Slashdot Mirror
Diversity At Google Hasn't Changed Much Over the Last Year (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Not much changed at Google over the last year when it came to the diversity of the tech giant's workforce. Google released its annual diversity report on Thursday detailing the composition of its workforce. The percentage of female employees rose by .1 percent to 30.9 percent. The percentage of Asian employees grew by 1.6 percent to 36.3 percent. The number of black and Latino employees grew by .1 percent to 2.5 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively.
"Google's workforce data demonstrates that if we want a better outcome, we need to evolve our approach," said Danielle Brown, chief diversity and inclusion officer at Google, in the report. "That's why from now on ownership for diversity and inclusion will be shared between Google's leadership team, People Operations and Googlers. Our strategy doesn't provide all the answers, but we believe it will help us find them."
"Google's workforce data demonstrates that if we want a better outcome, we need to evolve our approach," said Danielle Brown, chief diversity and inclusion officer at Google, in the report. "That's why from now on ownership for diversity and inclusion will be shared between Google's leadership team, People Operations and Googlers. Our strategy doesn't provide all the answers, but we believe it will help us find them."
What's the purpose of this article supposed to be?
"Google's workforce data demonstrates that if we want a better outcome, we need to evolve our approach," said Danielle Brown, chief diversity and inclusion officer at Google
If you had listened to James Damore instead of doing the same illegal things over and over again, you might get a better result.
Is the goal to have a 50% female workforce even though there's almost no chance of that happening in terms of interest in the general population for the foreseeable future so they'll have to resort to lowering standards or upping hires for more diversity officers and other nontech positions basically defeating the supposed reason they're concerned? What happens if they overshoot the goal and men dip under 50%. Are they just going to not care and ignore it like for how women now earn significantly more college degrees and dominate middle bureaucratic management and nobody gives a crap?
Who wants to bet their next paycheck that Google's recruiters have never darkened the door at a career fair at a HBC? Where do they think they're likely to find a huge group of black Computer Science majors who aren't African or Caribbean immigrants outside of that?
Google's not stupid. They know where they could aggressively recruit young black people trying to get engineering degrees, but HBCs are too prole for a company that typically only recruits "from the best." And Google doesn't want proles because they might bring truly shocking perspectives like telling Mr. I Identify as a Dragon that he's a total whack job who needs to stop mixing crystal meth and D&D instead of nodding along. (Working and middle class black people tend to be refreshingly willing to call you on your bullshit compared to the upper class yuppies that dominate places like SV)
62% of the population, but only 53% of Google employees... how would this come about except through strong discrimination in hiring practices?
Hillary you're drunk, go home.
I want Google to be as 'diverse' as possible. That's because I'd personally like to see them fail as a business, because in my opinion they aren't good for the Internet, and for the software industry in general. And if there's one guaranteed way to make a company irrelevant, and eventually a total failure, it's to hire based on 'diversity' instead of skill and merit.
None of the top executives at Alphabet are black or hispanic, Larry and Sergei are both white males. For such an important issue, they should be willing to give up their positions to historically disadvantaged people.
Or is this the usual "diversity for thee, but not for me" situation?
I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on this that received a great deal of attention...
The funniest thing is that despite not being adept at office and internet politics, Damore was actually pretty empathetic. He pointed out that the job description and environment were optimized towards what white men want.
SJWs responded by assuming that the only rational way to interpret it was that women weren't fit for the job, ignoring the possibility that the job wasn't fit for women.
So, it looks like Damore was right and insightful, even if he's already been converted to full Nazi. I don't really blame him in that scenario, given that his views were rejected by SJWs, and embraced by racist and sexist assholes. People are often going to associate with people that don't treat them as shitty as other people do.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Because it cannot be done!
There is NO way you cannot tell me those money grubbing hacks @ Google would not hire 100% purple poka-dotted zebras if purple poka-dotted zebras made them more profitable.
The fact is that there are significant cultural differences between demographic segments. And there is NOTHING wrong with that.
But, ultimately it translates into only 2.5% of the black population cuts the mustard at Google. It's not Google's issue, it's black culture as a wholes' issue.
When the percentage of black people or Latina's or females who value schooling and work ethics like oriental people do then you will automatically see a reversal of these numbers.
Governments, corporations, and educational facilities should not be in the business of cultural modification because we all know, assuming we are honest, that family and extended family/friends are the ultimate cultural arbitrator.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Considering the lengths to which they've recently gone to increase skin-level diversity, which includes literally suspending all application processes for lower level positions where the applicant is white or asian, I do have to say that I am somewhat surprised by how little they've been able to move the needle.
Kind of makes you wonder what could have nullified their efforts this heavily. I know they've had some well meaning changes that have made their minority hires feel genuinely uncomfortable, like how the traditional mentoring of new hires has been changed so that your mentor will always be of the same race, but I didn't imagine they'd be able to take as many steps backwards as forwards like this. Either that or then they've knocked some sense into their hiring practices, which should have come with such a big backlash it would be well known to people outside the organization, so I can't image anything could explain this except well meaning policies that have backfired strongly enough to make their diversity hires leave in the same numbers as they're able to shepherd them in.
I guess that's good for them as nobody deserves to work in a place that makes you feel uncomfortable enough to make you want to quit your job. However I am somewhat worried about their remaining staff because if I know these diversity types, a setback will only cause them to double their efforts rather than take a moment to think about what they're actually doing.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
That's a pretty big change in just one year since it's 4% greater. The article is misleading.
I did a series of interviews at Google in Kirkland, WA (between Seattle and Microsoft) because I had a free place to stay a couple of blocks away for a friend that's out of the country for two years working for Microsoft in Dublin that was looking for a house sitter. I also had two other friends that are also black that did the same. All three of us gave up before the end of the process. Despite being able to get rid of $1,500 a month and live somewhere nice and have a higher paying job, Google's interview process just made it not worth it. My two friends also gave up since both of them ran out of vacation time to take off from their current jobs to keep going back to Google.
The way I feel about the process is that if you screen resumes well, do a good phone screening, then in person interviews with three or four people, then another interview with someone more senior and you still can't make-up your mind then the problem is with your process, not the candidate. It shouldn't take six months of waffling to make a decision.
Yeah, that's the mental gymnastics of having actually read the memo, instead of regurgitating a third-hand report of how someone on Jezebel was offended.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Google's feelings of diversity are just like that of California universities:
Multiple skin colors, all 51 genders,* and all 187 sexual orientations.**
* Diversity of opinion is not permitted.
** Cisexual cismales with white skin must choose one of the other 50 genders and/or one of the 186 other sexualities. Your skin color will be decided by your diversity officer fairly using diversity standard skin tone swatches.
Is the goal to have a 50% female workforce even though there's almost no chance of that happening
The goal is probably to have well above average female participation, as a kind of virtue signal.
What no-one seems to think about is that all of these large companies offering very high salary and bonuses for the small pool of potential technical female employees, what does that do for participation in smaller companies?
They simply have no way to complete for female employees, which means that females are inevitably poorly represented in smaller companies. That is really unfortunate because a smaller company is I think a generally nicer work environment for anyone, female or male... you simple have no room for the kind of nonsense that can get by at larger companies because everyone has to be productive and largely professional at a smaller company or they are gone.
If you have any kids just going to college about now you'd have to be insane too have them study anything but computers or some other engineering, they can do really, really well even just on internships over the summer (I have a friend with a daughter who just finished a CS degree and she had companies fighting for her like mad all through school).
She did sadly end up working for one of the large companies in part because of a huge bonus, that's what led me to mention that as a caution as I feel a little bit sad that will be her entry position in the technical world, when I think a smaller company would have suited her better.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've seen a number of good people leave Google over the past year. The completely toxic culture that Google created by doubling down on their abusive rhetoric can very-well drive people away.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Can you find any raw figures in the Google diversity annual report 2018? "Sometimes it is percentages that are given and raw figures that are missing," warns How to Lie With Statistics , "and this can be deceptive too." And yet the lack of raw figures doesn't keep Google from boasting, "We are further increasing transparency. Google's publication of workforce representation data in 2014 helped shape the current industry conversation on diversity in tech. We aim to take the conversation-and our work to the next level as we further refine our approach, so this year we've published new and more detailed workforce representation data."
Are you talking about claims he made or just ones that seem implicit? His main actual sin that I saw was that seemed to be leaning to heavy on claims of the difference between genders being biological, when we are much better able to measure the cocktail of nature and nurture.
Again, I feel a lot of the criticism tends to be not on what he said, but on what was implied by what he said. But drawing conclusions requires preconceptions to fill in the blanks, particularly the overall legitimacy of corporate structure and management.
Now, it's quite possible that he's just a sexist jerk. But the memo is still quite readable if one operates under the assumption that traditional management and business structure is garbage that is heavily biased in favor of "rugged invididualism"-type affluent men. The jobs in question make up some of the main exceptions to overtime laws, and one biological difference between men and women is the women generally need more hours of sleep to not have impairments. Women are socially expected to be the one that takes care of a child, and these positions have horrible work-life balance. The traditions of promotion encourage aggressive behavior, which men are inculcated to engage in while women are inculcated to avoid. It's not hard to see how a lot of higher positions are deeply antagonistic towards women by design. And the obvious solution would not be to throw more women into the pool of candidates, but to alter the environment so that it's not hostile. And I believe that those changes would result in a HUGE improvement for diversity and productivity that dwarfs their current initiative.
Like I said, it's possible that Damore didn't intend for this kind of interpretation, but this makes for a far more interesting discussion than the conventional read on it.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This is mindless SJWism and everyone knows it but the cultists.
But any company that takes this seriously should put their existential future where their stupid mouths are... and just kill their company.
Hire people that aren't qualified merely on the basis of who is more or less statistically represented.
Burn the company to the ground. And when there's nothing left but ashes and finger pointing... the industry can be rebuilt by people with the courage and integrity to stand their ground.
I'm sure there are devotees of the cult that are offended by the statement, I am not an adherent to your religion.
I find the suggestion that I should take it seriously as silly as you would take the suggestion that only Christians following christian doctrine should be hired. Its that absurd.
But obviously fundamentalists are not known for being sensible. So this is going to continue until they burn it down. We already are seeing companies leave not only the bay area but California entirely. And not merely for tax or real estate issues but literally because the culture has gone toxic.
I know I know... The great sage has prophesied that when the planets align your golden age will come to pass... which is why everyone else has to get on the right side of history... because these people on top of everything else think they have an accurate prophesy of the future. Literally. Otherwise how would they know what was the "right side of history"... they're saying that in the end they'll get what they want. And yet the industry is already very international and most of the international partners on top of the domestic companies that are leaving are not ascribing to this stuff.
Its not good for any industry in which it takes over. Its even f'ing up hollywood, journalism, and academia is lousy with it.
But these people are not open to correction. They were told the word of god at some point and anyone that disagrees is a dirty infidel. So this is just going to have to play out to the pain.
I'm enjoying the show.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It really is fun watching the Shillaries unable to ever actually talk about the substance of any single thing. And then they wonder why they lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who can't stand people like you any more. Carry on! More! It will help again in the next round. Thanks!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Diversity for diversity sake is a totally misguided approach to... well, anything actually except maybe winning a diversity trophy.
If any group faces higher obstacles than others, that needs to be addressed. If any group is statistically significantly under-represented, that might justify checking for why it is so.
But intentionally hiring one group over another is actually the definition of discrimination, even if you do it in the name of enriching diversity.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Tell us how you REALLY feel.
Seriously, you're going to let something as temporal as the POTUS drive you THIS fucking bug-nuts?
Do you ENJOY flagellating yourself this much?
You don't like him, you don't like his supporters.
FINE.
He's gone in 4 years IF YOU ACT LIKE SANE PEOPLE.
He's gone in 8 if you continue acting this way (and then gets replaced by someone just like him).
Don't you see how this sort of crazed, bitchy, vindictive behavior is simply pushing people in the near left and center ever further right, even as you and your compatriots dash ever further left?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
A more interesting question is how they managed to go from 59.6% white techies in 2014 to 50.7% white techies in 2018. That's an 8.9% drop in four years. Presumably they're not preferentially firing white techies, nor are they preferentially quitting. That leaves hiring, which for some reason has fallen off a cliff, versus non-whites. Is there any innocent explanation for this?
On top of that, female techies have gone from 16.6% to 21.4% over the same four years. Since many of these new hires are undoubtedly white, that means that white male techies have fallen even more than the above stats would indicate. We need more data, but I'm guessing 15 or 20% over four years.
This seems almost beyond belief, and yet no one else seems to be discussing it. Am I all wet here? Or maybe Google screwed up their numbers?
The US population is 62% white. Google's employee population is 53.1% white and new hires are 45.2% white. That seems like a pretty serious bias to me, but it's a private business and they can do what they want. What I don't understand is what "better outcome" they actually want to achieve. Dose Google want to become a "majority minority" company?