11–20 of 23 posts
Recently the board voted against recommendations made by employees to increase diversity. It's pretty clear what priority the Google board gives to diversity, which is their right even if wrong.
It's higher across the board for men versus women (and the gap is wider for tech roles but no figures were given here). And for ethnicity in 2017, attrition was highest for Black Googlers followed by Latinx Googlers, and lowest for Asian Googlers.
Interestingly:
- p38 says that 42.1% of 'Senior Leadership's staff are female
- p39 shows the real number (35.7%). It seems like on page 38 they define senior leadership as around 3000 people, rather than the smaller (and less diverse) group that has the actual senior management job grades (SM1 and SM2).
- The report has almost no historical information. The top level actuals are compared with targets, but the only numbers that are compared with, e.g. 2014, are things like # apprentices.
Is there evidence supporting Google denies diverse hires of the same skill levels at others in the position? Or is this just a byproduct of our countries failures and all the best computer scientist applying at Google are actually white males? Should Google attempt to diversity hire less skilled individuals for the sake of changing the status quo? Would that even change the status quo?
Is there evidence supporting Google denies diverse hires of the same skill levels at others in the position? Or is this just a byproduct of our countries failures and all the best computer scientist applying at Google are actually white males? Should Google attempt to diversity hire less skilled individuals for the sake of changing the status quo? Would that even change the status quo?
Anyone who has been hired, or has hired other people, know that recruitment is terrible and includes huge amounts of randomness and you are - hopefully - avoiding terrible candidates from a pool of qualified candidate.
Given that, it makes sense to change the random factors of recruitment that select against women to be selecting for a few more women. So long as you're still mostly achieving the previous avoidance of terrible candidates.
I've always found it curious how asians are treated as honorary whites when it comes to talking about diversity in American companies. This is the most egregious example.
If you go to Google's own diversity report the breakdown becomes 36.3% asian and 53.1% white. Considering white people maybe up like three quarters of the population in the US they're actually under represented at Google, ironically.
Report: https://diversity.google/annual-report/#!#_our-workforce
41% of 2017 hires were asians [1] while being only 5% of the population [2].
1: https://diversity.google/annual-report/ 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit...
> In the US almost 90% were white or Asian, 2.5% were black and 3.6% Latin American. I've always found it curious how asians are treated as honorary whites when it comes to talking about diversity in American companies. This is the most egregious example. If you go to Google's own diversity report the breakdown becomes 36.3% asian and 53.1% white. Considering white people maybe up like three quarters of the populatio…
And if not everyone is at 50%, it’s obviously the fault of all the racist and sexist white men everywhere.