Response to NY Times' Article: "Exposing Hidden Bias at Google"
http://tinyurl.com/om23oql
On September 24th, 2014, The New York Times posted an article claiming gender bias in the workplace in the worlds leading tech company and search engine, Google.
Everyone and their grandmother knows about "www.Google.com" and I think its safe to say that they are a very important, successful, and influential business in the tech world and our transition as a planet and country, into more technological times.
I do consider myself a "Google bias" person, but that's because they've successfully earned my respect for their company by what they put into the world and the good they do, and heck do they do a good job.
One of my personal favorites as a comparison to Google is its close competitor Yahoo. Statistics by comScore show that Google is the #1 search engine in the US while Yahoo is only #2. Google has a diversity of 7 to 3 (men to women), while Yahoo, with its female C.E.O. has a diversity of 31 to 19 (men to women). As stated in the very same NY Times article.
What the article failed to state were the financial differences between the two companies who started out at relatively the same time, Yahoo starting 3 years prior to Google. According to VentureHarbour,com, last year Google made signicantly more money than both Yahoo and Bing combined (more than 7 and a half more than both companies combined).
Although Google and Yahoo have been around for the same amount of time, Google continues to strive and grow while Yahoo seemingly exists in it's large shadow. One of my favorite philosophies to withhold in the work place is the classic "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Now that I am finished spouting off the facts to which I will use to defend my opinions about sexism in the workplace and such.
So I would like to begin by asking you, the reader, a simple question, if that is alright with you; What is the main priority of any business? The media, as well as some of these companies, may lead you to believe that answer to that question is 'to be economically diverse' but the truth is, that is, in it's entirety, a lie. The main goal of any successful company is to be successful, to make money, and to make decisions best fit for the company and its long lasting superiority.
Although Yahoo may be more 'diverse' they are by a long shot less successful. Now I am most certainly not telling you they are less successful because they have more women in their work place, but back to my quote, if the workplace is thriving and doing well with a male dominated environment, then why try and change that for the potential risk of the company. There also becomes the difference between sexual bias, and an excuse. In my opinion, people who hide behind the things that set them apart (race, gender, sexual orientation) are just holding themselves back. People who let themselves become victimized by what sets them apart in this world may not work nearly as hard as someone who is "of the Norm" yet they think its that difference that didn't get them the job, when all reality the other person was much more qualified for the position.
Google is a very successful tech company and I think it is ridiculous to try and judge them on their "diversity". Their job is not to be diverse. It is to be a reliable search engine, and supply its consumers with their technological needs. We waste so much time on the little things and get tied up in the technicalities when in reality its simple, they're a tech company, not the HR for the country. And this confuses people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it's an interesting viewpoint you come from, I may not have considered this because of the issue presented. I came from a different aspect of why dont we compromise for more women equality. Although i see your point, what if having more female roles in the company changed it for the better?
DeleteCompromise? why would someone compromise in a business that is already doing so well?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the lack of female representation is actually hindering Google from reaching even greater heights? I also think that Google sees itself as a leader and wants to cause other companies to change their hiring practices. If you keep things the same forever, simply because they are working now, eventually you will fall behind.
DeleteI agree with this response. It provided an insightful and deeper look into what is really going on with gender bias in Google. I was also interested in the Google-Yahoo comparison but I don't really see how gender bias has anything to do with Yahoo being in Google's shadow.
ReplyDeleteEven though you say that Yahoo is not #2 because of the slightly higher percentage of females in their workforce, it is your implied argument and it is a huge oversimplification of the issue. There are countless reasons why Google is more successful than Yahoo.
ReplyDeleteGoogle itself feels like its diversity is an issue which cannot be ignored.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThough your response was very thorough, I disagree with the logic you used to support your claim.
ReplyDelete“One of my personal favorites as a comparison to Google is its close competitor Yahoo. Statistics by comScore show that Google is the #1 search engine in the US while Yahoo is only #2. Google has a diversity of 7 to 3 (men to women), while Yahoo, with its female C.E.O. has a diversity of 31 to 19 (men to women). As stated in the very same NY Times article.”
What is the relationship between the ratio of women to men and the fact that Google is higher ranked than Yahoo? What evidence shows this to be true? Yes, Yahoo may have a higher diversity ranking of women to men, but what shows that this is the only factor that plays into Yahoo’s second place ranking? You could easily replace the gender ratio with another statistic, such as blondes to brunettes, and say the exact same thing. Therefore, saying that the ratio of men to women in Google and Yahoo has to do with the place rankings is invalid until you provide substantial evidence, such as statistical data, to show how higher women-to-men ratio led to Yahoo’s second place ranking. Additionally, why was this particular fact about gender ratio the only one focused on? Why not take into consideration other factors as well?
“One of my favorite philosophies to withhold in the work place is the classic ‘if it ain't broke, don't fix it’.”
What then, is your definition of “ain’t broke”? Google may be a high ranking engine, but there are still many flaws, such as the fact that there are huge gender disparities in all fields in Google’s workforce other than “non-tech”.
Not only in Google, but throughout the entire tech industry as well, there is a ridiculous amount of bias against females being hired. For example, men make more money at every level of educational achievement than women with the same credentials, except for high school graduates, where women earn only 1% more. Also, men working in Silicon Valley with a graduate or professional degree earn 73% more than women in the industry with the same degrees, according to an analysis of Census Data from the 2014 Silicon Valley Index. These are only a few examples that describe how the workplace is very much “broken” by stereotypes, bias, and discrimination, and it desperately needs to be fixed.
(Continued)
(Continued)
ReplyDelete“Now I am most certainly not telling you they are less successful because they have more women in their work place, but back to my quote, if the workplace is thriving and doing well with a male dominated environment, then why try and change that for the potential risk of the company. There also becomes the difference between sexual bias, and an excuse. In my opinion, people who hide behind the things that set them apart (race, gender, sexual orientation) are just holding themselves back. People who let themselves become victimized by what sets them apart in this world may not work nearly as hard as someone who is "of the Norm" yet they think its that difference that didn't get them the job, when all reality the other person was much more qualified for the position.”
If a male-dominated environment is already thriving, then why would adding more women be detrimental at all to the company? I believe you said that people should be hired because of their skills, not because of their gender. Are you then implying that women are less competent than men in the tech industry?
Google is a company based almost entirely on computer programming. As it now stands, computer programming is a male-dominated job. However, the first computer programmer in the world is a woman, Ada Lovelace. Additionally, it used to be considered “women’s work”. Computer programming used to be a female-dominated field. You wonder why, then, it is now male-dominated? As quoted from the Smithsonian article: “...male programmers wanted to elevate their job out of the ‘women’s work’ category. They created professional associations and discouraged the hiring of women. Ads began to connect women staffers with error and inefficiency. They instituted math puzzle tests for hiring purposes that gave men who had taken math classes an advantage, and personality tests that purported to find the ideal ‘programming type.’”
According to the Scientific American, “Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups.”
Contrary to what you said, I believe that people who suffer from bias oftentimes tend to work harder in order to overcome the labels and stereotypes they are tagged with so they can gain an even footing with the privileged, instead of using those labels as an excuse to slack off. Also, what do you mean by people “of the norm”? Are you saying that the norm to you consists of white men and that everyone else is not considered “normal”?
(Continued)
(Continued)
ReplyDelete“Google is a very successful tech company and I think it is ridiculous to try and judge them on their "diversity". Their job is not to be diverse. It is to be a reliable search engine, and supply its consumers with their technological needs. We waste so much time on the little things and get tied up in the technicalities when in reality its simple, they're a tech company, not the HR for the country. And this confuses people.”
It is true that the purpose of Google is to “supply its consumers with their technological needs”, but that does not mean that the underlying sexism in the hiring and promotion process can simply be ignored and labelled as harmless. The fact that women are less wanted in the tech industry perpetuates the overarching idea that they are inferior in ability to men.
The gender ratio in the United States of America is 97:100, and with more women than men, it is not logically correct, then, that Google would hire more men than women. Please note that the race and sex statistics of white men being the majority of the workforce also applies to those in charge of hiring and promoting at Google as well.
You’re right, we do get tied up in the technicalities. It really is simple: Google is not immune to the latent sexism which seems to be everywhere in today’s society--no, society since it first began. And this confuses people.