
Facebook’s Hiring Process Hinders Its Effort to Create a Diverse Workforce - tempw
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-09/facebook-s-hiring-process-hinders-its-effort-to-create-a-diverse-workforce
======
renaudg
The entire article is based upon former recruiters' frustration that the
diversity candidates they brought (the ones that gave them "double points")
often did not make it through final scrutiny.

They blame "risk-averse white/asian decision makers", but how would they
really know that there were no legitimate technical or team-fit reasons behind
the rejections ? And how much is confirmation bias helping create that
suspicion, when you're financially incentivized to favor these candidates ?

Especially at a company with such a high hiring bar, there's a world between
scanning keywords on a resume + asking multiple-choice questions in a phone
screen, and assessing the depth of a candidate's technical aptness : if
sourcers were in a position to make that call, well wouldn't they be called
technical managers ?

While there might be some truth in that report, it's also not hard to imagine
that "losing double points candidates + a pinch of ideology + lack of
technical background to deeply assess candidates" might have fuelled enough
frustration in disgruntled former employees to take this to the journalists.

------
iamleppert
Hiring should be done by the team, not by these ridiculous "committees". The
metrics and data have clearly shown them to be ineffective at both preventing
bad hires as well as the prediction of future employee performance, time and
time again.

They are still around in companies because it gives "senior" engineers
something to do, and it makes them feel good about themselves. From the people
I know who work at Facebook, there is a marked lack of work at the higher
levels of technical leadership; thus you get these kinds of "committees" that
serve no business purpose and actively harm the hiring process.

Like I said, the people best suited to do hiring are the people whom will work
directly with the person. They need to be able to get along, "like" the other
person, respect them, and they need to be smart. There is so much more to
hiring and team building than checking off the technical checkboxes, whatever
those are. You're dealing with intellectual people (knowledge workers) and an
intricate social dynamic.

Of course, Facebook's goal is to likely _not_ build great teams. They already
have the teams built and self-sustaining that run the actual business. This
dog and pony show exists purely to placate to existing mediocre senior
engineers who have attained that position through some sort of osmosis effect
but who lack talent or real power in the organization.

~~~
jkaptur
Is there much internal mobility at Facebook? My understanding is that the
point of a single hiring committee is to ensure that every individual at the
company has met a similar standard, which reduces the barrier to switching
teams.

I've heard of companies without a common standard where switching teams is as
hard as quitting and reapplying for the new job (complete with the beloved
algorithms-on-a-whiteboard process), which seems silly.

~~~
cpeterso
I heard that Facebook offers new hires the opportunity to moonlight on a
different team for one month after their first year.

------
bojl
Serious question: why is this sort of diversity important? As an Asian
American man, I can't help but feel slighted when reading articles like this.
Why is my status as an Asian any different from other minorities? Why even
take race and gender into account in the hiring process for ENGINEERING roles?

As a minority I fully understand how race can affect one's perception on
oneself, and how societal pressures can make one feel like they don't belong
in a certain field. But in this light, shouldn't companies focus more on
encouraging women and URM to enter in the field of engineering, and not at the
point of hiring? CMV.

~~~
rhcom2
For the last bit this is a very commonly talked about idea, often referred to
as "the pipeline problem". There is evidence that the level of which
minorities graduate with CS degrees outpaces hiring though, suggesting that
the pipeline can't be blamed alone.

The first part about why diversity is important has been covered ad nauseum so
you can find those arguments and agree with them or not.

------
relics443
TL;DR distinguish yourself on your capabilities, not your
race/gender/ethnicity etc...

I'm a white American male that went to a CUNY college (city university of NY),
which is not so highly regarded by the big 4.

I graduated with a 4.0, summa cum laude, phi beta kappa, with distinguished
honors in CS and psychology.

In 2012 a close friend of mine was a hiring manager in Google, and he passed
my resume to a recruiter. When he went back to check on the status of it
later, he found that the recruiter had thrown out the resume.

After some arm twisting he got me an interview. I answered everything
correctly, but was told I would not be getting the job.

Since that time I've been with a few startups as an Android engineer. I love
my jobs, and work my butt off. On 3 occasions I've been at Google's NYC office
consulting with members of the Android team. I've made sure to make an
impression on the community.

For the past 3 years I've been getting a bi-monthly email from Google and
Facebook recruiters asking me to come interview. I haven't, and probably never
will; I like the startup scene way to much.

I don't think the decision makers are racist or sexist. Their job is to get
the best engineer for the job. Initial impressions are hard to gauge, and
without validation (education, trusted references, etc...) you can end up
making a big mistake (I would know, having hired quite a few duds over the
years).

I understand that not all people are in a position to distinguish themselves
initially. Life isn't fair. Trying to make it fair for one demographic will
likely end up making things unfair for another.

There's nothing wrong with not getting your first job at a big 4. Hit the
pavement running, do a kick ass job wherever you are, and you'll get noticed.

~~~
maxucho
Respectfully, I think you may have missed the point of the article. In the
committee hiring process that Facebook uses, it would seem that every
candidate was actually _not_ being judged purely on their capabilities. So
telling folks to "distinguish yourself on your capabilities," while generally
good advice, doesn't actually help if the process doesn't reward that.

If instead, as the recruiters in the article suggest, pedigree of college and
other factors are being prioritized, then that's a problem. Criteria like this
disproportionately disadvantages URM candidates in particular, which is how
Facebook ends up with only 1% black and 3% latino tech workers, even after
prioritizing diversity at the recruiter level.

> I don't think the decision makers are racist or sexist.

I recommend you read up a bit on [individual vs. systemic racism](1). An
important point to note is that even if individual actors don't exhibit what
you consider to be racism, the system that they make up can itself be racist.
This is a really important point that often gets lost in discussions like this
on HN, especially since the largely-white largely-male population here is
unlikely to ever directly feel the effects of systemic racism.

> Trying to make it fair for one demographic will likely end up making things
> unfair for another.

Just to be clear, I think what you are trying to say is that adjusting for
bias against URM candidates will inherently lead to bias or disadvantages to
white folks. I would question any notion of "fairness" that relies on another
group being treated unfairly. To borrow a common expression, when you’re
accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

(1):
[http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/formsofracism](http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/formsofracism)

------
FT_intern
> Facebook started incentivizing recruiters in 2015 to find engineering
> candidates who weren't already well represented at the company – women,
> black and Latino workers.

Giving different bonuses based on protected classes is erring very close to
the line of racial/gender discrimination.

Referral bonuses for regular employees are higher for females and POC too.

------
eva1984
Oh, the media and the PC force now think they have the final say, than senior
engineers, as to who to hire for technical roles. AMAZING.

------
mydpy
I have always viewed tech diversity as a supply-side problem. Demand is
definitely there.

~~~
awad
The article points out that Facebook recruiters seem to be able to bring in
people through the funnel (tackling the supply-side) only to have candidates
rejected in the latter half of the process when these candidates don't fit
within the mold of senior engineers tasked with approving candidates.

~~~
mydpy
True, but I think the issue is that quality engineers of color are few. When I
say supply side, I mean, there are far fewer graduates of color in STEM from
top universities, etc.

~~~
codedokode
Maybe that is because education in top universities is very expensive so only
people from rich and middle class families can afford it?

~~~
otterley
You're both begging the question that only candidates from top universities
get interviews.

------
ProfessorLayton
This is why it is important for companies to emphasize diversity from the
beginning, so that it becomes embedded into the company's culture, rather than
the same platitudes repeated year after year.

~~~
randyrand
Most companies don't actually care about the race of their employees, and just
want to make a good product.

But for the few that actually do care about diversity (and not the ones that
just talk about it for show), I agree with you.

------
ashwinaj
IMO first fix the hiring process for engineers. Asking someone to implement a
splay tree, B+ Tree and other obscure algorithms (which is usually Googled 15
mins before the interview or is a pet interview question) in 45 mins is
pointless. It has absolutely no corelation to how the potential employee will
perform in his/her job. Asking reasonable design questions followed by a
simple implmentation is more preferable than a textbook implementation of a
typical coding interview question.

The other beef I have with hiring is the attitude "we only hire A players".
Really? If you are doing work worthy of "A players" then that's fine. But if
you aren't (and this is true in most cases), please don't pretend that you do
cutting edge work and drop the attitude.

Diversity is harder problem to solve. How do you integrate potential employees
who aren't from a "privileged" background (I say that in quotes, because I
don't mean money)? It has to be trial and error...

~~~
renaudg
> The other beef I have with hiring is the attitude "we only hire A players".
> Really? If you are doing work worthy of "A players" then that's fine. But if
> you aren't (and this is true in most cases), please don't pretend that you
> do cutting edge work and drop the attitude.

That's the thing, this is Facebook, arguably the A-player requirement is
sound.

The issue is that departments have misaligned incentives, and each work to
optimize their own : diversity figures is a major yardstick for HR, and the
one by which they're judged. Technical managers optimize for teams that work
and have exceptional problem-solvers in its ranks, which leaves no place at
Facebook's level for other considerations.

~~~
ashwinaj
> That's the thing, this is Facebook, arguably the A-player requirement is
> sound.

I would argue otherwise, not all roles in FB require A players. Not everyone
in FB is working on AI, machine learning, ad optimization etc. There are a
bunch of people working in maintaining legacy code bases, tools, IT, and other
positions which doesn't necessarily not require A players.

~~~
ashwinaj
EDIT: and other positions which doesn't necessarily require A players

------
CoderCorrel
The biggest problem with this is the lack of any real supporting evidence for
it's claim. As far as I can tell, it relies purely on anecdotal evidence from
recruiters presented as fact, rather than any actual numbers. What was the
percentage of diversity candidates before and after the program started? What
% of those candidates made it through the initial interview phase in relation
to white and asian men? What % of diversity candidates were rejected by these
committees compared to other candidates? Without this information, all this
article does is to re-affirm that Facebook has a diversity problem, but fails
to make a credible argument that these committees are responsible for it.

------
tabeth
Is there a reason interviews with these large companies are not completely
anonymous? Given the nature of these interviews, I've yet to see a good
argument for why you actually need to know who the interviewee is.

1) If only pedigree matters (e.g. MIT/Stanford) then why have an interview?

2) If only intelligence matters why not just give candidates an IQ test and be
done with it (if you're skeptical of IQ tests there are many proxies: SAT
scores, grades in certain subjects, etc)?

3) If only algorithmic problem solving matters (this what big companies
currently are doing, AFAIK they used to do the last two, with not success) why
do you need to even know who the candidate is?

\---

For startups and other smaller companies I see the value of knowing who you're
interviewing. However, an argument could be made there, as well. As long as
you can properly articulate the qualities you want in a candidate, and have a
way of measuring said qualities* there shouldn't be any need to "know" who the
candidate is.

[*]If you don't have any way of measuring the magnitude of the qualities then
you're just going off a "gut feeling", the same gut feeling that will likely
be biased in one or more dimensions, IMO.

------
gdulli
> From 2015 to 2016, Facebook’s proportion of women in tech grew from 16
> percent to 17 percent, and its proportion of black and Latino U.S. tech
> workers stayed flat at 1 and 3 percent, respectively.

> Facebook has portrayed itself as a leader in the effort, with executives
> giving public speeches on benefits and best practices.

Facebook acknowledged another problem with its metrics reporting and
apologized for the inconvenience.

------
throwaway_t42
They are also extremely hesitant to hire international candidates (unless they
come with an OPT from an US university).

If they are rejecting (without interview) a candidate with offers from Google,
Microsoft (and several others) who was referred by a high ranking employee,
just to avoid sponsoring a visa, the hiring system is extremely out of touch
with the engineers.

------
systems
why is a diverse workforce an objective?

~~~
adventured
The theory is that there's vast, intentional, discrimination against non-white
candidates in technology. So the argument is that to counter that
discrimination, companies such as Facebook must act to aggressively and
intentionally recruit non-white candidates. Why? The argument is that it's to
promote greater equality and fairness in terms of opportunities. The other
common argument, which has been made frequently for at least several decades,
is that increased diversity leads to greater innovation due to an increased
diversity of backgrounds. In the several decades I've been reading about it,
I've yet to see this last claim substantially proven in any manner (it would
imply great leaps in innovation can't regularly derive from homogeneous
situations (when in fact history constantly says otherwise), which would imply
countries as different as Finland, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, China
and Japan are nearly incapable of innovation due to their low diversity).

~~~
systems
I understand the value of positive discrimination, it is important in politics
to give voice to minorities ... but, I am a bit skeptical, that it has a place
in a commercial environment .. specially in a technical field

In a non technical field, maybe it will promote tolerance and acceptance in
communities .. and specially in communities with a lot of immigrants ..

But again .. and I agree with you, I am very skeptical that it adds value in a
highly technical, commercial environment

------
otterley
Do FB engineering candidates have to be approved by an anonymous hiring
committee to receive an offer, like at Google?

------
madman123
> getting “diversity candidates” hired at Facebook proved to be such a
> struggle than many recruiters stopped trying, even with the double point
> system, and went back to their usual strategies

Triple them! Quadruple them! Why not?

------
falloutx
> Facebook started incentivizing recruiters in 2015 to find engineering
> candidates who weren't already well represented at the company – women,
> black and Latino workers.

Isn't this unfair to White or Asian men who might be equally(or more)
qualified for working at Facebook? Why Diversity should ever be a goal of a
private entity?

~~~
Kluny
No, it isn't. White and asian men are likely to be more qualified because they
have had more opportunities to gain experience. The race and gender gap won't
close without concerted effort to give similar opportunities to women and
people of color.

Edit: I recently read that when women were first granted the vote in Denmark,
they immediately introduced quotas to help more women become politicians so
there would be equal representation of both sexes. A few decades after that,
it was found that gender parity existed and the quotas weren't needed anymore,
so now they're talking about repealing them. I hope for a similar future where
affirmative action in college admissions, or gender-inclusion hiring policies
aren't needed anymore because they worked.

~~~
pc86
Shouldn't the goal then be to create an environment where white and Asian men
are _not_ more qualified? Through education, etc as opposed to giving a job to
someone less qualified because another applicant because they happen to check
different boxes on the Census.

~~~
Kluny
More women and people of color will pursue the necessary education under their
own power when it becomes obvious that they can get jobs with it without
having to worry about unemployment due to discrimination. At the moment
computer science is often considered a bad bet for women (for example) because
they see so few women in the industry that they know it will be an uphill
battle to pay off their very expensive degree.

~~~
pc86
So "give less qualified people jobs because of arbitrary characteristics and
people who look like them will become qualified" rather than "hire the most
qualified person regardless of any arbitrary characteristics, and people will
try to be the most qualified."

> _At the moment computer science is often considered a bad bet for women (for
> example) because they see so few women in the industry that they know it
> will be an uphill battle to pay off their very expensive degree._

Nonsense. Things like your comment show that as long as you can pass the bar
of "not unqualified" you're _more_ likely to get a job if you're a woman, or a
person of color, or whatever random immutable attribute someone is trying to
pump up.

I work with a bunch of white and Indian dudes. I'd love for the pool of my
colleagues to be more diverse. But I'd rather work with 100% qualified Indian
men than a group of less qualified people who perfectly match the gender and
racial makeup of the US.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sadly, so often 'qualified' is a subjective thing. And folks just love to
imagine that people who are just like themselves seem more qualified. So we
get cliques. And its hard to break into one.

Also, no need for the strawman of "perfectly match". We could all start with
making the effort to find actual, qualified people who help diversify. They're
out there.

