Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Twitter beats its 2016 diversity goals but its workforce is still predominantly white Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    4. No ****. The point though is that cognitive bias exists...
    The science on that point is dubious at best.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Just finished reading the first page. Why do people assume that hiring for diversity necessarily lowers standards? If diversity were the sole goal, it would be fairly easy to achieve. The fact they are slow in these targets is because they are hiring both diverse and skilled people.

    The only valid point I saw was by Sephiroth "Why on earth should there be an equal number of all races in the workplace when they don't make up an equal number of a country's population?" Although I would caveat that by saying even if a minority just makes up say 10%, if the country is large enough that 10% would be more than large enough a pool for any single company to achieve diversity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Why do people assume that hiring for diversity necessarily lowers standards?
    Because if you're hiring for diversity, you aren't hiring for standards. I guarantee you that if you stop hiring for standards then standards will go down. Best case scenario they stagnate at where they are, but then your competition improves and then your standards have gone down relative to the rest of the market.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    1. Do you think women being underrepresented in tech is an issue? Why?
    As long as recruitment is fair and there is no bias, no I do not think it is an issue.

    2. Why do you have to compare a woman's issue every time to a man's issue? When your friend tells you about a problem do you listen and engage or do you start talking about how that one time you had that issue?
    I am commenting on a noticeable double-standard which is relevant to the thread.

    3. No, it seems women want to be tech but men don't want to be in nursing.
    Based on what?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Twitter has revealed that it has surpassed the modest workforce diversity targets it set for 2016, but the company has admitted it still has work to do when it comes to the representation of women and minorities within its walls.

    The social network's most recent diversity update noted that 37% of its 3000 staff are women, coming in at 2% above its goal for this year. Women in leadership positions are now 5% above target at 30%.

    Underrepresented minorities comprise 11% of Twitter's workforce and while just 9% of these work in tech roles the numbers align with the firm's 2016 diversity blueprint.

    In 2016 Twitter went from having no underrepresented minorities in leadership positions to having racial and ethnic minorities make up 6% of the its leadership.

    While its progress is limited, Twitter says it hopes the incremental changes will have a long-term impact.

    “Our commitment to inclusion and diversity is fundamental to who we are and crucial to the effectiveness of our service,” Jeffrey Siminoff, Twitter’s vice-president of inclusion and diversity wrote in a blog post, adding that "one-and-done measurements" don’t apply at the company and as such it is setting new representation goals for 2017.

    Twitter's projected diversity goals for the next twelve months include a commitment to boost women and minority staff working within its walls.

    "We know that the effects of our actions - many of which were new for 2016 -cannot be immediate," Siminoff continued. "We are focused on sustained efforts that will help us draw more diverse talent, create great experiences and careers, and foster a culture of belonging that fully lives up to the spirit of community on Twitter itself."

    The tech community has been under pressure in recent years to make its workforce less male and white, with Facebook recently blaming a lack of talent rising up through the ranks for its poor diversity figures.

    http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/01/...ntly-white-and

    Its good that there is some progress towards diversity, but this progress is too slow. It seems like Twitter is dragging its feet. Thoughts?
    I don't care if the entire Twitter workforce are card carrying Klan members who like to burn a cross on the front lawn every lunch break. All that matters to me is they do their job to the highest standard.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Why the hell is this important? The 'diversity' of a company does not matter one iota. They just use it to flaunt how 'progressive' they are. It's PC peacocking. That's all it is.

    No one should be hired because of their race, gender or sexuality. All this does is discriminate against candidates who would be better for the job because they just happen to be from the 'wrong' demographic. It's so backward and ironically racist/sexist.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    As long as recruitment is fair and there is no bias, no I do not think it is an issue.



    I am commenting on a noticeable double-standard which is relevant to the thread.



    Based on what?
    Studies have shown such bias does exist.

    It is not a double standard. That is just your way of having an excuse to justify your not caring.

    Based on the fact that men aren't taking action but women are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Because if you're hiring for diversity, you aren't hiring for standards. I guarantee you that if you stop hiring for standards then standards will go down. Best case scenario they stagnate at where they are, but then your competition improves and then your standards have gone down relative to the rest of the market.
    Absolutely

    Roughly translated.....

    "If you hire the disabled lesbian from a minority ethnic background so you can tick a diversity quota box the competing firm down the road will hire the white bloke who REALLY knows wtf he is doing"

    About right?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    I don't care if the entire Twitter workforce are card carrying Klan members who like to burn a cross on the front lawn every lunch break. All that matters to me is they do their job to the highest standard.
    And who says diversity necessarily leads to hiring less capable applicants?

    What if a more diverse team is actually the better team, even if on an individual level some are slightly less capable?

    You whole "all that matters is meritocracy" bunch are hilarious to read.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm so confused, Diversity isn't about putting people there for show of equality. Maybe all the people there have the right qualifications and it has nothing to do with skin colour?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    And who says diversity necessarily leads to hiring less capable applicants?

    What if a more diverse team is actually the better team, even if on an individual level some are slightly less capable?

    You whole "all that matters is meritocracy" bunch are hilarious to read.
    I don't think it should rely on diversity alone. I think you should look at all their CV's and choose who you think is more suited for the job and if you end up with a team then that is the team. Its not racist to not hire someone who doesn't meet criteria.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    You're full of ****.

    You do it because you like the yummy feeling you get in your tummy when you show the world just how compassionate you are.
    lmao.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viffer)
    Absolutely

    Roughly translated.....

    "If you hire the disabled lesbian from a minority ethnic background so you can tick a diversity quota box the competing firm down the road will hire the white bloke who REALLY knows wtf he is doing"

    About right?
    Well, I mean, it's problematic and racist. But apart from that. 😎
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LisaNikita)
    I don't think it should rely on diversity alone. I think you should look at all their CV's and choose who you think is more suited for the job and if you end up with a team then that is the team. Its not racist to not hire someone who doesn't meet criteria.
    My team 2.5 years ago was a single female. Now there are 6, after we "hired for diversity". We actively targeted and grew the number of women, which has gone up drastically. Based on what you lot are saying, we should now have a less talented team, because obviously we hired the women just to fulfill quotas, right? What a joke.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    My team 2.5 years ago was a single female. Now there are 6, after we "hired for diversity". We actively targeted and grew the number of women, which has gone up drastically. Based on what you lot are saying, we should now have a less talented team, because obviously we hired the women just to fulfill quotas, right? What a joke.
    The point you seem to be missing is that it might be even more talented if you had not restricted the appointments to just females to achieve diversity.

    Your objective was primarily a different gender mix, not necessarily excellence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    My team 2.5 years ago was a single female. Now there are 6, after we "hired for diversity". We actively targeted and grew the number of women, which has gone up drastically. Based on what you lot are saying, we should now have a less talented team, because obviously we hired the women just to fulfill quotas, right? What a joke.
    clearly not what i said. But you did say "actively targeted" which basically means you are excluding other groups for your "diverse" team.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)

    Based on the fact that men aren't taking action but women are.
    But it's the companies who are "taking action". Twitter is actively trying to recruit more minorities and women. What do you mean by "men aren't taking action but women are". What action are women taking? It's the companies taking the "action", not the women who are applying.

    Using your logic, the NHS should "hire for diversity", and specifically hire more male nurses. Would I support that? No, it is sexist.

    And why should I care about "diversity"? As long as the best applicants are getting hired, that's all that matters.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    might as well just replace the word white with evil. because thats how the media wants us to be represented.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    might as well just replace the word white with evil. because thats how the media wants us to be represented.
    That's a huge exaggeration lol
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viffer)
    The point you seem to be missing is that it might be even more talented if you had not restricted the appointments to just females to achieve diversity.

    Your objective was primarily a different gender mix, not necessarily excellence.
    Might have been better.

    Might have ended up worse, too.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.