Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
1–10 of 124 posts
Re: Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
#2Tldr: the claim is that when male managers are faced with stack ranking employees, they will often choose male reports over female reports due to sexist bias.
Re: Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
#3Tldr: the claim is that when male managers are faced with stack ranking employees, they will often choose male reports over female reports due to sexist bias.
If I take that at face value doesn't that mean any performance evaluation system would be flawed so long as a man is in charge of it? (Assuming that women don't also rate women higher)
>“This pay-for-performance system is fundamentally flawed,” Tavis said in an interview. “The performance element is very subjective.”
What is the alternative?
Re: Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
#4Tldr: the claim is that when male managers are faced with stack ranking employees, they will often choose male reports over female reports due to sexist bias.
I don't know if the article is too long, but "due to sexist bias" is certainly too short to give it justice.
The specific problem with stack ranking is the one-on-one ranking method. I'm absolutely convinced that I myself would succumb to all sorts of biases when asked to rate people like that: I'd tend to think the silent, introvert guy who stays late and has no fashion sense is smarter than the outgoing jock leaving at 5pm sharp to be with his family. I'd somehow convince myself that the guy I enjoy eating lunch with is more important than the Belgian guy who doesn't speak english well enough to socialise... The article makes a similar point: “My observation was whoever was the best orator got their people ranked higher.”
On aggregate, it's quite obvious that these biases could amount to gender-specific discrimination, even if not a single evaluator had gender on their minds.
Re: Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
#5Tldr: the claim is that when male managers are faced with stack ranking employees, they will often choose male reports over female reports due to sexist bias.
I don't know if the article is too long, but "due to sexist bias" is certainly too short to give it justice. The specific problem with stack ranking is the one-on-one ranking method. I'm absolutely convinced that I myself would succumb to all sorts of biases when asked to rate people like that: I'd tend to think the silent, introvert guy who stays late and has no fashion sense is smarter than the outgoing jock leavin…
True. I would have done better if I had omitted the word "sexist" and simply said "due to biases".
Re: Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
#6Lol, lame reasoning. What happened to iron clad empirical evidence before suing? Oh I guess that was never the case, eh?
Re: Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
#7At this point, any company that thinks stack ranking is a decent idea just needs to die.
Re: Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
#8At this point, any company that thinks stack ranking is a decent idea just needs to die.
I wouldn't go that far, but I agree stack ranking is a really bad idea.
Uber seems to be full of bad ideas, so maybe it's a good fit.
Re: Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
#9I think there is a growing problem in our society, or at least what appears in media, wherein any systematic discrepancy is blamed automatically on some kind of discrimination, without consideration of the possibility for consistent differences in merit between subpopulations.
Re: Uber's Employee Ratings Put Women at a Disadvantage, Suit Says
#10Lol, lame reasoning. What happened to iron clad empirical evidence before suing? Oh I guess that was never the case, eh?
You are correct, even if you meant to be trolling. It was never the case that suing required iron clad empirical evidence. Civil cases in the United States use the "preponderance of evidence" standard, not the "iron clad" standard you just made up.