Hi HN,<p>Diversity seems to be a hot topic recently (e.g., see http://bit.ly/1n8Y8A9). Just curious, will companies have incentives to lower the bar of hiring for certain group of people to optimize their diversity statistics? If you are in hiring committee, what's your company's policy on this topic?
<i>sigh</i> - this question comes up so often.<p>No.<p>1. Candidates are not stupid neither are companies - trying to fill "quotas" is both wasteful and does not have a good ROI.<p>2. The assumption that the reason companies are not diverse is because one group of individuals is more skilled is wrong.<p>Diversity is not about hiring one group over another. It is about limiting and highlighting the explicit and implicit biases that exist in every organization and working to resolve them.<p>This can be done, for example, by making sure job ads have gender neutral language - so many do not, which turns off female candidates - which is why they are not very diverse.
When you run a job advert don't ask for "recent graduates" because that discriminates against older people. Instead make clear that the job is an entry level position with little responsibility or pay.<p>When you run a job ad don't talk about how you all go to the beach every Wednesday and then say you're looking for a close cultural fit. This probably discriminates against people in wheelchairs (and probably several other groups).<p>When you run a job ad don't have a photo of your team (all male, all age 18 to 26) and then talk about cultural fit.<p>Mentioning "cultural fit" is sometimes a huge fucking flag that you're doing something wrong.<p>As an aside: "do we have to employ dumb people so our company has more black or female or disabled employees?" is a remarkably offensive thing to say. It's pretty close to what you're asking.
I don't think people should be given special treatment because they belong to a particular group. It's not a HR problem - It's a problem with society itself. Certain groups will inevitably lag behind (in terms of number of candidates) in certain fields because of complex social factors which companies cannot really change (and maybe it's even wrong to try to change them).<p>There are complex social and psychological reasons why people choose to work in particular fields - I oppose the idea of using marketing to steer people into choosing careers which they have no natural interest in.<p>People spend most of their lives working - It's cruel for companies to manipulate them into lifelong commitments that they never really wanted.
That's not the only axis to optimize to get more people from a target group. You can also devote a larger proportion of time/money towards searching for talent from that group, or you can provide better incentives. If your organization values top talent as well as diversity, you will prefer optimizing those axes over lowering the bar.
If you think the playing field is anywhere near equal, or based on merit, you haven't been working long enough or just aren't cynical enough. Almost everywhere, hiring wifes, friends and relatives is the norm. And people aren't shy about asking if the secretary on interview looked pretty. Saying they were "joking" but there's a kernel of truth...<p>Virtually everyone has had the "bar lowered" for themselves in some way (noone is entirely self-made). So complaining when disadvantaged groups also gets it is silly.