
The Old Boys' Club: Schmoozing and the Gender Gap - Dowwie
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=57091
======
whatshisface
The study showed that men under men got promoted faster than men under women,
but that women rose at the same rate under both genders. This could be
explained by a male advantage under men, but it could also be explained by
male disadvantage under women, or a combination of both. How can these cases
be separated? (The study might address this, I only have access to the
abstract.)

~~~
cgriswald
The entire study is not very interesting. They studied a single bank in Asia
with "thousands of employees." They don't name the bank. They don't even name
the country. They make no attempt to address cultural differences. They
disclaim that the study is representative of the world, but then offer some
mental gymnastics which imply without actually suggesting that it represents
the US because of the country's similarity to the US in gender employment
numbers and attitudes.

~~~
psychometry
You try doing a large-scale study at multiple companies on multiple continents
at once, then. Your comment suggests you don't really understand the immense
challenge of doing sociological work in a way that's both ethical and useful.

~~~
whatshisface
> _Your comment suggests you don 't really understand the immense challenge of
> doing sociological work in a way that's both ethical and useful._

The fact that something is immensely difficult doesn't make success more
likely, it makes it less likely. The parent comment is saying that the study
didn't achieve success, which is supported by your claim that sociological
work is up against tremendous challenges.

An analogy would be if someone claimed to invent a perpetual motion machine,
and then responded to someone who was saying that their machine didn't work
with, "you try building one, then."

~~~
nimblegorilla
The study was very upfront about the limitations.

A better analogy would be someone trying to debunk the theory of relativity by
claiming it doesn't cover perpetual motion machines.

~~~
cgriswald
> The study was very upfront about the limitations.

That's an overly generous interpretation of their comments. See deogeo's post
with some questions about why many of these things are even mentioned in the
paper. Where they were upfront has already been acknowledged--by me. My
criticisms were where they implied, but did not support a comparison to US-
based finance companies generally. Here they were 'upfront' but they shrank
what should be several papers worth of arguments into a single word:
'similar'.

> A better analogy would be someone trying to debunk the theory of relativity
> by claiming it doesn't cover perpetual motion machines.

If you think this is a better analogy, you've missed the point entirely.

~~~
nimblegorilla
You're beginning to sound like a conspiracy nut. The paper is very upfront
that more studies should be done in other countries:

"the data necessary for the analysis, such as paygrades, demographics and
manager assignments, are probably available for most large organizations. We
hope this methodology will be applied to other firms, countries, and
industries, which will help to generalize the findings and identify where
these biases are more or less problematic"

~~~
cgriswald
> You're beginning to sound like a conspiracy nut.

If I sound that way to you, it's probably because of your own biases.

> The paper is very upfront that more studies should be done in other
> countries:

You aren't even addressing the part of the paper I criticized. You haven't
even acknowledged it exists, but you expect to, what, convince me or others
that I'm wrong by throwing random quotes my way and calling me names?

~~~
nimblegorilla
The quote I provided shows that the authors want other people to study the US
or other countries to see if the results apply in a general manner. The paper
in no way attempts to generalize the US other than that large companies
typically track the sorts of data which would make similar studies possible.

~~~
cgriswald
> The paper in no way attempts to generalize the US other than that large
> companies typically track the sorts of data which would make similar studies
> possible.

In the section 3.1 Institutional Context, the paper explicitly compares the
bank and the country to firms in the United States and the United States
respectively over a handful of values. There's no explanation given for why
the United States specifically was compared against nor is rationale given for
the selection or exclusion of points of comparison. A reader has to conclude
that they felt these were the relevant points of comparison because these were
the things likely to affect their results.

This necessarily implies generalization. Any other interpretation can only
make sense if we disbelieve their results or find their comparison criteria
between firms and countries lacking.

~~~
nimblegorilla
Also from that section "we do not want to claim that the evidence is
representative of the world"

~~~
cgriswald
I acknowledged that disclaimer in my first post and in some of my subsequent
posts. I really think you're arguing in bad faith here.

------
brenden2
When I hear about studies like this (about hot issues) it always makes me
wonder what sort of studies that go against the current social norms are _not_
being published because they make some people uncomfortable. Most of the pop
science these days seems to be about confirming existing biases/assumptions of
the current zeitgeist.

~~~
goto11
For issues such as this, results in _either_ direction will make some people
uncomfortable or even angry. Some people will be enraged by the suggestion
there is systemic bias against women, while other people will be enraged by
the suggestion that there isn't. This is what makes the issue a "hot button"
or flame bait issue.

~~~
chatmasta
The real issue is people becoming “enraged” in response to reading something
on the internet. We can hardly control what comes to our attention. By
responding emotionally to anything that rises to our attention, we cede
control of our emotions to outside actors.

~~~
goto11
Only if you don't consider bias an actual problem. If it is an actual problem
then surely that would be the "the real issue", not the secondary effect of
people getting angry about it?

------
malvosenior
> _We collaborated with a large commercial bank in Asia that has millions of
> customers, billions of dollars in assets and in revenues, and thousands of
> employees._

I don't know that using an Asian bank for the study is going to give you
results that translate at all to the western world. Very different business
and interpersonal cultures.

The study seems pretty biased from the get go. They claim that lack of female
participation at the higher levels of the corporate food chain is due to
discrimination without even talking about women dropping out of the workplace
at a higher rate to have children (or any other conflicting points of view).
Seems like junk "science".

~~~
Miner49er
> The claim that lack of female participation at the higher levels of the
> corporate food chain are due to discrimination without even talking about
> women dropping out of the workplace at a higher rate to have children (or
> any other conflicting points of view).

Is that not a form of discrimination? Men have kids and still get promoted.

~~~
malvosenior
If it's voluntary, it's not discrimination. Men have kids, but they don't quit
their jobs to become stay at home dads at nearly the rate women do.

~~~
Miner49er
Well there's a difference between having kids and staying at home.

Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender
roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the
economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through
the ranks of management at some cooperation.

~~~
malvosenior
> _Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender
> roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the
> economy itself; we don 't value raising kids as much as we value rising
> through the ranks of management at some cooperation._

Aren't these statements at odd with one another? When you value raising kids
at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women
chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice
that's highly valued by many. I think being a CEO or being a grandparent can
both be viewed as successful in our society, they shouldn't really be compared
directly though.

~~~
behringer
Also it's rather insulting to say that men progressing through their careers
means they don't want to raise their children. I would say many, if not most,
men rise strive for promotion for no other reason than to raise their children
better...

~~~
ghettoimp
Surely a man who is successful in his career can support his children in many
ways. This is undoubtedly important to many men.

But most men who strive for promotions surely have many reasons other than
their children. Who doesn't want {appreciation, autonomy, status, money, ...}
just for the sake of their own ego, identity, power, etc.?

------
cushychicken
>based on the anecdotal evidence that employees who smoke tend to spend more
time together. We find that when male employees who smoke switch to male
managers who smoke, they spend more of their breaks with their managers and
are promoted faster in the following years.

One possible subtext of this is that men are much more susceptible to
promoting those that _befriend_ them than anything else.

Sure punches a hole in the old (but not necessarily correct!) cultural adage
that women are predominantly the approval-seeking gender.

~~~
shantly
Depending on what the interactions are like, it might fit well with the
stereotype of men being extremely vulnerable to even blatant ego-stroking.

------
mothsonasloth
As a developer the traditional Old Boys clubs (Freemasons, Rotary, Golf club
etc.) don't really appeal to me as they seem outdated or for traditional
professions, are they still relevant?

Is there a freemasons equivalent for the tech scene?

Are there masons in Silicon Valley?

Maybe we could create a new society, the SiliconMasons, FreeBSDers? :P

~~~
yowlingcat
Sad to say this, but if you have to ask, it's likely part of the reason you're
not a member. The societies certainly still exist, and the relationships that
are built there continue from higher education pedigree-ing to drive high-
level capital allocation. You'll most closely see this in the management and
leadership structure at large companies and venture capital firms.

Folks try with varying attempts to create powerful secret societies in today's
highly digital age, but they continue to be successful for the same reasons
they always were -- the patronage of the wealthy and powerful. The highly
stratified economic classes in the tech scene ensure this would remain the
case.

If you're not part of this class but want to look into collective action, what
you're looking for may not be a masonic society but a union.

------
jayd16
I'm sure the comments will be awash with meta-discussion about social justice
but I just want to point out the article does give evidence to some career
advice I've always had.

Take a coffee break with your boss's smoke break. Daily, relaxed, and agenda
free one on one meetings with your seniors/bosses will do wonders.

~~~
downerending
Outstanding advice. Now, how do I get my boss to start smoking?

------
mekane8
In my first office job I remember thinking that I should take up smoking, not
just because my coworkers were heading downstairs all the time to take breaks,
but because the HR higher-ups were smokers too. My office-mates who smoked
always had the latest office gossip and knew what was coming down the pike
long before the rest of us!

------
gist
Side point is that it's hard to believe that there isn't a group of women who
got promoted or advanced because the men they worked under found them
appealing or nice to be around (in a non sexual relationship way).

------
cpr
Non-smokers are being discriminated against! I call foul! ;-)

------
CryptoPunk
Looks like a business opportunity. Implement an organizational structure which
corrects for socialization effects in promotion decisions and you will gain a
competitive advantage over the majority of firms.

~~~
goto11
Easier said than done though. Such biases are typically not conscious, so
everyone already think they are being unbiased in promotions.

~~~
raxxorrax
And probably completely irrelevant if managers know the person to be promoted
directly. You don't rely on biases, you rely on the info you have on that
person. Maybe relevant in huge companies, but I would doubt that too.

~~~
goto11
> You don't rely on biases, you rely on the info you have on that person.

Well this is the crux of the problem. Do you really rely on an objective
evaluation, or are you influenced by cues which you think indicates competency
but actually just (say) indicate class or subculture background?

------
really2020
The bar is so much lower for men than for women. For a man to be promoted by
another man all you have to do is enjoy going out for a beer (or as the
article mentions a smoke). This is not some societal male backlash, it is
actually how things work. The level of incompetence that a man can exhibit and
still get promoted is astounding. Probably the reason why women promote men
less frequently is that women have higher standards, since they themselves are
held to higher standards.

~~~
commandlinefan
That's not even remotely true.

~~~
filoleg
Yeah, I definitely sense some saltiness in the parent comment. While he is
right that it is totally possible to encounter such a workplace, i would argue
that if you control for the gender disparity in the workplace, it becomes just
as likely to encounter such a situation, but with genders switched. And even
then, neither of those two scenarios are more likely than just straight up a
regular workplace where a boss straight up doesn’t care about your gender and
promotes based on the usual “business impact, performance, team impact”
metrics.

I realize this is just an anecdote, but my previous team was over 50% women
(the boss was a female as well), while my current team is much more male
dominated, and i have noticed pretty much zero differences when it comes to
promotions and the breakdown of those when it comes to gender. Talking about
my old team, it had the typical subgroups, like high performers who got
promoted fast, slightly slower performers, people who were temporarily in a
performance rut (who eventually got out of it), etc. And I observed no
anomalies in gender disparities between all those groups, as they were pretty
gender balanced and (imo) very fair, given my knowledge.

