It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
hbswk.hbs.edu
It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
1–10 of 80 posts
Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
#2Free market forces can definitely spure society towards equality and human rights. Unfortunately, there is a clear point (i.e. China) where business interests take over. So while I'm certainly happy that business interests and are aligned in this case, it certainly isn't the norm. The only example I'm aware of where a business fell clearly on the side of equality and human rights at the cost of business was when Google pulled out of China.
Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
#3Great article. Actually, you can do the same right here at home by hiring minorities, disabled employees, and people who would otherwise not find work. Many of them will be more motivated than the average employee and you also do society a service by doing what most employers still don't.
Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
#4Great article. Actually, you can do the same right here at home by hiring minorities, disabled employees, and people who would otherwise not find work. Many of them will be more motivated than the average employee and you also do society a service by doing what most employers still don't.
This is a great point. Frequently, people look to hire individuals that will "match the culture" which is thinly veiled as "people that look, act, and talk like us".
Trying to hire for diversity doesn't mean you can't hire that excellent 20-something white male hacker that impressed you with the latest web-mashup, it might just mean giving other applicants a second chance, even if you don't necessarily feel a natural bond with them.
Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
#5Great article. Actually, you can do the same right here at home by hiring minorities, disabled employees, and people who would otherwise not find work. Many of them will be more motivated than the average employee and you also do society a service by doing what most employers still don't.
That makes sense. But, based on the article, why couldn't you also conclude that women are better managers than men, in general, and not just because they are a better value due to cultural externalities?
Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
#6It may be OT, but it made me think of something:
Inequality of opportunity is part of what made the U.S. a 20th century powerhouse. Bright, educated women had two career choices pre-1965: nursing or teaching. (Even in 1960, the state school my mom went to did not accept women into engineering or architecture and she could only take higher science classes if she planned to teach.) All those bright women with no options boosted our educational system to great heights for little cost. Once they had choices, many women spread out into other better paying fields.
It's not surprising that a business could succeed by following the same blueprint.
Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
#7Great article. Actually, you can do the same right here at home by hiring minorities, disabled employees, and people who would otherwise not find work. Many of them will be more motivated than the average employee and you also do society a service by doing what most employers still don't.
That makes sense. But, based on the article, why couldn't you also conclude that women are better managers than men, in general, and not just because they are a better value due to cultural externalities?
Actually I would probably conclude that having a diverse culture makes better decisions than a monoculture.
Wouldn't a monoculture of yes-men, for example, be less likely to kill a failing project early on, and save money that would otherwise be wasted? Having a diverse team will provide better input on business practices, processes and work ethics, which all impact the product a business produces, and ultimately their bottom line.
Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
#8It may be OT, but it made me think of something: Inequality of opportunity is part of what made the U.S. a 20th century powerhouse. Bright, educated women had two career choices pre-1965: nursing or teaching. (Even in 1960, the state school my mom went to did not accept women into engineering or architecture and she could only take higher science classes if she planned to teach.) All those bright women with no option…
Why do you feel that our educational system achieved "great heights", and why do you believe these heights made the US a "20th century powerhouse"?
Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
#9[deleted]
Re: It Pays to Hire Women in Countries That Won't
#10It seems like this article is trying too hard to justify something that actually has a pretty easy explanation: if women are under-hired relative to their skill level, then a skilled woman is cheaper to hire than an equally skilled man.