
I’m a white guy in Silicon Valley and I’m done buying the meritocracy myth - samepant
https://medium.com/diversify-tech/i-m-a-white-guy-in-silicon-valley-and-i-m-done-buying-the-meritocracy-myth-2cc0ef9f9b60
======
kedean
The biggest issue that I see is how much startup founders justify the idea
that they need to hire and promote people that they 'would want to hang out
with', aka the people they would want to be friends with outside of work. This
leads to an extremely homogenous workforce with almost no diversity, because
people generally are attracted to those who look and act like them. Guys
usually don't see women and internally think 'I want to be friends with that
person', white people don't generally see a black guy and think 'I want to be
friends with them'.

Now obviously this isn't universal, plenty of cross-group friendships exist,
tons in fact, but they are usually formed by the people being forced together
(work, neighbors, school). When hiring based on first impressions, though,
this becomes a huge problem.

~~~
nicksergeant
This is probably a side effect of startup founders not actually having lives
outside of work.

~~~
exelius
Self-selecting for this type of employee is also a problem. I can understand
doing this for the first few months when you're trying to bootstrap, but long-
term if your business model can't scale without people working 12-14 hour
days, your business model doesn't scale.

We all read articles on HN and HBR saying that more hours != more work, but we
still hire for it anyway. I know most founders are just looking for passionate
people who fit with their team, and it can be hard to build a team when one of
your team members has to leave every day at 3:30 to pick their kids up from
school. But we should at least try to be better.

------
michaelchisari
I'm an advocate of blind hiring and promotion across the board. Study after
study has shown that it is the only way to remove bias (race/class/gender/etc)
on the part of the hiring/promoting party.

Here's an NPR/All Tech Considered story on it.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/05/28/410...](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/05/28/410264592/blind-
auditions-could-give-employers-a-better-hiring-sense)

~~~
Someone1234
How would hiring work in practice? Wouldn't you have to completely eliminate
in-person and or telephone interviews?

Promotions I can see (although you need very formal promotion requirements).
Hiring? I don't know.

~~~
Simulacra
You contract with an outside firm to do the interviewing, screening, etc. On
the other hand, a completely separate HR department gathers the prerequisites
of the hiring department or manager, and then they make the decision as to
whom to hire. The manager is given a new worker with no biased input as to
race, gender, sexuality, attraction, etc. I think it goes much further than
simply having a workforce that works well together, and likes to hang out with
each other. The attractiveness of the candidate, and whether or not they'd be
fun to hang out with on the weekends, or worse, date, should have zero bearing
on the hiring process.

Check out Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Blink" discussing blind auditions for
musicians.

Also: [http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-
leadership/2013/oct/14/b...](http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-
leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias)

------
mc32
Eliminating bias in hiring is likely a good thing (with some govt security
exceptions) Allowing opportunity to all who meet qualifications is good. What
is not settled is what is normal or acceptable for different fields. That's to
say, while women are severely underrepresented in high tech, if based on
demographics, is the end to have all fields mimic the demographics of a given
area radius or a given graduating class? It may be worthwhile, or not. I don't
know.

What I would say is people who qualify (credentials, whatever, immigration
status, clearance status, etc) should have equal opportunity and should not
face discrimination. It may even warrant active recruitment, but I'm unsure if
that is good or just on the surface desirable.

Interestingly, and this is anecdotal, but in my experience there is a higher
relative ratio of East and south Asian women than women in general in tech.
Even more to the point, Asian women are better represented in ee and cs than
non Asian who might be in supporting roles like marketing, branding, etc. If
the observations hold, it would be interesting to see why.

------
tzs
His "it's not the pipeline" argument rests on 30% of STEM degrees going to
women, but that is for all STEM degrees. In the degrees most relevant to
Silicon Valley, engineering and computer science, it is 16%. The average is
pulled up to 30% by much higher concentrations of women in physical sciences
(40%), math and statistics (42%), and biology (58%).

16% of the engineering/CS degrees going to women lines up very nicely with the
15% he cites for the number of tech jobs in the Bay Area being held by women.

Many of the comparisons of Silicon Valley to national averages are comparing
very different types of companies. For example, the comparison of executives
is comparing to the S&P 100. I see no reason to expect that, say, a
pharmaceutical company absent discrimination would be expected to have the
same percentage of women executives as a computer software company absent
discrimination. As his link on STEM degrees shows, women make up a
considerably higher percentage of the degrees that would be of interest to a
pharmaceutical company.

------
nickpsecurity
They're all about being data-driven until the data shows they're racist and
sexist. ;)

However, I'm going to note that this happens with any majority. I'm a white
guy that spent much of my life in areas that were controlled by Blacks and one
controlled by Hispanics. Whites in those areas experienced everything Blacks
describe in areas with white racists: job discrimination; government
discrimination; different police treatment; being served second or not at all
at a food place; unprovoked beatdowns by black mobs (esp in schools);
different punishment in schools; banned from certain "hoods" always or certain
times. Ran into one or two places controlled by women that discriminated
against men for key positions but most women-run places were more fair.

Anyway, the point is this stuff is an aspect of human nature and group
dynamics. It happens any time a majority is in control of an area or situation
with minorities pushing into their turf. We need to eliminate it across the
board for all parties. The Navy example was a great one. I also once attended
a diversity class that suggested methods of trying to eliminate bias. Another
time a HR person suggested Topgrading methodology that was results-focused and
said it helped her. Each of these apparently reduced the effect of
discrimination in hiring, promotion, and firing.

So, I think we should put a bunch of effort into further R&D on such methods.
Not to mention, collect a bunch of what's proven to work (partly or fully)
into one resource. I see lots of interesting, data-driven methods posted on
HN. Add them, too. Maybe keep a forum or blog network going where results of
experiments can be posted over time to see where success is trending. All
methods focusing on the skills, character, and objective-as-possible results
are the best starting point regardless.

------
myth_buster
As long as there is "fit" based decisions being made, conscious/subconscious
biases based on age/gender/race etc will creep in.

And as long as these pervade, hiring will not be a meritocratic process.

------
aianus
This article is disingenuous. 'Science' has nothing to do with being an
engineer in Silicon Valley. I know lots of women in science; they do research
in pharmaceuticals and academia, not program social networks for dogs.

Computer science and math at my school (which has the largest faculty of
Mathematics in the world) was something like 20% female.

------
benmmurphy
The guy could be correct but some of those stats don't look like they relate.
Presumably a lot of the people working in tech in SV didn't originate from SV
so the proportion of women in the general population of SV is pretty
meaningless unless women interested in tech are going to SV then not landing
tech jobs but staying in SV.

------
swsieber
If I recall correctly (I may very well be mistaken), men's performance is more
variable than women's. Which would lead to the following: * Men would hold the
majority of top and bottom spots in a field.

That said, I don't think that's fully responsible for this, but it's
interesting to think about.

Additionally, I do think people in Silicon Valley seem to give off the vibe of
sacrifice life to be good at your job; something I think women tend to do less
often. I don't think that everyone does do that, but there's a stereotype
about it for a reason.

Part of fixing the 'gender problem' is not only fixing the selection bias but
making sure that there's an environment that does discriminate against one sex
or the other. If you're looking to do that.

Are these blanket statements? Yes. Please take them with a huge grain of salt.
We are talking about trends and stereotypes after all.

~~~
michaelborromeo
I agree with your assessment of the problem -- it's the environment. But, as
long as millions/billions of dollars are on the line then there will always be
those who put all their time/energy into their job.

Maybe it's biology that allows men to lead less balanced lives; mabye it's
culture. But the effect is what we have today -- when living an unbalanced
life is rewarded handsomely, men dominate.

I'd like to hear counter examples.

~~~
skylan_q
_Maybe it 's biology that allows men to lead less balanced lives_

It can't be ignored. Males are nature's crapshoot. In many measures when
comparing men against women, we'll see more men at the extremities. Most bay
area CEOs are men. But so are most prisoners.

This essay helped to shape my views around the topic:
[http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm](http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm)

------
Simulacra
I wish the world would use blind hiring a lot more. I'm not attractive, and
I'm a big guy. I've lost out on jobs to people who were less qualified but
better looking, and skinnier. I know if the interviewer is a young person I'm
probably not getting the job. This crap about "culture" fit is nothing more
than code for not hiring people the HR person wouldn't want to hang out with,
bang, or find attractive.

------
mbesto
Everything is a meritocracy until the bankers arrive. Well, the bankers have
arrived.

~~~
eropple
But it was never a meritocracy. That's the pernicious myth of--well, most of
modern society, but very much including tech. The unconscious and conscious
biases of the first movers have shaped it since day one, and we still see the
effects today.

~~~
yarrel
The first movers in programming were women.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Yep. As was Margaret Hamilton who invented both software engineering and
fault-tolerant, hardware-software design. Bunch more on top of that.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_%28scientist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_%28scientist%29)

Been my favorite for the last year or two since a friend told me about her
work doing... basically much of what I was trying to do lol. Her software
resume kicks much of Silicon Valley's ass. Yet, many wouldn't hire women and
certainly wouldn't know one invented the engineering aspect of their field
after another invented programming. ;) Many similarly impressive women in tech
and colleges that face uphill battle getting good jobs. Messed up...

Note: Her USL and 001 Toolkit handled specification, semi-automated design,
automated coding, automated testing, and handled SCM issues for arbitrary
platforms. You could say she was the first "full-stack" engineer with a
broader definition of full-stack. ;) 001/USL are really weird so one line of
my research is doing same with a user-friendly, specification and
implementation language + extensive metaprogramming + good heuristics. Racket
or RED are likely implementation languages when I get the concepts all
together.

------
gaius
It makes sense to issue different rucksacks to women but boots?

------
exstudent2
How is it not a pipeline problem when according to the article:

> In the last two decades, the amount of women graduating with tech degrees
> has been in decline

If that's happening before they even have a chance to be hired, then it _is_ a
pipeline problem.

Is it even really a "problem" though? It looks as if young women are
exercising their free will and choosing their own career paths which may or
not be technical. Why are the choices they're making deemed problematic?

~~~
zdean
Because his argument is that even adjusting for the pipeline issue, women and
minorities are under-represented. In other words, even if you fixed the
pipeline issue, they would still be discriminated against and under-
represented because of bias.

~~~
exstudent2
His numbers are all over the place. Most of the stats he provides are for
executives and investors which don't require STEM degrees, yet he uses STEM
graduation as his initial stat.

I don't even know what this means:

"0% of partners at some of our largest Bay Area VC firms are women"

So > 0% of partners of the largest Bay Area VC firms are women, since he
qualifies the statement with "some"?

~~~
josh_cutler
I think it means that there are large firms whose partners are 100% male.

