that in high school most girls will already be well on their way to adult brains, but a lot of boys will still have child brains or be early in the transition to their adult brains. That could greatly skew things toward boys going into technology.
Though I had a similar theory at one point that math ability was affected by how much you thought about math before puberty. The relative abilities of my classmates went through a reshuffling in that period.
But is it actually so?
The proportion of the population involved in ballet at all is vanishingly small so it seems likely to me that the supply of both male and female candidates must be greater than the demand. Or at least would be if men and boys were not given the impression that ballet is somehow unmanly.
> Is tech different than ballet?
In this respect, no. Both suffer from sex related prejudice.
that is misunderstanding or mischaracterizing the point made by OP, who as asking about differences in job preference.
is it because of prejudice that there are many fewer male ballet dancers than female ballet dancers? I don't know much about ballet but I suspect that the major contributor to the difference is that there are many many many more women interested in ballet dancing than there are men interested in ballet dancing. if we expected a 50/50 split in ballet dancer gender representation we would have a problematic expectation for obvious reasons.
is programming similar? seems like it might be.
can solve a range of issues
perhaps gender diversity is just one facet of this "Brogrammer" thing where collaborating to ship clean code and deliver business value breaks down due to certain social and behavioral patterns
lack of gender diversity in industry is definitely among the most obvious indicators, but it doesn't even capture the entire brokenness.
are these things unique to software development, or does pretty much every industry have analogous issues?
furthermore, in an era where millions of dollars are thrown around by VC's and founders at startups (that provide no real value to customers in many cases) at wildly overinflated valuations, it seems that people have forgotten the key purpose of running a business. TO MAKE MONEY. The goal isn't to make sure everyone is represented or to make everyone feel good. No one cares. This article is complete spin. The real goal of this company is to get engineers at a discounted price under the guise of, "oh you've been overlooked by these other companies, we're super female friendly, we're soooo diverse. we can't pay you as much, but we're just one big family here so it's worth it."
IN GENERAL: diversity of thought is good. diversity of skin color, ethnicity, gender, etc just to tick a box saying 'yup, we support diversity!' is nonsensical. there seems to be a large disconnect in logical thinking when these two things are advertised as the same thing. hire the best candidates, regardless of the meaningless BS (like gender or race). ok, you think the hiring process skews against some candidates (I don't know if this is really true or not), then change the interview process to support that. saying that female candidates don't do well with whiteboarding exercises, so you're changing the process to something they are better at is so silly (and quite frankly insulting to those women who ARE prepared for the whiteboarding exercises). you're optimizing for female employees, not for building your business and providing value.
Or to lower wages by increasing the talent pool.
From a supply side (employee/contractor) it would be fantastically negative: "These jerks are lowering my rockstar wages by hiring women, ethnic minorities and old people." Lose-lose.
There's a lot in what you expect to see here. I wonder how much this type of thing makes these discussions worse than they have to be?
For women and ethnic minorities, the opposite is true: the more you promote them, as a simple employed worker, the more you're effectively lowering your own wage in real terms. You are effectively self-taxing out of solidarity, while your employer reaps the rewards in terms of additional productivity and profit.
This is one of the problems of modern life for which progressives (including me) really have no answer beyond a generic "all will get well eventually" feelgood optimism. One quick look at statistics for male remuneration and wages in real term post-feminism doesn't really support that optimism.
Think about it like the movie Moneyball. By rejecting the flawed collective wisdom of baseball insiders, they were able to create a winning team on a budget by using overlooked metrics. Likewise, job interviews are notoriously unreliable and inconsistent at finding good employees. The uneven demographics in tech jobs is likely partly the result of flawed wisdom in the hiring process. If you sample more heavily from an irrationally underrepresented group, you would get on average higher value candidates than if you sampled evenly from the whole pool.
Selecting solely based on merit is only effective if your selection process works properly. In practice, we see that both conscious and unconscious biases pervade the selection process, so I think this method is worthwhile.
(Full disclosure: I'm only in one of the groups I mentioned above.)
is it really though? it seems like you are assuming it is but I'm not convinced that it actually is.
The usual drivel, but there is one interesting question hidden in there: This company ditched the whiteboard and replaced it with "job talks". Does that work?
Apparently it does, but only(?) if you measure success in terms of duhversity.
It does because it allows to apply very vague criteria when selecting candidates. 'Culture fit' bullshit at it's finest.
Second, your account has been using HN primarily to comment on political and ideological controversies. We don't allow this because it turns the site into a political battlefield. If users who use HN as intended—that is, for intellectual curiosity—post occasionally on political topics, that's fine. But accounts that use HN primarily for politics or ideology are not fine. We eventually ban those, so please don't use HN this way.
There is no need to comment if I agree, is there? But it's your site, I'm not going to tell you how to run it.