This explanation summarizes why tech companies lack diversity. Sampling bias at its best. This logic is a smart persons way of saying you only want to hire people similar to those you've already hired.
I do some work on this personally. I'm just not allowed to discuss the details at present.
(The reasons why I'm not allowed to discuss this are due to tedious bureaucracy, not anything interesting. I have tried to get that changed, but it would require more effort than I am willing to expend on a problem that will go away in time.)
Even when large organization do look at the data, they are reluctant to share it, even internally. I applaud your efforts and hope are tracking the results.
For instance, say you notice your workforce is strongly biased against one population group, like female software engineers [1].
In that case:
a) Set a target for the proportion of female software engineers you want to hire.
b) Stop hiring male engineers at the point where hiring more would make you miss your female-engineer target.
c) Keep hiring only female engineers until you hit your target.
In principle, that might cause some concern among male engineers who could feel discriminated against.
In practice however, google and all other tech companies are already employing that process, except they do so informally (one hopes) and the groups they hire for are not the ones usually included in "diversity"- for instance, according to [1] 72% of tech workers at google are male, vs 50% ish in the general population.
Additionally, when it comes to google specifically, recruiters are supposed to actively go after "the best", so it shouldn't be a problem for that company in particular to go after the best female people.
In fact, that google targets its hires and yet it ends up with a strong bias towards a specific kind of engineer is a very good example of how not to do diversity.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/20/9179853/tech-diversity-sco...
The problem with your idea is that it's illegal and a law suit waiting to happen.
You simply can't hire someone because of their sex.
Yes, deliberately. The fact there's inequality in the distribution, when there is no good reason for it is evidence of some sort of bias in the selection process.
>> For whatever reason, the majority is of a particular gender.
For the reason that there is inequality between the two genders in society. You don't need to grasp for metaphysical explanations when you already know the two genders are treated differently in employment (as in many other matters).
If it's unconscious bias, it's not deliberate. And it's much more than just selection bias, it's also a cultural/social issue. It happens way before someone enters the workforce.
>>> For the reason that there is inequality between the two genders in society.
I'm not denying that.
The bias might be unconscious, but the tendency to avoid hiring people from a certain group is entirely conscious. The person subject to the bias will find a way to rationalise and therefore justify their tendency to hire fewer of that group- "in my experience, most A candidates are not fit for the role" or "maybe group A is just not very good at this role because of human evolution" etc.
>> It happens way before someone enters the workforce.
It's 2016. That excuse -the whole "it's society's fault"- died sometime last century, when society's attention was drawn to the issues of gender inequality for the first time. We all know there are issues, we all know to keep an eye out for them- those of use who care about that sort of thing anyway.
As to the tech companies in particular, they don't have much of an excuse because the lack of diversity in their workplaces has often been pointed out.
That statement doesn't make sense. Avoiding to hire people from a certain group is bias by definition. How can it be unconscious and conscious at the same time?
>>> It's 2016. That excuse -the whole "it's society's fault"- died sometime last century
What are you talking about, there's absolutely a cultural and societal element here.
>>> those of use who care about that sort of thing anyway
Oh get off your high horse. Some of us just don't recommend breaking the law to fix this.
Your solution to tech diversity is overly simplistic and unhelpful. Not to mention sexist and ILLEGAL.
At best, it would solve equality of outcome, but not equality of opportunity. Women might still be discriminated against during interviews, but "that's OK because we filled our quota for this year" ?! How is that fixing the problem?
Just curious, would you ask other industries to do the same and implement these quota requirements? Would you impose that sewage workers reach 50% gender parity?
Also btw- "my idea" is not mine at all. It's the method of gender (and also race etc) quotas, already utilised in some countries.
Those are also countries that have very strict regulations about gender (etc) discrimination so it's perfectly possible to have legislation that hinders discrimination and supports equal treatment at the same time.
Think about it, if it was that easy, why aren't these tech giants already doing it?
Why are they even publishing these numbers then? Even when it's not helping their image.
Besides, "diversity of ideas" is not the point. There is no such thing in the industry anyway (see "Uber for X" or "Facebook for Y" etc). The point of what I suggest above, essentialy imposing a quota to "help" companies hire more of the kind of people they currently don't, is to give more opportunities to those groups, not to help companies increase their bottom line.
Because increasing companies' bottom line is a goal of companies, not a goal of society. Society must ensure that all its members are treated fairly and have equal opportunities (an opinion, of course and you may disagree). Whether company Z makes a few more bucks or not is of no consequence, as long as the whole community prospers together.
And there's no way for the whole community to prosper together when half of it (at best) is traditionally excluded from the best paid jobs.
Edit: also, from my POV as a soft eng, the idea of using only half of your resources (in this case, people) because you are unwilling to challenge some centuries-old tradition that says the other half is not as good, is bloody stupid and very, very inefficient. It's up there with forcing left-handed kids to learn to write with their right hand because the left one is "bad". Or something.