Female Hiring Targets

hots

Nermal wrote: »

Why is the 'pool' being 10:90 a problem in the first place?

I had 'might' in there deliberately, it might not be a problem, but I'd want to be looking into the reasons for the disparity, if there's nothing untoward going on and everyone is getting the same chance and same push to take that path and it's still 90:10 then happy days...

the-island-man

Here is a pretty interesting read. A fair and balanced article from the Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/2013/10/the-trouble-with-gender-targets

and before AndrewJRenko comes back stating that it's an article written in the American context I would like to say that I don't agree with him. We are one of the biggest beneficiaries from US Foreign Direct Investment in Europe and I don't agree that U.S workplace culture doesn't at least permeate into American MNC's based in Ireland. I think most people who have worked in MNC's would agree that most of the culture comes from the mothership!

the-island-man

km991148 wrote: »

It does appear to be an oxymoron for sure! But obviously context is key and discrimination isn't equatable to racism in that context - but that term is jarring a bit.

Of course its only one subset of "affirmative" action - and all of them are problematic in one way or another.

Upon thinking about this I'm not so sure it isn't equatable in this context? The larger "diversity" mantra which a lot of "progressive" companies are trying to follow could be described as "positive racism" against Caucasians just that they found a better label for it?!

Fred Cryton

Gender quotas imply with absolute certainty that the quality of the hire will go down. This can be proved mathematically by looking at a) the pool of women interested in a field, for example only 20% of STEM graduates are female, and b) by looking at the distribution of intelligence. The male IQ distirbution has much fatter tails at the extremes. When we look at the 99 percentile of intelligence, men outnumber women by around 9 to 1. So is it any wonder that CEOs and top engineering jobs will be held by men. This is the reality of the situation. Wishful thinking won't change that.

km991148

the-island-man wrote: »

Upon thinking about this I'm not so sure it isn't equatable in this context? The larger "diversity" mantra which a lot of "progressive" companies are trying to follow could be described as "positive racism" against Caucasians just that they found a better label for it?!

Well if you really want to switch gears to race then this type of policy generally benefits the white population. Keeping everyone divided and fighting it out etc

km991148

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Gender quotas imply with absolute certainty that the quality of the hire will go down. This can be proved mathematically by looking at a) the pool of women interested in a field, for example only 20% of STEM graduates are female, and b) by looking at the distribution of intelligence. The male IQ distirbution has much fatter tails at the extremes. When we look at the 99 percentile of intelligence, men outnumber women by around 9 to 1. So is it any wonder that CEOs and top engineering jobs will be held by men. This is the reality of the situation. Wishful thinking won't change that.

None of what you wrote is backed up by any mathematical proof that you offered..

Too many variables and untested assumptions there, including, but not limited to:
-Reasons behind why STEM numbers are lower for women
-How quality is measured, does raw intelligence equate to 'better' in general? Even in engineering Christ, even measuring intelligence is not a simple task!)?
-Assuming the top CEO job is related to ability (it's by far not the sole requirement).

This is the reality of the situation.

Smee_Again

Fred Cryton wrote: »

So is it any wonder that CEOs and top engineering jobs will be held by men.

Probably more to do with increased rates of psychopathic tendencies in men.

Outkast_IRE

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If the situation you describe does happen, the employer will find themselves making substantial payouts to discrimination claims at the Workplace Relations Commission before too long.

How would you expect this to happen , the other candidates will never know and management will all be very careful with any notes or documentation.

Buddy Bubs

It's nearly all just paying lip service to the quotas, for a press release or a tweet or something. Best people get the jobs and that's that.
Huge amount of jobs women don't want to do but they are being told they should be pursuing these careers.

the-island-man

Smee_Again wrote: »

Probably more to do with increased rates of psychopathic tendencies in men.

References to any studies to back that statement up?

km991148

the-island-man wrote: »

References to any studies to back that statement up?

There are actually studies on the tendancy for those psychopathic traits succeeding at top level, but you'll need to take it at face value as I'm working off memory and not links. Need to DYOR a bit, but you should find them easily enough.

Fred Cryton

Smee_Again wrote: »

Probably more to do with increased rates of psychopathic tendencies in men.

No doubt true. Men are also more willing to work the insane hours required to get ahead in a corporate setting.



But if you#re not in the top few percentile of intelligence to begin with, you probably won't make it near the top in the first place. And that applies to men and women. Another hard fact.

Smee_Again

the-island-man wrote: »

References to any studies to back that statement up?

21% of CEO's are psychopaths - its a WaPo article but I can't really be bothered looking for much better, plenty of literature on there out the topic. The post I replied to wasn't referenced so it was a bit of a flippant reply.

I remember reading a paper that put the incidence rate among women at between 0.3 - 0.7 to that of men, but I can't find it now but combining those 2 was the basis for my statement.

Fred Cryton

km991148 wrote: »

None of what you wrote is backed up by any mathematical proof that you offered..

Too many variables and untested assumptions there, including, but not limited to:
-Reasons behind why STEM numbers are lower for women
-How quality is measured, does raw intelligence equate to 'better' in general? Even in engineering Christ, even measuring intelligence is not a simple task!)?
-Assuming the top CEO job is related to ability (it's by far not the sole requirement).

This is the reality of the situation.

Notice you're trying to throw mud at IQ tests, used reliably for decades around the world, because you don't like the result ;-)

km991148

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Notice you're trying to throw mud at IQ tests, used reliably for decades around the world, because you don't like the result ;-)

hmm ok, again your theory doesn't stand up - but that's ok - I don't expect everyone to understand scientific methods (or even how facts work) - doesn't matter how many winky faces you add!

There was no rampant conjecture in my post.

AndrewJRenko

hots wrote: »

And I've been in hiring cases where any close calls we were strongly encouraged to remember our diversity targets and make selections based on that, large MNC, 25/30 people given the same instruction for the hiring process - in case a specific example makes my opinion more acceptable.

You'd want to be a spectacularly dumb HR or senior manager to give an instruction to 25/30 people that would breach current employment law. It's only a matter of time before some of those 25/30 people are going to be on the other side of the interview table, going for internal promotions etc. If they know their employer is breaking the law, the employer is very exposed.

Making selections based on diversity targets when all other things are equal in terms of the quality of the candidate is legal. In any other circumstance, it could well constitute discrimination.

the-island-man wrote: »

Here is a pretty interesting read. A fair and balanced article from the Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/2013/10/the-trouble-with-gender-targets

and before AndrewJRenko comes back stating that it's an article written in the American context I would like to say that I don't agree with him. We are one of the biggest beneficiaries from US Foreign Direct Investment in Europe and I don't agree that U.S workplace culture doesn't at least permeate into American MNC's based in Ireland. I think most people who have worked in MNC's would agree that most of the culture comes from the mothership!

Did you read the article? It doesn't recommend getting rid of gender targets. It recommends positioning them as part of strategic organisational development;

So while many organizations focus initially on targets, they usually wake up at some point to the fact that targets need to be integrated into a more strategic story. Gender balancing for its own sake doesn’t make sense to most managers. If you don’t take the time to make sense of the push for balance, you can create a backlash.

Of course US MNCs bring their management culture to Ireland. Then they operate within Irish employment law, which bans positive discrimination.

the-island-man wrote: »

Upon thinking about this I'm not so sure it isn't equatable in this context? The larger "diversity" mantra which a lot of "progressive" companies are trying to follow could be described as "positive racism" against Caucasians just that they found a better label for it?!

You can label it whatever you like. That doesn't change Irish employment law, which bans positive discrimination.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Gender quotas imply with absolute certainty that the quality of the hire will go down. This can be proved mathematically by looking at a) the pool of women interested in a field, for example only 20% of STEM graduates are female, and b) by looking at the distribution of intelligence. The male IQ distirbution has much fatter tails at the extremes. When we look at the 99 percentile of intelligence, men outnumber women by around 9 to 1. So is it any wonder that CEOs and top engineering jobs will be held by men. This is the reality of the situation. Wishful thinking won't change that.

Given that there are no gender quotas in Ireland, your questionable claims are moot. I really wonder about your claimed direct link between IQ and position on the corporate ladder. What about EQ, what about sales ability, what about functional ability, what about the old school tie and the golden circle?

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

How would you expect this to happen , the other candidates will never know and management will all be very careful with any notes or documentation.

Discrimination claims happen all the time
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/search/?decisions=1&q=gender%20discrimination%20recruitment
If management are dumb enough to think they can get away with discrimination, they're probably dumb enough to screw up their notetaking and paperwork too.

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

Huge amount of jobs women don't want to do but they are being told they should be pursuing these careers.

Which jobs are women that women don't want to do are they being told they should be pursuing?

hots

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You'd want to be a spectacularly dumb HR or senior manager to give an instruction to 25/30 people that would breach current employment law. It's only a matter of time before some of those 25/30 people are going to be on the other side of the interview table, going for internal promotions etc. If they know their employer is breaking the law, the employer is very exposed.

That's the reality, and absolutely for the internal promotions piece, the target for the next rank is 50:50, the existing mix is 70:30 and the mix of those as a potential for the promotion is similar, meaning the majority of promotions have to come from the 30, and that's exactly what happens/ed.

the-island-man

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117605122#Comment_117605122

I don't agree with the summary you've given of that article at all. It states that it's better to seek Employee buy in and engage with the staff before simply applying gender targets.

AndrewJRenko

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117605782#Comment_117605782

I'd want to see the exact wording of the HR guidance on this, because the position represented here would almost certainly break the law.

AndrewJRenko

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117612063#Comment_117612063

Broadly yes. It is not against gender targets. It is suggesting the best approach to implementing gender targets.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117605122#Comment_117605122

As far as I know, there is no general legal basis, it's more down to the company or the industry one is in how things are lived in practical life. What I have seen in these regards is that this leads often to reverse discrimination to the male. It often bothers me if a new job is filled with a women, just to fulfill any kind of a quote system to employ more women. And then some companies or industries ( especially the IT sector ) is pretty active in creating things like "women's work day" or "women in the IT sector" etc.. but there is no equivalent for the male. Increasingly I feel discriminated as a man in the IT industry.

20 years ago, these things were a lot easier and quite possibly a lot fairer.

Workplaces haven't really gotten any better by HR introducing these mesures to increase women in the workforce.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117966155#Comment_117966155

What companies have a quota system to employ more women?

What's the gender balance numbers like in your company and your industry?

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117968237#Comment_117968237

In the American IT industry. I don't think that there is a quota system per se, also I don't have an insight into HR matters, but there is certainly an emphasis on that under the whole "diversity and inclusion doctrine". Not that diversity and inclusion is wrong, but that constant blabber about it doesn't make the environment any better and increasingly makes one as a man feel discriminated. Discrimination is to me not something which is to be picked out of a pre-defined catalogue but more something which is felt.

Not that diversity and inclusion is wrong, but that constant blabber about it doesn't make the environment any better and increasingly makes one as a man feel discriminated.

I'd love to be able to say that a gender diversity initiative should make the work environment better for everyone. Sometimes it does. But sometimes in order to give women space in a room, men need to give up some of their space. You can't always have an 'everybody wins' scenario, especially when there are limits to the resources/opportunities available. I can understand how it might feel like discrimination, or like you're being stereotyped as privileged/the bad guy, but surely you can relate this to how discrimination feels for women and use it to gain a bit of perspective?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117968255#Comment_117968255

Great, so no quotas then, good to have put that old canard to bed.

So what is the gender representation within the American IT industry? What is the gender representation in the C-suite? What was it like 20 years ago, better or worse?

the-island-man

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117970579#Comment_117970579

What a load of nonsense. If you want equality across the board then there should be an equal obligation to reach parity across all industries. Would Females be willing to take up 50% of the roles in both dangerous and physically demanding sectors such as construction, Freight transportation and Taxi driving to name a few?

These diversity and gender targets seem to be very focused on office roles which will inevitably lead to discrimination against white males in that industry.

Donald Trump

Let's see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxM8gCw_H0k

On a serious note, I worked in a large organisation with concrete "Diversity and Inclusion" targets. (Not in Ireland). It caused havoc. The main reason being that people were hired by managers - sometimes to be managers - who did not have the basic skills to do the job. But their managers needed to tick the boxes for their own targets so everyone had to suck it up. The useless ones couldn't be gotten rid of because then it would affect their line manager's metrics. I would not like to be in a similar environment again.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982539#Comment_117982539

I genuinely can't see how your point relates to mine.

As an aside, thanks for making me chuckle at your use of "Females" - haha! Those pesky Females, trying to steal our jobs and our wimmen.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117970719#Comment_117970719

The thing is, that "gender representation" as you call it wasn't any different 20 years ago, it was actually the same. It's just the language around it which has gotten worse. Lot's of discussion about "diversity and inclusion" or "anti discrimination" but the reality around it has gotten worse. Females just getting hired to fulfill a quota regulation but not having the right qualifications, or discrimination being a list of things to pick from what discrimination actually means, but not how you'd feel personally if you're discriminated against' but it's not on that "pre-defined list of what they consider discrimination".

Career perspectives in IT for women were great even 20 years ago, same as for immigrants, people of various colour and or different backgrounds, but the current attitude and shallow talk makes things worse, often resulting in reverse discrimination for men.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118015318#Comment_118015318

Are you sure it wasn't any different in the past? This suggests that things were worse in the past than they are now.

https://m.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/more-women-holding-top-roles-in-ireland-but-gender-balance-action-must-not-be-rushed-37886508.html

Did you speak to many women in coming to your conclusion?