

Ask HN: Does “diversity hiring” lower the bar for certain groups? - clwen

Hi HN,<p>Diversity seems to be a hot topic recently (e.g., see http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bit.ly&#x2F;1n8Y8A9). Just curious, will companies have incentives to lower the bar of hiring for certain group of people to optimize their diversity statistics? If you are in hiring committee, what&#x27;s your company&#x27;s policy on this topic?
======
sarahj
_sigh_ \- this question comes up so often.

No.

1\. Candidates are not stupid neither are companies - trying to fill "quotas"
is both wasteful and does not have a good ROI.

2\. The assumption that the reason companies are not diverse is because one
group of individuals is more skilled is wrong.

Diversity is not about hiring one group over another. It is about limiting and
highlighting the explicit and implicit biases that exist in every organization
and working to resolve them.

This can be done, for example, by making sure job ads have gender neutral
language - so many do not, which turns off female candidates - which is why
they are not very diverse.

~~~
clwen
From what I have seen, top players in the field do use gender neutral language
in their job posting. Regarding point 2, I think the point is the number of
candidates. Even if all the groups are uniform in terms of skill, the larger
group will end up getting more offers.

------
DanBC
When you run a job advert don't ask for "recent graduates" because that
discriminates against older people. Instead make clear that the job is an
entry level position with little responsibility or pay.

When you run a job ad don't talk about how you all go to the beach every
Wednesday and then say you're looking for a close cultural fit. This probably
discriminates against people in wheelchairs (and probably several other
groups).

When you run a job ad don't have a photo of your team (all male, all age 18 to
26) and then talk about cultural fit.

Mentioning "cultural fit" is sometimes a huge fucking flag that you're doing
something wrong.

As an aside: "do we have to employ dumb people so our company has more black
or female or disabled employees?" is a remarkably offensive thing to say. It's
pretty close to what you're asking.

~~~
DanBC
You mentioned dversity. That is usually interpreted to mean "protected
characteristics". While these are different in different countries they
usually include:

• Sex and gender identity; sexuality

• age

• race

• religion

• disability

• parenting status

and others.

You also asked about lowering the bar to employ these people - the clear
implication being that a worker with a protected characteristic is of a lower
standard than a worker without a protected characteristic. You might want to
add a clarification if that's not what you meant.

~~~
clwen
Let me re-iterate myself: I didn't mention any specific attribute, not to say
specific gender or ethic groups. So, what you are saying here is probably not
a natural interpretation to draw from my question.

I do agree with the cultural fit part though. It's subjective and easy to
manipulate to what direction as convenient to the company.

Talk about "dumb", I don't think sane companies will ever hire anybody who
they considered as "dumb", because it's counter-productive. However, it's
possible that a certain group have a slightly lower bar. They are still good,
but just not as selective as their counter part. As long as it's good for the
company's public image, morale, etc, they might want to make this trade-off.

Does this policy not uncommon in the industry? -- Is essentially my question.
Please note that this doesn't necessarily mean that certain group(s) are
superior/inferior then the other group(s). This simply means the general
public confused the population as general population, instead of number of
candidates. So that companies might want to skew the graph a bit to make it
composed more like general population to please general public, media,
whatever.

~~~
DanBC
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.

Everythin you write makes me think that you're saying that diversity means a
company has to lower the bar; and that they get other benefits for doing that
- public image is one example you give.

The only possible conclusion to draw from that is that yu're saying people
with a protected characteristic are not as "good" as the general population.

~~~
meowface
What's not to understand about what he's asking?

His question is regarding so-called "affirmative action" or quota-like
initiatives in companies, where those with a protected status are given a
preference in hiring purely based on their protected status. That's what he
means by lowering the bar.

I don't know how many companies do this, but many people on HN (including
myself) agree that such practices are unfair. I agree with sarahj's comment on
the matter:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431039](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431039)

Creating a good environment for diversity is about noticing and eliminating
biases, and trying to provide an equal playing field for all potential
candidates. OP appears to be concerned that some companies will take things
further than that to give "diverse" candidates an unequal advantage. That's
all.

------
jonpress
I don't think people should be given special treatment because they belong to
a particular group. It's not a HR problem - It's a problem with society
itself. Certain groups will inevitably lag behind (in terms of number of
candidates) in certain fields because of complex social factors which
companies cannot really change (and maybe it's even wrong to try to change
them).

There are complex social and psychological reasons why people choose to work
in particular fields - I oppose the idea of using marketing to steer people
into choosing careers which they have no natural interest in.

People spend most of their lives working - It's cruel for companies to
manipulate them into lifelong commitments that they never really wanted.

~~~
bbissoon
You assume the current way of doing things is the best way. "Special
Treatment" isn't special. The way many companies currently operate promotes
"Special Treatment" more-so.

The past dictates the present, exposures dictate the future. A kid from the
slums might have a "natural" interest in what they see day in and day out.
However, they could be gifted in other areas and don't find out until they're
exposed to it.

Relying on "natural" interest is a way of instantly labeling people via
statistics. Job incentives get people to learn about trades, money keeps them
loyal to that trade/company. That's why university students change their
majors so often - they grow, see better outcomes in other fields and follow
the one that's more beneficial for the future they envision.

A natural deposition helps you excel but that's about it.

In total to think about Diversity:

Companies are living organisms and in order to ensure survival you must
diversify. If you've lived in a vacuum your entire live and you encounter a
common cold virus, you're going to go through hell to survive it. Your body
has no experience dealing with it and it's thrown off course. Think natives
and small pox from Europeans - Complete Die Off.

As companies diversify, they become immune to cultural shifts and are more
prepared to grow and thrive in all situations. They don't make blunders in
ignorance, they handle their customers better and they grow stronger because
of support and loyalty cultivated in various groups or people - Think Coke.
One group of people get mad, they have 50 more who support them.

------
aqioioi
That's not the only axis to optimize to get more people from a target group.
You can also devote a larger proportion of time/money towards searching for
talent from that group, or you can provide better incentives. If your
organization values top talent as well as diversity, you will prefer
optimizing those axes over lowering the bar.

------
bjourne
If you think the playing field is anywhere near equal, or based on merit, you
haven't been working long enough or just aren't cynical enough. Almost
everywhere, hiring wifes, friends and relatives is the norm. And people aren't
shy about asking if the secretary on interview looked pretty. Saying they were
"joking" but there's a kernel of truth...

Virtually everyone has had the "bar lowered" for themselves in some way (noone
is entirely self-made). So complaining when disadvantaged groups also gets it
is silly.

