Hacker News Reader

The issue is that a lot of companies are setting diversity targets that are considerably above the share of said diverse groups in tech. How does my company (on the order of thousands of employees) manage to constantly hire women at 1.5-2x proportional representation in tech?

A: we structure our hiring policies such that it's easier for women to get through the interview pipeline. I'd point out that we don't try to hire unqualified women, but we do make it such that a lot of qualified men don't make it. It's more about raising the bar for men - though plenty argue that this is still unfair.

I can understand tech companies' frustration. They're getting flak for not hiring many women, but people and news outlets rarely compare companies' diversity results with the diversity of tech as a whole. So it kicks off a competitive race where all companies are trying to have 40-60% higher than average representation of women. This is, by definition, impossible so companies end up resorting to changing the hiring pipeline.

All other things being equal, yes. But therein lies the rub (or the stuffing, if you will).

>Are gray turkeys slimmer on average? Worse? Different distribution? No. They are just harder to find.

Who knows? Anyone who tries to find out are hung out to dry. Now I value my precious bodily fluids so I'll refrain from commenting, but I've heard there's been some science done somewhere, once or twice.

You're introducing a logical fallacy here too, by arguing that "all white turkeys are gone," which is absolutely not the case for hiring male developers.

If your hiring pipeline is working, and you're successfully hiring qualified, capable candidates who all happen to be male, there would be absolutely no reason for you to change your practices which may result in you not finding the competent developers you need.

It is lowering standards if you have to transition from a working recruitment process to one which may not work, but ticks a diversity box.

On the other hand, there's the possibility that by trying to recruit women specifically, that their hiring process could improve. But who is going to take such a risk when they've already got a working process, and no solid argument that changing it will bring in better workers.

> You're introducing a logical fallacy here too, by arguing that "all white turkeys are gone," which is absolutely not the case for hiring male developers.

I'm not arguing that either, but even if I was, it wouldn't be a logical fallacy as much as it would be an empirically testable fact, and if I was wrong it would be a factual error, not a logical fallacy.

> It is lowering standards if you have to transition from a working recruitment process to one which may not work, but ticks a diversity box.

I don't see how that lowers standards, it might just be ineffective. The salient point being that lowering standards is about standards (i.e. "fatness of turkeys"), not how many people you hire (number of turkeys).

Now if you want to argue about whether specifically recruiting women would be _effective_, that's a different conversation, but my OP stands on logical grounds.

Two problems:

1.) You're not catching all the white turkeys. You are catching 9 white to 1 grey because that's the distribution of the population the turkeys wandering into your feed trap come from. Often your traps(small startup) will contain 10 white turkeys and zero grey turkeys when you check them.

2.) Women are not an untapped market.

Internal hiring data from $big_corp disagrees with both 1) and 2).